On True Education

This was in response to a question on Quora.

In addition to what the school system teaches, true education is that which instills in a human being each of these (and more) features mentioned below. Moreover, these features need to be present in the form of life habits, instead of as interests/hobbies.

• Reading: to understand life, culture and humanity
• Listening to people: to understand perspectives
• Thinking for oneself: to form perspectives
• Expressing: (in speech or in writing) to communicate perspectives
• Social understanding and sensitization: to understand your fellow humans and work towards betterment
• Morality: to recognize the good and the bad and apply them in life
• Knowledge and information: (basics of science and history, and current affairs) to know of the human civilization
• Playing/following a sport: to understand ethics and competition
• Travelling: to meet people and to see the world
• Emotional stability: to add strength to life
• Healthy eating and health consciousness: to use education to enhance life

True  education can't be defined as the accomplishment of something, since  true education never ends. Instead, true education is more a measure of intent and habits in life. So, true education is not the state of rest or of motion; it actually is the velocity with which you are travelling that journey of education, which shows how truly educated you are.

Would like suggestions on adding more points to the list.

(Using this post to present some views on education) I feel strongly about education, at a time when it is going all wrong in our nation, and many of our students are quite fashionably blaming the education system when it is they themselves who should be blamed. Please, do not hide your mistakes by blaming the system. It's you who has to educate yourselves for life. Not a school or college, as they are primarily meant to educate you for a profession. If you educate yourself for life, you will realize that the school/college education system meant to give you a good professional life, also works. Because if you have adequately respected knowledge, the system will aid you. Do not let exams take the centrestage. Attain knowledge, marks will come by! Remember the line from 3 Idiots: "Kaabil banne ke liye padho, kaamyabi jhak maarke tumhare paas aayegi."

Read more...

On Capital Punishment in the Modern-Day World

These are excerpts from my answer and (replies to comments to the answer) to a question on Quora.

Capital Punishment is like War — inhuman, against the idea of a civil society, but a truth of the society, probably inevitable in certain rare cases.

Death penalty is an old savage like treatment. It should not be in a man's hands to take away the life of another man, whatever evil that other man has done.

Death is not a punishment. Death is the total removal of man. Whereas, the intention of a civil society should be to remove evil.

Death penalty is flawed and it is inconsistent with modern law. Modern law intends that a person is punished for his crime. It sentences a criminal to n number of years only, not for life. Why? It assumes that the person will be a changed man in the n years. (I make this assumption from the side of modern law, because the purpose of law is to confine people who pose a danger to society. And, to release a criminal after n years is only possible if you're sure that he will change during the sentence period.) The value of n is judged from the gravity of the crime. Now, when a criminal is being sentenced to death, it must be because the law is confident that the person will not change even during imprisonment for life. The job of law is not to doubt the character and psychology of a criminal, its only job is to punish a criminal and confine him. The job of law is to punish a crime, not a criminal. The moment it becomes criminal-centric, and believes that the person won't change and will be as big a danger to society post-release as he is now, it doubts the will-power of the criminal. It judges a human being, not a criminal.

It must not be the business of law to judge a human being. Civil society has laws to protect itself from crime, and it has prison sentence for three purposes: 1. to confine a criminal as he is a danger to society (a law and order phenomenon), 2. to allow the criminal to introspect and realize his mistakes (a human rights phenomenon), 3. to set a precedent so that others do not do the same thing (a social character phenomenon). A death sentence does the first and the third functions, but does not allow the criminal the basic human right of realization. Even if that person's character is irreparable by the most unanimous public opinion, and he is a supreme danger to society, fellow human beings are just NOBODY to judge that aspect of his character in advance. If they are so worried, sentence that person for life, that provision of having a very high value of n is fair.

Again, I believe death penalty is a savage like, inhuman treatment which compromises with a person's fundamental right to life, and allows an administrative authority to systematically take away the life of a human being, which is probably more unfortunate than an anti-social idiot murdering him.

As far as the expenses are concerned, seriously, should a government care about money against a citizen's right to life?

In response to Sid Carter's question (he asks, if one man's death shouldn't be in another's hands, then should it be in a man's hands to give imprison another man, "whatever evil that other man has done"?):

Yes, because we are a civilized society, and there needs to be a peaceful and orderly coexistence It is necessary to care for each other to some extent if you have to live on the same planet, so that you also get that back from others. If you do not do so, you must be punished. Civil rights come at restrictions. And for that punishment, law would keep you away from that civil society for some time (imprisonment). We are curbing that man's freedom, but we're doing so because he created a danger to the peaceful mutual existence of humans. We try to bring him back to the coexistence in the society.

When you sentence a person to prison, you are seeking correction in him, saving the society from him till then, and setting a precedent. But when you sentence him to death, you are taking a very crude form of revenge.

We are a systematic society. Law and order are meant for the peaceful coexistence of so many people on the same planet. Warning a person beforehand, of taking away his right to freedom if he does wrong, and then actually taking it away when he does so, is the least we can do. Just killing that person is revengeful.

Now, why I say that it is not fair that a man has the life of another in his hand: I say so because death is the removal of that man himself. And, it goes against the idea of peaceful coexistence which a civil society craves for. How? Because it means that the society failed to be confident of changing a living person and adapt him to the idea of peaceful coexistence. Therefore, while we ask of a normal criminal to introspect and learn during his imprisonment how to live in peaceful coexistence with the rest of the society, we're ourselves not ready to peacefully coexist with the death sentence convict. Only because we think we won't be able to change him! Such underconfidence in someone by the society is natural and human, given a person's track record, but not necessarily fair to that person himself. It is more human to deny him food for a month and allow him to die naturally, than to tighten the noose around him, even if they ultimately mean the same thing.

On why an economically weak country should not prefer sentencing criminals to death if it would otherwise have to spend a lot on the the convicts:

Economics and nations and governments came much later. Life came first. Life is the most skeletal form of all systems on earth. Economics, law and order, governance, etc., everything should respect life. Explicitly killing someone by hanging him, is not governance, but a fit of rage, revenge, terror and hatred.

There are limited resources with a country, and there can be a huge number of kinds of people who can be removed to ensure better governance. This is a severely inhuman idea and I do not advocate it, but consider these category of people: 1) poor people. Kill them and your nation instantly becomes economically good. 2) illiterate people. Kill them and your nation instantly becomes a well-educated country. 3) chronically diseased and bed-ridden people. Kill them and your nation instantly becomes a healthy country. 4) criminals who have done crimes which are not considered humanly because of standards set by humans long ago (No, I don't have a problem with those standards. But at the end of it, morality was defined by humans for peaceful and orderly coexistence.), kill them and your nation instantly becomes a crime-free and more orderly country, 5) non-working, non-earning, inactive people, who are not helping the country as human resource. Kill them and your nation instantly becomes a country with good human resource.

There are so many ways to make your country better and utilize your minimal quantity of resources. But we don't choose those ways. Why? * Because it's inhuman and wrong. Because those people have to be developed and helped by giving economic boost, education and health facilities over time. Then why can't the criminal be given a chance to become morally sound?

* Because we recognize that these people are just poor, illiterate, diseased — the early man also came poor, illiterate, diseased, and so, to demand them to die or have money, education and health facilities is going against the rule of nature, and holding artificial concepts of economics, education and medicine important. Why, then, should we give significance to artificial concepts of morality, when it's raw life at stake?

Why, then, should we choose the set of criminals out of all possible sets to kill because we have limited resources?

P.S. the examples of the sets of people given by me are not meant to indicate that these sets of people are a problem to the society. They have been used as an analogy, that by removing them, the governance can surely breathe easy and have less issues to deal with in its modern set of development parameters.

On why I would still support the hanging of Ajmal Aamir Kasab, the lone surviving 26/11 terrorist who was hanged in November 2012:

In the case of Kasab, I believe he HAD to be made the scapegoat. I don't sympathize for his crimes, but I surely do sympathize with him for his impressionable age and his guidance from the masterminds. (Do you really think that if we captured two people: the masterminds and Kasab the puppet, we'd have sentenced BOTH of them to death? Try to compare the crimes of the two. I don't think Kasab would be given the extreme punishment when compared to his masterminds.) Terrorism has become a menace and we had only one scapegoat to prove to the world and set a precedent. We HAD to make use of him, it was a case of Now or Never. Probably this was a case where going against basic human rights, that too of a poor uneducated young lad who had been misled by his jihadi masterminds, was in the interest of the whole world and a step towards stopping the menace, since we have the provision for capital punishment. Otherwise, I don't see it human to hang a person who did a crime (howsoever grave) at just 20 years of age. Hanging someone for a crime done at the age of 40 still makes sense. In this case, it wasn't human, but an important inevitable need of India. There was no other option.

Read more...

Gender Sensitisation Classes At School : The Need of the Hour

In this post, I have tried to provide a solution to a problem I feel strongly about... this is a change I would like to see in this society we live in, for a cleaner and safer future for our women.

Around October, I bookmarked the Times of India website on the web browser of my phone. I had decided to use a news website to keep updated while on the move (which means a four-hour travelling time to and back from college). Within few months, I realised that what had made the worst effect on me was the news headlines informing of rape incidents all over India appeared without fail on the TOI Mobile homepage at the rate of two headlines every three days. Or probably more. Which is why I replaced that bookmark with Google News bookmark pretty soon. And this does not mean I was indifferent to the dirty picture, in fact I was too disturbed by what was going on in the country.

Rapes and sexual violence have been part of civilisation (rather, un-civil-isation) ever since man started to think... ever since man wrongly realised that being a man is a passport to strength and superiority (over women). Sexual crimes are as much about the misplaced superiority complex of man, as they are about his misplaced sexual desire. Since a lot is said about the topic every day, and I have myself written a lot in my earlier article "Woman – A Complement, or Commodity to Man?", I will come straight to my present topic, which is about what I hope is a plausible long-term solution to the issue.

PART ONE: CAUSES AND THE ACTUAL ISSUE

Before I present my solution logic, I need to discuss the root features of the issue.

Even if women are being raped by men, why is the phenomenon rising these days? I do not really need fancy statistics here. Because, a woman raped every minute is no better than two raped every second. What we need to address is, what is the society going through after all, that rape has suddenly become a bigger menace than it was earlier? There must be something wrong with the culture, that is reflecting in this trend. And the reasons according to me are of three types:

(a) The reasons within man: An animal sexual desire coupled with an animal sense of chauvinism, lack of respect of a women's modesty not merely in activities, but also in their general thought process (Quoting from my own earlier article on the topic, "A group of men discussing women presents the most disgusting conversation transcript. While a group of women would discuss men more in the sense of joking, a group of men discusses women in the sense of ridiculing. Men make it a point to discuss women in a way that reflects the slavery of one gender and the mastery of the other. Women, instead, discuss men in a way that reflects the stupidity of one gender and the cleverness of their own.").

(b) The reasons within woman: If I have to write any, I'd say misplaced trust on men in some cases when they do not deserve any. Women need to realise early in life what Mariam realised in A Thousand Splendid Suns only after her mother Nana hanged herself. Wearing provocative clothes is not a mistake, nor does it invite rape, but it is a form of misplaced trust in men. How? You might not be raped for wearing such clothes, but if you think men will not eye you in undesirable manners, you are misplacing your trust on the men on the streets, whom you don't even know. This I mention, because I don't think any woman would like to be viewed in any tasteless manner. This said, it is true that not wearing provocative clothing does not ensure you any safety or undesirable looks. But since it can be agreed upon that the new sense of dressing up does generate a special interest among the men with animal instinct, I am not ruling this out yet.
Question you will ask me: So, do you think women should not dress provocatively, in order to avoid rape?
Answer: No, that is not a correct idea. In fact, a decade later, I would not choose to write anything at all under the section called "the reasons within woman", but I think I have to include this at this stage, because we are in a transition phase in the sense of clothing in our culture. Our parents' generation does not dress the way today's generation does, and hence this could have an effect on the male mindset. I include the reasons within women as mentionable reasons, because we are dealing with a whole society in a crisis, not the mistakes of men or the victimisation of women. I am trying to look for reasons behind the trend, and we have to consider all elements of society, including some reasons within the victim, at least at a hypothetical level, probably to be rejected in the conclusion phase.

(c) The reasons within the society: The commercialisation of women's modesty at the media level in the form of movies and advertisements, and the easy access to pornography, diminish the value of a woman's modesty in the minds of young boys at the age when they can be easily influenced. With a mind full of dirt and filth in terms of the way he views a woman, that young boy gets even more influenced by the female acquaintance at school/college, which is obviously more now than it was fifty years ago. Hence, an exposure to filth at an impressionable age, and then an exposure to the female gender at school, again at this impressionable age, is not an ideal "theory–practical combination" to be exposed to.

These are not the causes behind rapes, but these are the social changes that have contributed somewhere in the corruption of the male mind, and the corruption of the sanctity of the daily news.

PART TWO: THE SOLUTION

The time for a solution: All the changes in our society that I have mentioned above work mutually in a manner that can be depicted by this flowchart:

In the flowchart, please note the blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. 
Reasons behind our problem: Blocks 1 and 2. Effects: Block 4.

Block 1: We cannot and should not curb social changes and the empowerment of women. Women must be brought to the same level as men, and their interaction with men must be encouraged for a competitive civilised society.
Blocks 2 and 3: We have to find a way to ensure that the reason given in block 1 does not add up with the reason given in block 2, to yield the intermediate effect given in block 3. That is, the social changes that are always going on, should NOT influence young minds in any way whatsoever, that would lead to victimisation of women! The task at hand now reduces to this: that we have to make young teenage boys sensitive to gender issues, in such a way that they are IMMUNE to the social developments and their exposure to the female gender.

My solution to the matter of concern hence narrows down to this conclusion:
Just like the introduction of sex education at school level, the education system should introduce a subject called "Gender-Sensitisation" for young schoolboys in their teenage. The subject course should aim at inculcating a scientific realisation among them, that the girls they ogle at are also human beings like them, and are not objects of sexual desire. This is easy to tell a young boy, and it may also be ignored by him. But when this is told in a proper classroom environment, this is surely going to work differently, when the teacher takes good examples that sensitively illustrate the "hot girl of the other class with a sexy figure" as being someone's sister or daughter, examples that illustrate how "that whore of a girl who was flirting with me the other day" might just be a friendly girl who loves to interact, et cetera. They should give the idea how the pornography on internet doesn't mean that a woman's body is a playground which is meant to be surveyed and touched and imagined as and when you wish. And, how the girl who shows cleavage in the marketplace just likes to be independent and to dress the way she wants. The curriculum should include topics like basic understanding of the female gender, and the importance and key ideals of the man–woman coexistence on earth. (And anyway, we expect them all to live happy married lives later on without ever having a formal "man–woman course" in the education system!)
A similar course could also be done for female students as well, with a slightly different and relevant syllabi.

How this could change things: There are a number of things in life which might look easy-to-realise... but only once you realise it. When young boys are at an adolescent stage in the last few years of school, they are influenced a lot by their friends and the internet and the media. They grow up with these ideas, and make bad men, unless they worked on themselves and matured properly. A proper guidance is a MUST, at this stage, to neutralise the ill-effects that arise from these three factors. While parents tend not to discuss these topics, the boys are left to exercise their brain in a bad school of thought. If only they are made to realise certain things about women and girls, in a scientific way in a classroom environment at the age when it matters most, they will certainly grow up into more manly men in future.

Read more...

Random Thoughts: Some New Food for Thought

The Random Thoughts I have in this post:

1. This occurred to me when I was in a trance in a bus journey when we were on our college trip. This is about relative scales: "scales" as in "ratios". The world is a much bigger place for an ant, than it is to a human being. Logic says so. If you remember your childhood, you might have a feeling somewhere that say, your house itself, felt a bigger place when you were a kid, than you feel as an adult. Or is it only me? Anyway, what I am saying is that a creature with smaller eyes and body, experiences geography, events, and distances with a much smaller scale than human beings. And creatures with much bigger bodies and eyes experience them with a very high scale than human beings. For example, to a blue whale, the land area of India might feel just as large as Vatican City! What I thought then, was, how about a creature which is so big, that the ratio of actual size of object and experienced size of object is unity (ONE). I defined such a creature as God, since I am still trying to find a scientific explanation to the theory of God. In my thought process, I found it very rational to think that if there can be a creature as small as an ant, as big as a giraffe and whale, there should also be a hypothetical creature which is as big as the universe. And that can be defined as God or the Super Creature or the Everything. So, according to this, God or the Super Creature or the Everything is a creature in which everything else resides.

2. My second thought is on something against superstitions. There are ideas in our Hindu society about not doing certain things on certain days, like say, not cutting nails on a Thursday. Such beliefs are not only ridiculous, but are insane, considering that the division of the week into seven days is totally random. Had the ancient calendar-makers given us a week of 6 days, then a Monday might have actually been a Thursday and a Thursday might have been a Friday. The week having seven days is a system which is random, unlike the year which is a system based on actual astronomical events. So, saying that you should not cut your nails one day every four years is far more sensible than saying you should not cut your nails one day every seven days: which is plain ridiculous. And cutting nails was merely used as an example. However, in our society, such beliefs are more of rules and discipline in life than superstitions. But unfortunately, there are people who would think disobeying such rules would be a bad omen.

3. Sleep is given very little importance by our youth these days. They give far more importance to enjoying and doing their work, than having a proper sleeping schedule. It is very unfortunate, because sleeping is one of the most important activities of daily life. If you are not feeling sleepy, and so you choose to chat on the internet and play games on the computer at midnight, and go to sleep at 4 am only to wake up at 6 am because you have to go to school, you are never going to have a sharp brain. You can't play with your body. Another important activity neglected by the youngsters is scheduled eating habits. However, they at least eat when they are hungry. But sleep? They give it the least priority, and believe they can keep sleep away for those extra two minutes just to be able to finish the game or chat or to put up that new status on Facebook. I suggest you to have a proper, not haphazard, sleeping schedule. If not, then at least start giving sleep more priority in your lives. Ask any person with a high IQ, and I guarantee you they have slept well during their childhood.

4. This is against numerology, and is based on something similar to idea number 2. A month is randomly of 31 days or 30 days. So, if I was born on December 28, 1991, it was only because the Gregorian calendar decided to have 30 days in November. If there were 29 days in November, my birthday would have probably been December 29, 1991. And so, my dear numerologist, I have NOTHING to do with the number 2 + 8 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 9 + 1 (digits of the date of birth) = 33 = 3 + 3 = 6. It could well have been 7, 8, 9 or anything. Don't fool people.

5. I have something against the line which every other youngster so proudly uses: "I am what I am, and you are not going to change me. If you want to change me, go to hell." This is so very narrow-minded and is a symbol of stubborn ego. You don't have to change your behaviour just to suit someone else's needs and comfort, very true. But what if something does end up making you a better person? You have to come across hundreds of people in your lifetime. Everyone is going to inspire and motivate you to change something about you for good. Don't neglect their ideas. If you are able to filter out what changes are for good and what are for bad, and choose the good ones, then you are not changing, you are improving. There is nothing called originality in a human being: there is only quest for improvement and a quest for perfection. Else, you are going to be sore about every second person you meet, just because they disliked and criticised you for something. Accept change, accept improvements. Don't say you are changing for a particular person: call it an improvement for your own self. With the line "I am what I am", you are being foolish, in your pride for yourself. Personally, I have found things to inspire myself in the worst of people, and I mean it.

6. Once again, I wish to say that reading makes a man. Reading is the best hobby a parent can develop in his child. Do it to your child, when you grow up. I recently saw a friend changing his hobby of playing computer games into reading suddenly. At least it is a creative hobby. Be selective while choosing the things that you enjoy. Find creative and constructive hobbies: To be successful in life, you first need to not have a life. Ignore what others tell you, ignore if they mock at you for what you do. (Having said that, reading can't be the most constructive hobby, but surely it is the most useful part of growing up.)

I will keep thinking like always, and will be back with more food for thought some time soon, hopefully.

Read more...

Gender, Emotions, and Relationships

Some fights help you strengthen the bond; some spoil it.

What follows below is an account of several ideas, dealing with social and interpersonal aspects, starting broadly, and then narrowing down upon how to make emotional differences between a man and a woman immaterial. I end up with a psychological solution for less harmful fights between partners.

Man and woman, earlier

A century or two ago, women in general, across most societies, were considered as the caretaker of "the inside" of home, and the men of the family, as the caretaker of "the outside" of home. Women were labelled dumb and weak. The consequences of this school of thought were quite interesting. Obviously, the female gender remained uneducated and unexposed to the practicalities of life. Reading through old English classic novels is enough to describe the true extent of the differences. This was not gender discrimination, nor were these exactly differences—I would rather call it the "way of life and society" in those days.

Love, in very old days, for a man, was when he was attracted to a woman for her beauty. Love, for a woman, was when a man asked for her hand in marriage, and she accepted. The pre-requisites of courtship seldom reached the deeper aspects of life and human relationships, like mutual understanding, trust, and so on. Reason: One could not expect the woman to understand the man, since she had never been with one outside; a lady a man fell in love with, was supposed to be inferior and submissive, and do as the man directed. She accepted this, and never really tried to get up and get going. The man needed a wife to love and to extend his generation. All the woman needed from the man, on the other hand, was a sense of protection and happiness. Done. Nothing else really comes in what is close to a "master–slave" relationship. Keats, for example, described his perfect woman as the one that "bleats for man's protection". Relationships were simple. That love "hurts" was merely limited to being "defeated" in love by another suitor.

The crucial shift: Inter-gender relationships, today

Love for the outer appearance (or love at first sight) is now increasingly becoming a narrow-minded ideology for most careful-thinking youth. I explain the reason in terms of the exposure of the woman to the outer society, and the coming-at-par of the two genders in form of self-dependence and independent thinking. The ascent of the woman's prominence has allowed for various forms of inter-gender relationships—platonic, romantic, professional, etc., while getting educated and at workplace. This is a very very healthy change in the school of thought, and the society is certainly a more even place now.

The contrast in the first two paragraphs and the third one is extreme and crucial, when one talks of romantic love. When independent thinking comes in, ideologies change, behaviour changes, the society changes, the family setup changes, and the biggest of all—the relationship itself changes. The man still needs the woman for similar conventional purposes (the coming-at-par is associated with the woman's ascent, and not the man's descent), but the wife today needs much beyond merely protection and love. The needs are even in the new society: both need from each other equal unconditional love, support and trust, and a prompt sense of understanding of thoughts and actions. As a result, relationships are more difficult today. That love "hurts" now also includes times when the other person is unable to comprehend you, and you can't dictate terms on the other.

Now come the Emotional Differences

The evenness is beautiful; but it is unfortunately, sabotaged by the differences in the basic emotional constructs of the man and the woman, of which we are better aware today. Men have made a laughing stock out of a woman's brains, by using the clichéd idea that a woman is difficult to comprehend. There is also a notion that women are more emotional than men. It's important to say this here: Neither gender is emotionally weaker; they are just emotionally different. There are some things like a little child's laughter which would excite a female, but would provide no stimulus whatsoever to a man. An unwelcome statement may put two men to violent fight, while it could put two women to discussion. The differences are many, and interesting.

Man, Woman and Relationships Amidst Emotional Differences

The idea of a perfect relationship is to attempt to not just understand the other person, but to skilfully acknowledge and appreciate the other person's senses and emotions. It is not as easy as said: several people are immune to this realisation—they don't feel the need of it, even if it is needed—for a long time into knowing another person. But honestly, once this strikes the mind, one begins to attempt to understand the partner, rather than understanding (unsuccessfully)—and be more tolerant towards their actions and emotional differences. The attempts, over time, become successful; there are less fights over matters, and they advance into beautiful relationships. Once this is achieved, even activities that would have otherwise frustrated one, turn into beautiful reminders of the bond that exists between two people.

So, what's the point of this?

I began with the history of a social aspect, and narrowed down upon relationships today. What's the point of this? With changing times, relationships have become more difficult to sustain, as I expressed, because it depends not on one person any more, and because the other person who it depends upon now, thinks differently. Surviving the relationships is important: and the crucial point was where I said that attempting to understand is more helpful than understanding. When one merely chooses to understand and not make a fuss about something, they are forcing themselves to take something for granted. When they attempt to understand, they are actually understanding why the partner did/said what they did/said—this is surely more helpful, and ends up giving better trust, and knowledge of each other. An attempt to understand can be made by even the most intolerant of people, if at all they love their partner truly. 

Don't choose a person who you think "understands" you; no one understands you completely always for that matter. Choose someone who is eager to apply brains to understand you at all points of differences. Attempt applying those brains the next time you are frustrated with your lover and when you see no way ahead, and I guarantee you less fights and a more sustained relationship!

Read more...

Woman—a Complement, or a Commodity to Man?

This post was first published on Thoughts In Play in July 2011.

We don't treat our ladies well. And you, the man, are a very ignorant and narrow-minded fellow, doing awful injustice to the other gender, if you agreed to the previous statement just by considering what the daily newspaper barks out about the way the society treats women. Oh, the newspapers have bypassed those stages of evolution when only the minor and the medium of all offences possible to a woman's modesty would make news—today it is just the extreme that makes news and gets recognised. But the rest that goes on, are unfortunately, offences, all the same. The society is plagued with a bundle of other daily blunders that we subject our ladies to, without ever caring to care, and caring to realise; if ever caring to realise, then seldom caring to mend.

For an initial sample, think of the way most men perform their stares and scrutiny of the top, the bottom, and the rest of the feminine torso, every time a woman marks her fair attendance in the vicinity of their dirty head, eyes, and the most damaging—their imagination. For some men unable to get a "proper, vivid view", the principle of the rectilinear propagation of light suddenly gives a practical irritating demonstration, and some weird corners of an eye give the next ray of "hope". The hope to be able to survey the girl with utmost satisfaction; as if not a human, and not certainly a pretty and charming woman deserving a second look for her aesthetic appeal, but just for being a woman with existing or imagined-for-pleasure sexual appeal. Yes, for the supreme perverts, a pretty girl can never be a pretty individual, but she is a "hot" piece of material—"object" or rather, plainly calling her a "thing" sounds more harsh to the girls, and hence the more real, since yes, we're not good to our ladies—dropped in his surroundings by Fate, and chances are that he will thank his horoscope the next moment.

Every young person in the modern urban setup of life would definitely have a story to narrate wherein a guy "used" a girl for short-stayed "amusement", before moving on to another girl, once getting "bored" of the first. The guy remains one in number, while girls populate, and abandon (no, get abandoned from) his life. This is another modern-life example of how we treat our girls. The girl needed love, felt she was getting it; the guy needed pleasure, he knew he was getting it. The worst event which summarises the misfortunes and poor luck of womankind, is, when at the narration session of all such stories at a table of old school and college friends, it is the girl who takes the "stupid" tag and is laughed at, while the guy is never treated with anything close to hate and disrespect. To the guy involved, the girl becomes a souvenir of some form of gallantry and bravery, not a mark of shame.

A group of men discussing women presents the most disgusting conversation transcript. While a group of women would discuss men more in the sense of joking, a group of men discusses women in the sense of ridiculing. Men make it a point to discuss women in a way that reflects the slavery of one gender and the mastery of the other. Women, instead, discuss men in a way that reflects the stupidity of one gender and the cleverness of the other. And dear male world, mend your ways or not, you know exactly who is right and justified.

Forget the "ghar pe maa-behen nahi hai kya" crap. It is just a meaningless way to silence an offender for a moment. For, having a mother and sister at home is not the only—or any—reason he should be expected to respect women. (Analogy: Having a home isn't the reason one would be expected to help in keeping somebody else's home clean! Having a television at home doesn't mean one would not break another person's television! Having a life to live is no reason one should be expected to respect another life! All these are, rather obvious and expected of you as a person!) 

What we subject the girl or lady to, is obviously not respect. It is "free entertainment" without an entertainment tax. A particular woman is meant to be a complement to a man; a whole womankind not meant to be a commodity to him! A woman is a piece of life and heart, modesty and humanity, just as a man is; she is not a piece of sexual and visual satisfaction at will. Nature does provide us with sexual preference and understanding, but why not give a thought before choosing any—just any—woman's silhouette to exercise our sexual imagination on? Why use a woman's presence to give ourselves any bit of satisfaction? Does she agree to it? Obviously, she doesn't. After all, you wouldn't accept if an unknown woman chose to throw the responsibility of paying for her bus fare to you, in return of you refusing to take your eyes off her. (That would be too minor a compensation, though, for disturbing the modesty of a woman, which bears no equal.) For all this, a woman does indeed deserve what all you deny her. She is the gender which balances your life and keeps it stable.

It sounds natural on discussion that the society is unfair, but then, wherefrom does the mentality breed? It starts from the society itself; the poison that is fed into the minds of young boys by other young boys, reduces womankind to a luxury, and not a companion, gifted by Nature. Apart from such social inspirations, a more modern form of bad inspiration comes from the easy availability of pornography, which gives an easy illusion to still-immature minds, of women being an easily-accessible slave meant for the pleasures of man. Rape incidents that blot the world around us are evidence of this mentality. Before bringing the urge into action, an offending man doesn't care about who the woman is, where her self-respect and her future go to after this deed. For him she is a woman, not an individual. Isn't this pathetic! I repeat, just having a mother and sister at home is not why you should know how to treat a woman. If not giving specific respect, then treating a woman as yet another human, is plain obvious, not as a outcome of having a mother and sister in your life, but as an evidence of the sanity of your mind.

Read more...

Social Networking—An Agent of Change

This is the outcome of my first-in-two-years effort on a write-up with a given topic ("How Social Networking is Acting as an Agent of Change") and a given word limit (500). I found it a brutal violation of my freedom of speech, though I did manage to end up on a dozen words over 500. I wrote it so that I could become a part of the Education Times College Editorial Board, for my own vested interests. Contests are boring, and so are their entries, as you'll get to know if you read this. I hope the outcome isn't as boring, and they select me for what I wrote it.

Update: (April 26) I've been shortlisted for a position in the College Editorial Board. :)
The topic, a heavily clichéd one, is normally put up by middle-aged people still trying to come to terms with their fascination by the compactness that social networking brings to the world. Social networking is now as significant a part of life, as any other life process. And, nothing about the phenomenon is actually strange. A society has always been a—and the—way of life. So, what is the USP that an online society brings? The question is, why it still intrigues masses, even when it is universally acknowledged that the internet is ready to change the way humanity interacts, in the most unexpected of ways, in the years to come.

Obviously, the interest lies in the magical definition it provides to a society. For starters, it may be a pastime that helps find new friends. Social networks can find you friends for life, a spouse for marriage, a new set of customers for business, a bundle of fans of your skills to take you to glory. Moving beyond such social effects, which are largely limited to one’s personal life and workplace, there are certain other impacts, which actually alter the civilisation as a whole, for its good.

If not a more literate society, online societies have given us a more aware youth. Take the daily news for instance. A conventional form of society would need a person to follow the news to know about a story creating waves. Today, a person may not follow the news, but surely follows his Facebook news feed. Here, he is made to know about such a news story, for he is bound to wonder why everyone is talking about the same topic.

The news is just an example—a mere subset of a far bigger effect an online life brings. It is the "sharing of opinions" with a community, which makes social networking what it is. A person, who would not rather write/speak a tirade on his views on life, society, governance and other niceties, is encouraged to showcase those same opinions on an online platform, when he sees everyone doing so. If not as an article, then as a brief status-update! A rebel by heart discovers his speech thus; a yesterday’s “nobody” gets liked, retweeted, and gets confidence. An online forum gives a new definition to freedom of speech. In another part of history, putting forward opinions was the job of the intelligentsia, and following them the duty of the commoner. Today, social networking provides this opportunity to anyone and everyone with an opinion.

In my view, the broader effect of the online simulations of societies as an agent of change is majorly due to its revolutionary platform, that helps an otherwise off-line (pun intended) society to wake up, build and share opinions, think, argue, stay aware about a variety of things in life. The place which ignited the fight to bring Hosni Mubarak down, a phenomenon that can get a whole country behind Anna Hazare, something that can leave behind television media in impact, is surely a remarkable agent of change.

Read more...

A Week After I Abandoned Her

This is my first attempt at writing fiction. Please clap hard for me, before this fiction piece makes the emotional ones cry hard.

I last smiled seven days ago. I remember because that day was also a Friday. I remember because the Friday prayers and the imam's sermons dominated the background when we were amid our bitter verbal battle. I remember because I didn't laugh at the Friday night comedy on TV. I remember because I have verified the day I abandoned her, by opening the sent-messages folder of my phone, probably more times than I've picked up my phone itself, ever since.

Friday, 11 December 2009 9:03 pm Now get the hell out of my life.

She apologised; she did that. Dozens of messages and neglected calls, an attempt to meet and say sorry, thwarted ruthlessly by me.

Since then, not a day has been the same. A minute of getting hurt, an hour of shock, a day of anger. A minute of typing that message. Followed by, a day of shock, a week of loneliness, a week of distress, a week of regret, a week of grief. A second of eye contact in college—a pair apologetic, the other puzzled. A week of tears. A week of "why"s.

She was the calm one, I the angry one. Anger subsides, she doesn't.

After sitting on the floor for an hour with my head down, I stood up half an hour ago. I could easily have slipped over my tears that wet the tiles.

She was my happiness. Only my mother could have beaten her as the most fantastic person I had ever known. She is right, when she says she didn't mean it. She couldn't have imagined to bruise me thus. She was the only one outside my sweet home, who could leave me forever just if that could make me happy. Even if it meant nightmare for her life. She was priceless. She was. No, she is. She will still be. I need her back.

I'm suffocating. She is the only person I can share this grief with. But I am no longer accepting her, for a little mistake. I'm a scoundrel who pricked the floor of his own boat of happiness. I imagine her shedding more tears than me, every moment I do the same. I see her devastated. I see her lonely. I imagine her feeling the loss of the best guy she ever knew. The person who could bring a smile on her face every time she felt dead. The best friend who could suck all discomfort at ease, just to make sure she ended up merry. He is gone, she feels. No, he will come back, one day. I didn't mean it, when I hurt him. He didn't mean it either, when he left me.

I dial her number. I tell her I'm being selfish. I am solving my loneliness, by forgiving her. I'm sorry, I tell her. You're precious. She tells me, No, you're not being selfish. You're helping someone you love, in her moments of loneliness. Her moments of regret. Only you were supposed to do this. Wipe off my tears. I'm sorry for that day.

No, darling. You didn't do a mistake. I did, by telling you to get out of my life.

That was not a mistake, she says, after what I did.

Neither made a mistake, I tell her. I accept you for your mistakes, you accept me for mine. My errors are your errors, yours are mine. The best thing is, we're still together. And, from today, I'll be more patient with you. Slap me hard and insult me bad, if I get indignant.

No, I won't, you silly. Remain the angry one. I love you that way. The tears that your anger give me, tell me how priceless you are, and how lucky I am. And, the tears also tell me they're already busy packing. They tell me, they are scared of the guy who will be back the next day to accept my love back. Howsoever you are, you belong to me.

And you, to me.

And, it's done. My face flashes a smile once again. The imam at the nearby mosque tells us to love, to be patient. The comedy show still can't make me laugh, though, howsoever hard I try. I'm glad, I'm happy. Comedy shows are needed to keep the mind happy. Today, my heart is happy. I don't need comedy. For, a week after I abandoned her, we're still together as if nothing happened.

Read more...

All the Metro Lies and Laughs — Some Interesting Anecdotes

A metro train journey nearly always presents some hilarious experiences, if at all you are on a lonely journey. The case otherwise, that of travelling with your friends, does not present you with as many funny anecdotes to tell your grandkids half a century later because your talks help your loneliness. A solitary mind, surrounded with people, is certainly observant and collects memories from all around.

Before I start the talk, which I realise I already have, let us put up a disclaimer — since I am talking of all this as anecdotes, the characters and stories have every chance of having resemblance with just any person, living, dead or in a coma. If you read on and realise I am talking about you, sorry! It’s not at all co-incidental. Just that I happened to be sitting in the same compartment as you when oops, you did it. Let’s enlist the “it”s now.

This lady I chose to eavesdrop last week during my metro journey turned out to be churning out a list of lies with remarkable ease, shamelessness and ingenuity.

Place: Rithala Station. “Reaching there in ten minutes. The train’s at Rohini East right now,” she bluffs the person at the other end. For the ones unaware of the complicated Metro station-ology — an impossible subject to learn if you normally prefer the bus, auto, bicycle or private helicopter — the Rohini East station in no way resembles Rithala; it is in fact still two stations away from this place.

Rithala is the last station (call it the first, for the optimistic brand of people) on the route it lies on. The population was less at this point in time, and nearly all of them having their ears close enough to catch the words, tried to have a glimpse of the ‘liar’ woman. She went on talking, unfazed by the glances and weak smiles appreciating her cunning and white-clean lie. She kept updating her talking partner of the stations as they came by, telling her position advanced by two stations in the first update, three in the second, and four in the third.

Now, what I wondered was — what if the other person could hear the train announcements in the background of the phone chat?! She would be caught! She was either too confident about her lies or she was stupid not to have thought of that possibility, or the other person was hard of hearing.

This is quite a common scene though. People normally indulge in faking the truth to create in others a flow of false optimism. My friend does it to me, I do it to him. Metro stations come and go faster than the train — just to assure the person I’m on my way.

In a really hilarious metro incident, a man was talking on his phone with his speaker on. The other person: “Where are you? I am stuck in a traffic jam here!” The man in front of me: “Oh, are you? I am also in a jam — don’t expect it to clear soon. Where are you stuck?” The voice in the speaker: “ITO.” “Hey, I’m also there only!” And then the excitement! This guy promptly asked the other to identify him, grinning at me as I couldn’t help concealing a smile at all this — “I’m in a yellow t-shirt. Can you see me?” asked the man in the train to the man on the road. And lo and behold! — If you thought it was futile to play such a prank on someone, the reply made you realise he was foolish enough, indeed, to be made fun of thus — “Yeah I can see you!!” he shouted, “Turn around! You are on your old bike, HEY!” My station came, so I came out of the train, leaving a wonderful phone prank behind.

I am sure you must also have come across lots of funny incidents while in the train!

(This article was first published here under my column Tanay's Web for the e-magazine 21 Fools.)

Read more...

Who Let the Dogs Out... Bow Wow!

- A children's guide to tackle fear of stray dogs -

A dog loves getting angry, so don't show you're 'fraid,

and if you give a chase,

he'll accept the race.

Run more, and he can bite your face.

Of your flesh, he will get a taste.

So, upon seeing a dog

On the road; even if afraid,

respect him and show grace.

He won't growl, he won't pounce.

He won't give you any chase.

When I was small, dogs used to give me cold feet — all sorts of dogs : stray dogs, gray dogs, red dogs, dead dogs, black dogs, mad dogs, little dogs, infant dogs, old dogs and pet dogs. The above verse is a poetic form of what I had been taught as a frightened four-year-old shrieking while running from a dog on the road.  My grandmother told me this mantra. I was supposed to keep calm. And the dog wouldn't care about me. 

I remember sometimes when I was out, going to get something mom asked for, from one of the nearby shops. The problem was — it was a permanent problem — it was probably a municipal order that at least two dogs stay in that street at every point of time. I was reluctant to leave home alone, for this reason. When aged about seven, I couldn't be as reluctant, but the dogs played on my mind. "Get one kg sugar, beta." And before I could figure out what sugar is and what one kilogram means, one part of my mind registered a resolution that I was destined to tackle a dog in the next few minutes. (You love to know more about the enemy. As a result, I knew soon enough the time table of my street's dogs. I preferred going out when they would be asleep.)

Walking, if I spotted a dog, my mind, if not face, would feature signs of restlessness. (I particularly remember a devil dog, not very big, who I bet had made it a point to stand up and take a stroll only when I got out. A nemesis to my little brain, he was. Loved to walk behind me, and it would keep me alert — "Mad-Eye" Moody's "Constant Vigilance". The activities of the dog were scanned by me through the subtle corners of my eyes, and the mind. I've changed my city since then, but I wonder if he still remembers me, whether in heaven or still on that street. Off-the-topic, my new city has more stray dogs.) Terrified, my first method to "save" myself was that I used to speed up, to get ahead of the first person walking in front of me. That was a mindgame. I was so clever. My idea was that now, the dog would chase the guy I had overtaken, and whatever happened would happen to him. Little did I know, that the dog didn't care to hurt either of us.

Today, about ten years past that childish fear of dogs, I get reminded of all this when I see little kids on the road getting frightened of these animals. Some start crying and start running. It gives me déjà vu (and excitement) when I see them surveying the dog from the corners of the eyes (by rotating the head towards the back side. "Mad-Eye" Moody comes to my mind again, for his 360° vigilance), and overtaking people the same way I did, on having the hint of being followed by a dog.

Although I'm still afraid of lizards and know of people who have the phobia of cockroaches, dogs, cattle, cats, spiders, the dark, possibility of ghosts, etc., but, by the time adulthood beckons, the causes of fears move from the "animate" type to the "inanimate" type. It is common to hear of people being most fearful of losing their loved ones, and of facing their hated ones. Some are afraid of situations due to inferiority complexes, among other reasons. The fears at this stage of life are caused in the mind, created by emotions, not by animals. On this note, I write down the last few lines of the verse I began at the top of this post (the two installments of the verse are to be read in continuation).

When you'll be grown-up more with age

The fear won't remain as big as today's.

For, then humans will be scarier, bitches will look humans,

Life will cry, at new disguised demons.

Then humans you'll love and humans you'll abhor,

And you'll not even care, I'm very sure,

To run away from the dog, the ghost or the boar, 

Even if it knocks, loudly at your door.

Read more...