An Infinity Unknown

Take a minute & answer these question before proceeding to read: How was your time in school? What are the top 3 things you recall of your time there?


A dear friend asked me how I recall my days in school. I would have imagined a response like "It was fun" or "So much fun & play" or at least "It was so depressing" or "I met my husband/wife there" or something like that escape my lips but none of that sorts did. To my very surprise, I realised & muttered that my days in school were a string of shining & achieving. While I did enjoy myself thoroughly & had my own share of spats & mud-fights & puppy-love & infatuation for some teachers (some I am still in touch with), I don't seem to recall my school days as a span of learning & shock. What I mean by shock is what an old villager feels when he is shown how email works. The excitement with which he claps his hands when he gets a smiley on the chat screen from thousands of miles away is missing from my memory of school. To think that that is where I learnt nearly everything of life's fundamentals. It is poor solace that most people around me too recognise their school as something other than where they were surprised at what life had in store for them. It should not be immediately deemed an issue with the school system. Let us not view it as a problem.


Perhaps what surprises me is my mental romantic want that school would be remembered as an excursion where we discovered so many new things. Math, for instance, opened the doors to the world of numbers. Geometry & mensuration made the world of shapes so amazingly beautiful. Literature & the world of words which I play in was woven tale by tale throughout my schooling days. The human body & photosynthesis is still a magical realm to me. Refraction & how we would all tilt our head to view the pencil under water was brought to my eyes then. While I do not deny that I learnt all of this in school, I do not recall the awe or the surprise in discovering how echoes were produced. It was a fact that we were exposed to & then provided with the formula to compute various aspects of a problem using the time taken to hear an echo.


I remember a simple boyish conversation amongst a few of us who were exposed to the speed of light. We proposed that if I was 20 feet away from a candle (which was covered) and moved at the speed of light, then would I ever see the candlelight if I began moving away from the candle as soon as it was uncovered. The point was, since the light from the candle & I would move at the same speed, there will always be a difference of 20 feet between me and light. To think of light being held back like a stream of molten silver was amazing in conception & even today makes me nearly want to move that fast. That is the awe I refer to. The sheer amazement of using & studying a boomerang (yes, I went to YouTube to see how a boomerang is thrown).


I am not sure if the younger days in school are meant to provide the necessary tools so that those who are sensitive might explore & be amazed & those who aren't will make a living anyway. I would think that the initial years are when the child is likely to be stunned & amazed. To utilise the natural inclination for wonder is what I would think all of education should be about. Even if we eliminated tests & grades, our current approach to introducing a child to the wonders of this world would not focus on stunning the child.


It is not entirely clear to me whether wonder & amazement is best in retrospect. Do children merely see & get used, like a child using a smart-phone and thereafter finding nothing amazing about long distance communication or mobile apps or processor technologies? Adults who see a smart-phone for the first time are indeed amused & amazed at "how much technology has advanced" and hearken back to days when "all we had was a rotary phone & long distance trunk calls". Is amazement always in contrast? I recall the first time I saw a bike in a cage/steel sphere, I was amazed & also thoroughly interested in the notion of centripetal forces. I had nothing to compare it to - sheer adrenaline racing act! But a growing plant is hardly an awe-inspiring thing to a child until she sows the seeds & watches it grow, understanding all that it goes through.


I think schools denature knowing. Whether they do it consciously or not is secondary to this exploration. By capturing the flight of a bird into paragraphs of text about hollow bones & air currents we seem to steal away the opportunity from a child to watch birds & ask questions & seek to understand. By insisting that one be provided all possible knowledge even before curiosity or need arises, we are in essence removing the wonder of first encounter. I might never see a polar bear but I have studied so much about it that perhaps if I saw it in real life, I might be less amazed than if I knew nothing about it.


I think the question that remains is, can we essentially remain ignorant till need arises? What is the price we have to pay for that? Why can we not spend the early years in wonder & then grow organically & apprentice?

Interfering With The Natural

I was appalled when I read about the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). Coming from a country which considers itself rational and prides itself in its "freedom" and "liberty" to do just about anything, the articles I read (here and here) only reminded me of 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. An excerpt:

Practices such as saving seeds for use the next year would be prohibited and
doing so could result in a federal offense, punishable by fines and prison
time. Some speculate that the practice of saving seeds is being banned in
order to give seed companies, such as Monsanto, a monopoly over the seed
industry.

Similar stuff seems to be happening in India too. Read this. 

What is it to relate?

We are always in a relationship, aren't we? But what does it mean to relate? This post discusses just that. For a change I decided not to type out the post but write and scan it. Been ages since I wrote with my pen (Sheaffer). My handwriting is abysmal. Please be kind and tolerate this idiosyncrasy of mine.

This is way past my bedtime and hence, I haven't proof-read this piece. Without a spell-checker and proof-reading, there are bound to be errors which will embarrass me tomorrow, but I'd rather live with that than not write with my pen. Hopefully future posts will have less opportunities to complain.

I realise that this makes my post less searchable (hence, not available through Google), but it's ok. I have only a handful of readers and myriad viewers who land on this blog by mistake! :-)

You might have to click on each image to read them (another inconvenience). Some readers had asked to know the writing process. I really thought there was something like that. When I read the Original of Laura, I thought perhaps there was something similar that happened with me when I wrote. I thought it would be amusing at least to me when I later visited these posts to see how the writing emerged. I have even numbered the paragraphs so that I could re-order them in case I need to. As you see, there was nothing done to that effect. Perhaps my poetry posts would have something interesting.

The Fallacy of Patriotism

'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'

Chesterton said a lot when he said that. To most people, all that it means is that patriotism cannot be taken to an illogical extreme. I would take that one step further and say that GKC actually said that if you let rationality govern your judgement, then patriotism is not something you can subscribe to. This post probably seems apposite (or otherwise) given that we are less than a week away from India's Independence Day.

Frankly, I never did care who ruled over me. Khushwant Singh wrote this interesting article about how the days of the Raj were not necessarily bad. Actually, most of us don't care about who rules over us. I haven't heard of one Indian who packed his bag and left India because the party he didn't vote for came to power. If you are going to use the "Democracy" card, then bear with me while I laugh. When I say, I don't care who rules over me, I mean, I don't care who rules over me as long as s/he has a sense of Rightness, Goodness, Fairness (which is not the same as equality or uniformity) and Honesty. All need to be in uppercase, because we have come to a world where words are abused to the extent that they need differentiators. Tomorrow, when Honesty is abused, I will use hOnEsty. Till then, read with least strain. I couldn't care a damn if I was living in a country run by the Brits if only they could be good people. Unfortunately, they are human beings, like the Indians. I would love to be ruled by Scandinavians as this will bring in some blondes to this rather monochrome population! Yes, blue eyes too. Anyway, my point is made. I don't think Independence helps unless I am being released from evil and brought to good.

India, has been released from evil and paraded naked through a bunch of parties and governments with every single person stripping a pound of flesh as India walks by. To consider this Independence, is short of stupidity. We think we have achieved so much and become an IT superpower and so on. I can debate each and every point in there, but will leave that to a later date. We are only independent in our capacity to have our own flag and constitution (which is skewed in so many places). I think if we had sensible rulers, we could have been granted the privilege to have as many flags as we wanted and in wonderful colours.

But this post is not about Independence. It is about this wasted industry called patriotism. It features in everyone's speech and is something everyone has to vote for. From the Sachin Tendulkars to Asha Bhonsles to every Bollywood actor and actress to every person whom NDTV gets on screen for their sentimental advertisements about the nation's unity in some matter, everyone has to be patriotic in order to score some brownie points. No matter what, no Indian (or AnyCountrian) can stand up and say, I do not feel patriotic. It is unacceptable. It is like saying "I do not like my mother", perhaps worse (since the number of people charging at you would be more in the former case, most people not caring about your mother).

Patriotism is stupid and pointless in the light of intelligence and wisdom. When the citizens are intelligent and wise, they will know how to take care of the place they reside in. No matter where they go. To fragment the world into ego-centric plots of land with imaginary borders and even more imaginary sense of belonging, is ridiculous and highly unnatural. But we still do it. Go up in the air and you will see no border dividing a country from another (except in the cases like that of Sri Lanka, etc.). Then why do we insist on setting these lines? Would you spit on the floor in the house of your neighbour? If you wouldn't, then doesn't it make sense that you wouldn't rape or pillage in Pakistan or Nepal? Then why can't I walk into these countries and engage in work that makes me useful and benefits people? Because I am Indian! I wish I wasn't. I wish I had a global citizenship.

Why do I need to be patriotic? How many people claim to be patriotic towards their own house? I like JK's words:

"Identification with the rag called the national flag is an emotional and sentimental factor and for that factor you are willing to kill another - and that is called, the love of your country, love of the neighbor . . .? One can see that where sentiment and emotion come in, love is not."

If caste based distinctions is an evil in a country, then so is nationality based divisions in this world. In which case, patriotism is a highly unnecessary "virtue".

Patriotism has come to mean rivalry against other countries, a sense of I-am-better-than-you. Patriotism means that I do not trust people enough thus wanting to have a military force to "protect" me. Patriotism means that only I care about my country and others are out to ruin it and exploit it. Patriotism means that I should turn a blind eye to the wrong that happens within my society. Patriotism gives us sanction to wage war on other countries. Patriotism means that if the entire world burns, we must only concern ourselves with saving our countrymen. Patriotism means that collateral damage in a war is unavoidable and ok as long as it happens in another country. Patriotism means that I have to be proud for something I haven't been part of. I need to be proud of the art and architecture of a place although I haven't chipped a rock. I have to be proud of the ancient scriptures and literature even though I have never read them or understood them. Any proliferating group of human beings can produce something good (technologically, artistically, philosophically, etc.). Patriotism tells me that I should feel indebted to my country and hence, obliged to do it favours. Patriotism expects me to enlist when the country goes to war. Patriotism expects me to love the county's soil, flora, fauna, natural entities, etc. I do, but I also love the Alps and the Amazon. Patriotism is also this sense of belonging which is the refuge of a hollow person. Patriotism is the sentiment people appeal to in order to make their pointless statements find some followers. As Samuel Johnson said, 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.'

One of the things I would like to see is the dismantling of the entire military. In the land that coined the word "Ahimsa" (and it has nothing to do with Mr. M.K.Gandhi) having a military unit is rather contrary. Or we agree that we never cared about "Ahimsa" and we were just glad that Mr. Gandhi's stunt got the Brits out of India and we are happy for that. The military is our continuing affirmation of patriotism. It is our knee jerk reaction to every situation of conflict. It is what we think we should deploy the minute something goes wrong and "threatens our freedom". I think we would be better off investing that in making life in India worth living and hence, creating an army of understanding citizens versus a small battalion. Having interacted with a few people in the army, I only feel sorry when they speak with great pride about India. I am yet to understand how someone can pride themselves for an act or phenomenon that had nothing to do with them. I think the day the military is dismantled and all we have is internal security for law enforcement and managing petty crimes like thefts and riots (I wish we could even do away with that but that requires everyone to be sensible), that day we can bury patriotism and be a sensible nation/world.

A lot of rather strange people would respond with "What do you mean? Aren't you grateful that your country has given you good roads, hospitals, educational institutions, industries, electricity, transport, food, etc.?" My response to that is "What do you mean? Isn't the country grateful that I pay my taxes, pay my school fees, paid money at all shops, paid my electricity bills and bought medical insurance and paid all the hospital bills on time?" Subsidies are in place to make it attractive for people to stay on in a country and not out of a sense of patriotism. I don't think I will be patriotic towards Big Bazaar though now it would be called brand loyalty! The country is doing us no great favour. Make it difficult for people and the country loses their best minds and hands and hence, their place in the market and economy. The country will move Earth and heavens to ensure that the big MNCs and super-big IT companies of India get all the privileges but not your little cobbler joint. Loans for houses are packaged with all kinds of deals while farmers in Maharashtra die because they cannot repay loans taken from shrewd moneylenders. India, and for that matter any country, doesn't care for you because you are an Indian. They care about you because that might improve their image (as a political party or institution or market for FDIs) or because you resemble a chest of gold for them. This is not a cynical take on things. Why else would I (the government and the people) act to the effect of widening the rich-poor divide? If patriotism must be, then it should be a two way traffic and since the land will not care a damn to produce golden apples for you, the people demanding me to be patriotic must do something which is selfless and overwhelming for me. Better still, we all relate and connect at a level of Fairness, Goodness and Honesty. No need for sentiments and faith.

A true patriot cares so much about his country that he will disallow anything wrong being done to and in his country. He will fight against all liars and cheats and exploiters of natural resources and fellow countrymen. He will be honest and work to his best abilities in order to ensure that his country prospers. He will work every single day to the improvement of living conditions in his country. He will be honest, fair and genuinely good, wishing the best for the country he lives in. He will ensure that there is no corruption in his country. He will ensure that the laws of the land and the policies are well formed and are not favouring just one segment of the population or one geographical sub-zone. The country's good mirrors his own good and hence, he strives to be morally good. And in a while, he and you, my dear reader, recognise that he is simply being a good human being who recognises how to live Consciously in a world which needs Honest, Fair and Good citizens. He then ceases to be restricted to a country and expands to become a global citizen. By this measure, no one is a patriot.

Think about it. You can either cease to be patriotic or bring ruin to this country. Either way, Happy Independence Day.

[Epilogue] I thought I was singular in my conviction regarding patriotism although I quoted a few big names. Before hitting the publish button I decided to search a bit and was delighted to find fellow mad-men! Some are shared below:

1. http://www.marxists.org/archive/ryner/1934/anti-patriotism.htm
2. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Patriotism_EGoldman.html

Convenient Dichotomies

I am often confused with a misogynist. It is as much a tragedy as my frequent association with being a misanthrope. I love women too much to ever hate them and I have immense faith in mankind (not human beings) to despise them. But fairness rules and my role of a paladin brings me brickbats. All in good cheer!

A recent trip with friends (mostly acquaintances) convinced me that women find it extremely convenient when guys fawn over them and will receive every act of subservient yielding, with gusto though quick to proudly claim that they don't ever seek favours from men. I am fortunate in being allowed the escape of a not-so-mute observer and thinker and hence am rarely called upon to perform the job of a lackey or to bestow condescending favours. The women in the group were delighted to have doors opened for them (innocuous) and bills picked (cheap) and luggage hauled (dainty) and errands run (too important) by the boys that I found the whole thing decreasingly obnoxious and increasingly amusing. The girls actually had the boys fetch their shoes from the shoe rack outside the temple. The boys had no sense of self-respect and were more than happy to be at the beck-and-call of their ladies. The ladies, without bothering to wonder whether they were taking advantage of the "niceness" of the boys, enjoyed their well-served existence. I imagined reversing roles: If girls were ordered around and tossed off when the job was done and made to run errands and taken "advantage" of because the guy knew that she had a crush on him, how would the "forward" thinking world look at it? They would call the men chauvinists, brutes, old-fashioned, conservative and few other things depending on their mood and mettle of their tongue. But these girls are just called cute (though amongst themselves some are bitches and some are desperate or more, again depending on the pH level of the tongue).

One thing that I never understand is the notion of footing bills. I pay when a woman accompanies me (tragedy lies in the fact that I even pay when some guys accompany me) and if I don't then I am cheap. If the girl was not earning a living or something like that, one might even consider that as a passable case (but then how do you explain the ready money available to her when she has to buy things for herself like trinkets to hang from her ear or that mobile which rings in so many tunes?). I find it immensely pointless that women who earn their income believe that they should never foot the bill. If the assumption is that their mere presence has paid for their share of the evening's expenses I can't laugh enough. I have rarely been with a girl who leaned over, slapped my hand off and took the bill (one girl was from West Bengal, the other lives in Bombay and one potentially solid girl now resides in Mysore). I always wondered whether they never felt cheap walking out of a restaurant without even offering to go dutch.

Pampering a girl is different. I think it is merely a special case of pampering someone you like (love is a convoluted topic). I pamper my nephew, my kid (I call her that because her parents call her my kid), my dear friends, a few wonderful women whom I have met (and they are genuinely few enough to count on one hand) and most children. My lovely friend who has been with me since we were 11 and 9 respectively, and who now is a father to lovely little girl, is someone I love to pamper. Pampering in these cases is not a stereotype and is hence, treated differently.

A dear friend of mine said, "Come on, E. Guys enjoy doing these things for girls. It is one of the small pleasures of life." I think he meant "small pleasure of the Mating Game". I had written a long article (and I am accused of never writing anything short!) about the Mating Game when I was in school. It is lost (because I wrote on loose sheets of paper) though you surely don't need an article to bring to light what is commonly available to an interested pair of eyes. I accommodate the Mating Game as an inevitable ritual performed at various levels (from Casanova to Seth Ganshyam Das of Tijoriwali Gali in Allahabad whose Mating Game starts and ends in a burp) but when it becomes a stereotype, graduating into a sense of etiquette and hardening as a norm of social life, then, my dear friend, it becomes annoying to my senses. I have lent my jacket to a girl (and I still have a picture of her) though I cogitate that I would have done the same for a frail framed guy, too. I have done things which clearly fell into the bucket of the MG (btw, that is not what M.G. Road in Bangalore, stands for) so the issue is not about the MG. It is about what groups of people are "expected" to do.

Recently, on a trip, I noticed how women (on the train) assume that they will be treated specially. They assume that someone will surely help them load their luggage or give them their chosen seat. A woman had actually occupied my seat and when I arrived told me to take the other one elsewhere because she wanted to sit with her family. Of course, if I don't mind. Point is, isn't it decency to stay in your seat and then ask instead of occupying first and then offering an option to me!? Even in queues (and once at a petrol station) women seem to assume that it is ok to rush ahead. A friend once told me "Come on, E. Try standing throughout the day on high heels and waiting in a queue!" What? Women were born with high heels? So if I wore riding boots with 3 inch heels, I will be allowed to the front of a queue?

There is no questioning that women are not often built for physically strenuous jobs and have to juggle (often, though not always) multiple roles and responsibilities. But these are individual choices. As much as a child cannot be delivered without the due gestation period so required is the necessary physical, mental and psychological abilities for a job. Dagny Taggart didn't use her womanhood to get the job done. It was sheer ability. I simply adore women who can do a job the way it should be done without acting cute and batting eyelashes. It is, hence, an individual's choice. If work in the quarry is not your cup of tea then don't go there. To join the quarry and insist that women should be given greater privileges and shorter work hours and lesser loads to lift is ridiculous. So be it with a job as a scientist in a lab. I will not give you the culture in my petri-dish just because you are 6 months pregnant (what is growing in the dish is at least my effort). If you can't juggle many things, choose. There are tonnes of women who give up a family for the sake of a career and conversely. There are men who also care for the family and buy the grocery and take out the garbage while putting the baby to sleep. Does the woman of the house get up to give him the only chair in the room?

So a woman likes to have doors opened for them and seats on buses offered to them but will not tolerate a man saying, "They are weak humans." They want men to be chivalrous while they cry sore about women's lib.

A woman will love to have her dinner paid for, and her movie tickets bought but will hate it if she were told that she needed his money or was dependent on his money.

A woman enjoys receiving gifts and baubles and surprises but will not accept that she can't even think of getting her guy some nice gift as a surprise. After all, "What can you get a guy? They are so boring!"

A woman likes to quote the traditional role of the male as protector and provider till he has expectations of her; then she quickly chants the virtue of the modern liberated man who doesn't hold old-fashioned notions of roles based on sex or creed. Equality is, then, something that makes sense only when it is in favour of one person.

Men are not to be pitied as long as they enjoy being fools. It is when women assume that men are there for doing their work or earning for their entertainment or free for their whims that the otherwise simple acts in a relationship appear vulgar. So be it when men make similar assumptions of women (though most men don't think that their wives earn for their entertainment, some think that their wife is entertainment!). At the risk of sounding repetitive, it is about a sense of Rightness. When there is respect for the other person, when there is a genuine affection for the other person, when there is respect for oneself, when one truly cares about the relationship and the various facets to it, there is action borne out of a genuine goodness and Rightness which doesn't crumble to petty convenient exploitation or, as a girl aptly said, "timepass". It would be such a delight to be with a woman who would take me out to dinner, too. Or help me pack my luggage or let a guy sleep on her shoulder or lap (has to be some other guy because I can never do that!). Or bought me a bottle of ink because I have just exhausted mine.

Clash of Intentions

The past week has seen me get rid of two horrible diseases (one less so) in my life though the laughable irony is that the diseases left my system with least effort from my side. Good health (literal and figurative) is indeed a joyous state of living.
The past few weeks/months have helped me confirm an old theory of mine: Problems are not unsolved because they are inherently impossible to solve but because people (involved in the problem) refuse to pursue/peruse/adopt solutions. So the problems, in themselves, are not intractable, but it is the people who do not care for the solution or do not wish to come up with a solution because it would require them to adjust a bit.
The past few weeks and months presented me (in a sudden rush of friendship) with several opportunities to observe this theory in action. Unfortunately, a few friends of mine were going through problems (some being marital) for which they were unable to find solutions. I love solving problems starting from unclogging drains (and this can be a tricky problem depending on what is clogging the drains) to handling excessive salt in a dish to wives and husbands unable to live together in a marriage. Somehow they all appear alike to my brain. I recall the time when back in college I was considered to be an Operating Systems guru/lover and I would tell my juniors that every problem of life can be solved by some algorithm that is found in popular operating systems and even fielded some standard problems (and then love was the most popular thing!!). One junior even asked me to apply any one algorithm to my life which was devoid of a love interest and I applied the theory of selective filtering, just that the filters were numerous or actually just one: A female me (and I haven't met anyone in my age band i.e. my age +/- 8 years, who resembled me more than 50%).
Anecdotes aside, I still believe that life's problems can be understood and resolved as one does understand and resolve problems in operating system design. Belief apart, I have proof too. My friends back in Pune had heard enough of those algorithms. There are some unfortunate applications of them too. Like creating a deadlock until one process relinquishes hold (for whatever reason) whereby the other process receives rights to proceed (with living a good life).
But the difference between OS problems and human problems is the clash of intentions. Processes and CPU registers do not have ulterior motives or ego hassles. The system assigns priorities and deadlines (e.g. in a real-time system) to them and they stick to them. The system has ways for bumping up priorities or lowering them (priority inheritance and inversion) and the processes comply because each process perhaps has an appreciation of the greater good of the system and faith in the Controller (in this case, the user). People and life's business have more issues and ulterior motives than good and clear intentions.
As an example, let me quote (and paraphrase) a discussion I had had with a rather wise and lovely friend of mine. We were discussing the issues in joint families (I was reading Madhur Jaffrey's Climbing the Mango Trees and love it) and she said, "If one brother earns Rs. 1000 and the other earns Rs. 50, though they might pool it together and let their father (head of the family) wisely decide on expenses for the entire family, there will always be the feeling that one deserves more than the other." This was an observation which didn't require assent or dissent. She then proceeded to pose a rather interesting perspective, "But, if the brother earning more left and established a separate household and his wife was not an earning member, he would give into all her demands although she contributes Rs. 0 to the wealth of the family. The disfavour that his brother earned for making less money although he too might have been equally useful in other ways (as his wife is) is not attributed to his wife who earns Rs. 0. The paradox is that one turns against one's own blood whereas one showers more on one who is not one's own blood and has had lesser association." Neither of us assumed that one's own blood warrants anything, but it is common human behaviour to be closer and more tolerant of one's own blood simply because there is a longer association. "Mother" and "father" might be an exception in this account of things. This is something that would not happen in the world of operating systems. If a process doesn't generate enough output and hence, is left suspended (given fewest CPU cycles) so would any other process which generates the same or lesser output.
Apart from the visceral repulsion of applying algorithms, statistics and differential algebra to human activities, there is no reason why they can't be. Marketing, for instance, is using these very tools to understand consumer (human) behaviour and position products accordingly. We'd, perhaps, stop buying Colgate toothpaste if someone told us that we are being plotted on a graph, along the X-axis! The whole world of robotics and androids is essentially that. An ego-based reaction is not sufficient basis for the lack of truth or applicability of something.
But more than the applicability of algorithms is the observation of (what I call) the clash of intentions. People who are not sufficiently involved or caring will not solve a problem as it is against their interest. A lady is willing to do anything for her child but not for her husband. A man is willing to do anything for professional success but not for his family. I am willing to do anything to get my lunch perfected but not for bungee-jumping!
Our clash of intentions creates problems which perhaps were never there. Two people might be comfortable with each other till one person tries to get things done her way over and above the relationship she has created with her friend. Here is where one thing becomes more important than another because we don't care about the latter or have taken it for granted. It is when that latter "thing" stirs and raises "its" preferences when a full-fledged problem is created. I have relatives who simply give into their wives' every demand. So the demand (which if placed over the relationship) is not the problem because the husband yields. If the husband found it incongruent or against his principles and takes a stance, even then it is not a problem. If the wife, on being made aware of the stance, refuses to budge then a problem is born. Since a lot of men would rather avoid a problem to taking a stance based on values or principles, a lot of marriages continue. Since a lot of women (though not the urban kinds) in India give in to their husbands' wants there is a lack of problems. Neither of them are solutions but the system is in a non-threatened state. The only solution is to have an aligned clarity and an understanding of what is good and Right. Anything other than that is either an escape or a postponement of a clash of intentions.
A recent conversation (and that will be another post) with a very dear friend and 2 of his team mates took us into the night (00:15 hrs) which is way beyond my sleep time (21:30-22:00 hrs). Here too we discussed issues with the work environment and professionalism per se. When I go over that conversation, I see the same thing emerge: clash of intentions. One person means well and guides others but the other person takes that for granted and is unprofessional because the guidance will perhaps not yield the kind of tangible benefits that s/he is used to receiving.
Hence, given that problems (amongst human beings) is nearly always a result of clash of intentions (I am not considering murderous humans and psychotic individuals), any attempt at solving such problems without resolving the clash of intentions would be implicitly futile and abortive. And the surest sign of a clash of intentions comes from the total lack of involvement and caring of the individual(s) (who are part of the problem) in resolving it. Tragic but common.

A Sad Game Called Democracy

Isn't it funny that for all the fervid calls to adopting democracy, most nations (or their fragments) were never democratically led out of the Stone Age or through the colonial ages? We would be quick to cite how horrible it was to have a single king or Czar ruling an entire nation, but for every such example, we have more than one of a democracy going to the dogs and another king who brought great peace and justice to his kingdom. I don't believe that there is any one solution that will work everywhere for everyone (and no, I am not attempting a shabby escape) though I believe it is vital to understand how one can be true to any style of governance. Chanakya wrote well about the traits of a king and administration. One can refer to that or Machiavelli (though I won't stand by his produce) to arrive at a novel scheme for monarchy.

I am immensely entertained by the notion of democracy and the plaintive cry of romantics to worship this style over and above others. The greatest drama in this entire plot is that of the elections. India is facing this sham right now and best wishes. Democracy as it is practiced in India is a falsehood at various levels. I shall broadly categorise them into two parts: the common man's stupidity and the vulgarity of the system (and both of them have human beings as a common element! Hmmm).

Ponder over this statement (supposedly) made by a great celebrity: "Like every common man, I too want better economy, security, education, health, infrastructure, law and order and infrastructure (twice?). I vote every year and this time too won’t be an exception." I wonder which country has elections every year! We have people who make such romantic statements and the fanatics who go by some credo of "My party, whether Nazi or not". Then come all the celebrity campaigns which initially stirred in me a sense of responsibility but quickly fizzled into another drama. A tea company capitalised on this election season well with its advertisements. I did like one of them where a rather smart young man starts interviewing a candidate for the important job of "running the country". Point is, if we did that we wouldn't have candidates. We'll go into the system shortly. Before that, please find time to also read P. Sainath's article in The Hindu. He is a very good writer (of substance and not literary merit).

As long as people continue to be stupid and uneducated, any system to govern them decided by them is bound to fail and falter. One cannot leave the task of assembling a ship in a bottle to bunch of monkeys, or buffaloes (their hooves are too big). To accept the decision of an uneducated mass (which is different from the illiterate mass) is a sham. We could just as well have blind men judging Miss India (oh! that's how it already is?). If the population cannot make an informed decision, is incapable of analysing the behaviour and promise of a party, is unwilling to understand what it takes to achieve progress at various levels and cannot look beyond the TV set or bundles of clothes that they receive, they should not be allowed to vote. Similarly, the urban fools who think that they must vote because that is what modern people do should also not be allowed to vote. At least that is how I would like to see the whole system realised. I do not want the preference of a fool. I do not want to act on the judgement of the mentally deranged on matters which requires a properly functioning brain. I do not want the vote of an emotionally charged lunatic who believes that Ram Janma Bhumi is more important than poverty or unemployment or environmental degradation, or who drools over the sexy accompaniment of the party leader and drops his finger on the said symbol. Intelligence and wisdom are mandatory for casting a vote. If a person cannot be confident of that, then I don't think s/he should accept the huge responsibility of affecting the decision of who should govern the country for 5 years (or 5 minutes). So the issue is not about everyone voting but of everyone getting educated and studying one's options. So all the campaigns to coerce or embarrass the person into voting are pointless as long as they do not insist on each person studying each and every candidate with diligence.

If we turn our attention to the system, we notice that there isn't any. A sequence of stages doesn't make a system. Picture this: I vote for Keeley Hazell for several structural reasons. I don't know who she will align with (I mean politically). Once the election results are out, she hooks her wagon (figuratively) to a horrible thief whom I would never vote for. What can I do? In India, nothing. You can just be happy that you voted for KH and build a temple for her (which people can do in any country). The biggest problem in Indian politics is this: Keeley Hazell is not standing in any state!
Jokes apart, Indian politics is totally nonsensical because the mechanism is just this. I could vote for some popular leader (we'll come to the stupidity of that shortly) but have no clue as to whom s/he will align with at the centre. If s/he aligns with someone I don't approve of, I cannot recall my vote. This two tier system is rather vague as my vote is used for a purpose I am not interested in. Why must I commit a vote without knowing who it goes to eventually? It is like having a bundle of thieves behind a screen and I am asked to pick a colour that I like. I choose blue. The screen drops (after a drum-roll and trumpets) and blue is associated with thief #5. I didn't know that before I chose the colour. Does this make any sense? Not to me.
If I vote, I want my vote to only count for that person/party at the centre in whom I have some faith (based on credentials). Currently, everyone contests in their individual states (because that is the only place where they are even recognised). Whatever they win, they offer it as carrots to the donkeys further up in the chain and thus coalitions are formed. Several people believe that coalitions are the only way to be. Perhaps. So the person who votes for A has voted only for A who might never form the ruling party. What A does with those number of seats is not within the tell of this person. I don't think that is how a vote should be treated.

Here is how I feel true democracy (not because it is the solution to all our administrative problems) should function. I have, what I call, a 3-tier system.

Tier 1 (pronounced, tee-ar): Parties and individuals who have a representation in 50% or more number of states will produce a manifesto which will contain the following details:

• Plan for the next 5 years, addressing each of the following (at least):

(a) Alleviating poverty
(b) Agricultural issues and issues of the farmers
(c) Import and Export issues
(d) Issues of internal and border security
(e) Education for all
(f) Generating true employment
(g) Medical and sanitation requirements
(h) Environment protection
(i) Technological advances
(j) Transport, communication and infrastructure

• A complete report of the accomplishments of this party in whichever area it had the clout. In case the party/individual is a new entrant, s/t/he/y must provide evidence for having demonstrated active involvement in various initiatives of relevance (having acted in 100 movies doesn't count). New entrants can also pick up failed or poorly executed projects of the contesting parties and provide well-researched solutions and alternatives to the same. I agree that this sounds nice though after a point "will employ higher grade cement" or "will lay PVC pipes throughout the village" is not enough to make one party better than the other. Nevertheless, the thought that an individual/party brings to such issues is basis to hold them up against. Without doubt and I have personal experience in this matter, a liar's words, however sweet and sincere, cannot be relied upon and sometimes you will recognise a liar only after they demonstrate their baseness and not when they utter the words! Hence, this manifesto will function as a written record of what the party/individual claim to. A report will function as a checklist against which a person can be measured as well as provide (where applicable) an assessment of accomplishments.
• Any party member who has a criminal case (theft, murder, deception, accrual of wealth beyond discernible means, etc.) cannot be allowed a seat. No compromises there! The manifesto will contain the complete past details (educational qualifications, criminal records, association with all businesses and organisations, etc.) of each member.
• The policies with which this party/individual will never align. The 123 agreement, GM crops, etc.
• Cabinet plan (who would most likely hold which position and why that person is the best person suited for the job). It makes little sense to have someone who barely passed his 12th (no matter how good he is) to handle the matters of the economy!
  
• Pick any issue of national relevance and provide a solution to it in detail with complete analysis.

I know, that suddenly makes it seem like an entrance exam, but I wouldn't mind going that far. In this phase, parties can discuss with regional parties and come up with a commonly agreed upon manifesto (as outlined above). Once they have aligned themselves to a manifesto, they cannot change course. Whatever needs to be settled between the party members and various parties/individuals must be sealed by the end of this phase.

Tier 2: Educating the population. Accepted manifestos will be distributed to all those who wish to vote. Only those who collect these manifestos from an authorised centre, after producing their voter's ID, can vote. These can be entirely automated vending kiosks. Those who are illiterate can state that and their voters ID will be noted. They will be given audio-video presentations of the manifestos which are standardized and produced in the local language. These would actually be cheaper than producing the manuals as an entire village can be presented the same content without duplication. Responsible citizens can offer (and they will be well taken care of) to visit these villages and discuss issues with the villagers and help them give a more interactive discussion and perspective. A team of independent citizens will simultaneously investigate the claims in each of the manifestos to unearth issues that were not mentioned as well as misrepresentation of facts. Their observations will be periodically published in the daily newspapers. Several other means can be employed to better educate the population.

Tier 3: Campaigning and voting. The usual rigmarole can be staged in this phase with the standard restrictions and checks. Once, the campaigning ends, the people can proceed to vote. I would personally like to test the understanding of each voter to ensure that he knows what s/he is doing, but in a country as populated as this, I don't think the voting phase will ever end if we adopted that. We can only hope that the interested few are aware of what they are doing. I feel the urban population, esp. the youngsters and Net-savvy few will at least have an opportunity to discuss various manifestos and provoke thought. One thing that everyone is assured, is that their vote has a definite recipient. None of the present vagueness will exist.

If democracy is realised through the system above or through a more intelligent system (though collective intelligence is often lower than the average individual mind out there), then we have a fairly Right system and then asking everyone to vote has some point to it.

The need for clear accountability pervades all relationships and to assume that such benchmarks, strategy, agenda and checklists only work in a corporate world, is stupid. Those who shun from being accountable will always use such excuses of making life too "business-like". I have already stated my views on the trader relationship, so I will not waste time on this.

I am reading (about) Isabel Paterson (who is the one who inspired Ayn Rand to create her entire philosophy and her tomes) and she told readers she was “tired of being told that ‘credit depends on confidence.’ Fudge. Credit depends on real assets, sound money and a clean record. … When any one asks us to have confidence we are glad to inform him that the request of itself would shatter any remaining confidence in our mind.” Very true. Similarly, credibility depends on sound values, sound plans and a clean past record. If a politician asks you to vote because you should have faith in him to run the country/state well or that you believe that s/he is the best and the other politicians must be treated as scoundrels, I would be glad to inform him that his expectations of themselves shatter all faith or belief I might have had in his enterprise. Ms. Paterson is quite remarkable in her thoughts (it is funny that most of the women in my know, hate me for following a philosophy espoused by two women!!) and I would urge readers to read her God of the Machine.

There are bound to be problems with the scheme above. What if there is no clear majority? What happens if no one in my state represents a manifesto that I love? What if I want more information? What if corruption enters this agenda too? These are problems arising from details and I have solutions for each of these. What is most important now, are not these solutions but the realisation that we are encouraging a corrupt system and have no intention to realise a democracy in the true sense of the word. If we see that and are willing to change it, and see the Rightness of the scheme above (and I am sure there are better schemes which I might think up later on or borrow from a great mind) then we have things moving and in the sheer goodness of that movement, there will be enough substance and understanding to solve issues with nitty-gritty details. Till something like this is encorporated, I will never vote.

Olive Ridley Turtles Campaign

Please watch this video...

Environment versus Education

This is something I've been wanting to write for a while. Recently, I had the good fortune of interacting closely with children and educators alike. The interaction was rather involved and I enjoyed the hours spent with the young students. Some of them grew attached and I enjoyed being included in their private world. This was an "alternate" school and hence, "teacher"-student interaction was not regulated beyond a point. This article is not about this school but about how many of us have misunderstood education by oscillating between extremes.

This school was proud of establishing a "system" where there was complete freedom given to children, fear was never used as a tool to achieve conformance or educational progress and finally, competition was not encouraged. On the face of it this is the perfect approach to educating someone. Wouldn't we all want our children to be educated in an environment devoid of fear, full of freedom and without the oppressive burden of competing? I suppose the answer would be yes.

While I was sitting on the lawns of this school, I was surrounded by some students from the 7th and 8th class. These young girls were curious to know who I was and what was I doing in their school. The typical questions started with enquiries into my height followed by my occupation and went into who my favourite actress was. I answered them patiently and enjoyed the company of these kids. I had the task of remembering all their names and they had very unique names (gone are the days when girls were simply named Priya, Sindhu, Rekha and so on). Once they were quieter I started asking them questions.

"Do you like studying here?"
[Chorus] Yes!
"Wow! Sounds like a good school. Why do you like studying here?"
[Sneha] Sir, because there is a lot of freedom for us.
(that would be an incorrect construction, but I didn't want to go down that path)
"Is that good or bad? I mean the freedom given to you."
[Chorus] Very good, Sir.
"Oh! Good. And what do you do with that freedom?"
[Silence]
I waited a while hoping that they would have something to offer and some of the braver ones attempted explaining the possibility of playing games and studying whenever they wanted to and whatever they wanted to. Turns out that most of them simply play games. We moved on to other matters.
"I am told that competition is not encouraged here."
[Chorus] Yes, sir.
"But then don't you guys compete in your games and have fights when someone cheats or feel hurt when you lose your bets and challenges?"
[Swati] That we do, but that is not the same as competing in studies, no?
"No? How?"
[Aparajita]In studies when we compete we aren't really learning anything but only mug up to score more marks. That is not good.
"And in sports you aren't really learning the game but only want to somehow take the ball to the goal and score that point so that you can stick out your tongue to the opponents. Is that good?"
[Silence]
We moved on to other topics which kept them interested as well. I got the sample I wanted and I had to interact with more to understand what these students had understood about the Utopian ideals of this school.
I spoke to the teachers and watched several of them conduct classes. Without much surprise I observed their falling back on "old" methodologies of scolding and silencing the children. Some teachers went to the other extreme of just hanging in there without consciously guiding the class because they didn't wish to be forceful or strict or contrary to the ideals of the school. Hence, they gave the students freedom to do whatever they wanted.
This school, like most alternate schools merges with mainstream schools from the 9th class. The CBSE or ICSE syllabus is followed and exams are conducted. Children are prepared for the board exams and other entrance exams. Life for a child from the 9th is like in most schools except that there is no crazy stress in the air. Children are rather comfortable with whatever they study and some of them score well and others don't.
Mainstream schools have results, pass rates, rankings to be proud of and the alternate schools have their ideologies to keep them contended.

In the individual stance adopted by each school, the child seems to be entirely forgotten. The child does not know what to do with freedom because the child is not aware of the power of freedom. Children believe they should condemn competition and use such notions to justify laziness. In a sense, mainstream schools at least are clear about what they represent and deliver what they stand by. Alternate schools neither produce deeply insightful or thinking youth nor do they produce excellence. The biggest problem with alternate schools is that the children are raised in a cocooned environment and after their 12th class are let out into the "real" world without much guidance or assistance. They enter the world assuming that everyone will readily give them freedom and that no one will try to employ fear and such base tactics to realise ends or that no one wants to compete with anyone else. There is a huge disconnect between what they see in school and what they meet in the "real" world. Finally, here is a snippet of the conversation that was started earlier:

"So all of you love this school?"
[Chorus]Yes, sir.
[Snigdha]I will feel very sad to leave this school.
"Oh! That's sweet. So how many of you plan on completing your studies and returning to this school?"
[Silence]

I personally believe that schools, educators, parents and the media make too much of the environment in which education should take place and often believe that attaining that environment is sufficient condition for calling a particular school a good school. Undoubtedly, the lack of such an environment makes true learning and education extremely difficult. All of us were raised in such mainstream schools and it is us who have gone ahead and created industries, NGOs, civil movements and alternate schools. The proportion of alternate school students who entered the world and mobilised something vital and passionate is negligible (based on whatever quick research I did). The IIM and IIT finish is quite starkly visible in most of the cases. When one meets a graduate from these institutes and discusses a particular topic with them, they do demonstrate the ability to go into them deeper and reflect on them. I can never recognise the product of an alternate school. The reason might be that the alternate school effect is lost in college. Then what is the point of having gone to an alternate school? I asked a senior teacher a similar question: "If I meet 2 gentlemen, aged 35, in an airport do you think that one of them from your school would have conducted his life differently and present himself differently from the other? If they are most likely going to be alike, does it not convince us to rather conform than confuse the child with notions of ideals at a younger age and have them all confiscated over time?" The teacher admitted to the higher possibility of finding them alike in their career choices (not the exact job but in what might have guided them) and in other ways. He nevertheless felt that the seed that was dropped earlier might grow and thrive in his students.
"How many students ponder over deep things that haven't been encountered in their life?"
"Very few"
"Safe to say about 1 per batch of students?"
"Too pessimistic."
"But accurate enough? Shall we settle for 2?"
"Numbers are irrelevant unless that is your point."
"Numbers are relevant once we realise that eventually at the age of 30 nearly the same number of students from mainstream schools would also be pondering over life and other matters. Hence, if the effect, over time, is the same then how has an environment helped?"
We left the matter there as there was nothing to say. He did raise a valid point that the success of a methodology doesn't establish its rightness. I agreed with him as I believe in it too, but if a methodology is being picked to influence someone else's life entrusted in your hands to be transformed into something beautiful, then the success of the methodology matters. If it was merely a lifestyle I chose for myself, then its success doesn't matter. I can pick up bitter gourd soup for myself and control my nauseous urges, but I cannot recommend the same to another person without understanding that person and the responsibility that we owe him.

Hence, environment, though vital, is not a sufficient condition for holistic education, or as Sri Aurobindo says, Integral Education. I prefer conscious education. Conscious education is where the child is placed at the centre without giving her the feeling of being important.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti hints, the teacher is possibly the most vital element in a school. A school is the most vital component in the education of a child. Schools that hire teachers merely to fill positions can never do justice whether they are alternate or mainstream schools.

Let me break the issue I wish to discuss into 3 parts:

1. Environment suitable for conscious education
2. Participants suitable for conscious education
3. Education techniques suitable for conscious education

I will discuss the 1st in this post. A good environment is one where the child continuously learns, assimilates, connects and applies. Continuous learning can only happen in an environment where the child can enquire and seek an understanding of the world around her. For a child to be able to enquire he must be interested in the various phenomena and relationships human beings share amongst themselves as well as with the various entities that surround them. Without interest, no amount of freedom and fearlessness can help. When a child possesses the interest the environment shouldn't introduce reasons to be afraid. When the child is assured and often that she can explore and enquire into anything then the child will learn. To make that learning continuous, it is vital to have the environment provide interesting opportunities and challenges to better understand the world that surrounds the child. This requires guidance and not indiscriminate freedom. To let the child lose and then claim that they have been given their freedom is as silly as handing over the keys of your Mercedes to your 4 year old. Would you do it without joining him in the passenger seat? Freedom is senseless without guidance and careful support. When the child is guided carefully the child can learn continuously and assimilate in a coherent manner.
Connecting information, observations, insights and conjectures requires an environment where the child is encouraged to return to the birds-eye view of the world. Often one is lost in the details of what one learns and forgets that all this learning is primarily to make sense of the world around us. To connect physical phenomena (like the flow of fluids from points of high potential energy to those of low) to their instances in life (human body, rivers, cyclones, etc.) is what makes the learning and assimilation relevant. An environment must provide support to identify various aspects of daily life and repeatedly and continuously connect them with what the child has learnt and back.
Finally, the child should be encouraged to take this learning one step further and apply them to demonstrate, solve and modify circumstances and situations. This is where creativity (from the student) is nourished. An environment which doesn't facilitate creativity can hardly ever produce a thinking man. Creativity is not merely the "aha" but also the "Oh". Often people misunderstand creativity especially when juxtaposed with the need for repetitive tasks and seemingly mechanical activities (this article in The Hindu is one such example of a rather misguided POV. E.g. I couldn't understand how she went from standardised tests to blood tests. One helps assess the familiarity with a subject and the other helps identify based on standard responses to discriminatory procedures. None of her anecdotes seemed to represent creativity!). Children like games but hate having to be creative in solving a problem which they are not connected to. This is where the environment comes in by encouraging creative extrapolations to every single task. Simplest example is to imagine that we are all trapped in a spacecraft and we have to come up with some games based on the props available.
If we are to break this understanding into rudimentary parts, then we could come up with a list of "traits" as follows:

1. Fear not a means for educating
2. Creativity not a nice-to-have but a vital element in every activity of the day
3. Guided freedom
4. Keeping the big picture (understanding the world around us) in mind
5. Continuous learning, assimilation, connecting and application

In addition to this, striving for excellence has to be encouraged. Those who say that "it is sad that this world only rewards performers" are missing the point. Performers will be rewarded and will be worshiped. Performers didn't get there by chance or by craft. They have surely put in several hours of disciplined practice to improve and better themselves. That doesn't make them a vile bunch. That doesn't mean striving for excellence is something cheap and only done by those who wish to be worshiped. Striving for excellence is a noble trait like having the courage to be honest. An environment for educating a child must inculcate the same in them. Sloppiness is not what a child should be educated in. Hence, it is vital to educate the child in the rightness of excelling oneself and continuously and organically striving to do better.
A recent CNN Money article brought out some good points about the path to greatness and success. I was reminded of a HBR article about Making of an Expert. Not surprisingly, the researcher in both of them is the same K A Ericsson. Both of them highlight the need to strive for excellence. In such an endeavour, competition takes on a very different expansive meaning. Yoshio Tanabe is one such example of excelling without being driven by competition. An environment which can balance this is most suitable for education. Those at either extreme are missing the point and create non-performing debaters or hollow achievers. Mere unplanned striving for excellence is defeating. What one needs is an environment which can help the child reach the heights by continuously developing the base. The child should realise the seriousness that is due to a subject and consciously attend to the learning and betterment of the understanding of the subject. Hence, the traits now become

1. Fear not a means for educating
2. Creativity not a nice-to-have but a vital element in every activity of the day
3. Guided freedom
4. Keeping the big picture (understanding the world around us) in mind
5. Continuous learning, assimilation, connecting and application
   
6. Structured and planned striving for excellence
7. Seriousness about learning
   
8. Communion with the "outside" world

The last point is vital in ensuring that the child doesn't feel helpless when encountering the world outside school and home. Education is a never-ending endeavour to understand the world. To make it applicable only to one locale is immature. To make it binding (e.g. the child rejecting the world in favour of his comfortable and idealistic school) is dangerous. To be totally unprepared for the world (because I know physics and math but can't compute things of daily relevance) is a waste of time and most importantly, of a rich childhood.

Though these are vital elements one cannot forget the simple element of genuine caring and Love (for the subject, for learning, for the world). The reason I don't include it is because it is not merely a trait of an environment for education alone but of life itself. In the absence of genuine caring and Love, any extent of education is pointless.

These are the main points I wish to bring out about the environment in which education should be realised. These do not bring about education. Schools which believe that providing these should suffice, are mistaken at best and lazy in all other cases. The environment is closely tied in with the participants suitable for conscious education. Please note that the environment mentioned here is not merely in a school but the environment in which a child grows and hence, includes any and every place where she dwells. Hence, education becomes the responsibility of the world and not merely of the school.

I will discuss the other two parts in later posts.

And this doesn't scare you?

I did it... Did you?

We shut off all our electrical appliances for an hour on Saturday! Mom was not in for it initially as she thought this was merely a gimmick. I explained to her that it was a gimmick but even if 40% people fall for it, it saves a lot and is still worth it! So we switched off everything and discussed my Conscious Living series and the sheer audacity of mankind to take the rest of the world for granted (and some human beings actually complain that they can't take others for granted and how wrong that is!!). It was fun sitting in the dark talking about stuff at the global level. I had some difficulty having to give her examples (and more so when I had to do some of them in Tamil) but it was a fun time together. I had assured her that I would make dinner (and we had sumptuous cream of roasted red bell pepper and tomato soup with Penne with Alfredo sauce) today in bargain. I was elated when my mom (at the end of my tiring speech) declares that we should follow this one hour thingy every week (but only when her serials are not on!!). Feels good to be able to educate people and help them see rightness.

Tata Turtles?

In September 2008, after heightened protests and nearly 100,000 dedicated Greenpeace cyberactivists calling on the TATAs to relocate the port, the TATAs agreed to a dialogue with those opposing the Dhamra port. In the ensuing negotiations, TATA agreed 'in principle' to an independent assessment, yet it continues to build the port, and with every passing day, the turtles' future looks dimmer… That's why Greenpeace and other groups are calling on TATA to immediately halt construction and commission an independent assessment.

Please go here to send a fax directly to Mr. Ratan Tata asking him to be conscious of the world we live in and not assume that every piece of land and water is for his shareholders' profit.

Conscious Living - Food Habits

McDonalds in Tokyo is a terrible revenge for Pearl Harbour.

--Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa

(This is a fairly long post and should be read carefully. In case you are in a hurry, search for the word "Summary" and read thereon. The summary is not the same as the post!)

Food is vital to our being. We miss out a lot when we hurriedly summarise it as the "fuel" for the body. It is far more than fuel as fuel does not possess the capacity to alter or affect the personality of the machine it drives. Food is actually what we are made of and to treat it lightly is great injustice. I do not wish to romanticise the role of food in our lives, but if it is merely fuel, then we can always concoct a perfect potion of nutrients and minerals to provide to each human being and forget the entire idea of burgers and dal makhani. Beyond a mere gut feeling, I am certain that that will simply not work. Men cannot live (perhaps exist) purely on a dose of vitamin tablets and nutrient supplements. Try it!

Once we realise that food is not merely a bundle of nutrients, we can then move on to eating consciously. I do not hope that every (wo)man would cook with their heart and soul in it and make food the epitome of human taste (well, I would think it is), but to consume food consciously is vital and cannot be emphasised enough.

My mother and my grandmothers (both fine cooks though my dad's mom is fantastic) had a very simple rule as far as cooking goes: eat fresh food and do not be comfortable with leftovers. We are vegetarians (we do not consume eggs though dairy products are ok). Most of our meals are cooked fresh and are exhausted with that meal. Yes, it is time consuming but so are most other activities like surfing the net or watching TV or talking over the phone for hours or going to work or anything. Whether any of them nourish you or not is debatable but cooking food surely nourishes you!! Touche!

I was watching this French movie called Girl from Paris (why do they corrupt a beautiful title which means "one swallow brought spring"?). There is this beautiful (because of this line that I will shortly mention) scene where Adrien reminds Mathilde that a particular vegetable is not eaten in winter because it is not available in winter. He says something like "There is a reason why they are available only in a particular season." I thought that was so simple and true. I am sure the modern industrialist would think of a hundred ways to preserve it and ensure that they are available every single day of the year. I was reading Peter Mayle's Provence series (yes, this paragraph seems like I love the French. Honestly, I love humanity but ... anyway) and I thoroughly enjoyed their culinary adventures. The natives perhaps only cook rabbit throughout the year but plant different things at different times of the year and eat differently and according to seasons. Perhaps that is another reason for the French Paradox.

I think the primary problem with food habits is essentially North American (and British and perhaps other countries, e.g. Australia, with a similar society, lifestyle and thought). Most of Asia, Africa, South America and significant parts of Europe do not suffer from fast food, canned food, preservative laden food. Unfortunately, these "American" cultures are very good at influencing other societies to adopt their "cool" and "sensible" ways to nearly everything. A study and experiment by Kerin O'Dea with the Australian Aborigines proved that their adoption of a Western diet caused nearly all their health problems and when they returned to their native diet (including adopting the way they procured their food) nearly all their health problems reduced within a few weeks! There is no one diet that is perfect and I think it is vital to recognise that. The wisdom passed down the ages about appropriate diet and goodness is valuable and should not be ignored for fads and stupid wants for size-zero bodies!

Ayurveda treats food on par with medicine. Every food item has a guna associated with it and the person's body type is recognised before prescribing medicines (food or concoctions). The beauty of this science is its holistic approach to the body and the nourishment it gets. Ayurveda doesn't focus on the throat because you have a cold or merely on the shoulder because you have a sprain. To treat the body as a whole and to respect the role of each and every thing that we consume (air and water included) with due respect forms the basis of this science. Ayurveda goes beyond mere foods and medication to link the body with the spirit which people can brush aside till they read about alpha-waves in the brain and other recent phenomena and walk back in with the tails between their legs.

Though not Ayurveda, a recent study by TNSACS confirmed the role of nutrition and nutrient supply in the control of AIDS. So what we consume helps in many ways beyond merely being a "fuel". Let us bear that in mind.

This post will explore conscious food habits at various levels. Some of them are:

1. How we grow them
2. How we process them
3. How we purchase them
4. How food is wasted
5. Choosing what to eat
6. The unfairness of a non-vegetarian diet
   
   

When we worry about the way we "create" our food nearly everyone thinks about pesticides, chemicals, genetically modified crops and so on. I wonder why no one talks about how in-humanely the meat industry works. If you find it somewhere, do read Arthur Miller's tale where the narrator's wife (set in the Monroe-dye) throws back the fishes which got trawled in but are not the kinds people consume. So, the fishermen simply throw them on the sand and let them die there. She goes and picks each one of them and throws them back into the sea! A very touching story.

Have you visited an abattoir recently? Or ever? Do you know where your nicely packed chicken breast comes from (No! Chickens don't wear bras)? Or the bacon? Do you know how those animals were kept their living lives? What were they fed? How? Do you know how they were killed and cleaned so that you get that nice pink in your bulging sachet with chicken or goat caricatures drawn on them to make it look all very nice and cute and perfectly humane?

It might appear that I am making a case for vegetarianism. I would prefer everyone to be vegetarians but if you wish to eat meat then my appeal is different. I cal a conscious eater to be one who creates and handles his food with fairness and with some ethics. If you go out and hunt your meat with something that has a range less than or equal to five feet (so guns are out) then I think you are being fair. To have a few acres of living animals grown and cut up without giving them a say in the matter is ridiculously unfair. How would you feel if I raise a few hundred test-tube babies (no making love so no emotions involved) and subjected them all to manual labour or supplied them shrink wrapped to the cannibals of Andaman or Africa (if there are any left without being converted by some missionary)? Inhuman? Why? These animals are raised, separated from their mothers (I suppose fathers don't always count) and friends, simply taken into a stinking room and slit. Sometimes that death seems better compared to the horrible conditions in which they are made to live, packed like sardines in a can, sweating on each other with no hygiene. They would shit in the woods or meadows and not walk all over them, had they been left to themselves. Then comes the sickening act of choosing the breed (more meat, juicier, consumes less, etc.) and eliminating the ones you don't want. If you think I am making this up, then visit this link. There are many more such reports and "realities". If you thought this was a recent phenomenon, then read this. So, yes, I think it would be best to be vegetarian and if you are worried about the concerns that mis-informed non-vegetarians have about vegetarianism then don't worry: our family has lived for centuries on pure plants and plant products and most people have died due to natural causes (usually beyond the age of 70) or due to accidents (which has very little if any concern about dietary practices).

The great concern about Vit-B12 deficiency amongst vegetarians is mis-placed as no one in the family and in any family of relatives have anaemia. Stupid scientists have attributed the "Hindu" phenomenon (of being vegetarians and not having Vit-B12 deficiency) to the existence of insect larvae, eggs and faeces in the leafy vegetable and other vegetables. Seriously, are we to believe that we don't wash our veggies well enough and eat mosquito shit? If that is the case, then so be it. I'd rather eat invisible mosquito shit than disgustingly butcher animals. And, FYI, animals do not produce B12. We are capable of synthesising it and the entire chemical reaction of food in the oven as well as in our gut is far too complex to assume that we need all our nutrients on our plate in clear demarcated spaces and quantities before we can start eating.

If I were stranded in the Amazon (not the .com one) and had to find myself food, I might pick berries or hunt a rabbit and cook it. That doesn't mean that all planned and systematic murder is justified. To treat animals like a bunch of hub-cups off an assembly line reeks of our hypocrisy. To stuff them with what we want to find on our dinner table is also sickening. I know of cases where a camel (or some hoofed animal) is fed alcohol till it dies (or is anyway killed) and then the meat is marinated for a while before tossed on a spit. Very creative but so was using Jewish skin off the holocaust for lampshades. And if you let the body wallow in urine the skin is softened to provide easily workable leather which one can then shape into really classy handbags. Tanning such leather, I believe, is also very easy.

So feel free to fish and cook what you catch. Hunt a boar and carefully slice it (you can carefully scrape the "inside" of the skin to obtain fat which can be cooked for stuffing vegetables). Preserve them like they do in Italy or other Med countries. I recall a very elaborate procedure of hanging the meat with salt coating on it, etc. And if you are going to hunt them, welcome their hunting you too. Do not have some forest reserve authority shoot down a tiger which just attacked your house and dragged away your 2 month old daughter. You just had her cub last Sunday. Do not kill animals because you need to protect yourself. Protect yourself the way they protect themselves; with your body. If you believe that animals that behave unruly and kill human beings should be killed, then so should butchers. Is it remotely possible for you to be absolutely fair? Wait for your chickens to lay eggs. If you cannot hunt animals, then rear them and let them die. When they naturally do, then eat those dead animals. Yes, you will be called a scavenger. So what? I thought you liked the meat. There is nothing unethical or barbaric about consuming meat though it is atrocious and vulgar to consume meat the way it is commonly produced and distributed in most cities.

Vegetarians too need to be concerned about the food they eat. Lots of chemicals used and hybrid varieties (larger, juicier, longer shelf-life) not only taste bad (compared to the pedigrees) but are not good for your health (if you so fancy, please use a straw in one of the pesticide bottles and sip away). GM crops are a total no no. GreenPeace reports on how the main manufacturer of GM crops stopped the supply of its own produce in its own staff canteens!

Urbanisation and "civilisation" have sterilised us from the actual food production cycle and intricacies. We are happy in not knowing what went into that bowl of cornflakes we eat in the morning. Animals being fed something which is not their natural diet (so that we can get better beef) or plants being grown in unnatural conditions (though not for food, Bt-Cotton is an example of fudging with Nature) and the whole impact on land, water and air (the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by livestock is second only to the industrial gaseous effluents) are somethings that we need to closely monitor and perhaps make it mandatory to publish on the packaging. That wouldn't be of any use for packaged meats though a picture of the dead animal (whose meat looks so cutely pink) on the package might be good.

Processing food is not merely a matter of how as hinted above, but how we do things based on our ignorance. The way we whiten rice or manufacture all-purpose flour would reveal that our fancy for things white and clean make us lose a lot of nutrients (and they are simply washed away). Bigger tomatoes and potatoes don't matter. Smaller ones grown properly are tastier though of course you need to peel more of them for the same meal. Do not buy canned fruits and vegetables. They taste horrible.

You might wonder (as I did) how can this be avoided as long as we need to feed so many mouths. I will address this in another post, so please bear with me. Let us look into our buying habits and wastage.

Most people in the city prefer buying at the supermarkets. I do too because I can accomplish a lot in one trip and the best looking girls are there! But these are for emergency purposes only (to me). I always prefer buying at the mandis (the Indian equivalent of buying from a farmers' market to collective in the US or UK). Not only is it cheaper they are fresher and one can buy them in good quantities. Circumstances have left me with a separate refrigerator for my veggies. So I stock them in there and I don't visit a market for the next 2-3 weeks. I would prefer making the trip every week but logistics is an issue. Buy fresh vegetables from the farmers or farmers' union store them well and use them judiciously.

I overcook (somehow a whole wok full of coloured delicacies soothes me more than just a quarter full) and we have constraints on what can and cannot be stored in the fridge. But most often we would carry over to the next day. Do not throw away food. Feed a dog or the birds in the park. If the quantity is good and can be parceled, ask your maid if she would like to have some/all. We have some traditional recipes (so reducing wastage and recycling is very much in our culture and has been around for a few decades, at least) to utilise the greens and tubers that remain. One fantastic dish my mom makes (which my sister is crazy about) is the yericcha kuzhambu (burnt kuzhambu). I don't know the recipe and I think it is something made extempore (with some basic guidelines in place).

Another reason to avoid supermarkets is the amount of food they waste. WRAP recently published a report which estimated the food wasted (simply dumped) to be about 4.8 million tonnes per year. Do you realise how much people in Somalia would bless you for passing this same food on to them? Every year! No, this is not humbug. I referred to this link for an idea.

Since commencing her EU mission, HMS Northumberland has safely escorted a total of 43,743.92 tonnes of assorted relief food, carried on six vessels over three different voyages. According to the World Food Programme, the above quantity of food will feed 2,550,000 people for a month.

That is 2.55 million people's requirement for a month. UK alone wastes 100 times that amount per year!! Mind you, 4.8 million tonnes is the usable portion of the 17 million tonnes that is actually wasted! If we could only manage the 17 million tonnes well enough and channelise them to places where people are hungry, we would have a huge problem solved. But we cannot afford to live consciously as it is not profitable and it will not give us the sense of being superior.

What has all this got to do with Conscious Living? So much that we think it is a totally different and disconnected concern. Food is what people need (we can do without iPods and F1 racing). To be able to create them in a manner that doesn't destroy the fertility of this earth, doesn't ruin the air around us or pollute the water bodies on and below the surface of the earth is being conscious about how we produce our food. To assume that we can go on and on producing any quantity and hoard is being irresponsible. To think that we can change Nature and consider Nature stupid to have produced crops and pests alongside as well as seasonal crops (as in, why should I wait for the next crop cycle) is a typical trait of one who cannot think beyond his immediate wants (more, more, more) and conveniences (I should just have this rice which never dies). That is not living consciously. To treat animals as if they were created only to be lanced by our forks and spoons is immature and very self-centered. We can also be their food and they have every right to enter our homes and attack us and eat us. To protect the human race at any cost and treat the rest of the Earth and its inhabitants as variegated Granola bars is myopic and extremely destructive if not vulgar and outright barbaric. Whom we call barbarians were only so in matters of modern etiquette and in figuring out whether the fork should be to the right or left. They were genuine citizens of this world in taking only that much from Nature as they could return. Then greed and insensitivity crept in. Man lost all value for wisdom and kept manufacturing at a breakneck speed. We will surely not suffer any of the consequences of this mindlessness. Our grandchildren will and if you care only for yourself and your families, then please realise that Conscious Living is a focused effort to making life easier for your grandchildren (your family). This is not about caring for the child in Darfur (and you would only be human if you did care about that little one there) but about your own family. If you do not believe in expanding your circle of concern, so be it, but at least care about your grandchildren and the world you are going to leave behind for them. Shouldn't you pass on the best genes to them. Eat properly, then. Eat consciously. Live Consciously.

Allow me to summarise this rather large post.

Summary:

1. Eat just enough to last till the next meal
   
2. Eat mostly plants
3. Eat seasonal
   
4. If you must eat animals, be fair to them. Give them a chance to fight for their lives. Look into their eyes when you hunt them.
   
5. Cook slowly and carefully
6. Eat fresh. Canned food is not food.
7. Preferably buy your veggies and grains from the farmers
8. Plan your meal such that there are no leftovers
9. Buy only as much as you think you can eat (and deduct 20% on that estimate before buying)
10. Pass excess food on to others who need them. Don't be insecure.
11. Make it a point to visit or learn about the manufacturing process of the stuff you eat. By keeping it simple (veggies, grains, legumes, salt, spices, etc.) you need to spend less time on this.
12. Try and enjoy at least one meal in a day
13. Eat slowly
14. Introduce colour and variety in your meals
    
15. Exercise but do not adopt fad diets

I can never understand the excuse of people being so busy that they can't cook a proper meal. Would you give the same excuse for doing your job properly (that you were too busy to do it properly)? Please hire a cook, at least. If you cannot slow down to the point when you can live consciously, then why bother living and in a variety of ways create problems or support the destructive agents?

I urge every reader of this blog post to buy a copy of Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. If you find it too expensive, drop by and we can discuss the book.

Links: (I am not annotating them. Perhaps I will over time)
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/Food-policy-expert-fears-impact-of-nutrient-profiling
http://www.wrap.org.uk/
http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series7/supermarket_landfills.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3560306/Don't-blame-supermarkets-for-food-waste.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/campaigns/sustainable-agriculture
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/oct/12-man-who-aims-to-feed-humanity.s-future
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7791854.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7753267.stm
http://www.frenchentree.com/france-food-cuisine/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=3033
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1527738.ece
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/5-reasons-not-to-shop-in-supermarkets/271

ps: Please forgive typos (if any) in this post. This was written in one sitting and the mind can only be this alert... Do let me know if you find any.