What is Happiness? Understanding Happiness

I was about to start out writing: "As Aristotle said, " and realised that nearly everyone is tickling him in his grave (but then he was cremated, wasn't he?) when they start talking about happiness. Tonnes of people define happiness as this or that. Some try to measure it, some brush it off as incapable of measure. The gurus and priests define happiness as the complete surrender to this or that deity. A successful businessman calls it achieving ones ambitions. A sportsperson thinks it is winning races and setting records. A writer thinks it is winning the Nobel Prize and being featured in every list of the "Best Books for...". Artists are mostly narcissists so they will always want to get more. Then there are the feel-good guys who live off self-help books and cliches making statements like "being able to do something for someone and not expect something in return." Excuse me? How about loaning all your money to the slums of Bombay? No tax benefit! No citation! No mention in any newspaper! Forgotten and un-thanked! Yeah, right! And what if there is no one around you wanting your assistance? You'll never be happy? Aristotle had his views on happiness and so did Epicurus, but then, so does everybody.

Happiness, unlike calculus, doesn't require a foundation in order to be vivisected. Everyone in their first class of psychology has some answer to "What is happiness?" while everyone in their first class in operating systems has little to no appreciation of the LRU algorithm. We all think that we are entitled to an opinion about such a commonly existing facet of life. The problem lies in getting lost in the various forms of human response and the various states of being human which seem to confuse happiness with satisfaction, solace, adapting etc. Hence, the responses to "What is happiness?" which talk about achievement and attaining something are less about happiness and more about satisfaction and sense of worth.

Satisfaction is primarily an instance of stimulus-response. I see pizza, I want, I get and I am happy. There is always a want underlying the possibility of satisfaction. When the great monks of Mystic Mountain say that want (and its more determined cousin: desire) is the root of all unhappiness, they probably were being too strict, but there is a grain of truth. For instance, I want a lifetime membership to Mystic Mountain, but membership is not available in the manner we can understand so that leaves me anxious (or maybe not, because I am still trying to understand anxiety). Once I get it, I am satisfied or maybe not like the chef of a famous French restaurant who wanted to desperately get a Michelin star and slogged day and night but once he got it, he didn't feel the elation he thought he would because he started wondering "If I could get it then perhaps most others can too. Hence, this is not something worth seeking in the first place." Hence, my advice to people: Never say "The food was wonderful" to a French chef; always keep frowning in a French restaurant.

Here are two thoughts that I am going to elaborate on (and I am notorious for the elaboration bit):

1. Happiness is that whole-bodied state of being which raises us to our higher Self through an experience or realisation which is timeless.
2. Happiness is inversely proportional to the distance between our expectations and what life deals out to us.

The sharp-eyed reader would immediately note that these are two levels of what is conceived as happiness. Well, yes. (2) addresses what the unconscious man perceives as happiness and once he is conscious and fully aware (not just of himself) then there are no expectations and hence the distance becomes zero and therefore the possibility of a "whole-bodied state of being which raises us to our higher Self through an experience or realisation which is timeless" is higher.

I say "higher" and not permanent because the whole notion of always being in a state of happiness is, I think, an Utopian ideal which causes greatest unhappiness. As the human beings we are, we cannot always be happy (hence, Ugway was not a human being but a turtle). We shall soon evolve to understanding the notion of permanence in happiness.

In a later post, I will reflect on the question of "How can I be happy?". I will restrict my thoughts, in this post, to the understanding of happiness itself. Perhaps in that understanding the aforementioned question is laid redundant and pointless?

Momentary joy or convenience is like a puff of asthma medicine: it doesn't cure but provides a relief. Relief is an escape though not all escape is bad (like in the case of asthma). Psychological escape is nearly always shallow. Our inability to enter a state of happiness and joy is the reason why we need American Idol and drugs and Deepak Chopra. We fill our minutes with entertainment and intoxicants (of various kinds) because we do not know how to be happy. A person who is happy will not seek out entertainment. A person who is happy with himself or his family will not be club-hopping. So pleasures, entertainment, ephemeral joys etc. are not indicators of what makes one happy. They are indicators of what we employ to escape the need to recognise that we are unhappy.

People often believe that helping others, forgiving others, reaching out to others or as the quote at the outset said "being able to do something for someone and not expect something in return" are similar sources of "high"s. They aren't what make people happy. They are what make an individual satisfied or pleased with themselves. Why is it that no one recommends seeking help and donations as a source of happiness? Because it creates a sense of being at the mercy of others or being dependent on others. Hence, the opposite is better, viz. bringing other people to your mercy and generosity. To me these are parasitical entertainment: entertainment which requires the existence of a less privileged person whom I can shine on and implicitly establish that I am holier than thou.

Several people say that happiness is about having a good family, good health, good wealth and the like. The problem is in defining "good". No man is ever without a disease. No man has ever had a family where the wife has had no problems or the children, difficulties. Setting our expectations really low seems to be a trick solution but that assumes that we think we can trick Fate. Even if you do not believe in Fate, you have to accept that your definition of good which said "no uncommon illness" takes a massive beating when you are suddenly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. There are no causes per se. You have nothing to blame. But you still have it in your pancreas.

Reconciling or seeing the silver lining is our response to the lack of fulfilment of our expectations. You wouldn't search for a silver lining in a silver bowl filled with diamonds! I think this simply keeps us comfortable in our state of having expectations and then tricking the "system" by finding alternate explanations with a smug grin which says "Gotcha! You can't make me unhappy!" This is the worst form of ignorance and stupidity and is frankly no different from the drugs people take. Damn! I failed my exams, let me sniff some dope, Aaaaah! feels so much better. I am happy. See? You can't make me unhappy! Hence, I hate the Chicken Soup Chronicles.

But we are human. We will always have expectations and wants and desires. Do you think we should all become robots wanting only to be charged occasionally and maybe given an extra jab of memory once in a while? Well, no! Unless you fancy moving around with jerks and swivels. I really loved those dance moves of several years ago with forearm going up followed by a bend at the hip and then back up and a twist and the next arm going up and... no, not the usual Sunny Deol dance routine!

Expectations spring from our sense of what should be. We are here and we should be there so let us get there. The expectation is to reach there. I earn $3000 a month - I think $10000 is a respectable number - I set expectations of earning $10000 someday. As one might note, such expectations keep shifting which motivational gurus call "setting the bar higher" and what I call chasing a moving truck's tail-light. Perhaps that is what makes a writer want to be popular, win awards, win international fame, the Nobel Prize, more fame, etc. This route implies that happiness is never attained as the place where you thought you would find it has now moved to Miami.

But isn't expectation the foundation of all progress? Isn't it the bedrock of all industry and technological advancement? If we recognise the difference between need and expectation we can brush off most of that. We need some way to preserve our food from decay, hence we invent the refrigerator and manufacture it on assembly lines: not expectation. Expectation is primarily a psychological driver.

Ok, then isn't personal growth the result of expectation? Isn't all individual advancement based on expectation? Should we drop expectations and stagnate where we are? Dropping expectations as a intellectual decision is bound to lead to stagnation. Not so if we understand how progress can be achieved without expectations. Here is where I would turn to Nature. No tree grew out of expectations, no beautiful cherry blossom became so out of expectation and no cat elegant from a pining to be so. Predators are not powerful because they expect to become so and preys are not alert because they expect to be so. Nature grows and progresses organically and effortlessly and that is a powerful foundation for growth. A man who can organically perfect his trade and develop it will grow too. Great poets have lived and walked this Earth without expecting to become poets. Emily Dickenson is one such example. I have personally known artists who simply enjoyed their art and "grew" in their own style.

It is when our sense of growth is derived from outside that our expectations morph into what others expect of us or of the ideal person as defined by others. To learn from the world is not inappropriate but to hitch our wagon to the motivations of the world is a definite recipe for being unhappy. The flip side is an adamance to refuse all rightness and goodness that should percolate into our bubble of focus and growth.

Which brings me to my buzzword of this year (and I think the rest of my life): Rightness. Happiness is essentially impossible in the life of a self which hasn't understood and realised Rightness. Let me create a life (in words) to understand how Rightness is vital.

A young man qualifies himself based on what he thinks the market wants. He gets himself a good job. He seems to be happy before he starts getting bored. He engages in his hobbies, going to movies and CCD with his friends. He hopes to get a girlfriend to fill the emptiness in his life. He decides to buy a car for convenience and as a symbol of growing. He switches jobs, moves cities, makes new friends, thinks he is in love and loves his new 42" plasma TV.

All the while he feels that he is happy before he realises that he is not and "something is missing". He joins the Art of Living course (and this is where I begin to avoid him) and thinks it is ok. He reads Deepak Chopra and other great gurus (and I am beginning to avoid him more). He talks to his friends and is fine when he seems to have achieved all that they have or more and is immediately disappointed when he learns that his junior in college is already married with a swanky pad in uptown Delhi (if there are such parts). He is still living on rent in a 1BHK (because living with other boys is not what people at his level of growth do). He meets people who seem to have found their perfect job. He reads about those guys who quit their PhD and became a mechanic or a guy who had a great job as a writer before leaving it all and going off to Japan (and also finding his love) and feels miserable for not having anything like that in his life. He meets an old friend who has a similar job and a decent wife and 2 playful kids and wonders why he didn't get that (hint: he didn't marry). He returns home and receives news about his bonus and is happy. He take a few friends out for dinner at the new Chinese restaurant and the meal is great. He calls home and his folks are happy and his mother suggests that they can now conduct his sister's marriage with some more style. He is happy and says "Of course, anything for Guddi." He is happy now and sleeps well.

A few days later he Skypes with a friend who tells him how much fun it is working in Vienna and how he should get out of stuffy India and explore the world. He opens his trunk full of pictures and news clippings of various places in the world and sighs deeply. He realises that he is bored with his work (as in, who wouldn't be entering data and filling out forms and conducting meetings?). He speaks to his sweetheart who sympathises with him and he feels better. He decides to apply abroad, does so and eventually reaches London where he has a similar job. The environment is different. He makes new friends, buys a lot of cool stuff (which you don't get back home) and is enjoying himself. After a few months, he misses home, is bored with his job, goes to pubs with his friends and comes back home to his wife (oh! yes, he is married now).

I could go on but it wouldn't help beyond this point. This is pretty much how life is for nearly 80-90% of people whom I have met. Some go on achieving whatever they plan for and everyone assumes they are hence, happier. Some don't and everyone assumes they are less happy.

Compare this to a guy who goes through the usual college and job days and one day realises that all that he has is a bunch of activities, some nice and pleasurable, some not so nice and not so pleasurable. So he sits down under a mango tree (because the chance of something nasty falling down from great heights is lesser and usually whatever falls is tasty) and puts things in front of him. He starts looking at his life and wonders what is he doing. What is his real self in all of this? What is it that makes him happy (or makes him think so)? What are the things that he cannot stand? He watches his entire life (so far) and looks deep within. As he grows familiar with himself, he recognises the truth of things and his actions. He recognises how much he let the outside world influence him and how much he avoided meeting his inner self. He is more comfortable with his individual self and is able to listen better. No, this is not something that can be done in 10 minutes of your lunch break. Once he is more comfortable with his self, he is guided by it and hence, proceeds on a life which is in tune with his entire being. As he lives this visceral truth he begins understanding the way of life itself and the illusory nature of wanting Happiness forever at all times. He starts recognising the inevitability of mishaps and annoying incidents. When someone cuts through the queue and buys a ticket out of turn he does get angry. When someone cheats in an exam and passes, he is annoyed. Over time he recognises it is unfairness and deception and cruelty and indecency that annoy him and not the individuals per se. When someone uproots his saplings and runs away he builds a better fence. He doesn't allow for such incidents to bother him for long. Gradually he faces the part of his self that is annoyed and disturbed by such incidents around him and understand what in him causes that reaction. He begins to connect more with the Divine and in the process is able to realise the wholeness of things. He is still doing work that he enjoys (be it by giving up his PhD or shifting to Japan). He is still connected to people of all kinds but he is no longer dependent on them and hence, their actions leave lesser imprint on his mind and life. When someone cheats him and gets away with it, he is able to see how this piece fits into the entirety of things and is able to act accordingly (lodge a complaint with the police or not bother). When he finds a job unsatisfactory he is able to realise it, drop it and accept another job which is in tune with his being (might be a mechanic's job or a writer's or a banker's). When he find a person poisonous he is aware as he is with an ingenuous person. In being like water, he is not cut by any sword.

People ask him whether he is happy and he says "I am" and they think he meant "I am happy". He probably meant "I, simply, am".

For it is impossible to be happy (as we commonly define it) for long. We keep altering that definition based on circumstances and knowledge. With such a shifting definition of happiness, it is impossible to realise it as a permanent fixture because it is in our frame of ignorance and inadequate knowledge.

The only way to be is either in ignorance or in union with the Tao. To others, being one with the Tao might mean being happy (though the cynical few might scoff and feel that such a man is without a car or delicious caviar or has never been to Vegas, which is true). The sage is neither happy nor unhappy as they are not qualities that exist in that realm. Ignorance breeds a sense of happiness or unhappiness and we might find means to escape from one for a long period of time. He can keep frowning all the time but still be one with the Tao and hence neither happy nor unhappy or both. He could well be smiling. He approves of nothing nor disapproves of anything because he is aware. He is useless and in that, he useful to the Tao. He tills the soil and takes the grain to the market. He doesn't cease to wash himself or his clothes. He eats his meals as per the needs of the body and not in need for an experience.

All this is fine you say (actually, I say) but we are not sages. We don't wish to be sages. We wish to enjoy the possibility of this world. Why shouldn't we? We wish to eat at the best restaurants and wear the finest threads and ensure that our money is not stolen. We do not wish to be paupers just to avoid being thieved. We do not wish to remain clerks in an office. We want to become officers and more because we are capable of it. We want to have children because we are virile.

But that is not what I say (though you say it). A sage is not one without experience and growth but one whose experience and growth stems from a source which is not a mere decision. In building his foundation on the Tao he is without reaction (which is creating expectations based on one's capabilities), whereas those who base their life on wants and desires will perhaps get it (and be satisfied) or not (and hence, feel dejected). He is in the flow of the Universe and hence has nothing to gain or lose. You, on the contrary, will have a lot to lose and gain and hence, be happy or sad in varying proportions. In standing up against Fate you have greater disappointments and agony. By walking with Fate, the sage has nothing to feel disappointed about. You have memories to recall when you were happy. He has none. You have moments in your life you wish you could wipe out. He has none. No, he doesn't have amnesia, too.

For everyone who is not a sage, happiness is a random occurrence. You might think that you are currently happy because you planned on all the things in your life which led to this happiness (you slogged in college, worked hard, invested wisely, bought conveniences which help make life simpler and so much more better) but the lack of any disruption during the course of your life is what makes your happiness random. There are thousands of people in the US today who can claim the same energy and effort but their wealth is all gone now. They aren't happy. There is no difference between their lives and yours except for the chance timing of misfortune. You might find happiness in walking along a lake or through the woods, but what happens when you return home? What happens when you return to work the next day? What happens when your child meets with an accident? As long as happiness is the absence of misfortune and mishaps, so long it will continue to be a random occurence. The minute one is comfortable with that, a search for happiness is futile in its intent. One can only look inwards and that would (possibly) lead you to becoming a sage which you are not interested in.

Hence, happiness boils down to the prolonged recurrence of convenient events and incidents, not requiring us to face challenges which do not give us a high or sense of achievement, not to mention the absence of misfortune and mishaps. To some it is good family, good health and good wealth (convenience), to some it is leading organisations to making more profit(convenience + achievement), to some it is building a railroad system (yes, I am referring to you Ms. Taggart). Given that it is so random, pinning our entire purpose of being on it seems wasteful. Still we do.

Even for those who wish to remain non-sages, the answer to the question of "What is happiness?" is personal and hence, has to be framed based on one's own wants and desires. In order to make that longer lasting, those wants and desires would need to be based on a better understanding of our motive forces which requires introspection and a deeper understanding of oneself.

How, then, can one expect a generic answer (except for the one I gave in the previous paragraphy which sounds cynical)? Still, we ask ourselves that and we discuss it with others. We would like to be happy now and not in 30 years from now. We want to check-in to great hotels and buy tickets to that rock concert (seriously? And you still wonder why you aren't happy?). We still want to be rich and famous. Honestly, so do I. Well, all the best.

PhD Management Ranking - 2009

Financial Times published their global MBA ranking early this year. I had done a similar massaging of the numbers last year to arrive at what could possibly represent a decent PhD ranking. My motives remain the same though the formula I have adopted is perhaps different. Below is the result of a rather jobless evening!

Rankings make sense only till 83 as the ones beyond that probably don't offer a PhD programme. I have given the highest weight to the Doctoral Ranking though the ranking over the past 3 years and this years (in decreasing order of weight) have been given importance too. Hence, Manchester doesn't rank above MIT Sloan (for instance). In this sense, I believe that the ranking below is a better representation of a decent PhD ranking. Other columns (other than the country and univ. name!) have also been given importance. Haas beats Erasmus because its research ranking is better. INSEAD is lower than Man-U because its Doctoral ranking is bad although its ranking in 2009 and the past 3 years is good. Tepper goes down because its 2009 and 3-year-avg are low and its research ranking is poor too. If you find a discrepancy which is too irrational, then do let me know.

So, why am I doing this? If you searched for PhD Management Ranking in Google, my blog shows up in the top few results. The others are not offering good data (except phds.org and even there the results don't seem to tally with FT.com). Hence, if there are people out there searching for this info and they seem to like what they found on the previous post (and hence the high ranking of that page) then they might find the 2009 thingy also useful. Alright, I seem to have lost track of what was it that compelled me to write this post!

(Click on the image below and don't strain your eyes)

Prospective Adults

My past few weeks have been happily spent with my nephew who has a world of his own and a logic to match. Here are some of his conversation snippets:

Nephew: That is why I love you?
Sis: Why?
N: Because you stick things for me (she was fixing the broken trunk of his elephant)
S: And if I didn't?
N: Even then.

(I have to be technically correct and saying "small" to a little boy is technically invalid)
Me: When you were smaller I used to sing this song for you and put you to sleep.
(He listens for a while)
N: But I am not feeling sleepy
Me: If you were to lie down and close your eyes and let me pat you, then you would fall asleep.
N: I would sleep anyway then. Is that Krishna's flute? (noting the flute played in the background score of the song)

N: Paati, I am going to see black Ganapati (that's his favourite temple near our house). I will be sitting there. You come whenever you want to.
(All of us simply shake our head while he walks out. In a while he returns)
N: I will leave my crocs here.
Sis: Why?
N: What if I leave it there and when I am talking to black Ganapati, someone steals it? (seriously? your size?)

And I could go on listing the funny things he says throughout the day. We play this game where there is an imaginary TV and he has the remote. He says "click" (more like "chuck") and I am supposed to act like as if I am watching the TV (enacted by my giving running commentary about the Tom & Jerry cartoon that is supposedly playing) and he says "click" again and I am supposed to cry and whine that I do not get time to watch TV etc. The irony is that this game started when I was mocking the way he would cry every time my mother changed channels to her serials (I am glad he hasn't taken a fascination for them) and he found it more funny than mocking! Since then, the game stuck.

A few weeks ago and on several earlier instances, I had had a chance to discuss the approach we take with children and their behaviour and how it compares with our response to adult behaviour. A common comment one hears is "Children are so innocent and pure and selfless". It might seem funny that I would object to all of that (to varying degrees) especially after taking no pains to hide the extent to which I love children.

Children are innocent in as far as their intentions go but they are not innocent in achieving their ends. Observe a child and how s/he knows exactly whom to ask for that extra piece of chocolate or how to ask (big eyes, cute cuddles, maybe a tear or two). When one carefully observes children (and I have enjoyed doing that) one finds it difficult to deny that children are the prototypes of what adults become. Let me present my arguments (if you are still around reading this blasphemous piece by someone who calls himself a child lover). Towards the end, you might also find reasons as to why we still stick to them and allow ourselves to be blinded.

Children (let us restrict ourselves to ages 0-10) are considered to be innocent, selfless, loving and creative. They are also considered to be noisy, pesky, cantankerous and always the first one to pick (and drop) your most precious China. Children are never selfless. Frankly, they are the most selfish forms of human beings. They do not care for the situation and/or circumstance: they want their meal now, they want their sleep now, they want you to pick them up now! That is not being selfish? What is? I thought selfish meant the following:

devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Doesn't that sound just like that 1 year old you met? No doubt, they are without defense and hence, need to be looked after and protected and nurtured. But does it make them more considerate? Understanding? And I would request all moms reading this to not start out with "My little boy is surely not selfish! How rude!" If there is any mother out there who has never lost her cool or corrected her child's behaviour even once during the first 7 years of her child, then I would wonder how she defines "selfish".

Children cannot be reasoned with beyond a point. Rationality doesn't work with them - stories do, exaggerated expressions do, lies do. All that we present even to adults only to have other adults call us schemers or liars. We say "come on, a child cannot be expected to understand". Well, my manager also said "come on, you cannot expect all men to be objective and understand everything without an ego". That is one thing children do not have very much, because they are vulnerable and have pure needs. Since they need food (and cannot procure it themselves let alone prepare it) they will dissolve their feuds with you. Since they are not comfortable with themselves and cannot even imagine being in a room all by themselves for more than 10 sec (without Cartoon Network), they will drop all grievances. Adults do that too when they stand in a long queue in a government office. They too request the officer "to forgive them and let bygones be bygones" but we hold on to our cribs; kids usually do not since their memory is not entirely that sharp. I have observed that children who are fed and surrounded by people will not hesitate to throw a tantrum or act insolent. They can get away with it till the next meal and as long as someone else is willing to pamper them. Hence, the common theory that children in houses where the grandparents reside tend to be a little more bratty (but the best thing about children is that they throw all generalisations into the dustbin).

Children are creative perhaps after a certain age. They are open to being wrong and hence, are without the inhibitions that prevent creativity from surfacing. That doesn't make all of them creative. I have known and seen kids simply doing nothing more than what was required to get them what they wanted. Kids sitting at home because it was extremely hot outside don't create new games - they watch Cartoon Network or Nick or (nowadays) get on the Internet. Even when we open our gates wider and be more tolerant, we can only observe creativity in children in matters where they associate two thing which we would never have. This come more out of ignorance and the comfort in being wrong (as mentioned earlier). A child will tap his spoons on upturned buckets because kids like noise and not because he is a rudimentary Mozart. Kids love noise and mess and bear hugs. They love attention, too. If a kid goes about smearing the wall with a lot of crayons that's because they love the mess that comes with it. They don't care about colour synchrony or shapes and sizes or even meaning. They love the opportunity to smear red over a clean wall and then blue and then throw some water on all of it and then shoe polish (and maybe even taste it a bit). Give a child a sheet of paper and lots of crayons, and the child is mostly likely going to "draw" a lot of circles, then dashes and then dizzying circles till the paper tears or the crayons break or both.

Perhaps when they are 5 and above they do manage to be creative. What is wrong in calling children creative? Nothing. So are adults. No, no, no, adults might be creative but they are also very destructive, hence their creativity is balanced by the destructive nature (because of insecurity, want for power, etc.) unlike kids who are purely creative and hence, score more points. Well, not really. You probably should meet kids!

Kids are instinctively destructive. A lot of their destructive nature is borne on clumsiness and also on their inclination to not care (which to me is the single greatest cause for destruction: Nazis didn't care about the Jews, the Americans didn't care about the civilians in Japan, no soldier cares about the enemy, no religious fanatic cares about the spiritual and/or philosophical inclinations of another). They don't care how much you value your crystal. They do not know or care that water in the Bose speaker system is not funny (though the sounds thereafter might seem so). You can tell them a hundred times not to bounce the ball off the glass of the shelves but they still might. They might sit on your spectacles because they were lost in ninja Hatori's jump across buildings.
I would urge readers to read the book Lord of the Flies (I finally discovered my lost copy of the book: now I have two copies). Golding weaves a remarkable tale about a band of boys stranded on an island and the dynamics between them. There is this scene where Jack tries to establish his supremacy because he can hunt and kill pigs. Their chant repulsed me the first time I read it. Perhaps they fall outside the age range of years stated at the outset.

I have observed children grab another kid's toy or break toys or bang anything they can hold in their hands, to the ground. Children like noise though grabbing another kid's toys is more than just noise. I do not wish to psychoanalyse kids but their acquisitive nature is obvious in nearly all of their interactions and actions. My friend's daughter demands to be the first one to be fed and will not accept anyone receiving their order (at a restaurant) without giving her one spoon of the dish. This might sound like an exception, but most children demonstrate similar traits in different contexts. It might be with toys, attention, food or the TV!

No one teaches them to break and children do not learn after having cracked their first bowl. They will still go ahead and break something else. Perhaps not intentionally but sometimes just because the thing can break. Children love to take things apart. My colleague has had his laptop keyboard replaced several times. Keys simply go missing! So, in their own way, children are destructive. They do not know of a city beyond their house and if they do, they do not think in terms of conquering that city (because their parents give them whatever they want). My nephew once invited another kid to play with him and hugged him. That boy freaked out and ran away. My nephew, being the element he is, began chasing him. The other kid lost his balance and fell so my nephew went over to help him. That kid not knowing what to do to get rid of this boy, bit him really hard on his stomach. My nephew came back crying with red teeth marks around his navel (calamine lotion helps). Both of them were probably 3 years old.

Children are vulnerable and hence, they cling on to adults (usually parents). They cannot dream of a day without them. The sudden absence of the mother or father creates in them a panic attack and they cry inconsolably. If children had their parents around, they do not bother about others. It doesn't matter whether someone is around or not. Love, doesn't exist in such an environment. It sounds harsh to say that children perhaps don't love, but love is a very different state which is not a need based or fear based response. My nephew doesn't love me. He enjoys his time with me and loves it when I animate his book reading sessions. He loves it when I crush him and cover him with kisses. He loves it when I play Kwala and Boowa with him. I don't think he loves anyone other than his mother and in some instances, his father. He does love black Ganpati, though! I don't blame him nor do I feel disappointed. I simply cannot expect a child to be capable of love. A child is capable of being simple and loves to be cuddled (or any other physical contact which, sadly, adults grow to dishonour). But love is too strong a state for them. In order to love, they would need to be conscious and that they are not capable of. The really sharp ones manage to be aware but their awareness is most often focused on signals and indicators for their purpose.

Which brings us to the last post to topple - innocence. That they are. They will trust you and say things as they happened only till they realise that such a family of "things" seem to get dad angry. So they start hiding their occurrences or lie about them. Innocence definitely was there at the outset, but then there are a lot of adults who are innocent till they learn action-reward-punishment patterns. A young researcher might feel that it is ok to discuss his findings with anyone till he learns that plagiarism is rife in the academic circles. A fledgling lawyer (and you could read Sidney Sheldon's Rage of Angels) might believe that everyone will argue only based on facts till he meets his first opponent who "creates" facts. Why! I too believed what people said until I realised that people have every right to go back on their word. Few friends thought I was innocent, but most people thought I was plain stupid.

Since a child has more "new events" and lesser "experience" s/he appears innocent. It would be like subjecting an uneducated man to a crossword puzzle and then calling his attempts as "innocent". Once a child learns that mommy doesn't like spilt milk, he will wipe all the spilt milk and claim that he drank it all. A child who knows that daddy will not like it if he found out who tore his office papers will rush into bed and act like he is sleeping, or stand in a corner scared till mommy comes and scolds daddy for being so harsh on the kid "all for a piece of useless office paper". The kid then knows that going to mommy will save him. Adults do that too. Tarzan, brought up as an animal, would appear innocent to most people in the city (because he doesn't care what he wears and willingly hands over the gold watch to someone who promised him to get it polished) but if he knows an action will get him his Jane, he will do it. Innocence vanishes where there is knowledge and the ability to extrapolate. Children are gaining knowledge and hence, appear innocent. A new programmer or a janitor faced with the task of getting this new cleaning contraption to work, might also appear innocent.

Innocence is the trait of all individuals who do not possess knowledge. Children start out without any knowledge just like villagers who enter the big city. How many movies were made on that theme! Raj Kapoor in India lived off the character of the village bumpkin in nearly all his movies. So yes, children are by default innocent but that trait is not unique to them and they don't cling to it if it causes them any trouble. When people say that "innocence dies as children grow up" it would be equally valid to say "a freshman's innocence vanishes as he becomes a senior".

So what keeps us going on and wanting kids? Hope. That is all that we have and so powerful is its promise that we are willing to go through all the hell (and beauty) that a child can create simply to realise the hope that we would nurture and rear a decent human being, someone who will make us proud, someone who will be our support when we need one, someone who will someday love us the way we did, not looking at any of our (mis)deeds as selfish, destructive, hopeless or pointless. It is merely hope and occasionally the opportunity to love someone without their realising how vulnerable we let ourselves be (for true love will strip you mercilessly) that let's us view these prospective adults as children, a different sub-specie of human beings with the wonderful qualities of selflessness, creativity, love and innocence. Or maybe, as the lady says in the movie Ghost in the Shell, it is our obsessions with creating androids/dolls that leads us to procreation!

Zen Koan - Fame

The sun glowed gently, tip-toeing over leaves sleeping alongside the dew on them. A ladybird whirled in confusion as every dew drop yawned a golden sun of its own. One of the suns joined another, stretching lazily towards yet another, little suns merging into bigger ones before they all dragged them to the tip of a leaf and threatened to drop the sun to the earth where it would be lost forever in a puddle of slush. The leaf arched its spine to let these ephemeral playmates negotiate deals.
A little more, and Shushu would be happy. Shushu watches the drop buoy in mid-air before raising her well-licked paw to catch it. She runs her tongue over her paw and flutters her neck to warm herself. Her erect tail strikes a branch and the tree punishes her with a torrent of cold wetness. Shushu meows sharply and runs into the kitchen.
The students had already risen before the first rays touched the peak of Mount Sukai. They rushed to prepare the water for the teachers. They threw twigs at Shushu to drive her away from their path of early morning scurry.
Yasuhiro-san watched the sun scrape himself against the back of Mount Sukai and emerge well-polished. He smiled and had his tea when he heard someone's geta click lightly on the lowest step to his house. Such are the virtues of being the lowest that music is created only there, thought the great master to himself. The footsteps brought no threat to his doorstep so he continued sipping his tea.
Young Takayuki wasn't certain whether his intrusion would be entertained. After all, he had graduated from the school several years ago and one only returned to donate, teach or admit one's son for studies. He had made enough money, but a donation wouldn't help him now. He was not willing to teach as to become a teacher was to accept that one couldn't be successful in the vast world outside. He had no offspring to nudge along the path to any school.
The master turned around slowly and watched Takayuki-san hesitate at the threshold.
"Takayuki-san? It has been years now! Please do come in."
"Good morning, Yasuhiro-sensei! I am extremely sorry for arriving unannounced and as little benefit to the school."
"Can a rose ever lend its red to the plant?"
"And thus a plant lives on, while roses are crushed in vain love!"
"Bravo! You haven't lost your touch. Such delight is sufficient wealth for this school's coffers. Come in and have tea with me. It is still warm and the chamomile has still not become translucent."
Takayuki-san bowed low and neatly folded his hakama under his knees before sitting in seiza. Yasuhiro-san noticed that the hakama extended the prescribed "exact two-fingers' length" from the knee. He smiled through unmoving lips at the effortlessness with which Takayuki-san achieved that position. They slowly sipped their tea allowing it to slide along the roof while the vapours hit the heavens of their head. Tea was not merely a beverage - it was the blood of refined souls. Yasuhiro-san was known throughout Gunma prefecture as "a man so fine, you could cut him to find silver-tip tea flowing through him".
"What ails you, Takayuki-san?"
The suddenness of the question forced him to gulp more tea than allowed.
"Nothing trivial could have brought you here and nothing mundane could force you to forget that one doesn't gulp tea! What is it?"
Takayuki-san carefully replaced the cup. He extracted a book from within his kimono.
"Yasuhiro-sensei, perhaps this is not worth your esteemed taste, but..."
"Your book? Aah! I have read it. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommended it to some of my friends too."
"Then you might like to keep this as a small gift from my side."
"You are very kind. Thank you!"
Yasuhiro-san opened it to the first page, read a little and then paginated randomly, reading a little more before shutting the book and placing it by his side.
"Last week, I had performed at the Kyoto concert. I had played the koto."
"You did? Wonderful! Many congratulations."
"As you know, I am working with Jurou-san in his textile mill. Here, I thought this fabric might suit your needs for an elegant kimono. Please do accept it."
Yasuhiro-san smiled and accepted the gift. He ran a finger through the layers and liked what he felt.
"Thank you. You are very generous."
"Sensei, please don't mistake me, but these were few things I genuinely wished to give you."
"I do not doubt your sincerity. Please go on."
"I am not sure what is wrong with my life!"
"You are rather strict, Takayuki-san. Another man, might consider himself gifted. Is your health not keeping you happy?"
"No, no. My health is fine and so is my digestion."
"You sleep well?"
"Fairly well, with dreams."
"Aah! You can make most of Japan envious. Why would you cast your life as wretched? Is there something you would like to do, which you aren't able to?"
"That is the source of all my pains! There is nothing that I am called upon to do, and that I have failed at."
"But you want something more?"
"No. I mean, yes. Why am I not famous?"
"Why?"
"Yes, why am I not famous? Children in my lane look at me with awe, but children here haven't even heard of me. My aunt wants to name her new born Takayuki but no guild names me as their president. I dance, I sing, I write, I paint, I have a vast garden, I make enough money, I am young, I can play 3 instruments, I am strong and can ride a horse, I can hold my sword well and for long in a duel, what more does one need to be famous?"
"And you still debate well, but to answer your question, I don't know, Takayuki-san. I haven't been famous and now I am too old to plan on becoming that."
"But you are famous, Yasuhiro-sensei. Everyone loves you and respects you."
"But I do nothing of what you do, how could I be famous?"
"You are wise and you teach in a manner which is unique. Hence, you are famous."
"Aah! If I remember that, I can never teach! Tell me, my boy, what really is the form of thorn that twists in your heart?"
"All that I create, sensei, seems to go waste."
"And when would it not?"
"When people recognise it, appreciate it, reward it, lift it up and place it on tall golden pedestals. When I become famous and I am known throughout lands far and wide and emperors invite me to their courts."
"Oh my! You are a creator. The only thing I create is tea, though I would give it up any day only if Kumiko-san would graciously move her house into the school. But jokes apart, your pains are less familiar to me. Perhaps we should meet Teruo-san and seek his help."
"Teruo-san? But he is mere myth."
"He is myth to those who'd rather wear myths as armours. Please have lunch with us. We shall leave thereafter."
Takayuki-san spent the rest of the morning worrying over whether he had done the right thing by coming to the school. He decided that he would be polite and live through his teacher's plan before consulting someone more experienced and successful than his teacher. Yasuhiro-san instructed a student on preparing luggage for two travellers with a light trek to be anticipated.
"And do not forget to pack 2 bundles of fine paper."
"And a brush and ink?"
"No, just paper."
After a filling lunch, they walked in the direction of the forests that covered Mount Sukai. They spoke about various matters and soon Takayuki-san forgot about his pressing concerns and spoke deeply and widely about nearly everything that lent itself to a conversation. The master didn't spare him a wicked minute which might return him to his earlier melancholy and introduced various topics and thoughts, goading Takayuki-san to continue his well-educated discussions. By the time they reached the wall of the mountain, Takayuki-san realised that his master probably knew all that he was speaking about and perhaps more. He suddenly became silent.
"Let us sleep here, by this wall, Takayuki-san. Tomorrow is another day."
"But do you know where Teruo-san lives?"
"Yes, I do. Very few know the way to his place."
They spread their rudimentary bed and stretched themselves on it.
"Isn't the night sky beautiful?"
"Yes, it is, sensei."
"A star wherever I look or a star's closed window."
"Ha ha ha. You could be poet, sensei. A quiet summer night - A star.. no... not like that,

A quiet summer night
Blowing on smouldering stars -
Some glow white, some black."

"Beautiful!"
"It is, isn't it? Oh! I have to write it down. Do you have a sheet of paper, sensei?"
"I have two bundles of paper."
"And brush?"
"No!"
"Nevermind, I can use the sap of a twig. Please allow me to borrow a sheet."
"No!"
Takayuki-san was taken aback.
"I am sorry, sensei. Did I offend you? Perhaps I have spoiled your sleep with my incessant talk."
"Not at all. I loved it and your haiku."
"But..."
"The paper is not for you. It is for Teruo-san. He needs it more than you."
"The ritual offering of paper to Teruo-san?"
"No, that is what people do. I give him sheets of paper occasionally so that he can create beauty."
"How come if he is the greatest writer in the world, no one has ever read anything of him?"
"Because he is the greatest creator amongst men."
"I don't understand."
"You might, later. For now, enjoy the stars and cool breeze."
Takayuki-san kept chanting his haiku. He simply had to remember it. He was sure this would win the Emperor's summer haiku competition. Yasuhiro-san smiled at the neighbouring drone of haiku and fell asleep.
Takayuki-san dreamt of white gazelles leaping through the bushes. Each one of them was a poem and fell on a harp which played them differently. He was seated in a swing and rose with the notes into the air to kiss clouds shying away from him. When he woke up, he remembered that he had called out to the birds and said "Come to me, for this is life. Let us all sing a rainbow and be happy."
"Slept well, Takayuki-san?"
Takayuki-san noticed that his teacher was already ready. He rose quickly and greeted his master. He went about his ablutions and returned to the spot where they slept. The wall of the mountain was no longer there, but now before him was a sinuous path.
"Master, what happened? Where is the wall of the mountain against which we slept?"
"This is the path to Teruo-san."
"But... how?"
"Well, if your soul feels that it should sing a rainbow and be happy, then the path to Teruo-san must emerge. After all, Teruo-san is only available when the soul seeks him."
Takayuki-san stared at his master and quietly collected his belongings. They trudged on silently before arriving at a cave. The cave glowed a sanguine warmth and Takayuki-san could hear someone recite poems inside. They stepped in to find an old man sitting behind a fire, reading from sheets of paper.

"Welcome, welcome, Yasuhiro-san. What a pleasure it is to have you here! I see you bring your student along."
"How are you, Teruo-san? You look more alive every time I meet you. And how did you guess he was my student?"
"You jest, don't you? Has anyone to think why it is always a rose that emerges from a rose bush? Please sit down. Please have some water."
He pointed to the stream flowing beside him and out of the cave. He returned to reading from his sheets of paper and when he was done, he tossed the papers into the fire.
"My name is Takayuki."
"Hello, I am Teruo."
"It is an honour to meet the greatest artist in person."
"How do you know I am the greatest when you haven't read a word of what I have created?"
Takayuki-san stared at his toes. Somehow he thought all of this to be a trick and the man in front of him to be some friend of his master. But, how did he know about his earlier comment about Teruo-san?
Teruo-san read another page and tossed it into the fire.
"That was a beautiful poem, don't you think so?" asked Takayuki-san.
"You tell me."
"I think it was very well structured and its form was just right. You don't approve of the author's works?"
Teruo-san and Yasuhiro-san smiled at each other.
"What is there to approve or disapprove of the author? I am interested in the poem. I like it, if you must know."
"But you threw it into the fire."
"Oh! That was because I have to keep the fire alive. There is no wood here and if I descend to collect wood, it would take so much time that I will return to a pile of cold ash. So I toss the papers in."
"But the author might complain."
"He doesn't."
It was then that it dawned on Takayuki-san.
"They are your poems!"
"Yes, indeed. Would you like to listen to another?"
"Most certainly."
Teruo-san spread a sheet between his fingers and proceeded to recite:

"The nightingale sings
To the gently dropping beats
Of falling flowers."

"Splendid! Splendid!"
"You like it?"
"This is most amazing. I love it."
"Thank you", said Teruo-san and dropped the sheet of paper into the fire.
"What!? Why did you throw it away?"
"Because the fire was dying. Without it, I will most certainly die. I have to keep feeding the fire else it will kill me. Which fire is more important? The one in front of me or the one that I imagine?"
"But the poem!?"
"Oh! I finished reciting it."
Yasuhiro-san stepped forward and said, "Teruo-san, we bring you a small gift."
The master handed over one bundle to Takayuki-san who was still staring aghast as the flames ate up the poem. It was then that he noticed the burning paper was blank. He slowly looked up at Teruo-san and bowed down before offering the bundle of paper.
"Please accept this gift, oh greatest of creators."

Dear Abhishek

I had written (for the 1st issue of Alvibest) this little piece of fiction as a letter from a father to a son. One comment that I loved in response to this piece was "No way could a 26 year old have written this!". Another dear friend thought this was a real exchange although the 1st page clearly says "Fiction".

Wherefore art thou!?

Doing nothing interesting to anyone who reads this blog. I am basically turning myself into a student as I once was (I believe that it will retard my receding hairline!). I am back in the classroom studying programming and going over my "Yes, yes, yes, I recall now" state of knowledge in functional programming.
I believe this will culminate in a manner that I find useful. I am notorious with my commitments once announced (and when not, my brain tricks me into thinking that it was all a dream). I intend to complete my study of functional programming (leaving the intricacies of lambda calculus for later) with a mastery of Erlang while simultaneously learning (and it is truly from scratch in this domain) HTML and AJAX to marry then with Adobe AIR. Eventually, with AIR giving me the front end and Erlang giving me the back-end, I should finally have the RSS reader that I dreamed of using.
This RSS reader will be tuned to run on multi-core systems (but is someone really reading at that pace!?) with a lot of background computation and analysis being performed to present a reader front unlike what is seen today (mere lists or thumbnails). Let's see if I can do something worthwhile.
What it means, in English, is that I would be less active on this blog if I become deeply involved in this project. But you never know! :-)

A Nice Thought

"To fly we must dance with our longest shadows in the brightest sunlight."

—Louise Rader

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.

Tired

I've gathered Spring blooms,
White heat, petrichor and frost.
I think I'll sleep... yes.

Olive Ridley Turtles Campaign

Please watch this video...

A Very Hot Trip

Click on the picture above to view the entire slideshow (embedding it increases the load)

Cherry Blossoms

Hunt for the perfect
Bloom, ends on my lover's neck -
A bite, not too hard.

RSS/News/Feed Aggregators - Why they aren't good enough

I have been sifting through the Internet in search of a good RSS news aggregator (something to organise my panic attacks about not having enough hours in a day to read all the news and articles out there). Before I get into the ones I tried and dropped (or on the verge of doing that), let me specify what exactly I want in a feed aggregator (other terms would be "RSS aggregator", "feed readers", "RSS readers", "news feeds", "news aggregators", etc.). I searched for everything ranging from "best news aggregators" to "comparing RSS readers" and was able to gather information, screenshots and feature lists for a lot of them. Let me list what I think I need from a RSS aggregator.

1. Reliability: If a feed is updated, I should know about it nearly immediately or within whatever duration I deem appropriate.
2. Scalability: To manage a growing number of feed subscriptions well and without bloating horribly.
3. Usability: A clean, elegant and luring interface which doesn't bore me in seconds. Under this category come several things:

• I don't want a million buttons
• I don't want to click more than once for anything as simple as adding a feed
• I don't want the service to push things down my throat (this is where Feedly fails or perhaps is poorly-suited to my needs)
• I don't want a mere list of feeds which I need to scroll through endlessly
• I don't want a million panes and windows making quick reading enormously difficult
• I want an entirely new way of looking at and presenting news.
• I want the ability to share (through email or through the service's network), include (blogs, personal newspapers, etc.) and manage (save entirely locally, clip, tag, index etc.) feeds, news items and individual webpages.
  
• I want to see some intelligence in the service (based on the articles I have read, the tags I create, the kind of links I seem to click on, the nature of news that attracts me, the kind of articles I share etc.) without making an assumption that I am retarded and incapable of picking for myself.
• I want the ability to customise my daily view (or as is called landing page, startpage, etc.) without having to write scripts or CSS.
• I want the ability to rate my content and annotate it
  

I am tired of every single news reader giving me nothing more than the same thumbnail view of news or the "river of news" view. They actually think they are creative by changing the colour of the header and the like!
Before I proceed, I am not a Net-addict and hence, solutions like Twitter do not work for me. I don't have a Twitter account and don't see myself getting one. I like being educated and not being filled with gossip and pointless lines of info like "I am bored", "Dropped a pizza slice on my lap" or "Wow! Saw the hottest girl in town" because I am not interested in your boredom, I hate wasting food and where I work and live there aren't any hot girls so I don't know what that means!
One can go here to get a list of available news readers.
I will focus on 3 categories of RSS readers:

1. Web-Based: This would include Bloglines, Google Reader and Newsgator
2. Desktop: FeedDemon, GreatNews, Omea
3. Browser-Based: Feedly, FireFox, Opera, Flock, Snackr
   

WB solutions have one big problem - no offline viewing (though Google Gears might partially help as far as GR is concerned). All of them require me to be connected else they are useless. The concept of offline mode is usually only for the feeds and not for the webpage itself. So the notion of picking a few news items (and maybe feeds) and clicking on a "Prefetch" or "Retrieve" or "Offline Mode" where those news items will be fetched and I can read through them while on my flight or while shuttling between locations in a horrible traffic (like the curfew days in Bangalore) does not exist. What am I going to do with just the feeds? Fine, that looks like an interesting piece, let me read all of it, but no! We aren't connected!
Another big problem is the inability to design my view (though Bloglines Beta is kinda changing that). Google Reader is plainly pathetic in the straight line of news that it throws to the screen. I simply have to keep scrolling on and on forever. Another super big problem is the inability to organise my favourite webpages. I can Star, Tag or Flag a news item but if my news item contains multiple links (as does the feed from Arts and Letters Daily) then I cannot mark individual items. Newsgator does permit me to organise clippings and websites that I like but the method is not simple or straightforward. Google Reader only allows you to Star them or Share them as long as that is a feed. If the feed links to an external article, you can't do anything with it. What if I wished to organise them for future reading and/or reference? Hence, I think GR is really not good enough for all the hype surrounding it. When I have to compare these 3, I would rate Newsgator better than Bloglines which is nearly as good (if not better) than Google Reader. Newsgator lets me import from other places and OPML files without having to go through the export-import routine. I need to do that to get my Bloglines feeds into GR. Too circuitous. Bloglines has a concept of clipping and more and hence that could be better than GR. Otherwise, they are pretty much alike and this whole thing about keyboard shortcuts is only for those who are vying to be some feed-racer! Bloglines Beta is better than the earlier version of Bloglines.

Amongst Desktop apps, I would rate FeedDemon great because it lets me sync up with NewsGator and Bloglines. FD lets me organise individual weblinks in my clippings folder so that I can view them later. FD allows for pre-fetching and offline viewing (again, only of the feed snippets). I can assign tags to my news items. I think FD has it all except for unreliable syncing (my folder on my desktop app shows 46 unread and the one in Newsgator shows 31) and some accessibility issues (scrolling on top pane is frigid). The good facilities include simple dragging and dropping articles (and not merely news items or feeds (the granularity is higher)) into the clippings folder, leaving them with me. I can organise all of these based on what I deem logical. All of this syncs with my online NewsGator account and hence, they are available for viewing from anywhere. GreatNews is also good but doesn't have a clippings management facility and sometimes doesn't sync up well. I had used Omea Reader/Pro for long and I thought it was really good. Some minor glitches exist and the problem of trying to do too many things with one piece of software plagues this one. It tries to integrate with Outlook, ICQ, NNTP etc. One can always disable these, but it still adds to the clutter. Startup times and memory footprints are nearly in the same range though GreatNews is better and there is no point comparing with Omea as it seems to launch only one news item in the pane (one can launch endless external browsers but that is a pain). That is Omea's biggest problem. It doesn't allow launching several news items at one go. There is a panel where all the titles are available but you can't launch many articles and read them at your convenience. FeedDemon and GreatNews lets you launch as many reading panes as you want though they are all tightly integrated with IE and FD does a better job. On a crash and restart, FD remembers and starts from where you left (though it truncates the number of panes you had opened). GreatNews simply forgets! Omea has but one to remember! That is big enough to push Omea to 2nd place when compared with FD. FD integrates well with Bloglines and Newsgator and has provisions for clippings and sharing but none for annotation, indexing and saving for offline reading. Still, FD is the best one can find as of now. If only Omea could manage multiple articles, it would beat FD by a huge margin. All of them have a feature similar to FD's Panic button, which lets you sweep over your feeds and mark them read based on chronology.

Browser-Based solutions tend to resemble the old email feeds or are merely wrappers around web-based readers. In spite of all the hype around Feedly, I find it largely useless. It hardly gives me anything more than a wrapper over GR though perhaps the "social feeding" might be its sole focus (and I am not yet interested in that. I don't have time to read my own feeds!). I like what Opera has (with 9.64) but again, it is just a table of news items. Snackr seems to do something interesting with randomising feeds but you need AIR for it and that makes things rather complicated for something as simple as what it provides.
Other interesting services include ClipMarks, EverNote, Voyage and ShareFire though not one of them is the answer (and Voyage is rather weird though looks cool). I think the best thing would be to have a marriage of some of these. I think I am going to sit down to develop one for myself (and I am surely going to use Flex+Flash for my UI!!). Any ideas welcome.
At the end of the day I am left disappointed and dejected with my options (I feel the same when in the poll booth going over the list of available parties). I think I will have to do with FD+NewsGator+Bloglines till my own solution comes up and is functional. Only those who give me damn cool ideas will get an account on that! ;-)

Establishing Rightness

It all started with that conversation. Actually, it all started several decades ago when I was born, but that is not how we mark events.
R: "Don't tell me, E! Seriously? Yuck! Such horrible people!"
E (that is me): "True."
R: "I can't believe such people and families exist."
E: "Now you can."
R: "What happens next? What will he do?"
And I began sharing the plans that our common friend had made before embarking on the need to establish Rightness. Commonly, one mixes Rightness with Truth, Honesty, Protocol and a few other things and is lost in the tangle of words and connotations.
Few days later, a friend of mine complained that instead of dropping a Rs. 2 coin he had dropped a Rs. 5 coin into a beggar's bowl. He apologised to the beggar and asked him to return it in exchange of what was originally intended. The beggar refused to return what he had gotten out of chance.
He: "Damn it, E! I know I was being stupid, but isn't it decency for him to return it?"
E: "You expected a beggar to return what is not his?"
He: "Yes!"
E: "Then why did you seek to give it to him in the first place?"
He: "Pity, good will, the need to share."
E: "Then you will always have to pay more."
These two conversations and my meditation on a facet of life, leads me to ponder aloud.
Often one is faced with the concern of establishing the Right in various spheres of our lives. A Zen Master might wonder about how the Right can ever be established by anything other than the Divine/Tao/Rightness, which makes sense. Nevertheless, the land has her laws and people have rules because one cannot count on the Divine taking matters into Its hands and with this world having a generous proportion of vulgar scoundrels one is often faced with the need to establish justice and uniformity. There will be thieves who will walk into your house, act sweet and steal from under your nose and then claim that the goods actually belong to them. How many people have the patience to let the Divine resolve this? The Middle East would have those thieves decapitated and to some that is perhaps fair punishment. One could wait for Divine intervention and then find none, for which the Hindu scheme of thought has created the notion of Kali Yuga (Age of Iron): nothing will be as it should be. This justifies or rather seeks to explain the humiliation of the fair and righteous and the prosperity of smugglers and rapists, this justifies an early widowhood to a good girl and the pimping out of one's own daughter for a handful of gold (we often call them gold-diggers), this justifies the destruction of a Howard Roark and the pedestal for the Elsworth Tooheys.

I am frequently lost in the question: Can Rightness ever be established? Is there a point to it? Can we, while living in the midst of beggars and thieves and looters (Ayn Rand's choice for the worst amongst human beings), subscribe to Rightness and adhere to it? How common is the occurrence of a good intention, an ethical intention, an honest action gone wrong and twisted around by vulgar snakes forcing us to seek refuge in the intelligence and honesty of others? One would build a road with the genuine intention of creating easy travel and transport only to be condemned by the villagers of having ulterior motives and castigated. I have personally encountered horrible people who have twisted their inaction, laziness, lack of concern, lack of moral fibre into a virtue and into the oft used weapon of "being human". Such lowly people are a misfit in an ethical world. They resort to sweet words, drama, lies and falsehood in order to survive. They will take and keep taking (literally and figuratively) for they are looters who do not care for Rightness.

While fairness and justice can reveal a course of action, Destiny can choose another, though that choice doesn't mitigate the Rightness of things. Often one mistakes Destiny's ways to be a sanction of one's choices. I love the Sandman series where Destiny's role is beautifully sketched. Destiny is blind (and I like that volume where Rose tries to clarify to Dream that it is not Destiny that is blind but Love) and ensures that what is meant to happen will happen irrespective of the pleasantness or lack thereof. While one can carefully reveal the Rightness of things one cannot expect Fate to take sides. I think this is often the greatest torment man faces - the inability to come to terms with the actions of Fate which seem to come about irrespective of the course of action one takes and the underlying intent.

Allow me to consider each question independently and in an order that makes sense to me.

• Why should Rightness be established?
• What is the most vital context in which Rightness must be established?
• How could/should we respond to the environment?
• Is all the effort worth it?
• Can it ever be done?

Why?
Rightness is not negotiable. Rightness needs to be established because the absence of it is pure chaos which the human race cannot manage (which is not necessarily bad and at least, as The Joker puts it, "Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!"). It is perhaps out of the fear of the absence of Rightness that Rightness is sought, but Rightness lends a flavour which is unlike that which arises from achievement or cunning. The only reason for establishing Rightness is itself. One can list a million reasons for why we need sunlight or water but Rightness doesn't find in human beings a necessity to quench. Nevertheless, Rightness is vital to the harmonious coexistence with Nature.

What?
The context is the self transforming into the Self. Hence, Rightness can never be sought in an entity outside of oneself else Rightness would cease to be so and morph into a gimmick or a realisation based on popularity votes. It would be tragic and defeatist if one had to seek votes to decide whether something was right or not. Hence, Rightness cannot be sought or demanded outside of oneself. This doesn't mean one refuses to recognise its role in the common spaces between human beings, but the self is most vital context. This might sound like an escape from the seemingly original intent of this post to arrive at a strategy for establishing Rightness, but no, Rightness must be established and the most vital context is the self. Once it is established in the self, there is a channel for Rightness to permeate the space around that Self. When an individual acts as an impediment to or an inappropriate carafe for Rightness, what then is there to expect of the world outside such an error?


How?
By observing oneself. To observe oneself is to rid oneself of the need to measure, to compare, to tally, to seek approval. When we truly observe ourselves, we watch our ways afresh. We do not compare it with an ideal, or with our beliefs or with norms. We simply watch and understand what is it that drives an action. I can watch my decisions and realise that my choice of taking a hard stance is simply my need to refuse looters to have things their way. My discomfort with liars and knaves leaves me with a visceral want to oust them from my life. I don't see it as good or bad nor wonder whether it is politically correct or what will others say or will I have as many supporters as the looters do or anything along those lines. This doesn't make for a justification for knee-jerk reactions but to be able to observe a sequence of actions and be able to realise where it all springs from lends clarity and with clarity, one has an opportunity to adhere to Rightness. Clarity alone is impotent esp. in the world of human beings. A friend often said that clarity to a person should be like a flame shown to butter - there is no choice, transformation is inevitable. Unfortunately, that is not true as far as human beings are concerned. One can heap facts and figures in front of a person but fail to convince a liar of the truth in them. They will stick to their illusions and condemn you for pursuing them with facts and truth. They will even resort to escapes and drama and blame you for "numbing" their senses with incessant calls to Rightness. Human beings can never be butter (and perhaps that is what encouraged the Vedic rishis to offer butter to the sacrificial fire). Hence, by observing oneself one has the opportunity to befriend Rightness.
One would have to get over one's fears, one's hubris, one's false spine, one's ego to be able to walk the path of Rightness with the clarity gained. How should one drop one's fears or pride? There is no step by step procedure for that though the best means is to observe the world. One should observe it to see what is, what was and hence, how the world accommodates the transition from what was to what is. In this, there is great learning especially about the impermanence of things and ideals. There will be no man-made object that will outlive this world yet the world gently accommodates all mistakes and misunderstandings. In watching and observing Nature there is a lot to learn, esp. that our fears our primarily imaginary or irrelevant in the grand scheme of this world. That our pride achieves nothing on its own and it doesn't serve as sufficient trophy after we have created something.
So, in observing the self and Nature one gathers the rudimentary equipment to adhere to Rightness. Those who aren't interested in Rightness will only talk, and lie and invent more lies to justify their inconsistent stories and play this silly game of them against themselves and clap hands in having won the game although there was no one else playing. They will create movements and expend energy in extolling the virtues of mediocrity and vulgarity because only in such a world can every rat be virtuous. They will appeal to your sympathy and not your respect for one can be gained through coercion and cunning while the other can only be gained by mettle and intellect.
For one who is established in Rightness, there is no guidance necessary to establish that Rightness outside of him. His is a fire that will burn wrongdoers or himself - because in death there is no loss and with death ends the journey of the Right. That fire which has burned Right till the death of the torch is a true flame. Such a man refuses to accept injustice and will not comply. Laws of the land might bind him from fear of facing Truth. People might ostracise him out of fear of having to look into their own souls. But Nature will nurture him. The only way to establish Rightness is by:

• Sharpening the blade of the self by observing
• Refusing to accept the vulgarity of anyone around us
• Sticking to truth and honesty
• Sticking to a ruthless pursuit of fairness
• Standing up for what is Right
• Considering no loss greater than the loss of kinship with Rightness
• Never giving a man more or less than his due
• Never accommodating a vile individual
• Never gaining from the association or favour of a vile individual
• Never acting on pity
• Never supporting a parasite
• Preferring wisdom to mental intelligence
• Preferring mental intelligence to emotional hooks
• Preferring nurturing and support to parasitical coercion
• Understanding the difference between being alone and being lonely
• Comfort with being alone (for there is no greater companion than the Self)
• Willingness to educate a seeker about the path to Rightness

Please note that none of this is a decision. As long as it is a decision it is in the play of the mind and thoughts which can cunningly sway this way or that. When the individual is transformed into an instinctive response along these lines, he is free and Right.

Worth?
I am afraid this is something each person needs to evaluate for their own self. Often I am plagued with this question: All that I am doing, all the world that I am fighting against, all the relationships lost, all the enemies gained, all the rebuke, all of that, is it worth it? Why not be like any other average human being and have a snake for a brother, a rat for a friend, a fox for a peer, a leech for a wife and a wolf for parents, and laugh and be merry and live like nothing matters? Because it matters. Because it matters to me that I sleep with the confidence that I did not cheat nor did I accommodate a cheat. Because it matters that I have represented myself with utmost honesty and have shown liars their place. Because I have only kept with me what I have truly earned and castigated thieves and beggars from my life. Because when I walk down the road and someone comes up to me and says, "E, I know you'll tell me the truth. Is it safe to do this?" my entire being chimes with the bells of Rightness as I guide him with my entire being. Because when I look back over my life, I realise that for all the mistakes committed I have learnt and moved closer to Rightness. To me it is worth the acid-test. You need to figure it out for yourself.

Possible?
It is and hence, we still have the world going good. Had the world been devoid of Rightness and people who strove to achieve that, then we would have liars and thieves attacking each other's throats for the little gold that clung to their neck and food that hadn't descended the gullet. Undoubtedly, the commonest form we find in the world is of people who are sporadically right and decent. But there are people who have mostly lived a Rightness which is commendable. My friend's father is an example of a man who has lived a life without giving a bribe, without accepting one, without tolerating a liar and cheat, without cheating anyone and a lot many items on the list above. Although he is fairly far from what I call Rightness, he is closer to it than most people I have met and interacted with. This post is dedicated to him.

Impatience

For hours he watches
It slip up the tracks. He plucks
It at last and runs.