Remembrance of fading dreams

‘Remembrance’ holds the same relationship to ‘Recalcitrance’ as the two words would in a dictionary sequence: remembrance comes after recalcitrance. In simple and comprehensible words, ‘Remembrance’ is a sequel to ‘Recalcitrance’. A work of Mr. Anurag Kumar—who was generous enough to offer me a copy of ‘Remembrance’ that I obviously rejected since I wished to buy it myself—seeks to build over his previous work. You can read my review of ‘Recalcitrance’ here.

Remembrance of fading dreams

Starting with the physical appeal, it is certainly not like those “very bulky in appearance” books. The cover of the book carries a photograph—old, black and white with a rusty feel—of “Chattar Manzil” which one discovers to be a single picture if one holds the book wide open and not to read it but just to see its cover. ‘Remembrance of fading dreams’ carries a signature of the author on its first page then a tribute to “all those who gave up their lives in 1857” and then on the third page we are into action with no content page briefing us about its chapters. We are projected in a time three years after the “Great Uprising of 1857” had ended. The writer starts with a brief overview of the political situation, market scene, the lack of “fun and frolic” and the degradation of poetry.  We soon see appearance of familiar characters of ‘Recalcitrance’. The story starts to take shape around its protagonist, Chote Bhaiya. We also know that “the spark of recalcitrance in Chote Bhaiya could become a raging fire again”.

Along with the usual flow of story in the form of chapters, we are constantly upgraded with the political environment of the post-war period. Sometimes through the mark of respect by the use of the term ‘gora sahabs’ instead of ‘firangees’,at other times by reminding that “real nawabs are now in the South”. The writer also mentions some craziness involved in the Revolution through the visit of Chote Bhaiya to ‘Satichaura Ghat’ and ‘Bibighar’ while at the same time contrasting it with the benevolence of ‘ Acche Nawab’ who sheltered the pregnant Rosemary. I think the introduction of Rosemary and Stanley and their story achieves two purposes here. On the one hand it retrospectively describes the siege of Residency in Lucknow that was mainly covered in ‘Recalcitrance’ while on the other it introduces the humanly behavior of both ‘Acche Nawab’ and Stanley.

Although I am not sure whether the main revolutionary plot in which Chote Baiya, Ahsanul Mulk: to whom gun powder was like perfume, Mohtasim: a pseudo-eunuch or a beautiful Englishwoman or a master of disguise, Walter Sahab’s cousin and other revolutionaries took part is a true historical event, I can certainly say it was definitely intriguing and most thrilling part of the novel. We are also influenced by the Ulfat Jahan’s character whose sensuality did not spare even Chote Bhaiya who is normally “largely immune to feminine charms”. Even the fact of being married to a religious girl and thoughtfully dedicated to another girl named Farheen, could not stop him from ascending the steps of Ulfat Jahan’s house. Substantial coverage has been given to all the main characters this time, including Narenderlal, which was a little bit absent in ‘Recalcitrance’.

The novel has been beautifully spread over thirty-one chapters with a glossary of Hindustani words at the end. This being helpful in case you are not aware of some of the Indian language terms. However, I found that some of the Hindustani words were not described either in the end or at the point where they were used. One other thing I found pretty much to my displeasure was the absence of chapter names, difficulty being compounded while writing review because you couldn’t feature at an instant what the chapter was about. A few spelling mistakes, which I definitely know were introduced on the publishing end, made some romantic moments a little comical: Ulfat Jahan resting her head on Chote Bhaiya’s “soldier” and not his “shoulder” was one such light moment; though holding the writer responsible for such errors is little too harsh.

In the end I would say that ‘Remembrance of fading dreams’ is a wonderful read especially if you have read ‘Recalcitrance’; and even if you have not, ‘Remembrance’ can stand alone and turn out to be an amazing piece combining the revolutionary zeal of a major event with how that fervour transcended the commoners.             

In the guise of freedom lurks imitation

When Radio 5 Live presenter John Inverdale said his –now famous—lines about Wimbeldon winner Marion Bartoli, it was not just another case of Sexism as the media dubbed it so. It in fact reflects the new norms of fundamentalism in transition from the old ones. You really have to read the contents of social media in order to make it that it was not just a slip of tongue by the presenter. These are the new hardcore norms of our weird times.

There is probably no God and we are urged to stop worrying about it; we are even solicited to enjoy our life. However, in their effort to tackle religious fundamentalism, a certain section of atheists are laying down new rules of fundamentalism or they are in guise imitations of old fundamentalism. Let us start with a very basic thing: apparel. Very often Abrahamic religions especially Islam is criticized for its stand on feminine dressing in the public. It is now commonly acknowledged that Islam is ruthless and men force women to wear veil. But is it not the same stand which Islam or for the sake of universality any other religion took against the permissiveness of clothing? The idea being: to judge a person on his/her dress needs a very strange phenomenon to occur in our head; to rip apart a human being from his/her social context and place him in your own culture. That is to say—a situation of pure abstraction of human subtlety; the individual now is not an inextricable part of his/her social context but an object detachable, whenever needed. It is this same phenomenon that most religions used, that is, detach an individual from his roots and place in your own soil to judge him, project your bias on him. And is it not the same reasoning used by atheist today? The same fundamentalist ripping of Muslim women from their social context and placing them in their own environment! Such powerful is the tearing apart that even a defence by her seems to be a ventriloquist reply by a man behind. It is this development that makes it easy for both sides to predict who is free and who is not, who is forced and who is not. Can we not conclude the same for Marion Bartoli ? John Inverlade along with many on social media platforms used the same phenomenon to rip her from some other social dimensions, space and place her in their own “Cartesian system” as if she was an object detachable—a standard battery that would fit in any device. David Graeber in ‘Debt’ use the same phenomenon to describe what actually slavery warrants. Slavery is nothing but tearing apart of an individual from all that makes what he is and then expecting him to behave according to your norms. This was sometimes civilization for the primitive.

Tracing the same fundamental lines, one can almost see that certain contemporary atheists are no different from their theological adversaries. Just like a theist would apply ridiculous simplification and find every solution in religion, it seems that these atheists find every problem as a result of religion, its institutions and mandate. I think it is a clear hint of fanatic simplification. One such example is the inference that religion is a direct cause of economic conditions of different nations. They even have prepared elaborate maps marking nations, their advancement and linking them with religious beliefs. It’s not that there are just few fanatic individuals; even influential intellectuals advocate this. The debate of religion and atheism acquire center stage while history, debts, conquests are treated as if they are trivial or as if those who ruled for centuries all over the world have no advantage in governing over those  who were their slaves. What is important is trivial; what is trivial is important. Politics for them as such is non-existent. It was all a simple game of religion from the start which we must end to set all things that have gone awry. And it is under this pretext demand of separating religion from state is raised, vindicating State and blaming Religion; the same male chauvinist idea that the defaulter in this marriage of religion and state is religion, as if, if state used religious violence as a tool then it is not the state which is at fault . Most of the time it is state or the aspiring state that instigate and manipulate religious violence. The problem is—as these atheists point out—with the religion that makes theist so much infuriated. However, the perpetrator should be absolved of all wrongs. There is neither a single word against state nor towards its abolition but religion must be annihilated. On the same pattern, Chetan Bhagat, though he never professes of being an atheist, suggest on the matter of Gujarat riots that we should introspect: introspection about what is in us that makes us such killers of each other. I agree that we should not be so short tempered but that does not mean that the other partner should stand vindicated as if the whole problem can be summarized in terms of fundamentalism. And this is what Richard Dawkins is propagating, vindicating the role of his nation, or precisely any state. State and religion should not mix; religion should vanish; state is absolved. We actually have a word for what state did when we were a colony—“divide and rule”. This is not for pointing specifics but when you blame one, you cannot absolve other. This is not observed by our “evolving nerd rebellious atheist”. Dawkins and Hitchens have done a lot for their supporters to get rid of “sky daddy” but at the same time both fail, in fact make them accept more jubilantly their “earthly daddy”. It is claimed by these naïve atheists that religion caused a great harm; it poisons everything. But I claim that markets, money and debts have done even greater destruction, of colossal magnitude even. Do we see the same hue and cry when they blame religion for poverty of a nation while at the same time enjoying the fruits of markets, debts and slave trade across the Atlantic? Do we see the poisoning of human morals when a father has to sell his own daughter to pay his debt? Do we see that “Money is not great” or “The Market delusion” when we passively accept the suicide of a farmer just because he could not obey the laws of debt and markets? I think such harms have become norms and fundamentals of “new fundamentalism”. They reject the concepts of afterlife and eternity. But do we not find the same concepts of eternity buried deeply when an atheist say—“I want to do something for humanity. I want my name to be remembered for generations.” Is it not the same concept of eternity when he prospectively imagine the retrospective admiration of posterity as if he will be present somewhere to even notice the gratitude?

They are the front runners of science and even speculate a “gay gene” to cater to the needs of their followers. However, they fail to guess a “faith gene” that might have afflicted so many people. I would be glad to know what evolutionary purpose has been reserved by Mr. Dawkins for a homosexual couple. But before you call me homophobic, you definitely need to answer scientifically your own prejudices. Is it not that sometimes one scientific field place us directly stand against another? Is it not that when we are mad to comfort our body through scientific inventions, we are actually getting weak—decreasing our evolutionary strength? Though we know what both sciences mean, we are guilty of new fundamentalism by simply propagating the persona of nerdy atheist. You already know that you have unintentionally reached the peak of fundamentalism when you start believing everything with the subtext—“a new study by scientists shows”.

Narendra Modi: Closest representation of State’s Inception

If I were to describe Narendra Modi and his fan following, perhaps I should say Lord and his men because that’s what Narendra means (nar-man, Indra- God or lord), I put it this way—Debauch aspiring Ascetic to lead them, fantasizing excess in near future, fascinated by Asceticism but aspiring Debauchery. In short: Asceticism as a means to Debauchery. Here lies the paradox—a practitioner of self-denial, asceticism, Mr. Modi is working day and night so that our aspiring young ones, whom he praises so much that they may also reciprocate naively, can fulfill their dream of excess. His fans are everywhere, on social networking sites, newspapers, among Bollywood actors and corporates apart from usual fundamental ideological base that he is part of and represents. There are chants of growth wherever you go. The saint must work ceaselessly for our surplus, so that we can “dream big”. And this is it! Nationalism, superpower, growth and this is it. Well, I never feel associated with such injected terms: Terms which I think come into common discourse through state or aspiring state. Vocabulary must be taught to us before we can even think of analyzing. You see, with these terms, whether or not they are true on ground level, an atmosphere for discussion prevails. In this arena all arguments must be either for or against the proposed vocabulary and its sophisticated structure. For example, every discussion, and subsequently an argument concerning growth of Gujarat, demands it to be either in support or against. This vocabulary of growth and superpower infused into the mainstream ensures that opinion, if any exists, must either be praising the proposed idea or denying it. So a BJP fan must always support the “growth” and a Congress fan must deny it. What is lost then? The loss is we do not know what it means to grow. What it means to be a superpower! It is out of question—the need to debate what is actually growth. Cancer also grows! Now we must imitate some blur image assigned to these terms and that too, obsessively. The time for theory has ended. We must immediately stop debating and act as if we have taken all our time to define, everything is concrete and clear; the point remains of implementing it. This is most dangerous belief. Recently I watched a movie—“Django Unchained”. There is a scene in the movie where Leonardo DiCaprio( Calvin Candy) mocks one of his black slaves for not knowing the meaning of “reimburse”. Actually, Candy paid five hundred dollars for that slave and expected him to fight at least five “mandingo” fights failing which the slave must reimburse the master. I liked that scene not because I found it amusing but because it contains much deeper meaning. The idea being—the slave must know the meaning of reimburse and subsequently that he is morally expected to reimburse no matter how much violent and degrading act, that is slavery, brought him in a position to reimburse. The master must teach the vocabulary.

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within, a Brazilian film directed, produced by Jose Padilha, starring Wagner Moura, is a semi-fictional account of BOPE. I am not concerned with the overall story or theme. I am interested mainly in the character of Sandro Rocha who is a lead corrupt boss of Rio militia. Since he is powerful and corrupt, he is seen as someone getting his share from drug dealer—a sort of tax you can say. He and his gang later kill the dealers, the middle-men, and start operating directly. He now acquires a bigger role providing internet, cable TV, banks, cafes, restaurants, every business and acts as a protector to the slums. How will a guy living in that slum treat Rocha? I think we deal here with a central and important problem. Although Rocha does not form an official state here, through him we can see how state actually operates. A guy living in that slum sees his relationship with Rocha and his gang as of mutual benefit, protector. He sees the relationship as that of specific roles defined in society. You know what I mean to say.

‘Rocha looks after our basic necessities. He takes care of our wants. Rocha provides security. We must pay our taxes and all that.’

Rocha and his gang is state here.  If we somehow disappear from our own times and place ourselves when our civilization is just beginning to take shape, Rocha represents the dynamics of state. Let us give our Rocha some bigger hurdles to tackle, say employment generation. Rocha owns all lands and resources by default and he generates employment. Now give Rocha a little bit of global touch of growth. He now is a Messiah who intends to achieve a fantasy of surplus for everyone—‘there shall be no poor, we will be a superpower.’ It does not matter why there is a poor. What matters is we must act hastily. Poverty should vanish from earth as soon as possible. Again the mantra: theory is wasting time, acting is everything. As the time passes by,—sufficient generations after Rocha—we have a totally new set of ideological points governing Rocha’s posterity.

‘All problems are there because we do not follow the fundamentals set by state. Or each problem exists because State doesn't have sufficient funds. We should tax the rich and all that.’ State’s emphasis is to present and formulate every bit of problem as a function of funds, which will be solvable if we have enough funds—obviously that day of sufficiency never arrives. Nevertheless, subjects of the State have become habitual of encountering the problem as properly defined; the point is of for or against as I previously pointed. Rocha is not the only one. You can see a reflection of state wherever a sub-state or to be politically correct, a sub-governance begins to germinate. Some street side vendor or one with a barrow often pays a part of his money as extortion for selling in a particular area. In India, where the official State is not vigilant enough, this is often the case. Now that is not the official state tax but they pay it. Why? Because of sheer threat of violence or violence itself! This is governance or state in its crude form which after sufficient time acquires the status of what we call—social contract.

I told this long story—out of context it may seem but it is not. I think Narendra Modi is closest representation of State’s inception that we can get in our own times. You must know, it is a necessity for Rocha to evolve.      

Lovely Commercials

My God! These commercials! I love them especially those tobacco commercials. If you have ever noticed, they start with something ethereal about tobacco, something that transcends, something that elevates, that make you feel like a king; I don’t know but in a naïve manner I put—to make you feel fearless. To chew tobacco is to be fearless; at the same time it is a source of divine pleasure. This is how the commercial start and this is what they convey until a short warning –indecipherable, incoherent with the overall advertisement, usually spoken too fast to be heard so as not to tamper with the pleasant environment which the actual advertisement creates –appears.  In fact, warnings of all sorts share this feature.

“Chewing tobacco causes cancer.”

“Smoking is injurious to health.”

This is what they say, making their honest and good intentions clear in a clumsy way. While majority of advertisement deals with fearlessness, it ends making us fear for our lives. Two totally different emotions fused in one.  Good for none but a laugh. Optimism and pessimism mixed in one. If not for anything else, it is good to tell ourselves how pathetic our condition is. I mean we tell a lie and then a truth and this is not the important thing. What is important is we are forced to do it. Forced not to tell lie only; forced not to tell truth only; if it had been any one of lie or truth, the condition is much better. But we are forced to tell both at the same time. I think this is horrendous. I feel this whole thing like Obscene is sold, at the same time the seller urges you not to buy the Obscene because it’s obscene. What a humanly gesture!

There is another commercial which fascinates me. When I say fascinates me, it genuinely means fascinates me. Please allow me to present to you—‘killer jeans’. Let us be murderously correct –not just ‘killer jeans’ but ‘killer water saver jeans’. That’s what their product is about. At least they say it so. Killer and saver, both at the same time! Killer jeans that saves water! To be politically and environmentally correct, they even put a protesting audience—some sort of young bare chest students caring for our environment and all that—against police with water cannons. You see, these advertisements are fabulous. They do not disappoint anyone. There is something for everyone to feel associated with the product in some sort of transcendental way. Now we have an easy solution for water shortage. Wear killer-saver jeans and be environmentally correct, in other words be environmentally guilt free, be on the right side of the history. Even an atheist, who considers himself free from guilt, can’t resist it. He too wants to be on the right side—redeemed environmentally. Christianity, Islam and whatever religion you take, I think the principles of guilt are best implemented by the advertising world, even better than those religions themselves. Water shortage started because we didn't wear the ‘killer-saver jeans’ at the right time in our long history. To correct our mistake we must instantly indulge in this endeavour obsessively. Who knows, maybe we could measure the precise amount of water we save by buying killer jeans. ‘Oh! You have only three jeans, I have ten of those. I save ten litres of water.’ Now, simple mathematics can even predict how much water people around the world save. Those poor devils who could not afford these jeans are even wasting water, undoubtedly even causing the water shortage in the first place. Imagine an extreme situation—there is shortage in arid regions of Africa and we have our benevolent Western nations sending over hundred thousand ‘killer water saver jeans’ as an aid. Killer jeans dropped from airplanes not to kill as the name suggests, but to save.

The last commercial which has not escaped my memory and still deserves a laugh whenever I watch it is the one about the milk supplements.  Alexander, Akbar and Jhansi ki Rani didn't like the taste of milk; we need milk supplements in various flavours to make our kid drink it. But that is not the point of laughter. One advertisement in the same line of milk supplements, of Bournvita if I remember correctly, claims that to absorb the calcium in milk by human body we need its supplement to be mixed along with milk. Mother who gives Bournvita to her child is knowledgeable while who don’t is ignorant of the obvious, self-evident fact. Nevertheless the point such advertisements make is that man has been drinking plain milk from thousands of years only in vain, technically as good as water, deficient of any extra benefits. I don’t take it as an insult to our ancestors but actually a groundbreaking research of our technologically advanced and intelligent folks, who obviously have strongest of bones than most of our bravest fighters of history.  

Goodbye Blue Sky

“Goodbye Blue Sky” is definitely not the song by Pink Floyd. It is a short story by Nour Sharif though its subliminal theme is almost the same—as I see it—as that of the song. The full story, for the simple pleasure of reading, can be accessed here. 

“Goodbye Blue Sky” is a fictional account with a tinge of reality in the form of Lebanon civil war which afflicted Lebanon for more than 15 years. Most of the story is set in “a little town, far from the coast, and close to the mountains” named Zahleh and a very insignificant part in Canada—the specific town or place is not mentioned. I consider it obligatory not to reveal the specifics of the plot as that would unnecessarily smother the zeal of the reader. “Goodbye Blue Sky” is a bid adieu to peace inviting clouds of war, a goodbye to the warmth of clear sky for Gabriel, Zaynab and Michael—central characters in the story. It is a story of contrast where we are at one hand appalled by the civil war involving Muslims and Christians and on the other fascinated by the brief intimacy of Zaynab ( a Muslim) and Gabriel( a Christian). But ultimately they too have to say goodbye to their blue sky. The writer also drew a contrast between the turbulent land of Lebanon which is marred by religious violence and peaceful Canada where at some point in the story Gabriel and his father Michael migrate to reclaim their blue sky. The story brings to the fore, in the midst of peace and war, the humanly relations, though strained, between a father and a son, a husband and a wife, a boy and a girl—vacillating, sometimes due to external pressures and sometimes due to internal conflicts.

I have always felt that aesthetic sense of English Literature is mainly due to the ability of the writer and his/her sense for circumlocution. And I can say without a doubt that in this endeavour the writer wonderfully describes the situations to fulfill the aesthetic demand that every story should have. Vividness in description is clearly visible. At times I felt that the story is too short to accommodate the full web of emotions that it seems to conquer. But then I remember that the writer must have been bound to the limitations of the competition that she was taking part in. By the way if I haven’t mentioned till now, make note of it immediately. She, that is Nour Sharif, has won third prize for this story in Malik’s Short Story Competition 2012.

There is nothing that can stop me from revealing more about the story and its theme but that would be doing injustice to the writer. In a way, injustice to the reader too! What purpose the story serve to the reader if it is already accomplished through the review of the story? I, therefore, cease my hand and give a chance to your complex wiring of eye and brain. In short, I am urging you to read this story in order to enjoy every bit in its entirety.

In the end I would like to thank Nour Sharif, whom I know only by the means of Facebook, for providing me the soft copy of this story and thereby giving me the chance to read, most importantly, free of cost.

Of Guilt, God and Money

Society has witnessed death of God. Of what was held with so much surety until now is under doubt. The dichotomy of good and evil is replaced with a more blur question—‘what is wrong with that?’ The general sort of reasoning, which should be in terms of cause and effect in the event of death of God, is now bluntly placed before us in the form—what is bad in it? And you ask me what is bad in it, I say nothing. You ask me what is good in it, I say nothing. I mean when you start asking that type of questions, not only you are sure to get no reasonable answer, in fact you end any means of rational thinking. A subject of this curious question is money, comfort.

What’s wrong with money! What’s obnoxious about it! As I said anyone concerning his conscience with that question will never, in his life, be able to assert that he is asking himself a timidly bootless question. One, who asks it, will convince himself anyway that there is nothing wrong in it. For a man always convince his conscience to be on the right side even before one commits murder for no purpose at all. It may sound ludicrous yet it is true. A man must have firm conviction of right before one act. A man must do right. So how it is that he starts torturing himself with guilt of having done wrong? The feeling of wrong comes only with external agency—an agency which forces the individual to realize his wrong. A deed is not wrong or right when it is committed but only when it is judged. You see, murder of a human being is heinous in our judicial system and is reproached severely. Subsequently it is a crime, a wrong, abhorring and hence loathed. However killing an animal for meat is not murder. Why? Is it not life? I suggest you read my post titled ‘Origin of…’ where I contemplate on the origins of such type of morality. But for now let’s proceed. It is not loathed—leave a few societies like Jains—and here you see clearly that for a wrong, crime to exist there must be a body forcing repugnance, calling deliberately to us and inducing guilt. For thousands of years this work was done by religions although clumsily. But here I am not bothering myself fighting for animal rights. I like meat, have no intention to ban it legally. What I am trying to convey here is that man has thought and worked only on guilt, conscience and therefore is bound to fail when the “general guilt pattern” changes. If you don’t have a reason to support a purpose, naturally guilt can’t bear the burden for long. There is no external agency now to check the mad rush for money; there is void left in the place of guilt producing factory. And I am glad that there is. We need a reason and not guilt. Why should money not be the sole measure of all things? Why should it not drive all our endeavours? Where is the reason to support it? There is a vacuum.

I regard money acquiring the same place as a few centuries ago was filled with the magnanimous God. In the name of God everything is permitted; in the name of money everything is permitted. And how much reasonable it seems! How much logical!  How backward are those who condemn it! The society we live in always carry a weighing balance. On one scale they have an idea, on the other its monetary equivalent. A few centuries ago the other scale was reserved for God. What we have got to oppose this? Remnants of guilt from religion lying there, decaying with time, sometimes deteriorating with a vigour and giving an illusion of revival though the zeal is the struggle of a flame when someone sprinkles water on it. I have never been fond of such edifices of guilt.

Only man, in the entire realm of living, has got the gift of being raised to speculate future. He speculates and comes to conclusion that possessions, in whatever form, hoarding, in whatever form, is the only means to better future. Is his speculation right? Is his speculation independent from the structures of society? His speculation is right. His speculation is not independent from the structures of society. Here we see a reason itself provided by the society and hence it triumphs. Whatever is strong, wins! Evil is strong and it wins. It is a blatant myth that good always win. Possessions, money, hoarding ultimately decides your treatment in society. The reason is strong and it wins; it survived millenniums after millenniums. Religion tried to counter it with guilt—weak so to say—and is failing. Where is the reason? It is missing! So what can stop that mad rush? Reason itself which nowhere to be found: a void that needs to be filled. 21^st century is devoured by corruption. One direct reason is—more number of people given the opportunity to acquire which was otherwise reserved for few in early days. Intellectuals define corruption to be decaying of morality or deviation from normal or a more popular one is: preferring private gains over public duties. I say: Corruption is responding to reason, sidelining, looking askance at guilt to acquire what is most prized in society—money, power, domination. Reason triumphs, guilt fails. You need a reason against it, not some sort of complex spying structure where each spies on the other. Now there is a class of people that blames everything on human nature. I say greed, they say human nature; I say war, they say human nature; I say money, they say human nature. Hell with human nature! Human nature is blank! Zero!

As I said, with God and money everything is permitted, not in the sense that each has the freedom to do whatever one wishes but anything that can be astutely attributed to be God’s wish, or in the case of money to be yielding profit—no matter how much stupid, no matter how much catastrophic. For example, consider the food we eat today. There is tremendous change in what we eat over the last fifty years than we had over the last thousand years. A preferred, thoroughly tested diet, conforming to our evolutionary buds is changed so suddenly only to conform to the standards of profit. Result is there for you to analyse. The food which is worthless, to the body obviously, is cheapest; the food which is necessary is slowly leaving our meal. To be short, we eat crap because it’s cheap. Thank Money—addressed as God—we don’t eat our own crap because it’s free. What sort of economics or reasoning is that? You can find numerous such examples. Once the “market” approves them, they become reasonable. I have seen the absurdest of ideas thriving just for the sake of money. Comfort made the goal of life! Comfort is against evolution—evolutionary strength to be precise. How pitiful are those ailing, disease ridden creatures that care about the softness of pillow of their hospital bed! Any truth which is against life is no truth at all. And then they ask you to fulfill your thirst for comfort and money through legitimate ways? What is legitimate? Money is same whether it comes from cutting throat of some person, by lurking in a dark corner or by writing software making your back ache as if punished for something.  A noble man will stand up indignantly and lament—“Mr. Backward there is guilt in the first case.” I say—“What guilt? I don’t feel any unless you force it on me.” You feel guilt only because you have a system in place to condemn you, torture you. However, in the second case you don’t have one. A programmer may write a part of a program which is to benefit a guy like Hitler in some way—obviously unknowingly as he (programmer) is so noble—is a professional. Another great creature who writes a part of a program which helps marketing a product online that has resulted in millions of diseases, deaths and skewed lifestyle is a more revered professional. Professionalism! OMM! Oh my Money! As I told you, for guilt there must be an external agency. Without it there is no bad. Bad or evil—that is presently not classified as evil—grows in the direction where it finds no lingering guilt. Guilt is useless in that purpose because it can never effect the inception. It is reactionary—finding its way once the problem is thousand paces ahead. What should I say of how money has stupefied all senses? What terrible storm it unleashed on human relations? In what horrendous way it has streamlined the goal of all humanity! Oh! When I hear chants of growth, I nauseate. I need fresh air: a place that does not stink. A paroxysm of rage, feeling of disgust seizes those proponents of growth if you question a single letter of growth. We are backward, uncivilized holding up their growth. They sweep, with a single sway of their hand, anonymous populations, enormous vegetations and all that is natural—that is backward—to spur their “Growth Horse”. Profit and money being their God!

Once you make money the measure of all things, there is no way you can use guilt to stop a rush for it. Guilt, conscience hinders everything new, even good ones. Once you cross that threshold, guilt vanishes like it never was; only reason lasts.                   

The Art of Hitchhiking

Until a few minutes ago, it was the infinite stretch of road that ruminatively attracted the gaze of a seeker. The subject of that earnest look is now a moving object. With the most innocent of intentions and in expectation of something filled with rapture, he extends his arm most gently. However, the one who is sought so dearly seems to be on his way of attending a matter of national concern. For him, therefore, everything else is trivial. In a moment he passes his seeker like a flash. And now the “road” is there again to be looked at, ruminatively—

Hitchhiking

It is often the scene in the business of hitchhiking—especially when a naïve is at work. However, for a veteran, who is most careful in the manner of his approach, this exercise is often fruitful. I have experienced it with tremendous rate of success for two consecutive years. Each day it was normal to work it four to five times, covering about 13-14 kilometers, in different parts of the city and at varied times of the day. Naturally such an exposure gives great insight. Here, for the sake of change and withdrawing from the nature of topics I have been recently dealing with, I will share a few tricks of the trade which I feel helped me to make my wallet weigh a little heavier.

Before I begin I must make sure you are aware that these tricks have their space domain in India and on the great Indian roads—it may or may not work on others depending on the psychology of its natives. Here we start! The most important of all traits that must not abandon a hitchhiker: a will not to be embarrassed. The more stringently you are cornered, embarrassed, looked down at, the stronger your will should become. The seeds of successful hitchhiker germinate only in those who could stand all day long despite being unlucky, although that rarely occurs, only to be observed if a meteorite falls on whosoever stops driving for a moment.

Next on our rulebook is what vehicle to avoid. Bicycle is cornered without consideration unless the situation is so grave that you will die if not carried by someone. Scooters too are better, if avoided, the reason being scooter drivers are hypochondriac on behalf of their means of transport. It bothers them constantly—the chronic ailment of their conveyance—and one more pedestrian, an aspiring copilot, would only add to woes, may even serve as the cause of death for the ailing creature. That’s what they think when they turn their heads in order to avoid the pleader. Girls and women should also be avoided in India because they give you such a stare as if you are not from Earth, not Mars, not even Venus but from Pluto and instead of being helped by them you are there to escort them to Pluto. We have done enough about what to avoid. Now what place to choose? Select an area where vehicles naturally slow down just like around speed breakers. Slowing provides more time for thoughts to settle down—obviously of the driver’s. If there is nothing to curb down the speed then be sure to signal your intent from a long distance for you must provide your to-be benefactor a good time to judge. Otherwise before he sees you well, he will be past you. Rarely anyone stops after one has gone past the threshold. Make sure that you don’t present your side view or your back to the driver. Instead, you should not be unwilling to face directly opposite, signaling with your left thumb and keeping free your right hand. This way the driver can get a good and comprehensive look at you from a long distance. Stand apart from other public for they may distract the full attention you may get while you are alone. Don’t make the blunder of signalling heavy vehicles like trucks when they have no way of naturally slowing down. They will not stop; however, you may take your chances with light vehicles although it is not advisable. Never try to hitchhike while simultaneously walking. It gives an impression that you can reach where you want to by mere walking. The greatest chance you have of being hitchhiked in India is by a policeman. Policemen are generally not afraid of being played foul as most of the other drivers are. The other reason stands as—they themselves are greatest of all hitchhikers. Obviously they reciprocate when they are awarded.

Half of your chances rest on the way you present your face and the way you signal your intent. You should not show too much eagerness although you do harbour it clandestinely. Neither you should be completely loose. Be as natural as you can, communicating silently to the driver that he is not the only one in the world who would stop for you, nor it is that you are gesturing at him for the sake of gesturing. Try not to avoid his questioning glance when he turns to you to inquire silently. You answer silently. The more time he gets to judge, the more chance you have. Don’t let your arm droop unless he goes past you. Never let your shout of destination serve as a tool to stop the driver while he is still driving. It will definitely kill 90 % of your chance even though he is heading for the same destination. If you are carrying a school bag, it is an advantage although a school bag appearing more like luggage is disheartening.

I have often seen many practicing this art alongside me. I would say not all were committed to a particular mistake but yes a significant number of them were. They would get in position as I have previously described, like stand facing the driver directly opposite, but due to some sort of torture by their conscience, a lingering guilt or shame of unknown origin, they would raise their left arm reluctantly and gradually as if they had been trying to do something else but by mere chance they would not be unhappy if someone stops by and offer them a free travel. This is catastrophic for a hitchhiker, but not serious. Another mistake which is serious but not catastrophic arises when you have several candidates competing in the vicinity. They all stand in a group thereby making it ambiguous who is the deserving one. An orderly air to the ambiguity can be provided by maintaining a necessary distance—of about 10m—between each of them, linearly.

Like all trades, this one too has its own unwritten ethics. You will never mislead the pilot in order to gain leverage of an extra mile thereby making him drive away from his usual path. Always try to help your friends, who are still tyros, by offering them fruits of your bait or by overloading so that your skill is recognized as a social one. Well, you are already working for a social benefit by increasing the efficiency of an otherwise inefficient ride.