Man on man.

An ex-colleague shared this on his FB wall. Before my work day was over a few others had done so and all their walls were populated with comments on how this was an atrocious bit of writing, ranging from how it is in bad taste that the columnist is using Tejpal as an example of anything good, to how he is "cashing in".  

But to my reader's eyes, the writer does not come across as championing Tejpal's case. He isn't suggesting that Tejpal, if guilty of abusing a colleague, should be allowed to go free. 

 He is asking if we, as a society, swing wildly from one extreme to the other. And taking forward his point, I’m wondering that if that is indeed so, whether such a society -- so prone to teenage-like mood swings --  should indeed be given the right to make any important decision.

And maybe more pertinently in this context, if male-bashing has become the ultimate symbol of liberalism, especially if taken up by the Man of Today.

That most women have long forgotten what feminism had originally set out to achieve is not news today. Or, maybe because it did achieve a lot of its goals, we decided to let the end fizzle out. Like Mehrotra says, women like Lessing (and all others who have worked for the equality of men and women) have themselves pointed out many times that the solution to the woes of women does not lie in some vindictive turning of the tables. I’m thinking, neither does it lie in stubbornly refusing to look at our own problems, or by blindly supporting whatever pro-woman statement is issued by whichever talking head is free to take to Twitter.

And it makes me wonder why our men are more ready to go into ostrich mode today than our women are. Not so long ago, this post by Chetan Bhagat went viral on the net. As can be expected, there were many debates and arguments over this. Just like in the case of the Mehrotra article, there were more men bashing Bhagat than there were women.

In fact, I clearly remember many of my girl friends and acquaintances (including me. I really do think this is one of those rare articles where Bhagat make sense) freely agreed that his assessment was right.  

But the men won’t agree. “What gives him the right to tell women what they should do”, raged a man friend. Many "likes" followed.

How about this: why not? Why can a man, if he is sensible and observant and balanced enough, not have the right to point out what is wrong with women today?

Why is it considered audacity if an even keeled person calls out that the needless laughing at jokes that are not funny to feed a man’s ego does not doing anything for the cause that everyone from Wollstonecraft to Rammohan Roy fought for?  And if gender is not important when it comes to evaluating a woman social commentator’s point of view on men, how is the fact that Bhagat is a man important here?

Here’s what gives him the right to write : not that he is a man, but that he is a person who is making a fair point.

Now my question is, how do men not see that? Do they really not see, or is it that they do, but choose to go silent for fear of being labeled insensitive MCPs?

I am a woman. I presume I get the trials and tribulations and restrictions of being a woman a little better than a man does, simply because while a man can understand, I live through it. I have lived through judgmental snubs about how my “looks could never tell you understand politics”, supposedly meant as a compliment. I make sartorial decisions based on the locality I’d be travelling to/through. I constantly battle the “you’re a girl, you need to settle” preachers. Driven to a snapping point, I've slapped a co-passenger in a crowded train. I've been asked to not “do that again because you never know what he’ll do in return”. I've been afraid of getting mugged in dark alleys. For me, the fear is compounded because as a woman, I can get mugged and raped – a fear the average man does not face every day while travelling to or from work or from partying. I've felt helpless rage when well wishers of the family have expressed concerns about “young girls these days living by themselves and doing what they want.” I know there’s a very good chance if I get into trouble while I’m out with my friends, it will more readily be put down to my “looking for it” or “pushing fate” than it would if I were a man.

I am grateful I've never had to face anything more worrying. But even so, I would think “feeling for us” as we fight these everyday troubles is not the same as living through them.

And yet surprisingly, I still see more women ready to give the Man a chance than men are.

And there, I can’t help wondering if this is really about change, or about a fad. That it is cool to be a man basher these days. That it is so important to be in fashion that we should completely crush all voices of reason, lest we get thrown out of the cool kids’ group.

For I know from personal experience that the same men who rave about feminism on FB also smile when they say “Delhi is a man’s city, nothing you can do about it.”

The statement, stated as a fact, does not bother. What bothers is the smugness in the saying of it.  

And I know most of those liberated men will not help me out if I am lying in a street corner beaten and bleeding, for fear of getting involved with the authorities.

I also know many will act outraged when they read this, but will silently know in their heads that they won’t lift a finger when it comes to that.

Like you, I’m tired of dealing with this eternal debate of man vs woman. I’m tired of having people judge things I do as done by a woman, instead of just being done by someone who can do it. I think it’s all rather silly: people who really move mountains have never cared about that stuff anyway; they just go ahead and do it, and the rest fall in line. But I’m also tired of this ridiculous man-bashing that I see growing among people . And I’m scared, because this is not stuff fads should be made of. Violating a woman’s right is a serious issue: people do it every day, sometimes even unknowingly.  And there is nothing fun or fashionable about being on the receiving end. If you’re thinking raising hell on FB for a couple of days is your contribution to correcting this wrong, you are mistaken.The truth is, you are only adding to the traffic, creating confusion and distracting those who are really trying to help.

 If you really do care, start at home. The next time your mother berates a girl for wearing “short clothes”, or staying out late, teach her a thing about individual choice instead of standing there like an idiot.

The next time your brother makes a lewd comment about the college heartthrob, talk to him about being respectful towards others instead of smiling indulgently. When your dad says your kid sister should not go to another city to get her college education because she’s a girl, stand up to him.

The point of my post is not to insist every man, no matter how evil, should be forgiven. It is to say that every person, not matter a man or woman, should be given a fair chance. I know there are people, many of them women, who think it is OK to let the scales tip the other way just a little to make a point. To let a man or two be more sinned against than sinning, just to drive home a message. To say and show, “this is what will happen to you if you dare cross your limits. This is for all the centuries of thinking you can get away with being cocky, simply because you are a man.”

 And I’ll be honest. There have been times when I've agreed. When you hear of what men can do to women just because they can,one wishes the scales did tip over to the other side.

But a voice in my head keeps telling me that is not, cannot be the answer.

I’m not a feminist. I quite like Victoria’s Secret. I think there are things a man is better at, and there are things a woman is better at. Broadly, for exceptions do prove the rule. I don’t see how it is important for me to be able to lift heavy suitcases or dress like a man to prove that I am equal to him. So yes, I shop at MAC, love shoes and am interested in reading about politics.  I am not seeking to be a man, I’m saying respect me for who I am and what I bring to the table. And if I am to be respected for who I am, I must give back that respect, no? And also learn to acknowledge that there are problems with us and that just because someone is pointing that out and raising a few valid questions, it does not automatically make him (or her) evil. 

10,000!

A reader told me he did not like my last post as much as the earlier ones and I decided to re read again. And I saw my page of rant had hit 10,047 clicks!
While it is a free widget that calculates traffic for me, there is a setting that has allowed me to discount my own clicks, so I figured this is where I should say thank you.
For clicking, reading, commenting, critiquing  and most importantly, sticking by.
When I started scribbling here, I was in J-school and was living in what would be the second in the line of many adopted cities I'd call home.
10,000 visits later, I'm not in school any more, have lived in two countries, four more cities ranging from a couple of months to a couple of years, met scores of new people, had a few adventures of my own and am hopefully somewhat wiser for that.
Eh, I guess the blog will tell if I am. For now, thanks again. Let's move on before this turns into one of those long, doleful thank you notes. It's a Friday, let's bring out the wine!

Things I do not understand. Do you?

I’ve been sick lately, and in the tradition of sickness all over the world, I stayed in bed (or couch) and watched TV and read and wondered as the world passed by. Kind of.  As I was swallowing Amoxicillin and taking shots, the government of the world’s most powerful nation shut down, a leader in the world’s biggest democracy cried “mummy”, Mahalaya (and so, Durga Puja) settled in, another Gandhi Jayanti came and went, Jhumpa Lahiri brought out yet another book to talk about identity loss among second and later generation immigrants, mad men killed almost 70 people in Nairobi, Tom Clancy died, there was a car chase in D.C, and I re-learnt the use of the Oxford comma. I also realized there are some things I never understood well and ask as I may, have never really gotten good answers to. Worse, I've been carrying around some of these for years and have debated and fought over with friends every single time we’ve met over chai, but be that as it may, there have never been satisfactory answers. I’ll list some here, not is order of preference. If you know the whys and hows, do tell:

   We’ll start with the Government shutdown: apart from the fact that no one should be totally surprised by it, no matter how outrageous the concept, I never really understood the opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I've very little political sympathies; my question is based on general curiosity. Everyone understands the concept of universal healthcare, and from what I read, Obamacare is broadly based on the premise that those who can afford to, will pay more in taxes so that that money can be used to expand health coverage to those who cannot afford to get it. Mitt Romney used this model and it was successful. So it can’t be a Democrat/Republican thing. So what is the deal? And whatever it is, is it worth shutting the Government down over? My tax refunds are stranded because the office is closed. Come on, now.

For those of you who want a ready reckoner, I think this is easy. If I share the other stuff I read on Obamacare, you’ll think me mad for reading that through a fever. But I did re read Harry Potter and Famous Five, so we’re good. Meaning to say, I’m not a nerd. Ok, maybe a little.

I also don’t totally get the transformation of the Republicans into conservatives. I mean, given that this is Lincoln’s party, won’t you think they’d be more tolerant? Yeah fine, he was a moderate and this is no more Lincoln’s party than the Congress in India is Gandhi’s, but I still can’t help wondering. About both.

 Somewhat related, but more broadly, here’s a rider to question 1. Why do we grumble so much about paying taxes? If we pay up, they get to have money to do stuff like build schools, roads, get potable water and feed the army. Of course, if you’re a corrupt Indian politician you’ll eat up all that money and build a bridge that breaks in two months, but those who think that is reason enough to grumble about paying taxes, what is your better solution?

Also, from what I see, corruption is an unavoidable by-product of democracy. Even of autocracy, but the point is, as long as there are taxes, how is it unfair to say that the rich should pay more than the poor?

And while at it, how on earth do we think we can demand better trains, roads and other public facilities but not pay for those? Strictly in the Indian context, we yelp every time they raise fuel rates. Even those of us who read the papers and know that India subsidizes fuel to a fault.  Or public transport charges. So what do we really want? World class service at rates that were good in the 1950s? And when the government says that cannot be done, they are no good. Sure.

  Talking about public transport made me think of this fight between aesthetics and utility. I visited Jamaica recently and found out that the big cities there (at least the two I visited) are very much like the tier two cities in India. The roads are potholed; the bazaars a melee of make-shift stalls put together in a haphazard way, there's a lot of use of plastic, even the Caribbean could have been so much more attractive if they’d beautified it more. I see the same in India: we have so much prettiness, but we take it for granted and do nothing to conserve it. And we’re always shouting about how beautifying things are a waste of money. On my last visit home I found out that the chief of a state that is not doing very well had installed street lights and put a fresh coat of paint on structures that had been discolored by paan stains for decades. I thought residents would be happy about it, but local university boys (and their fathers) were grumbling the same: if you have no money, why spend it on beautification? Ok, so no one’s really saying starve to make yourself look good, but as a state (or a country) trying to impress investors, I’d think a well-lit street, an international standard airport and a city that does not look impoverished are important. Why do we always think utility and aesthetics have to be mutually exclusive? When I looked at the reading room in the Library of Congress, with its airy room and stained glass windows and oculus, I wanted to spend time there and read. When I looked into a classroom in Calcutta University with its broken furniture and cobwebbed halls, I wanted to write my epitaph. I know great minds have come from both places but there has to be a reason why Washington built that city so beautifully and why they have a “reflecting pool” outside the Capitol, right? Or why Apple spends so much time over design and looks? If just utility was everything, they wouldn't spend so much time, energy and money on beautification. And Keats wouldn't write Endymion.

 I’m also getting a little tired of the Modi vs Rahul G shout outs. At one point I’d wished they’d put out Gadkari/Kumar and Chidambaram as candidates but despite what the Economist said, a small part of my head knew it was wishful thinking. RG suddenly woke up from his slumber and like a high school student, ranted against the potential ordinance. While I support the rant, I laughed out loud when I read about how he did it, and how he returned to salvage himself. If you still need your mom to tell you that using words like “nonsense” at a presser is wrong, I don’t know what to say. I laughed. Yes, I laugh when my brain freezes. It helps the brain unfreeze. And then he thought it is fine to somehow salvage his situation by the feeble excuse of his being “young”. My cousin of 18 is young. RG, you’re 43, for god’s sake. I am almost as scared to see you as my chief as I am your opponent.

 This will bring me to my eternal gripe. Why will people not read? How are these two related, you ask? Here’s how: Julius Caesar. Gharey Bairey. Godaan. The Mahabharat. Grapes of Wrath. To Kill a Mockingbird. Great Expectations. Every single piece of good literature (fiction, even if autobiographies get too tedious) have taught us, no spelled it out for us. That the fear of missing out is not the same as support. That not thinking is not a good thing. That the “fool multitude” does not know. That tempestuousness is not the same as patriotism. That no greater good comes out of cheating yourself.  That the only thing new on earth is the history that we do not know. That was Harry Truman, by the way. Yet, like idiots, we go on repeating the same mistakes. Is it because it is important for every person to make their own mistakes and then understand? But surely, learning from someone else’s mistake is the more effective way? I don’t know, I’m asking. And if reading helps sort out so many problems, why won’t we still do it? All great men and women do. They run countries, invent life-changing things, make history and still find time to read. We copy-paste software codes or stuff we hope will pass off for "thesis" (and often don’t even get paid for the extra hours) and claim we don’t have time.  

    This list is making me sad, and adding to it is going to make it longer still, so I’ll stop now. I’m thinking I’ll deal with the other questions in part II. Let’s see. For now, I’m going to go laugh my brain freeze off.

ADD is the new thing?

   There are too many people around me, my age and younger, who I notice, cannot, or will not read anything that does not stick to twenglish. Correction: will not do anything that requires any form of long term involvement. And we have a fashionable term for it. ADD.
    For a long time, when friends said "I can't focus, I think I have ADD", I used to think that is a concern. That s/he realises it's a problem (ADD stands for Attention Deficit Disorder. See? Disorder. It is now called ADHD too) and wants to correct it, just like I do. My attention span has dwindled and reading any article that is more than 60 lines is peppered with browsing and checking the phone. Sure, everyone's has, but that does not make it okay. It's like saying because everyone around me has a skin disease that spreads easily, I should be fine with it.
     So I make an effort because it bothers me and cannot, for the life of me, imagine a situation where I can complacently  declare, "I can't process information if it comes to me in a string of more than 10 words at a time. God help me if there's a comma involved somewhere."
    I wonder how this happened. I understand young kids brought up on FB and Twitter say that, but those born in the 80s (and before, at least in India) were not even trained on sms language. Most of us got our first cell phones only after we were grown up teens, so what is the excuse?
    Hang on, I know of one. Texting was costly when I first got my cellphone so I used to squeeze in as much information into one message as I could. But was that enough to catch on so badly that  we simply forgot normal writing? Seriously, how many nanoseconds does it save you when you annoyingly type "lyf" instead of "life"?
    And if this be true, why are youngsters now taking to that kind of language? Texting is mostly free now, or at least not a quarter as costly.
    Or do we really believe we can "simplify" language that way and honestly do not see the difference between simplification and dumbing down?
    Noble as that thought is, I think it's better we just accept that most of us just don't have the calibre to do that. Change the course of language for the better, I mean. Things like that are best left to the experts. Same reason as why we won't ever go and perform surgery on a man just because we know how to use a pair of scissors or wield the scalpel on a dead roach.
    We are too ignorant, and please, it took the likes of Johnson and Shakespeare and Premchand and Tagore to modernize their languages. If it were everyone's cup of tea, Everyman would be pundits. But we are not.  Plus, it took almost 30 years for them to put together the Oxford English Dictionary, and our problem seems to be a lack of time, patience and concentration.
    Shouldn't then we take a step back from our uber inane arguments of "I can say what I like because I have a mouth"?
    Really, for all of us who have had more than 12 years of formal education, I would think it's a little shameful.    
    I keep getting reminded by Sir: all animals have mouths. We are different because god gave us a head with brains inside that allows us to think and process.  And they say that is one thing that actually grows with use.
    I try it in my limited capacities, feels great.  So I would volunteer help to fellow sufferers, or share what works for me: "try to take time out to read, it helps concentrate," or, "read your news, don't just listen to it. NYT's OPed is really good" and so on.
    But over repeated conversations, I now realize that it is not concern that makes people talk about their, let's call it "situation". Many are proud of it. I've been trying to understand just how that works inside their heads:
    "I can't process anything that goes beyond junior school english (or any language), yeay!"
    "I will not even read the news anymore, though I used to/could do so when I was a child because I can't sit still and read anything that forces me to think. And I won't do anything about it. Because ADD is cool!"
    Here's the thing. It is not cool. It is, if anything, embarrassing. So maybe, just maybe, instead of being complacent about this disease or worse, pulling others down to our ranks,  we should start taking steps to correct it.
    And no, I will NOT change my style to write five word sentences.
    Because, none of the world's best movies or literature has come out of Twitter. Yet. And that is why, reading Meg Cabot is a little different from reading Hardy. And watching James Bond rough up cars and women on screen  is a little different from, say, watching Wild Strawberries. Take your pick, there are many examples across the world for both kinds.
    Of course there is a need for both, I for one can watch Pierce Brosnan chasing villains over and over again. And yes, I do think he's the best Bond, Connery notwithstanding. Come on, what is Bond without Brosnan's blue eyed glint?
   Oh and here's the other thing. Even if we, with our small capacities and bloated egos refuse to accept the truth in what I said just because we cannot accept it, how about this: don't plain facts tell you which is the better kind of book or movie that we should invest more time in? Unless we have decided we will make a concerted effort to only like trash, that is.
    How is it that all the bests and greats of the world tried to keep things simple, sure, but were not trying to play to the gallery too much by dumbing themselves down?
    And let's not get into the "oh they have to sell their trade" argument. Shakespeare had to sell his plays as well and he did include scenes which would entertain the stalls (some of which can make you go very crimson. Crassness is not something he was a stranger to). But he did not make his plays all about crass humour and short sentences. He was not writing for the stalls.
    More importantly, we don't remember his plays for the slapstick bits that don't make us think, his most famous plays and lines are ones that contain deep philosophy.  So would SRK gain more respect or less if he chose to give the "lungi dance " a pass? Really, someone should talk to the man, he makes me see red these days.
    And we, as audience/ readers: why do we consistently want to be part of the stalls and why will be ridicule anyone who says s/he does not choose that?
    Bullet points are for power point presentations and CVs. But then, the world can't keep communicating though PPTs. I know the few people who love talking to me and spend time with me don't do that because I talk in PPT language. I don't. In fact, I often ramble. I had a friend say this to me today itself. He decided he'd rather spend time chatting with me than go out and spend time with people who can't talk about much else than work, money or shopping, so I'm not making this up.
So, if you cannot process simple but long-ish sentences, it is your problem. Fix it.
Meanwhile, if you want to check out the other extreme, try  this. I found this on Twitter, by the way. :)
http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/write-sentence.htm

For the greater good.

A few days back, a homeless man on the street asked me for money as I was about to step into a restaurant for dinner, and I gave him a dollar.
 Just as I was about to get in, I caught a look of semi disapproval on my companion’s face, and I asked what the matter was.
Here’s the gist of what I got: most of the people on the streets are homeless because they choose not to work, they are able bodied and not old, so by giving them money, I am just making them lazy.
What about children? (I haven’t seen kids begging on the streets here, but such conversations almost automatically take us to India, hence my question) . “With children, it is even worse, because you are teaching them that there can be an easy way out at a very young age, and that they don’t need to work,” my friend said.
What if it is someone really in need? “None of the money (in India) goes to those begging anyway, their pimps will take it all away from them, so what is the point? For the greater good, we must not give them money."
This is not the first time I’ve been hit with that logic, I  give out money to those asking for it if I have cash on me. I give food if people ask and don't  really understand how people can keep gorging on their sundaes and burgers while shooing away underfed kids latching on to them at the same time, children claiming to be hungry for days. Never mind if the claim is right or wrong, they obviously need help!
So,  I’ve been badgered with the “why are you doing this” question for forever now.

There’s a simple answer to why I do it: because I feel bad that while I’m going to spend $30 on one meal there’s someone who might not have eaten for the day. So if I can, I will.

There’s also the not-so-simple answer, which is that I do not agree with the “logic” in the “what are you doing” line of thinking. Just because while I know a lot of people (especially in America) might just be begging to raise enough money so they can buy their next hit, there are many who are genuinely in need and I would rather give people the benefit of doubt.
Now I obviously don’t suggest helping shady looking men lounging in the subway station looking visibly stoned and potentially inviting trouble, but that man on the street corner looking hungry?
 I also don’t really live under a rock, so I know the horror stories of how they force their kids to wail to make people give them money, I know how some people cut off limbs off young kids so that they “look needier” and I know that many of those on the roads are drifters who have cut class.
But beyond the granular details of why exactly are they begging, can anyone deny that no matter what the reason, they are doing it because they need help? So yes, they cut off the young boys legs so that his situation tugs at some Ritchie Rich’s heartstrings and brings him a 50 instead of a 10.  I’d count it as a criminal offence (same as I would when my classmate’s dad broke his arm when he beat him up in standard 6), but don’t you see the difference here?
The boy lost his legs for it. Who in their right mind would do that if they had an option? And if the deed is already done, how on earth is it “more helpful” to not part with the little money they are asking for, for which he lost his limbs is the first place? Do you really think starving them to death is going to make their manager (or whatever the term is) any less cruel, instead of their finding other meaner ways to earn money?

Of course there are practical considerations. I can’t help every single person asking me because a) I don’t make enough to be charitable on that scale, and b) I traded cash for the convenience of cards ever since I got to operate my own bank account. So many times I mumble a “I don’t have anything on me”. The post, I guess, is more about the intent. Or the lack of it.

Here’s another story I’ll tell you. Stone ages ago when I was in college, an old man wearing worn out but a a neat pajama-kurta came up to me and my friends and asked for money to catch a cab. His story was made of text-book con artist stuff: he claimed he knew the Principal of our college (he knew Father Principal's name, but then so does half of the city), he was an ex student, he was in the neighbourhood on an errand and he lost his wallet so now he’s stranded and can’t go back home. So will we help him? He will return the money the next day.

Like everyone else, I saw through the story, but gave him 20/-. That’s all I had on me, saving my own bus ride home. If you were born after 1990 like my kid brother, you would find that silly but believe me, once upon a time we did go to college with all of 25/- in our wallets. And that covered minor trips to local eateries at the back gate of my college.
Anyway, none of my other friends gave him anything and one girl admonished me severely after the old man had thanked me and gone away. “Don’t you see he’s lying? Which self respecting elderly man asks young college girls for help if he really just lost his wallet? You lost your wallet last month, did you beg?”
Of course I knew he was lying, but is it really that difficult to understand why I would still give him the money? A well spoken greying old man is reduced to conning kids less than half his age for a mere tenner or twenty. I doubt that was a matter of choice. He might have been an employee at some factory or firm that closed shutters. He might be lying for food. It might not have been anything sinister, but I doubt he’d do what he did if he had other options. So, even if he was lying, I played along. And I'm hoping those you would thought like my friend in the first instance, will now understand why I say if this happens once more, I'll do the same thing again..

“So if he is in need why can he not just beg? Why lie? I hate liars,” said my friend. Right, because it is that easy to swallow your pride and share your misfortune with a bunch of giggly college girls and unfeeling strangers who are not likely to help in any case. Or is it because it is infinitely better and fulfilling to stand on a high pedestal and be charitable, than to help without the fanfare associated with it?

On my last visit home, I gave a beggar at a bus stop 50/- because I didn’t have change and she looked needy. I got the usual dose of “tor shobtatey barabari” (You always overdo it). I'm kind of used to that by now (trick is to ignore or smile depending on who you're with and let it slide), but I still find it supremely strange that those who find my giving away 50/-  (I can’t afford to do that regularly, it was a once in a while thing because like I said, she looked like she could use some help and I didn’t have change) are also the ones who would blame the Buffetts, Birlas, Murdochs and Ambanis for  “not doing enough for society”.   Of course they don’t know that many of them actually have made many charitable contributions. But to the question of “not enough”, here’s my rider: absolutely for the reason of argument, let’s say 50/- to you is 50,000/- to a very rich man. Meaning he will spend 50,000 with the same nonchalance or thrift you would 50/-. If   you can’t bear to part with your share or even bear the sight of another person parting with it for a good cause, why do you expect a rich man to part with his 50k?
And shouldn't you only grumble about other more famous men of not doing their fair share only when you know you do yours well?

I work with a voluntary non-profit organization that has adopted a few schools in various parts of rural India and tries to keep them going.  We buy them supplies (think chalk, notebooks, pens through mid-day lunch), counsel the teachers (not many well educated and qualified candidates want to get posted to rural public schools, so they often get very under qualified teachers) and now we have also started a campaign asking people who can to "adopt a child".

No prizes for guessing how much that has flourished. Things have come to such a head that we might have to let a couple of our schools go, because we don’t have enough money to give them. I once wrote an email to all my friends and acquaintances asking them to help, explaining that it was not for my benefit and that a onetime donation could cost less than a mug of weekend beer. Very few did, and I got a lot of “I gave money the last time you guys were asking.”
Right, because parting with $10 more than once a year is going to make them destitute. Not to mention the vanity in announcing how they paid up once before.

And what is it we sing at all prayer meets? Par dukhkhey upkaar karey toh yeh mann abhimaan na aaney rey.

I wonder if it is in the chasing of "money" and "career" ( Sir says, none of us are actually making any serious money or have that important a career anyway, we just delude ourselves into thinking this will get us somewhere in life) that has made us all insensitive. So much so that not only do we not help others in need, we come up with brilliant excuses to justify why we shouldn't.
Only, I sometimes wonder if these reasons ever come back to haunt people sometimes, when they are with themselves and with their thoughts? Or have we killed that inner voice absolutely and completely?

Judge not?

There's a soap on Indian television that threw some excitement at us this past week in way of a child born out of wedlock of an already married man. Peanuts, you say? That thing is the lot of every soap ever written?
     Maybe, but I thought this one was different in that the man who duped his wife and got another woman (who he married later) pregnant was not made into the  proverbial bad guy. But, as the female protagonist pointed out, he did wrong, so no matter what the explanation is, the act is done and no amount of justification should acquit  him of his punishment/responsibilities.
     It was a little eerie that they chose to air these episodes right now, for I've been wondering about this for some time. Not about double-crossing spineless men, but about rights and wrongs and justifications, I mean.       
    For as long as I have been able to think for myself, I've known that it is not a good thing to judge others, especially if you do not know their story. "To judge" here largely meaning to not look down on people or proclaim they are wrong simply because they operate in ways you are not comfortable in.
    Now, I'm willing to make exceptions.
 To judge, is to “form an opinion about through casual weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” So, what if, through careful observation and repeated experiences, your opinion of a thing, situation or person is not casual, but the opposite? Is it so wrong then to say “I know what this is about and I can tell you this is wrong?”
     Sure, there is a reason why "I do not judge" is the libertarian banner most young urban people like to  brandish as they try and break free from their traditional and orthodox settings. Because, our society is almost always too eager to punish anyone who is happy doing things differently,  and the mark of a modern man is/was to distance himself from that kind of madness and keep an open mind.
    But then, are there really no rights and wrongs, and is it necessary to interchange “I do not judge” with nonchalance and shirking of responsibilities? I doubt disinterest and taking the easy way out is what the great saints meant to propagate when they said "judge not, and you will not be judged." 
I say this because I see people doing that every day, in big and small measures.

The friend will not be asked to cut back or get help for his borderline drinking problem because hey, who are we to judge? Plus, calling people out on these things can brand you “uncool”. The husband will not tell the wife that she should stop dealing in inanities or be better behaved in public because well, it’s her life. (Also, which husband can dare  tell a wife that she is terribly ill mannered?) The employee will not tell the colleague that when he keeps playing Pacman on his computer during work hours it is not only distracting, but also detrimental to his career, because hey, it’s his life. Who are we to judge?

 But here’s my question, if you are a responsible, thinking human being who cares (or claims to) for that friend, colleague or wife, why is it a problem for you to call them out when they are wrong?

    Now of course you'll have comebacks to the tune of who am I to decide right or wrong, but then I already said, this is on the premise that the call is not based on “casual weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” That’s the thing with the universe, you see. There are some things that never change and cannot be. Being unnecessarily loud and ill mannered = people don’t really like you,  no matter how much they pretend to, is one such rule.

    Also, there is a vague chance that if you do hear me out, you may be ready to give this a thought and we may be able to agree or disagree like adults.

    Take that man in the soap for example. He was married and claimed to be in love with his wife. Then he fathered a child with another woman who did not know he was married already.
I do not have a problem with the fact that he slept with one woman while he was married to another so much as I have with the fact that the woman and the wife were both not made aware of each other's existence. Would it  be so bad if I said the man is spineless and has done a wrong thing and there are no excuses?
 There, I judged. And do you really think there is any valid argument that can make any reasonably well-balanced person say or see otherwise? 
    I see people lying through their noses every other day and then I see people validating those lies or shrugging off the responsibility of calling those out because they "don't judge." Little do we realize that that attitude also says that we do not have any opinion on things or that we are choosing not to think. Which can't be a good thing if we claim to have fully functional brains.
     Now, if to opinionate is equal to immediately branding a person a philanderer or a liar or in some way unfit to live in civil society just because his or her style is not yours, or s/he is challenging age old norms, of course I do not side with that.
    But in what I see around me, people are largely hiding behind the open minded democratic banner of "I do not judge" simply to shrug off responsibilities and validate their wrongs. 
    "I had my reasons. He had his reasons." Sure they did, but whoever said that makes it OK? Not to mention my nagging doubt that what people think of as "reasoning" is most often than not a fear of missing out and following the herd.
    Anyway, giving reasoning a chance, I'd still say this in various forms might as well be used to validate anything ranging from Hitler murdering thousands of people to crazed men shooting openly in schools to parents dressing up toddlers like grown women in dresses that draw attention to their non-existent cleavages. It's quite gross, really. Only, no one seems to mind.  Here, I see nothing wrong with those who say that is not their style, for how many of the above can you really justify ?
    If it is not OK, then you are agreeing that it is a wrong thing to do, which means somebody or some people are responsible for perpetrating that wrong. Would you seek to justify Hitler by way of any "he had his reasons?
    Most of us, educated that we are, try to establish how modern and broad minded we are every chance we get.
    And so, even though a small voice inside the head keeps telling us it cannot be a good thing that a classmate is drinking too much, we try to act "cool" with it.
    So it goes with going to the temple, reading vernacular literature, objecting to that extra skimpy dress.  The pressure to be "cool" overrides sensibility and in such a manner that not only are we unable to talk sense into others, we ourselves give in too.
I’ve gotten my fair share of “but this is what everyone does” in my life, so I know.

    This is our way of telling the world that though I come from a family where parents are likely to get a heart attack if they knew their teenage daughter is sexually active, I'll still never warn the girl I call my "friend" against unprotected or callous sex because hey, you know what? I do not judge, I'm cool like that.

    No, seriously. I once asked some men friends if they would take any woman who spent most of her energy trying to draw people's attention to her pout and low neck line seriously. This, as you know, can be done in many ways, right from how you dress to how you talk. Come on, I’m not really thinking Mamta Kulkarni.
    None of those men said "yes". One said if that's what she did actively and knowingly, she was not asking to be taken seriously, so why should he care? Not that that justifies sleaze or rape, don't get me wrong, but if such a girl then cries about how people are always taking her for a bimbo, I find it difficult to sympathize for her, and I also find it difficult not to judge her for what she is doing to herself.
    Ditto for men by the way, only that pouts and low neck lines are more common in women.
  
And then the other excuse is that people are trying to be politically correct, which often translates into  "I'm too scared to speak my mind or make a decision."
   You know what Dante said? If you've read Inferno (I'm not expecting anyone read and remembers The Divine Comedy), you're familiar with this: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
    So, you're not doing any good by not speaking against what you know is wrong. On the contrary, you're even reserving your spot in the darkest place in hell, which I hear is not a place where they care much for political correctness in.
   I recently had a somewhat heated discussion with friends over a situation that involved an extra marital affair. I had no problems with the affair, but I could not bring myself to justify the lying that came with it and I said as much.
    So apparently, I made the terrible mistake of judging and someone at the table tried to tell me this was because I am Indian and that this behaviour would be acceptable in other parts of the world. I asked which part of the world, what religion or what mores justify lying (notice, I am not calling it "cheating"), disrespect and stupidity.
    Exactly.
   And it does not always have to be these soap opera type situations. I'm sorry, but if after more than 10 years of formal education all your conversations revolve around boys/girls, cosmos/cars, and partying, I am judging you a little. People who know me know I do my fair share of going out, but that cannot be but more than a small percentage of who I am.  Besides going out,  I also  tried things like reading more (Hosseini’s latest is a must read), returning to formal/professional dancing and rekindling my wobbly chess-playing skills over the week (Baba taught me how to "castle" when I was still writing with pencils but then I somehow just stopped playing. I'm hoping Apple's magic apps can undo some damage ). 
Anyway,  you may not have any interest in these things, but you get the point? 
    And if you decide it is OK to shoot at and kill your girlfriend on Valentine's Day I will judge you, no matter how fast a runner you are. If you decide if is OK that your 10 year old son is calling his teacher "sexy" and you decide to laugh along instead of correcting him, is it because you have your reasons to do so?
    And please, don't tell me people are different. They are, which is why some tenets of right and wrong are important. And that’s how there are good people and bad people.
  Of course you have your reasons for what you do. What matters is whether they are the right ones or wrong ones.

Sir.

They say your family has a huge hand in shaping you into who are, because even when you’re an infant, you unconsciously imbibe their tastes, mannerisms and choices. I've always thought it is really difficult to bury that root altogether (for those who try, for any reason) and most people, when they do, become strange cross breeds that fit neither here nor there.
So, I was shaped by my parents too, but then I was shaped some more. This post is about how, and more importantly, by whom.
There’s a reason they ask young headstrong teens to “listen to your parents,” (though you could beat me to death and I won’t agree to that when I’m arguing with my mom). For when I was about 17, the mother semi-forced me into Suvro Sir’s English coaching classes. And that, I still think, was the single most important thing that has happened to me while I was growing up.
A lot of you who read my blogs and think they make some kind of sense have asked me, “who is  Sir?”  When you've known a person for as long as I've known him and as closely, answering that question gets more difficult that one would expect.
You know how you sometimes meet a person and know; somewhere deep down, that this is someone you always want around you? That is one of the most important things I've learnt in life and this is largely a story of how.
Like in any small but reasonably prosperous small town in India, tuition classes are a rage where I grew up. It does not matter if you really need extra help. It does not matter if the teacher is actually able to help. There is some underlying belief that you need to attend coaching classes.
 I had let my parents know that if I don’t like the teacher they found, I’ll bail. Baba agreed while Ma said something to the tune of Baba always letting me get away with these things. But because I really did not need help scoring marks in English, I won that argument. So I went, because a) I’d rather spend time reading Dickens than doing Maths, b) someone had told me it is “really difficult” to get into Sir’s class, c) that Sir is a really grumpy person, and d) that Sir did not like to teach students from my school. Now b, c and d – none of that was true, of course, but which 17 year old worth her salt does not like a challenge?
So, I went expecting an angry and condescending man. For everybody and their uncles knew Sir is extremely learned and has many feathers in his cap, so the ‘angry and condescending’ bit fit into the image. Yet, I met a polite and reasonably friendly man, despite my producing a very crumpled mark-sheet quite unfit for submission anywhere. But I had run out of fresh photocopies and was already building up a quasi-revolution against the supposedly stuck-up English tutor who did not like students from my school, so I deliberately did not make any effort.
There was an amused "this is the copy you have?" to which I think I must have mumbled an incoherent "yes", as far as I remember.
Then, I attended his classes.  I did not bail.
And my world changed.
I don’t much like clichés either, but they exist for a reason. When the world changes, you say it changes.
 We've remained friends ever since. Yeah, that happened. Somehow, the most learned and wise man I've ever met or know of became friends with me and let me hang around for more than a decade. Still counting.
And I’m very serious when I say he’s really the most learned man I've known in my life.  You can talk to Sir about any subject under the sun and be sure you’ll actually learn. Last time I was fretting, he helped me learn about turbofan engines. Don’t ask.
But turbofan engines and English scores are not the reason why I say what I say. Engine technologies change (though I bet he'll keep up somehow) and marks stop being important after a point in time. What he really teaches to those who care to listen (and it takes intelligence to listen to him), is the infinitely more important lesson of how to be a good, thinking person. Tall order, indeed.
So I learn from him (OK, let's go with "try to learn"). Next time you’re impressed with some great philosophy I come up with, don’t be surprised by my conviction. Chances are it is borrowed and then modified, but tried and tested. I made Sir my mentor and he let me, look upon him as a father, fight with him (not proud of it, but then I’m working on it), ranted and vented and then found peace.

Peace, yes. That’s what I said.

Happens when you know you have someone wise and sensible to listen to you patiently and respond with care, no matter how silly your “problem” is and no matter how much you’re responsible for getting yourself in the mess.
Have you ever met a person who makes you feel so comfortable that something inside you tells you that it is OK to open up to this person and s/he’ll listen?
That kind of peace.
It was in Sir's classes that I saw an adult tell a bunch of teenagers, without any hemming and hawing, that respect and love are a function of action and not of age. As I learnt from him how to do that, I took that to my friends as well and what a difference that has made!
So, teacher-friend-father-mentor-confidant all rolled into one. That's who Sir is to me. Only, it took me about a decade to realize that. Anyway, better late than never, no?
Plus, that taught me how to decide who is important in my life. Very crucial. Which is why, I keep insisting, if  you've found who is important keep him/them, even if it means you have to forget about your stupid false ego (you know, “I love him/her and I’m happier when we’re together, but s/he did this and I can’t be the one to make truce.”  OK, don't. But is that helping you?  So?)

 Because, I've known through trial that if you let someone who makes you feel that way go, you’re the one losing out. Which, apart from being a very bad feeling, is also pointless. You only have one life, no?
Now, most people in this world do not have Sir’s infinite patience nor capacity for caring  so I told myself it is necessary that I follow through every “you’re important” with suitable action. Try it, often results in friendships that last a lifetime. Also, because there are idiots out there who will take you for a ride if they can, also evaluate other people by their actions. Not entirely fool-proof, but comes close and can save you a lot of unnecessary trouble.
Like you, I've seen teachers and I've seen schools and I've seen coaching classes. But I've barely seen another teacher or even heard of one who would, as a rule, goes beyond the mere curriculum set by university boards and actually teach. He even gave us a quiz on General Knowledge once (English tutor, let me remind you), through which I realized more than half of my classmates, at age 16-17, did not know how to spell "Raisina" Hill. Or that a "disc" was really a "discotheque".

This, while also doing the infinitely more important work of teaching us life lessons that can be used well after the immediate need to score good marks is over. As you grow older and older and report cards become distant memories, you realize how important this kind of teaching is.
For people used to equating "coaching classes" with "take down notes", this must be a really difficult and new concept.
My parents told me that it is important to be a good human being. It is from Sir, I learnt (yeah, fine. “trying to learn”) how to actually do that. No, really, he can actually tell you how to do that, I don't mean it in way of some vague rhetoric.
And he can show you too, for he’s a living example in himself. Which makes it very difficult to brush it all aside saying “but that’s all mere ideology” and can be very inconvenient at times, but then who said being a good person is easy?

Little things that can not only help you but also help in evaluating those around you: be honest, especially with people whom you love and who love you, no matter how inconvenient it could be for yourself. Don’t ever, ever, use other people to further your own immediate, petty gains or interests. Communicate well. People react to your actions, not only to what you think or claim to feel. OK, I can some close friends laughing as I say that but come on, I look around me and see such strange cases I think I make the cut. Teach yourself some discipline but don’t become an automaton.  Learn to love.

And then the most important, learn what “love” really means and also how to show people you love that you do so.I’m not talking about just the boyfriend or the husband or the pretty girl you want to ask out but don’t dare to. If you've read on till here I'm hoping you know as much. Oh, and start with having the strength to acknowledge to the world that you do. Believe me, it gets easier once you do it.

And yes, that last one's one of those used, borrowed, tried and tested philosophies, so don't bet against it. You'll lose and I'll make you do my dishes for the next six months.

In case you’re wondering if I've over sold my tutor, here, go try his blog. You’ll see why I'm writing this post now, but more importantly, why I keep saying I’m extremely grateful to whichever gods up there decide on these things that I know him. And to fate that he chose to be an English tutor and not one for Physics or Maths. That just might have made it a different story, and my loss.