Thinking Of You

How can I think of anything else
when
my mind remains lost in your fantasy?
when
your breath spells my imagination?
when
your touch sparks my beginning, and
when
your whims mark my end?
when
your smile writes my hossanas, and
when
your frown brings my laments?

Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is a fascinating book that answers all your questions and doubts about why there certainly is no reason yet to believe in a God. Even if there is one.

When I first read about this book in a Khushwant Singh column[1], I was overwhelmed. I too had my own ideas about why, logically, there could not be a God. My aversion to God was not some principled, thought out, introspected plan. It came on very quietly. Indeed, I didn’t even know at the time that I had started detesting those set of feelings that are conventionally associated with believers. All of a sudden (of course, this suddenness is only in retrospect) I started arguing, thinking, following all such ideas that had I known it then would not have been possible for me to understand, fathom or harbour (perhaps?). I say so because before these incipient transformations I was a very devout Hindu: till sometime I had made it a habit to eat my first meal in the day only after I had had a bath and, then, been to a temple. Even after I gave up on it I still used to discuss and cogitate on Hindu philosophy[2]: Vivekananda, Vedānta and all that jazz (crap?).Quite long after that, I had a discussion with a friend[3] about the possibility of the existence of God; it was the first time that I had tried to articulate my atheistic views, though I don’t think I was ready with even plausible arguments then (my friend wasn’t even capable of refuting those; it was not really an intellectual discussion). Actually, none of us had even an elementary training in either religious or philosophical matters. I was yet to come across any atheist literature.

My doubts were not of the kind of logical-end absurdity that usually puzzles people about God that if such a thing actually created everything, who created that thing? This is one of the principle questions that Dawkins raises in his book, though in slightly different and redoubtable manner.

All religions, as a general rule, hold the body, in general, and sex[4], in particular, in contempt. Death and abode of pain are the two general reasons for doing so. As a child, I grew up watching a banner showing the famous ‘niśkāma karma’ saying from Gitā-"karmanyevdhikāraste mā phaleshu kadācan".

When my ideas started showing a different indentation, I did not really have a problem with this logic-what troubled me was its unnaturalness and rarity. I never saw anyone doing something just like that, without any yearning, with no intention to get something out of it. Now, as some would say, that’s a very puerile attitude towards philosophy. Maybe, but I don’t understand how could you speculate usefully about something that had no existential import. You could say, its not that human beings are like computer programs that would follow a general principle like robots do in the Will Smith movie, these are principles underlying human behaviour. Just that people never brood on it. Well, that’s my point exactly, though what I’m saying is these might be underlying principles but there’s nothing in them that makes them the privileged set, there are a heck lot of principles out there which are getting left out. And the very reason we see ‘deviations’ is because perhaps, either we don’t factor in those other principles or just think them too ignoble to be considered. Most of the times, it is this ignobility that is characteristic of philosophers. All ignoble things are ‘deviations’. Men and women, being the creations of a being for who even the thought of the word ‘bad’ (what does that really mean but for our personal preferences?) is anathema or antagonistic, could never in principle be made up of these ‘deviations’. Sex is perhaps the greatest of these ‘deviations’. I could never see any logic in it. Sex is what drives evolution. It is the élan vital. We wouldn’t have been here, if it was not for this drive, hunger. You may argue that about prostitution, rape, molestation, paedophilia, harassment, abuse etc but that didn’t mean passion for sex was in itself unethical.

But there was another side to religion that made me ditch God.

Hinduism is a dickens of a religion.




[1] It was perhaps a Telegraph column.
[2] These discussions were with Abhinav Ashish.
[3] Shivam Tiwari
[4] I hadn’t yet read about Tantra and didn’t understand what paganism meant, in the context of either Hinduism or other religions.

A day

A day
I try to imagine without
the bright, burning hope
in the sky.



A day
I try to imagine without
the vivid, livid flowers
in the spring.



A day
I try to imagine without
the livening, flowing waters
in the rivers.



A day
I try to imagine without
the enlightening, amazing stars
in the night.



A day
I try to imagine without
the supporting, strengthening emotions
in the being.



A day
I try to imagine without
God
in the simple, humble believer.



A day
I try to imagine with
all impossible, unimaginable
horrors.
A day
I try...
But still I can't,
A day without you.

You ask me to

etch from scratch

A dream in words with

my mind's chalk.

You want me

to spill the blood of

my Muse,

Without cutting across

a part that had even mistakenly bled.

Every drop of heart drained in tears,

Any flesh and muscle having been pierced by

your angelic soul;

How do I make you know

that, having refused

the Gods,

even my Existence lets me down

in my such Labour, after your passing wish, that

belittle even the Herculean tasks.

Vir Sanghvi falls for the 'Bhaiyyas'

"I have respect too for the ordinary Biharis, who are truly the salt of India, going off to other states to create wealth for all of us."
-Counterpoint,Feb 23, 2008


Such sentimental disclosures only shock me.We are brought up on such education in our families that low-profile and silence and humility is what we need to carry on with to survive in states other than Bihar for almost anywhere and everywhere people resent our presence.We are considered uncouth, uncultured, 'abhadro' and vulgar by people of most communities.Though we die singing of Bihari merit, outside academic spheres hardly do the masses recognize us for it.And I really don't mind it 'coz in the first place, I can't help it; second, I know the kind of mess Bihar is in today, we couldn't expect anything more.This was how Indians were percieved before the superpower-in-waiting became a cliched refrain.And this is how we Indians percieve our Muslim and African counterparts today.
What shocks me that whenever I expect negatives, someone throws a positive at me, like Vir Sanghvi does here.Simmy(she's a Bengali) says that she finds Biharis sweet,simple and innocent(!!!).Again, when I was once looking for a PG in Kota, I came across a landlord that he preferred Bihari tenants because they were studious and did not create nuisance like their counterparts from Delhi or Haryana did(again,!!!).
I don't understand this duality.

How Shall You Remember Me Even After Years?

Some shall remember you
'cause they were denied;
Some shall remember you
'cause they could no
more
Than admire.

Me?
Who's still not sure,
Confused still as to
Where I,
In fact,
Stand,
How I actually
Fared;

Can only remember
Whenever I
Remember you:

'Cause to be true
More to myself
Than anyone
Else
I
Won't,ever
Forget you--
Won't,ever
Be
Able to.

What Is It That You Would Steal From Me?

What worth is it
If stole from you?

For, it is you that
Is its real worth.

Wouldn't it be
better, if I,
Instead
Stole you.
From everything
Else.

at sankarpur ghat

Last Sunday,on the 13th of Jan,Ward 3 of the Hindu hostel went for a picnic (they prefer to call it a tour) to Sankarpur ghat once again.It was same the last year too.I don't know since when we've been falling upon it as our final choice for a picnic but i'm sure this'll remain for the coming 3-4 years.That does not mean it is some hopeless place where you went once only to pledge never to return there.Anyone who's been to Digha shall vouch for the serenity and still-preserved calm of the place.Though, I fear how long it would still remain like that.Seniors tell us that not more than 3-4 years ago it was an out-of-the-world place.I wonder if it was much like a non-descript beach where the middle-class would come to enjoy on their weekends, but still talk about it condescendingly because it was not a vibrant place,it didn't have a life.Only some villagers,perhaps,and nothing more to talk about.Now,I do see that a hotel has come up where people from the well-to-do families flock in great numbers.
A little away from the place you see in the photo,at an ambling distance from this place,there's a small forest,of sorts.Around hundreds of trees spread in a small region.Besides the beach,this place is really romantic. Sitting here after a nice lunch in a siesta-mood with Ashu,I could understand the Wordsworthian grief.His repenting 'what Man has made of Man' and invocation of Milton confuses me at such times-whether i should be euphoric about Buddhobabu's zeal, after a dead spell of almost 3 decades.I dont share this romanticism about the bucolic life but while I was sitting there I could hear two sounds which made me ponder on my biases(that's what it is:not having any experience of the idyllic,village life or even a small town idleness what else could I call it?).Trying to sleep in the midst of those trees,I could hear birds chirping.Now,I don't understand these bird calls but those sounds are always soothing instead of that second disturbing sound of someone screaming on a mike farther, somewhere around that space.Those hellish noises would again and again press me to think about such things.Not that this was the first time I was thinking about these things-at Presi, you really can't make a bourgeois or even a romantic escape from such questions.
* * * * * *
We started coming back to our bus at around 5.30.We had to return that night.I came back to the bus after having helped Ritu and Saunabh bring their clothes drying on the roof of the bus.Most of the boys had gone for a stroll on the beach before we left.All of a sudden, someone came running to the bus shouting 'bawaal hoyeche!dekhi giye ki hocche?'I'm a lazy person who was not worried even when his board results were going to come out-good or bad,I'm the same kind at all times.I just went on the steps of the bus to have a view of the crowd. I could see most of the hostelers standing in a huddle,some of them shouting at the top of their voices.They were having an argument with a group of men and women.Earlier,I had seen my friends standing on the sacks of sands,above that group of people.Probably, with the intention of having a look(ogling?) at the womenfolk in their group.I quickly came to the conclusion that this was nothing but developments following their eve-teasing.So,instead of showing solidarity with my hostelers, I prefered staying back and cussing them('balbajari korle aar ki hobe?').

After a little time,this too passed like all those street-corner tiffs.

Everyone back into the bus discussing the incident-boisterous about their performance in the brawl;almost ready to get into a fight;what the hell could they have done 'jodi amra chollish jon nembe jetam?':ya, but the only problem were those women;its much better in bidesh where no such differences in behaviour towards women exist,blah,blah,blah!All this time I was disdainfully looking at each one entering the bus with a cryptic silence on my face.
Finally, I asked Ritu and Utpal-'case ta ki hoye chilo?'
And then I understood that I was gravely wrong,though, that did not mean I did away with my contempt as i found another reason for it!
Now,what actually happened is that this group of adults were behaving too 'liberally' amongst themselves-you know,when 'liberalism' tends to be too harsh on Indian-Victorian sensibilities and verges (or actually became in this case) on the vulgar.I'm told that men and women were behaving very lewdly in that group('ora ki nongrami korchilo,tui dekhechilish?').Perhaps,they were also dirtying the beach.Also,as they tell me,they were creating nuisance for other people too-they were disturbing passers-by in between their 'nongrami'.Hostelers decided to protest against this and told them to clean up the beach(this was an alibi to start a quarrel).Some in that crowd were drunk and impulsively,they replied with a threat to beat them up.Obviously,such a behaviour is bound to make anyone red under his collars,and this was a forty men-strong,testosterone-brimming,rowdy-young crowd.
It eventually started a 'bawaal'.
After having understood the actual facts,my initial reaction to Ritu and Utpal was little controlled.I told them that under prevalent Indian laws this was an illegal act,moreover if they were disturbing passers-by, then it was really wrong and punishable in the law of any land.I understand ,them disturbing others apart,their real anger rose from that 'nongrami'.so,initially I just viewed it as a conflict that has become common these days in our country.The tension between all those instances from DPS MMS to Husain's Bharatmata on one side and the people viewing these as threat to their idea of an Indian culture.My contempt was almost gone when I stumbled upon a deeper develpoment of our political system over so many years as a fallout of the failures of our judiciary.
Just when the bus was about to start,Saurabh Da had a little argument with Biman Da about the futility of the furore we raised on the beach.His argument was that since we could not prove what they were actually doing (I'm not talking about their dirtying the beach) ,there was no use if this argument took a serious turn and the police interfered.I too,then,had an argument with Biman Da, which was actually redundant since neither did he understand my viewpoint nor did I try to understand his question.We just started shouting at each other, then abruptly stopped and got back into our seats.
I was wondering whether they forgot the actual question in their spirited behaviour.True,their reaction was not unfounded but that was not their real aim.Had they tried to collect some evidence and then charge at them,they would have been more effective.The only reason I could find for this mob behaviour was their number.Our politics has reduced to a simplistic game of numbers.Since they were forty-strong,they protested in a loud voice.Alone,most of them would have ignored those people or would have meekly protested.And if anyone would have still been zealous enough to take an initiative, then I think he would have proceeded by first collecting some evidence so as to make them vulnerable.
This number of people around an issue,instead of leading to meaningful lobbying,slips down to muscle politics-'goondami' and 'gayer jor', just hooliganism.
And this was why I couldnt till last agree with them.As for my contempt:so be it.

why couldn't i?

a few days ago i accompanied Pralay to the Medical College & Hospital,Calcutta for a dressing job on a minor under-lip injury.this was not the first time i went to this historical place but still the squalor this time mildly provoked me to write down something on its hopeless state of affairs.
the general stink,filth and scum apart,there was something else that gave rise to this feeling:there was a man who had come there with his mother and wife who was crying.when we enquired,he said he was beaten up by his son badly with a cricket bat.why?because he asked him to do something and he wasn't feeling like obeying his dad's orders then,so when the man insisted he gave a straight answer.the man was in his forties,perhaps and so,his son must be on the threshold of his adulthood.
Pralay's initial reaction was of rage while i thought that if there had been an argumentative/discoursive/dealing sort of relationship between father-son would this kinda thing ever happen?the Gandhi's lesson in our 12th class English text flashed through my mind.Gandhi once felt angry and was impulsively ready to beat a boy on his Farm.he knew the boy was also capable of retaliating but it was obvious he wouldn't do so.what followed next was really heart-rending to read for me as a child who knew that parents' beating in indian homes was part-and-parcel of every child's memories,and that most of us cherished it.still reading the last lines of the lesson was so phenomenal:

"One of them was wild, unruly, given to lying, and quarrelsome. On one occasion he broke out most violently. I was exasperated. I never punished my boys, but this time I was very angry. I tried to reason with him. But he was adamant and even tried to overreach me. At last I picked up a ruler lying at hand and delivered a blow on his arm. I trembled as I struck him. I dare say he noticed it. This was an entirely novel experience for them all. The boy cried out and begged to be forgiven. He cried not because the beating was painful to him; he could, if he had been so minded, have paid me back in the same coin, being a stoutly built youth of seventeen; but he realized my pain in being driven to this violent resource. Never again after this incident did he disobey me. But I still repent that violence. I am afraid I exhibited before him that day not the spirit, but the brute, in me."

damn my digressions!
actually,all this made me think that why don't i blog this experience along with a description of the despicable place where poor throng in large numbers to get treated of there ailments?but my laziness or incapability-i dunno what it was-prevented me from penning it down.
and then,this morning i read Rohini Chaki in Telegraph:her journalistic style of prose,especially that story-telling style that i've seen in Telegraph articles(op-eds,editorials,newspieces by correspondents-all have that same style which makes me feel more as if reading a short story than a prosaic newspaper) which seldom dumbs down on substance and is still an enjoyable read.i tried to reflect on my writing skills:could i come up with such a piece?i don't think no but still i felt that as an aspiring writer i dont have that knack for observation-and-commentary that stimulates a reader's imagination.
just a minute!that little piece by Rohini wasn't really such a literary merit!but the point is i can't write even such a simple piece.

my fault?

after having posted that bourgeoisie blogese (true,this link only enforces Kesavan's second-hand comment),i came across the TOI piece which forced me to give a second thought.i have stated in my post that it is a commonplace to harangue ABP at Presi but it seemed(at least,for a while,yes)that i too was waylaid by that Presi ethos:was i wrong in suspecting Telegraph of McCarthy-ism?was it just another interpretation that could always be rightly different from HT?and by the way why should HT be laying the standards?moreover,how could i single out just a newspiece to make such an allegation?
whatever,i still cannot deny that i have totally purged myself of the Presi ethos:that gut feeling for something devilish in ABP propaganda still doesn't go though i have been able to become a little critical about it.

Bengal makes Karat kinder: this is how Biswajit Roy analysed the culmination of CPM's central committee meet।nothing that was wrong in the detailed report or any sort of fiddling that i generally hear students at Presidency alleging the paper of; still, the kind of interpretation Mr Roy gave was at great odds to what Tanmay Chatterjee had to say in HT( CPM politburo gets nuke power ).
this HT City Kolkata edition headline has been paraphrased on the net even harshly ( "Politburo told to go all out to stop N-deal" ).

i am not against news analysis but this kind of "editorialising" worries me . is this newspaper trying to steer public opinion and bend it the way it feels like?
The Telegraph very cleverly moulded the news piece to show a mellowed Mr Karat when HT very explicitly stated that he's all bombastic and even though the PM might consider him another Don Quixote he's in no mood to give up his rhetoric ( in a true Gandhian way! ).

चलते हुए मनुष्य सदियों से सत्य की खोज कर रहा है इस उम्मीद में कि खोजने वाले ऐसे किसी सत्य का अस्तित्त्व है । ऐसे में अगर उसे पता चले कि उसके खोज कि इस यात्रा का अंत ही नही(बेमुकाम) - न कोई अच्छा (जन्नत) और न कोई बुरा ही (जहन्नुम) , तो फिर मेहनत किस लिए(जद्दोजेहद) । और अगर कल को उसे पता चले कि जिस डोर को पकड़ कर ("उसी की" यानी अल्लाह या भगवन) वह सत्य की खोज कि आशा कर रहा है वही असत्य है (फजूलियत) तो क्या तब भी वह उसी श्रद्घा से , उसी भावना से पूजा करेगा (सजदा) ।

चलते हुए सोच रहा हूँ ,
चलने से मिलेगा क्या ?

चलते-चलते थक जाऊँगा ,
पानी के लिए कोई पूछेगा क्या ?

मंज़िल मिले-ना-मिले ,भरोसा
कभी कोई इसका दे सकेगा क्या ?

चलना , और सिर्फ चलना ही अगर
जिन्दगी है ,कोई इससे छुटकारा देगा क्या ?

चले गए कितने राही , लौट के
अपना हाल-ए-बयां कोई देगा क्या ?

कोई न खबर अगर उन्हीं की ,
फिर उम्मीद का इन्सान करेगा क्या ?

बेमुकाम जो , जन्नत न जिसकी जहन्नुम
गुमनाम , ऐसी जद्दोजहद का मतलब क्या ?

हो इल्म अगर उसी की फ़ज़ूलियत का ,
तू फिर भी रोज़ सजदा करेगा क्या ?

क्या धर्म की आवश्यकता है ?

बन्दर से इन्सान बनते हुए हम जानवरों को इस मामले में पीछे छोड़ गए की हम प्रकृति को अंधों की तरह पूजते रहने की बजाये अपनी ज़रूरत के हिसाब से थोड़ी श्रध्दा और थोड़ी प्रतियोगिता के साथ उसमें अपने उत्स को भी याद रखने कि कोशिश करते रहे एवं लगातार उसी से जूझते हुए अपने ऊपर उसके अंकुश को तोड़ने कि कोशिश करते रहे ;पहले-पहल हम प्रकृति-मात्र को ही ईश्वर समझ कर उसके अलग स्वरूपों का मानवीयकरण किया करते थे।

प्रकृति पर प्रतियोगी के इस आरोपण से हम अपने आप को प्रकृति से छेड़छाड़ करने के बाद-में-देखे-जाने-वाले 'नैचुरालिस्ट गिल्ट' से तो बचे ही ,साथ ही ज्यों-ज्यों प्रकृति की हमारी समझ बढती गयी त्यों-त्यों हमारे धर्म शक्सियत-केंद्रित भी होते गए:जहाँ अब तक ईश्वरत्व (प्रकृति) पर मानवीयकरण (यथा इंद्र-रूप) थोपा जाता था वहीं अब इंसानों पर भगवान होने का आरोप लगने लगा । खैर , मूलतः धर्म का यही प्रयोजन था (जैसा कि बताया जाता है) कि मनुष्यों को ऊंचे आदर्शों का पाठ पढ़ाते हुए वह उसे उसकी मूल प्रकृति से जुड़ने की राह बतलाती रहे । बात यहीं ठहर जाती तो कोई बात ही ना होती लेकिन बात इतनी सी नहीं रहकर बहुत बड़ी बात हो गयी - धर्म बन गया गले का फंदा क्योंकि आदर्शों से ज़्यादा ज़रूरी हो गयी धर्मों की रीतीयां, मनुष्य की उसकी मूल प्रकृति के 'दर्शन' कि अभिलाषा से ज़्यादा प्रबल हो उठी अपने मंदिर (यानी कि रिवाजों का रू

Please be biased.

Enough of this masculine idea of value neutrality and objectivity.it's high time we switched over to the much derided,despised and loathed ideal of feminine subjectivity.from Socrates to Rosseau to Ram-all have tacitly or shamelessly discarded the emotion of subjective thought and held it in contempt in the name of some higher ideal, some mystic social good:history shows that despite all such elevated moral endorsements men(this is a gender use not a general use:Taslima Nasrin rightly points out the male-handicap of our human language in her Bengali book Nirbachit Column) in this world have more often than not used these 'truths' to fool us.

But as Aristotle and Buddha alike kept emphasising that virtue is the middle path, I don't stupidly intend to do away with this objectivity wholly-after all,it has made the real contribution in not only giving rise to feminism but also in increasing the number of us male-feminists(oxymoron?).when pursuing an analytical enquiry of knowledge,do stick to the maxim of objectivity;after that make a conclusion that's subjective in nature.Marx long ago exposed the truth of all hitherto philosophies when he said they were simply describing everything without really desiring ;our descriptions should niether remain extraneous nor purely from-a-distance because what is such knowledge worth of?