My attempts at song recording!


Now don’t get too carried away by the exclamation mark above in the title! I know the final outcome is quite ordinary, or perhaps even worse. But anyway, I take keen ‘amateur interest’ in listening to music, and am not trained in music in any way. Nor do I even consider myself a good singer. I can hit the not so difficult or convoluted tunes more or less right, and that’s about it. But, I do not like my voice. As you listen to these recordings the reasons for that would make themselves clearer.

So, I have made several attempts in the past to record my voice. Apart from my inherent limitations, technological limitations (lack of good microphone, recording device, sound editing, etc.) also make impressive outcomes less likely. :P

I would also like to add that through my online interactions I’ve made acquaintance with many people. Some of them are such that they know many aspects of my life very well. Yet, hearing someone’s voice for the first time is indeed a revelation. So, that makes me further self-conscious to ‘reveal’ my voice to the other ‘voiceless’ acquaintances. :)

Apparatus for this experiment: (1) RecForge Lite – Audio Recorder (click) for recording using front microphone of (2) HTC One X (click), and (3) Audacity (click) software for sound editing.

Without further fuss, I present the following mp3 files for your kind auditory perusal, and unkind remarks. :D

1. Purely amplified version (click) of the recording (without any other edits) I had made in the bathroom for the ‘natural’ echo effect that could be produced. :D As you might realize one of the neighbors had felt quite anguished (hopefully not by my singing) and started loudly murmuring towards the end of the recording. As I was feeling quite inhibited, the recording is very brief, and some of the notes are subdued (thankfully for listeners, if any).

2. I had made the second recording (click) in my bedroom, added a bit of echo using Audacity, removed some erroneous pauses and done a bit of noise reduction.

The respective unedited versions of the above recordings can be found here (click) and here (click).

Life is the Dance of Existence


Today I was talking with Her on the phone, and She was taking particular pleasure in recounting to me a goof up by someone reeking of sheer incompetence. My laughter did resonate with hers, but somehow I, on that particular occasion, did not feel contemptuous of the person in question. On most occasions I would have. I don’t know why, but I rather felt sympathetic towards her and pointed out to Her that perhaps the lady in question was indeed doing the ‘best’ she could in her circumstances (which included her lack of interest in the task at hand, perhaps some household tensions that we might be not aware of, or some inherent lack of ability that just could not be helped). She and I understand each other very well, so I had not required to elaborate further on what I had meant.

Then, I had ended the call some time later. Somehow, my thoughts had again veered to the above part of conversation. I was finding myself filled with great respect for the very act of living. I told myself, one always has an option to just sleep to never wake up again – that is, to die. Sleep is so sweet, after all! Whatever one chooses to or even most passionately desires to do is filled with some kind of conflict or struggle when setting out to actually do it, which one is always aware of. My thoughts had again veered to the concept of thanatos (click) propounded by Sigmund Freud (in my limited knowledge). Yet, most people, at most times do end up doing something, when indeed doing nothing is an attractive option. I’m not the one to believe that ‘doing’ in turn serves some larger purpose. That all is redundant, but yet, in those moments I was filled with admiration for this struggle, this conflict that every human, just by virtue of living on, indulges in. I’m not the one to romanticize the suffering of pain, yet in those moments when I saw beauty in struggle done by the living human, I had done precisely that.

I told myself, every living human is beautiful, their life is a monument. Every moment one lives, every occasion when one does something – be it the most minor things we take for granted – that act of living, of struggling against the option of not doing, not living, must be cheered. I asked myself, must the life of most hardened and cruelest criminal be also celebrated? I somehow found myself saying a “yes”. I am not here to justify my feelings, because there was no logic to them. That was purely a state of mind, filled with a rare sentiment. What I chose to adjudge as ‘best’ by default that one does, may be adjudged as ‘worst’ as well, because there are no standards here to measure anything (deed or thought) against. I repeat, that is just a sentiment, perhaps, even a transient one.

I asked myself, what is the difference between the ‘living’ and the ‘not living’? I have been aware that there are no real differences. Things exist. Living and not living are merely different modes of existence. But when existence wants to make its presence felt, it flutters, it goes round in great whorls, it emits a blast of wind that for a moment shrouds our consciousness, it creates patterns all around that are hard to ignore, it breaks away from its inertia (of continuing to be in the same state as in the last moment). When existence celebrates its existence, it dances.

Life is the dance of Existence.

Please Board the Train!


When I had cajoled you into boarding the train and told you we would be alright, I later realized my words were completely empty. My gestures were only an attempt to transfer all the strength I had to you so that you could face the moment, look forward to the life that was immediately going to present, and board the train that was going to take you away from me. And I don’t know if I could transfer any of my strength to you, but was left with none as the train left. The moment the glimpses of your face were totally hidden from me by the barriers that the train had in aplenty, I decided to move on. I actually started staggering and I realized that as I had walked around some 10 meter. I cannot tell you what it means for someone who walks the way I do – feeling in control all the times. I was in complete trance, I had no control, I had no strength. My eyes were moist and my throat was choking, and I just allowed myself to walk like that as I did not have it in me to struggle against myself. I realized I could’ve easily cried had I wanted to. My being in public was one reason I wouldn’t have allowed myself to cry. But there was something more: I knew if I were to cry, I would’ve felt better, and when I was drowned in your absence, feeling better did not make any sense. I sat on that square seating arrangement around the red and yellow-striped pole, and then a Belapur-bound train arrived. It was a bit crowded; it would’ve required me to struggle a bit to get in and stay in there. I had lost all the struggle in me to the moments that had taken you away from me. I did not board it. As I returned to sit on the same raised platform, I asked myself what was it that I was feeling? “Devastated” – that’s the word that came to my mind. I was not going to board the next Panvel-bound train as well, but I did board it. I don’t know if my empty words & the most sincere gestures helped you, but given how things between you and me stand, I’m feeling a bit guilty for the insincerity I had displayed. Or maybe I wasn’t really being insincere, those moments had so overwhelmed me and the pain you were feeling was so very unbearable, that I said whatever I felt could be best for you to hear. My inability to accept seeing you in pain had made me feel helpless, so desperate, even my narcissism that forces me to be honest and sincere (with you) was nowhere to be felt. Your eyes not too far from overflowing had totally made me insensitive to my own pain, or I was attempting to alleviate yours only because I did not have the courage to face my fears of imminent pain? And when I was walking back home, again your moist eyes came before mine, and again, I lost all my strength and dragged my feet in next few unsure steps. And I smiled to myself. :)

Of Confrontations in Close Relationships and Importance of Honest Communication


Yesterday night I had had a phone conversation with my good friend after about 7 months, and any serious conversation between us had taken place even more than 9 months back. He is still in a committed relationship with the same person he was with nine months back, which in all is around two years old. While I know many people online who I admire for the insights they provide me into the workings of many things, my friend is the only person in real life, who I admire tremendously for the insights he offers into the workings of the human mind and the dynamics of interpersonal interactions. He is not very articulate, but fortunately, because of the bond we share, he needs to just begin with a sentence, and I would usually be able to retrieve on that cue a thought from the recesses of my mind that would have been generated from a similar experience he would have related, and I would be in a position to complete the articulation of his thought for him. The beauty of his thought process that I so admire lies in the fact that irrespective of the emotional impact of any event on him, in some time he would be able to take a most honest, dispassionate and detached view of the events, and also put into perspective their long- and short-term consequences in the larger scheme of things, that is his life. His thoughts would not be riddled with anger, vindictiveness or envy on one hand, nor would pity, affection, guilt or wistfulness have a bearing on the other. And most important, his honesty would permit him to say it like it is (in his very good understanding), when with me, with the complete confidence that he would be understood.

With that short background, I want to discuss what he had said yesterday night and my subsequent thoughts on the same.

The last time I had talked to him (around 9 months back) and also met his partner and him (around 8 months back, when ironically we could not have any serious talk), both were faced with a common problem of considerable gravity, and yet, the way they had stuck together and were there for each other had really impressed me and also made me glad. This is the very first relationship he has been into, and to see him display immense maturity in how he had handled issues had amazed me (though, I sort of know what all he is capable of) [his partner, I would say has had to display mental strength and not exactly maturity or wisdom in attempt to tide over the problem, and I do not consider her anywhere as mature or introspective as my friend]. Seeing their affection for each other, I was tempted to infer that nothing could go wrong between them, though I was and am still aware that things do manage to go wrong, and that is what I had discovered to my shock with my yesterday’s phone call. The problem common to them has not yet been resolved, and he told me that they have had many ‘jhagdaas‘ (“fights”) in the interim and that presently he has urged her to not discuss the said issue of contention as it was likely to affect his studies as well as the relationship. I had asked him if these confrontations were serious and if they had eroded the bond they shared between themselves. His reply is what had most amazed and impressed me, and the reason I am publishing this post (unfortunately, I do not remember the exact words, so some amount of adulteration with my words is imminent):

He: Dekh, jab koi kisi ke saath jhagadta hai toh us insaan ke andar ki chhupi hui gandagi baahar aane lagati hai. || See, when someone enters a fight, their baser aspects come to the fore.

Me: Haan, ho sakta hai aisa. || Yes, such a thing can happen.

He: Pehale ek-do baar baahar aaye toh theek hai… || It (the surfacing of baser aspects) is alright on a first few occasions…

Me: …Aur phir baar-baar baahar aaye toh nazarandaaz karna mushkil ho jaata hai? || …And then if that recurs, it is difficult to ignore?

He: Haan, aur phir yeh bhi lagane lagta hai ki kya main is insaan ke liye itna kuchh soch raha hoon? || Yes, and apart from that I also start feeling if it is this person for who I was thinking so much (emotional commitment to the person)? [Context: some of the significant efforts he had to put in, just to stay in that relationship with her. Not that she has not put in similar efforts and made compromises, though. In a way, she has had to show lot more emotional tolerance].

And at that point, we went on to discuss the details of the common problem and if and how his studies were getting affected.

Now it might be tempting for the reader to believe that the above exchange captures the idea in entirety and that there is nothing more to understand, but I do not think so. At least I would not feel satisfied if I do not explain my interpretation of what my friend had meant and the thoughts generated there upon. It should be noted that here I am going to largely speak of highly ‘idealized’ or romanticized relationships, which would have begun at a stage wherein the partners/friends would think very highly of each other and the bond they would feel they share and find it difficult to infer something negative about the other, and on doing so, would likely feel uncomfortable and/or guilty. I believe a very small proportion of the population ever gets into such relationships, so this post is about those few who have entered them, or are likely to enter one some time in the future.

First of all, (my friend’s) entire relationship needs to be put into perspective. The last time I had talked to him, it was not a case that they had not had arguments, but I believe, in none of those exchanges were certain boundaries breached that would have called into question my friend’s judgement of his partner’s core values. And it is these assessed core values that form the basis of the kind of relationship my friend is likely to enter. Thus, till that time he had been able to keep up quite an idealized view of her in his mind save for a few minor differences and unsavory things that he could have dismissed as minor personality defects and mutual compatibility issues. However, when people enter confrontations, and it is some kind of insecurity or fear that drives them, every effort – conscious or subconscious – is expended to have the other person accept one’s own perspective as right and as well the associated demands, if any. In few moments, our beloved becomes our adversary. Somehow, stronger the past affinity, stronger would be the adversarial affect felt, and that is perhaps because we presume we are entitled to our beloved (who would have committed to us) thinking solely of our benefit, and the contention in question would also make us doubt that commitment and deem that as some kind of disloyalty. It is quite possible that even our beloved might be thinking of our ‘benefit’, it is just that ideas on what is ‘beneficial’ might be different. And under the influence of these strong negative emotions one may by design or because of indiscretion end up saying and doing things that would betray envy, hatred, cruelty, apathy, etc., towards our beloved. Additionally, one may end up using one of the dirtiest tricks in the ‘Book’ – emotional blackmail (in its various ranges and shades). Of course, it would be silly to suggest that such emotions always get manifested, or that if they are manifested, they even get noticed. But two things need to be kept in mind – first, people as perceptive as my friend are anyway going to notice such manifestations, and second, even if one summons one’s utmost discretion and ability to remain composed, the knowledge that our mind was filled with such ignoble thoughts during the heat of that moment is difficult to ignore. When they happen for the very first time in a relationship, they lead to a disillusionment. The one noticing such manifestations in their partner for the first time, such as my friend, for instance, would be faced with the kind of predicament he verbalized (in other words, “the one I am so committed to, is he/she deserving of my commitment given how he/she thinks of me in moments of weakness [i.e., when having lost composure]?”). Whereas, the one realizing the cropping up of such negative emotions in their mind, if conscientious enough, is likely to experience a reciprocal guilt (“Oh, shit! How could I think *that* way for my partner? Do I deserve him/her? Do I *really* love him/her the way he/she thinks and I say I do? What happened to all the love I used to feel?”).

In a way, the generation of above kinds of doubts is a good thing. It forces us to question the sustainability of highly idealized view of our relationship that we so wish to hold on to. But whether it indeed proves good or bad eventually depends on how we choose to respond to such doubts. From here, I will try to give ‘tips’ on how such doubts can be addressed. But the key, as the reader would notice, at each stage would be honesty. Honesty, first with the self, and then with one’s partner, which is of course, difficult to summon. And the degree of honesty I advocate and try to observe in matters close to my heart, has been described as “radical” by people more than one. :) So, the reader shall consider themselves warned! Another ability one would have to summon in what I suggest is one of forgiveness. Here I want to emphasize upon the fact that society lays too much stress on forgiving others, but I believe, problem is many times inability to forgive the self. If I would not be able to explain what “forgiving the self” means and entails in the course of this blog post, it will unfortunately seem little more than rhetoric. So, I will just enumerate some things to consider (in the same sequence as given below) that I believe can help us come to terms with the kind of disillusionment I had tried to outline above:

1. We have little control over the emotions we feel and the thoughts that can cross our mind.

I often give an analogy that our emotions/thoughts are like numbers on a dice (and by that I do not mean to emphasize on the randomness involved, though which is also a consideration). Just like how numbers – one through six – ‘exist’ and hence, any one of them can show up each time a dice is thrown, countless emotions/thoughts exist that can spring up in our conscious/subconscious (mind) each time we reflect and react. Any emotion/thought simply by its virtue of having a possibility to exist, also makes itself available to spring up in our mind. So, why get agitated by realization of our harboring an emotion/a thought that could have sprung up in anyone’s mind?

2. Forgiveness.

Once one acknowledges that after all any emotion/thought can manifest in the mind, it should make us free of any shame that we feel on realizing it is us who would have experienced them, or alternatively, enable us to forgive the other person in question to have felt the same. But of course, for most people and in most instances, it is not the occurrence of a thought or an emotion that causes trouble, but rather their manifestations – words or actions – that impact them. But still it is actually the emotion/thought that counts, and I will try to explain how.

Once an emotion or thought is experienced, it makes us prone to do certain things. If those (emotions/thoughts) would be seen as unacceptable, so would be their manifestations. There is only one thing that can stop that thought-impulse from transforming into real world manifestation of word/action – restraint. Just like how in a game you might need 3 on your dice to reach a bonus point, but would not get it on throwing it, there can be occasions when the restraint that requires to be summoned to prevent thought-impulses from converting into words/actions just may not ‘spring up’ in our mind! So, just like how we can forgive the arising of emotion/thought, we can forgive the ‘not arising’ of restraint.

So, in simpler words, it should be possible to forgive the self as well the other person for feeling/thinking/saying/doing whatever they would have under the influence of extreme emotions.

3. Communication.

Up till now whatever I have discussed was restricted to the domain of thoughts. However, these thoughts need to be communicated. E.g., I had been into a committed relationship only once in the past, and needless to say, there had been many occasions of passionate confrontations between my partner and me. However, I somehow never felt any dilution in how I had felt for her at the end of those confrontations, because somehow few of those confrontations had involved the two of us. And also, on most occasions I used to make it a point to ask something on lines of, “are you upset with me?” or “are you angry with me?” also with an attendant assurance that I would be able to ‘understand’ if such confrontation would have left any bad taste in the mouth. But I was always assured that those arguments had not affected her feelings for me negatively. However, when she had broken up with me, though she could not give me exact reasons for her disenchantment, she had told me our many, many arguments had made her uncomfortable. Irrespective of whether that we broke up was a good thing or bad, I had reasons to believe that each time I used to ask her if our arguments had affected her, had she taken the questions more seriously and introspected a bit further and come up with honest (to herself as well as to me) answers, things would have worsened in her mind in a graded fashion. Meaning, each time she’d have thought over the nature of confrontations and her and my emotional responses in light of them, she would have got used to the feeling that something ‘wrong’ (less than ideal) had indeed happened between us. Here of course, it was not a case that I did not feel concerned by the possibility of the relationship deteriorating thus, but my ‘mistake’, if I could call it that, was that I used to respect her and believe her feedback that the arguments were not affecting her negatively.

So, why communicate? Because I think, firstly communication of how we might have felt certain negative emotions for the other person requires us to acknowledge them ourselves, which as the reader can make out, is the very first step in this entire exercise. Then furthermore, just like how you would have felt certain negative emotions, your partner might have also felt them, and it would be easier for them to acknowledge and accept the same negative emotions they might have felt if they see you doing the same ["Hmmm... So, I was not alone in hating her in those intense moments; she felt the same as well. So maybe, it's alright."] Plus, on most of the occasions when the two people patch up, which they usually do, at least early on in their relationship, the memories of silly thoughts that would’ve arisen make for funny things to smile at. :) Of course, it need not so happen that the two people’s emotional responses to the same event of confrontation would be in synchrony and reciprocal. [One of the two might have felt intense rage and the other might not have.] But when one knows that it is ‘alright’ to have experienced rage, forgiving and accepting become easier. Also, for the one having experienced these emotions and also the consequent guilt, it would be easier to forgive the self if they know they would be able to forgive the other for doing the same.

Also, one more benefit of this kind of communication that is likely to arise is that both persons would also be emotionally drawn closer because they would also be playing the role of each others’ confidante, which would further strengthen the bond the two people would have already been sharing.

4. Dealing with the disillusionment.

While, by making the above considerations, one can indeed come to terms with the negative emotions felt in one’s own mind and/or observed in one’s partner, it would imminently leave one wondering  whether their perception of the other (and perhaps of mutual compatibility, so to speak), based on which they had decided to get committed to the partner, was right. [This post is also not for those would not want to entertain this frightening prospect of having to revise one's idealized views.]

The process of disillusionment would obviously be painful, but there are many collateral benefits that accrue. First, no longer excessive emotional efforts would be needed to sustain the idealized view of one’s partner and the relationship. Second, one would know that if one could tide over such a crisis once, perhaps, the next time around emotional responses would be more considered (though that sounds like oxymoron, I understand) and that both the partners would have by then already displayed the requisite maturity to forgive the self as well as the other. Third, each time a confrontation would be successfully ‘tided over’ the confidence that the other person indeed wishes well would ideally get boosted and the the element of insecurity and doubt would (ideally) reduce and that of mutual solidarity would increase.

However, the pain that is experienced when this kind of disillusionment happens for the first time is overwhelming. It shakes one’s core and the very basis of convictions on which the relationship would have been built. So, what is the consolation for still staying in that relationship? First, it needs to be understood, and that though it sounds cliched, no relationship is likely to remain perfect for a long time. One would have to, in its course, either scale down one’s expectation of it (and by extension, of the partner) or learn to tolerate some uncomfortable features of it. And all this one is to do with the belief that the life spent with the chosen partner would be (lot) better than the one spent without (him/her).

Now to apply the above considerations to my friend’s case, imagine the entire conversation I had outlined above could have also went thus (had he not summoned utmost honesty in his assessment of the situation):

He (on being asked if their arguments had eroded the bond they had shared): Nahin re! Aise chhote-mote jhagade toh hote rehate hain! Is mein koi chinta ki baat nahin hai. || No, man! Such trivial arguments keep on happening. There is nothing to worry.

Me: Haan, woh toh hai. Tum donon log samajhdaar ho. Bas yeh period guzar jaaye. || Yes, that’s right. You both are sensible people. (I only wish) that this period passes off.

And what perhaps would have then happened would be, both the partners would have discovered (most likely on separate days, making matters worse) that they no longer felt the love they used to! Because at each stage, they would overlook the instances of development of negative affect (both in the self as well as in the other), which would in turn be dictated by their attempted avoidance of feelings of guilt and fear of facing the imminent disillusionment. However, this negativity would pile up in their mind and hit them suddenly when they would be least prepared to experience such vacuum. And then they would panic. Of course, one could still go through the cycle that I have outlined above, but it would take lot more initiative and proactive interest on part of both the partners, and would thus be proportionately more difficult.

I believe, my friend could foresee all of this, and hence responded the way he had. What makes his response admirable is not that he could think all of this (after all, I am also writing a blog post outlining it in some details), but that he could do so in midst of a crisis and that too without having the benefit of been in a relationship before and furthermore, without talking to a confidante like myself in the process. But of course, for all of that he first needed the requisite honesty to recognize that a crisis was actually brewing.

Just as a side note, the reader would be right in wondering that if one were to apply principles outlined in point 1, viz., there being no control over one’s emotions/thoughts to everyday life and then how the same consideration be applied to ‘forgive’, then there would be nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘right’. Everything would be acceptable. Furthermore, what criteria to apply to ‘like’ someone or alternatively reject someone as friend/partner? In an ‘ideal’ world, yes, if everyone were to be so honest, introspective, broadminded and forgiving as demanded by in this post, there would hardly be any problems in the world! But the purpose of this post was very ‘selfish’, in the sense, the entire exercise I have outlined above amounts to intellectual and moral dishonesty in that such allowances would be made for only a select few people to who one would have pledged their commitment, and would thus be partial. And the basis of this selfishness is the maximization of the happiness one could derive from one’s life by remaining in a secure relationship. If by indulging in this kind of intellectual/moral dishonesty, I am able to rescue my relationship and in the process, live a more fulfilling life without bringing harm to anybody, then why not? Ideals, in my opinion, are subservient to our need to lead a fulfilling life. Following of ideals is not an end in itself. And in that there would be nothing wrong with this kind of dishonesty (that is, inconsistent application of standards to judge and/or forgive people based on how emotionally close we would be to them and how much would we be valuing our relationship with them).

Atheism and Me


Those in hurry can skip the short background for this post that follows in the black block as understanding the rest of the post is not dependent on that. And those in real hurry can anyway skip the whole post as this is going to be really, really long one. :)

When I had begun blogging actively just short of two years back, atheism had occupied so much of my mental space that I had thought most of my blog posts would be about what I perceived to be the evils of faith and organized religion. It is for this reason I had prominently mentioned the fact of myself being an atheist in my Blogger profile (and the same description finds place in ‘Me’ section of this blog). I want the theistic readers of my blog to be aware that I might blog about religion & God, and thus, lot of what I write might prove offensive to them unless and until they actively overlook such posts or the arguments made therein. However, it so happened that I did blog about atheism, religion and (blind) faith, albeit not with the frequency I had anticipated I would, nor with the anger and irritation that I harbor against the last phenomenon [though, certain readers might disagree ;) ]. Curiously, one of the first posts I would have published would be the one I am publishing now. When I look back at my thought processes, I feel the most life-defining moments were those that gradually and sequentially led me to turn an atheist from a God-loving and not as much -fearing theist. Except for those few who had never been theist or those in whose life religion and faith had played very little role, I think all others have had to confront a few pertinent questions – “Is there a God? What is that God like? What all does this God do or not do so as to influence my life? What all did this God do or not do? What all can this God do or not do?” And most importantly, “why?” I also believe, each and every person also sought answers to these questions. Though, the perspectives from which these questions would be viewed and relative importance given to ones own ability to reason, other sources consulted and the degree to which they were relied upon – would have all differed in case of each person. No wonder, almost everyone has a ‘customized’, ‘personalized’ God. :) Even the atheists and the atheistic agnostics, I have noticed, offer differing reasons for not believing that God exists or alternatively that there is no way to determine the truth! The reason it took me so long to come up with this post is difficult to explain. As I said, the above questions and how I answered them at various points in time are a reflection of what I fundamentally had been then. How I answer the above questions define me most definitively what I am now. Seen in isolation, the above (and a few related) questions could be posed as a part of any survey or any opinion poll and they would seem trivial, but my approach in attempting to answer them stood for various things, not in the least, my ability to introspect, to be able to be honest about myself to myself, to emerge out of long-standing biases, the ability of distinguishing between an idea’s popular acceptance and its veracity, etc. Also, because ‘God’ is such a powerful all-encompassing concept that the answers to the above questions not only impacted what I thought about the ‘God’, but also about myself, the ‘significance’ of my existence, and in fact, the ‘significance’ of everything I thought to exist/happen or might come to think to exist/happen. So, this post was bound to be long [of course, a few of my readers who have known me would complain that I just keep on finding excuses for writing long blog posts! ;) ], and so my inertia in writing it was proportionately greater. This blog entry would contain very vague remembrances as they pertain to times long past.

***

I do not remember how and when exactly I had come across the idea of God for the first time. Perhaps, the first time I had heard about God was in my ‘nursery school’, wherein the teachers would tell the kids to stop fighting as otherwise God would get angry; I was 3 to 4 years old at that time. Back at home, I would be told on doing certain things in Gujarati – “paap laag se” or in Hindi, “paap lage ga” (loosely put, “you will get curses”). These acts would include things like wasting food, hurting stray animals, speaking a lie to the parents, hitting adults or something that might amount to disrespect to the God like entering a temple with shoes on. On the other hand, I also used to hear things like it was good to help others, not to enter fights with other children, forgive and ignore if others would hit/verbally abuse me as that would impress the God. I had also noticed that people started behaving very differently every time they would be in a temple. People would tend to observe silence, would lower their heads before the idol. On more than one occasions I had asked as to why we had to pray and lower our heads before a statue. I was told that by doing so, God is pleased, our wishes would be granted and if we would have committed any sins in the past, they would be forgiven.

There were many instances of how others behaved and additionally, based on what I was told, I concluded that God could see everything that we do and could hear everything that we speak. Likewise, I also concluded that God kept an account of our acts and points would be added each time we did something ‘good’ and points would be subtracted each time we did something ‘bad’. I must have been around 5 to 6 years by the time I drew the above conclusions.

So, I used to scrutinize my thoughts most meticulously and each time I would get angry and develop an urge to hurt someone or shout at them, I used to put a check on such thoughts. I used to put forth my best behavior – wanting to not hurt anyone. I also subconsciously used to feel an urge to see everyone as much happy around as possible. All this because I used to think that the best thing that can please the God was to make others around happy and to help them, and the worst things one could do to displease God were to hurt/harm others or do some ‘bad’ things like lying. But what was the incentive for me to try to please the God and not pain him by my doing ‘bad’ things? I had not yet been introduced to the concept of heaven and hell, that ‘good’ souls got to enter ‘heaven’ and ‘bad’ souls entered ‘hell’. As I look back, I think the incentive for me was to be appreciated. As a student (and as a child) I was very reticent, I used to write very slowly and I was also perceived to be a slow learner. I used to copy down with great reluctance what the teacher would write on the black board. All this used to make the teachers quite angry. Also, my exam scores had started deteriorating. My parents used to forcefully get me to complete my home assignments. In all the parents-teacher meets till I turned 10, my teachers used to say just one thing – “your son keeps very quiet and is disciplined; he speaks very little and does not make any noise”. Teachers used to mean that as a praise and I used to get quite satisfied by that but parents were worried that I did not do well academically. I was scolded, on many, many occasions was beaten up also (by parents, not teachers) for not completing the ‘classwork’, was made to go to other class mates’ houses to get their notebooks so that my parents could make me complete the classwork under their supervision. I used to hardly play games with other children till I turned eight. I used to see other parents dote on their children, praise them, take their children’s side (though not always) if they would quarrel with other children. However, my interactions with my parents were largely restricted to being scolded or beaten up for not being a ‘good’ student. Also on turning nine, when I had really taken a liking to cricket, in particular, bowling, and so for not completing my class work, the penalty was to be not allowed to go out of the house to play cricket. I of course used to feel very angry and helpless. One question had always troubled me – “why do my parents not love me the way others’ parents do?”. [While writing in all this, I am not trying to be sensationalist and it is for this reason I could relate so well to the Hindi movie - Taare Zameen Par (click). And it is for reasons such as these, this might be one of the most emotionally intense, personal blog posts I am writing].

As I grew older, I started developing a certain kind of smugness (which I do not show to others, but has still continued to be with me, albeit with much lesser strength of conviction). I must have been around 8 to 9 when I started feeling I was somehow wiser and more moral than people around and that unlike others I had never done things that would displease the God. In fact, I was confident that God must have been proud of me and I was the perfect human there could be. It was at this stage that as part of my conversations with my older cousins I was introduced to the ideas regarding the ‘soul’. There was some program telecast on Zee TV in the mornings, in which a lady with serene face and in a serene voice used to explain how the World ‘operated’. One of the important analogies I remember was her equating the body with a vehicle, the various organs in it with its engine and the ‘soul’ as the driver. Considering I used to be in awe of grownups and that she had appeared so confident in what she said, it was very tempting to believe her, which I did. Also, because it was so difficult to visualize (still is!) that our consciousness just vanishes when we die, this explanation had been very tempting. At the same time a year or later, I had started watching Zee Horror Show (click) – again along with my older cousin. I was told that if a person dies with unfulfilled wishes or his/her body is not cremated properly, the soul that escapes out of the body becomes a pretaatama (loosely translated, ‘evil soul’) and that it haunts people. My cousin used to tell me of elaborate tactics on how to evade such ghosts. E.g., one thing I remember his telling me was how in the dark we must talk in a code language, because the ghosts would start doing what we ask each other to do. For instance, one must not say “come”, but instead say, “move”. Because if we say “come”, the ghost would ‘come’ with us, but if we say “move”, the ghost would be confused as to where to move. :D Yes, I used to believe him. I do not know if my cousin was playing tricks with me or he genuinely used to believe such things (he is almost 3 years older than me). But I suspect it to be former.

Thus, for next 3 to 4 years (till I turned 12), my mind used to be preoccupied with ideas of ghosts and how they might kill me in most cruel fashion possible. This fear had made me further dependent on the God. In my mind I used to play scenes wherein some ghost would be on the verge of killing me and the God would do terrible things to ‘it’. :D

I had also started ‘conversing’ with the God a few years back then. My ‘relationship’ with God had evolved under a cloud of intense loneliness. There was only God who I could talk to, to share all the pain I used to feel, to dissipate all the anger, and most important, do it without showing all this to others and without acting under the influence of these intense emotions. Despite my smugness about being ‘generally’ good, I could never talk of my distress to others. That was perhaps because, where I used to live, nobody would have thought my parents to be wrong in how they had been treating me. Also, I never felt comfortable enough with any teacher to be talking of such things. I had no close friend to speak of. Whichever class mates/friends I used to speak to or play cricket with were not very close. I was worried that if I would speak of these things my parents’ impression would be spoiled and also used to feel insecure of revealing a ‘secret’ that my parents did not love me, which in turn would reveal how I was worthless as a person – a realization I must have greatly feared subconsciously. It is not that I did not try to copy down what would be written on the board, but I used to write slowly, and by the time I would reach the bottom of the board, the teacher would have already erased her (most were indeed female teachers) writing. And once I would miss some text and lag behind there would be no way to catch up. Then, most of my thoughts would be preoccupied with the imminent ordeal at the home. Needless to say, my relations with parents were so strained that I could never communicate with them my fears about ghosts or even other ideas about the God, soul, etc.

Here I need to add that in class 5 I had got a wonderful science teacher, who had made me confident of myself. It was owing to her that I had started taking lot of interest in science, in particular, and in other subjects also. I had started asking many doubts in the class and would also answer many questions asked by the teachers. My scores had improved significantly and I emerged as one of the toppers by class 6. Alas, the teacher had been hired on an ad hoc basis and had stopped teaching mid-way in class 5 and anyway, teachers for ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ classes were different. And yes, my story in this matter has been every bit as filmy as it sounds. :)

Just before the aforementioned turnaround had happened, I used to complain to the God as to why my parents used to ill-treat me so much and not love me. I used to be filled with anger towards them. But somehow despite my intense desire to do so, I never ‘asked’ the God to hurt them in any way. This was because in Indian society, somehow, it is expected that children always respect and think good for their parents. I was convinced that if I wish ill of my parents, the God would get angry. [While 'speaking' to God, I didn't really open my mouth and utter any words nor did I use any elaborate gestures]. It was at that stage when my maternal grandmother had spoken on my young maternal uncle’s untimely death (her son, in effect) that “Upar-waada ni leela kaun samajhi shakey chhe; aa badhu toh paachhala janmon na karmon nu phad chhe” [loosely translated in Hindi: "Upar-waale ki leela kaun samajh sakta hai; yeh sab toh pichhale janmon ke karmon ka phal hai"; in English: "Who can decipher the designs of the Almighty; all these are the consequences of our deeds in the past incarnations"]. As I had been convinced that souls leave a person’s body once he/she dies, it became easy to correlate how the soul would leave one body to enter another (including, one of another species). Also, in class 5 itself a Hindi teacher I used to quite like had told that one gets incarnated as a human after 85,00,000 incarnations as some other lower organism (like dog, worm, or even a plant)! So, one must do good deeds in this incarnation, and then only can one get to enter the Heaven (the term ‘moksha’ had not been introduced to me, yet). Of course, again given his confidence, I had started believing him. I was only happy that I was going in the ‘right’ direction – by trying to be good to others and not hurting anyone.

So, by the time I had turned 11, I had a comprehensive theory about the God and souls. I became convinced that all the bad experiences I had had in the childhood were owing to my bad past deeds. Then, that the God was testing my putting me in difficult situations, and that if I emerged out of them without making ‘mistakes’, the God would be happy and I would enter the heaven (and would get to laugh smugly at all those left behind for having ill-treated me [including the parents] or others who would have used short cuts in life, like cheating in exams, stealing, hitting others, killing, etc.] However, there was yet another lurking doubt: if my soul was so nice as I was in *this* incarnation, then how could the very same soul have done bad deeds in the past incarnation? That is something I could never understand and the doubt had remained unresolved for long.

Being in India, it is inescapable in the childhood that one would choose ones favorite god. Mine, mostly because of the portrayals by Nitish Bjaradwaj, was Krishna (click).

Nitish Bharadwaj as Lord Krishna. Courtesy: metromatinee.com
Nitish Bharadwaj as Lord Krishna. Courtesy: metromatinee.com

I had to confront the question: who exactly was the God I was communicating with. Though, I was charmed by Krishna, I somehow never felt it was he I had been speaking to. Just then, to my rescue came another idea – that all the 33,00,00,000 (330 million) gods that existed were actually different manifestations of the same God. I had again found the explanation attractive. My smugness again made me believe that the God I was communicating with was the ‘main’ one and not some altu-faaltu subsidiary god. :D

My conversations with the God used to be highly varied. I remember vividly once I had read in a children’s magazine – Tinkle (click) that ants leave a chemical trail when they walk in files and that is how those ants walking behind would know what path to take. To test what I had read, I had actually tried wiped with finger a small segment of the line along which ants were walking and that had worked, i.e., the ants no instead of walking straight were actually getting scattered and sort of circumventing that point where I had rubbed my finger! I was initially happy to have tested the assertion successfully, but suddenly I was struck with guilt that I had made the hardworking ants walk that much more and that I must have added to their anxiety. I also felt ashamed that just because I was much mightier than the ants I was playing God to them. And at that point I had apologized to the God. I had told him (yes, somehow it was a ‘him’) that he could punish me for this kind of indiscretion and I would be alright with it, as I truly deserved punishment. I guess, I must have been 12 at that time.

It was around that time only that a few more questions had started bothering me. I started thinking we get so much caught up in various things we try, e.g., my parents had given me the incentive that if I get the first rank in the class, they would buy me a cricket kit [it was a different matter that I never got the first rank! :P ], and we also secretly wish that God fulfill our wishes, but what is in it for the God to listen to our wishes and actually fulfill them? When I was in class 6 (around 10 to 11 years age), I had been introduced to the game of chess by the same cousin I had mentioned above. Then, I played the game with a few other people. Colloquially, in Hindi when a piece would be captured, we used to say “(e.g., raani ko) maar daala” (“the Queen has been killed”). I realized that people took a perverse pleasure in deciding the fate of the chess pieces. A couple of years down the line when I was faced with troubling questions, I thought that perhaps all the things that were created by God, including us, humans, were for his entertainment. God must have been feeling bored and that is why for his amusement he created us just like chess pieces.

Those were the times when I had started believing that our souls were just created out of a larger soul (called parmaatma; loosely translated, “the supreme soul”) and that the purpose of life was to perform deeds such that we could attain salvation (moksha). Initially, I used to feel that one needed to do ‘good’ deeds to be able to reach there. But later on, as my ideas evolved, I had come to conclude that this kind of ‘liberation’ from life-death-cycle could be possible only if one realized the true nature of the Universe, that, our lives and all that we could perceive were for God’s amusement, that there was nothing ‘real’ about all of this, that the entire system was in place only to test us and filter out the souls unworthy of attaining salvation. It was in midst of thoughts such as these that during the morning assembly the students were ‘made to’ (it was not active coercion, but somehow no student, including myself had found anything wrong; as such the prayer was very secular and had contained ‘good’ things; though, now I shudder to think to what extent even such ‘secular’ prayers were directed at inspiring servility and submissiveness in humans) to sing a prayer, which had included asatoma sat gamaya; tamasoma jyotir gamaya… and another song, which can be found here (click). I used to actually visualize a large burning wick (parmaatma) giving rise to smaller burning wicks (souls of human beings), which would return back to the former. I was convinced that somehow it was a ‘pious’ thing to have God at the center of my thoughts.

Now that I was in class seven (aged between 11 to 12), some doubts had started troubling me. My life was no longer miserable. I had started taking active interest in academics. My scores had improved a lot, though they could never satisfy my parents, but at least now they were not worried about me. I had also become quite talkative. I used to discuss many of my ideas, including that on God with my friends (who were all my age, and usually, my class mates). I used to be surprised that most of the people used to be quite agnostic about the existence of God, yet they used to offer prayers. I also used to think those who did not believe in the God’s existence to be fools. Because, they used to offer what I used to consider a very childish and simplistic reason to not believe in the God’s existence – Agar Bhagwaan hain, toh humein dikhte kyon nahin hain; humein unki aawaaz sunai kyon nahin deti hai. Yeh sab andh-vishwaas hai-types [loose translation: if there exists a God, then why can't we see him; why are we not able to hear his voice. All this is blind belief]. Of course, there were others who used to point out how they had asked God for something, with highest strength of belief, and also offered prayers to the effect with right ‘technique’ and yet what they had asked for, was not fulfilled. I used to consider them even greater fools, and much worse, too selfish. When I had started believing that our lives were one big test and basically meant for amusement of God, I had somehow come to believe that everything in the Universe, including the material things we wanted belonged to him. God would give us whatever he deemed as appropriate based on our past and current deeds. I used to find it cheap that we would pray to the God to grant us wishes, and thus, do us a favor ‘out of turn’. I started thinking it stupid to bother God with such trivialities as *my* first rank in the class, *my* getting a cricket kit, etc. At some point in time, I also got convinced that God does not pay attention to our prayers, but just does those things to us that we deserve owing to our deeds or some other of God’s designs. A time came when I started detesting all others’ idea of God. I used to equate with a megalomaniacal sadist boss, a God that would grant us wishes on praising (indulging in sycophancy) and would punish us on ignoring or disregarding him. I was sure that the God could not be like that that and the people who used to worship God for some favors were actually bringing disgrace to the God. As time progressed, my God had become less and less human-like. I thought it was childish to think that the great God would have taken the form of human beings (the way the gods would be portrayed in the mythological serials and movies). After all, humans were just like other animals, just a bit more intelligent, so it must be human arrogance to assume God to resemble us, is what I had concluded. As my God became formless, I also came to believe that he did not after all seem much interested in the affairs of the world. Perhaps, it must have been in class eight (age: 12 to 13 years), when I started recognizing “Mother Nature” as an independent entity. I thought that there must be some intelligent entity that had created the Earth and the ecosystem. Note here that I used to consider this latter force as some sort of subsidiary to the ‘main’ God, and I had never defined the relationship between the two. This change was brought about because I had read a few articles about fossils and had started gathering some knowledge about ‘evolution’ in school texts. Though, I had heard and read about Darwin, I could not appreciate the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ for a few more years. I used to look at evolution as a process effected by God, wherein the various species took lot of time to come to evolve. This I had thought was because the ‘Nature’ was trying to evolve best possible organisms through trial-and-error. It was also the time when I had become very environment-conscious. I used to write poetry about the destruction of the ‘Nature’, used to draw posters, etc. to try to make others aware of what all wrong we were doing to the ‘Mother Nature’. In all, I used to think of ‘Nature’ as a living entity being abused by human beings (not unlike in the movie – Avataar). My ‘conversations’ with God had greatly reduced as I was getting convinced more and more that God had little interest in my personal life or for that matter, even the workings of the Universe. That I was too small for God to be interested is something I had accepted long back, but as I learned more about the expanse of the Universe, I also became increasingly convinced that even the Earth was too small for God to be actually bothered about and micro-manage.

I do not remember how, if, I had reconciled my ideas of soul with that of newly learned ideas like that of evolution. The first time I felt I had required to do a major re-think about my ideas of the Universe, God and nature was upon my reading an introductory text to Biology by an American author. It was a book brought to me by dad from his library. Prior to that I had been very much into reading up science, but most of that had been physics. E.g., I was very, very fascinated by the idea of electrons revolving around the nucleus, which in turn would be composed of protons and neutrons and how simply changing the number of protons in the nucleus would give rise to a new ‘element’. The said book had started with a very lucid definition of life, something on the lines of “life is a series of biochemical processes that involve nutrition, respiration and reproduction”. The first thing that struck me was life was a “process” and not a thing, like a ‘soul’ that I used to think it to be. Also, later on in the chapter the author had explained how most of the components of the biological cell had nothing remarkable about them and that they were in fact ‘non-living’. It was also stated that most of these components were also self-assembling, meaning if we would put all the organelles and their components in a compartment they would take their ‘right’ positions and start performing those activities that would make the cell ‘alive’. These facts were very startling for me. It was for the first time I started thinking that the ‘seat’ of life was not somewhere in the forehead (where I used to think the soul to reside), but in each and every cell. All this made me look at life as something less special and miraculous than I had been thinking all along. But on the other hand, my interest was piqued. I think beyond that point, other than quantum physics and thermodynacmics, etc. no other field of science had fascinated me as much as cell and molecular biology had.

The next major event in my life was when a science teacher (in class 9; age – 13 to 14 years) had pointed out that in villages, especially in olden days, diseases were considered to be curses by God for doing bad deeds and that this was basically people’s ignorance. So much so that diseases that caused rash, e.g., ‘chicken pox’, ‘small pox’, etc., were called by names of specific goddesses whose visitations they were considered to be. This had made me wonder for the very first time as to how did people *know* that the God existed. It was for the first time I started looking at not just man as God’s creation, but God also as man’s creation. The more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that man was apt to attribute to God that which he could not account for himself. I started thinking of all other examples like lightning, thunder, rain, floods – everything was attributed to the whim of the God.

It was at that point when a guy who had come to my house to ‘see’ one of my cousins as part of a marriage suit had stated (I paraphrase): “the sum total of all the knowledge is like a tall stick. Whatever portion lies in the illuminated state is what we call knowledge, whatever is above that and can’t see, is what we call God”. The guy was, for different reasons deemed unfit for my cousin, and eventually the two did not marry, but for me, he was the person to have made one of the most profound and influential statements I had ever heard.

In many of my discussions on people’s beliefs about the God, those defending the God’s existence used to most commonly rely upon two arguments, viz., “can you explain how this could happen (e.g., evolution of life on Earth, creation of the Universe from ‘nothing’, etc.)” and “Can you do such and such thing (e.g., ‘creating’ life, ‘bringing back’ dead people, creating the Universe from ‘nothing’, etc.)” I became increasingly confident that less the people understood the phenomena around them, stronger was their conviction in the existence of God. This realization had made me come up with a question:

If our confidence in the existence of God was inversely proportional to the fraction of phenomena we could understand ‘scientifically’, then let’s say to begin with when we had known almost nothing about the world around us, the strength of our belief was 100 x units. But then we came to know what ’causes’ lightning, diseases, earthquakes, etc., so gradually, the strength of our belief came down to, say, 20 x units. Then, there might be a time, though, really, really distant into the future, that we would know *everything* about the Universe. In which case, would our confidence in the existence of God come down to zero x units? More important, does this whole analysis not make our confidence in God’s existence lot less firm than what we would like to believe it to be?

Along with these thoughts, as I found more and more people I could confide in and discuss my ideas with, and thus as my emotional dependence on God reduced, my ‘conversations’ with God had almost stopped. Given my skepticism, even when I had to pray owing to peer pressure or in some kind of social situation, e.g., like visiting Ganesh pandaals (a small make-shift stall) during Ganesh Chaturthi and when I had to bow my head, close my eyes, and ‘pray’, I used to feel very awkward, for I knew I was pretending to pray. I call it pretense, firstly, because I had stopped believing long back that one really needed to close ones eyes and bow the head to ‘speak’ to the God. I couldn’t believe God could be such a bastard who would rejoice in making the same people feel servile who he only would have created. I had also stopped believing long back that the God would give in to sycophnacy (which most of the aartis and bhajan-keertans actually are). In fact, I used to be apologetic to ‘my’ God that I was caricaturizing him by being party to all this silliness indulged in by people who could not understand what God ‘really’ was. Of course, on the other hand, I had also been losing the emotional contact with God and also was getting more and more skeptical of his existence and the nature of the God, if he were to exist. It was under these circumstances, that I used to prefix my prayers with “If God, you exist, and if you’re interested…” and then go on to request something like saving the ecosystem or making people more sensible so that they would not indulge in violence or cruel behavior or to relieve the poverty-afflicted people of their pains. As I tried to explain earlier, the idea of asking something for the self, and praising (devotional songs, prayers, etc.), bribing (offering money/food) and emotionally blackmailing (observing fasts or some other vow, like that of celibacy) to get all that was totally reprehensible to me. That to me reeked of worst kind of immorality. I used to shudder to think if God were to be really like what most people imagined him to be.

With this phase, another question troubled me. Why did I have to respect God? Is it only because God had superpowers? Is it because God had the power to determine my fate? Or is because God was really ‘good’ (“good”, as in, from a human perspective – benevolent, kind, generous, just, impartial, etc.). I suddenly felt a resentment towards the idea that this respect was borne out of fear. I searched my mind thoroughly and I was relieved that I did not respect God at least out of fear, because somehow my conscience had always been clear. I had done nothing ‘wrong’ deliberately with intent of hurting others, so why should I be afraid? But in midst of these thoughts, my God had actually turned quite impersonal.

All these thoughts had crossed my mind when I was in classes 9 to 11 (13 to 16 years of age). In between, when I had just turned 15, there was a huge upset in life – I had ended up with very bad scores in class ten exams, especially, in science and social studies despite having worked very hard and systematically for the exams (studying in a very focused manner and also going through previous years’ question papers). Also, having been in CBSE, predicting ones score in science and social studies used to be very easy. My final scores were astonishingly below my most conservative estimates. The reason I emphasize on this is because, all my life I had been a very casual student. I almost never used to study much before the exams. I used to avoid going through the previous years’ papers as I used to find that unethical. My explanation used to be: if copying/’leaking’ questions in exams is wrong, then knowing the questions that could be repeated in exams beforehand and learning their answers and simply reproducing them is also wrong. And hence, I used to avoid seeing the papers. Plus perhaps, I was too casual a student to be doing such things. These things were *beneath* me! ;) However, class 10 ‘board exams’ happen to be landmark exams in India. Personally, they were not very relevant to me because I would have anyway got admission to the ‘Junior college’ in my colony where I used to live, but these scores were important to get admission in ‘Agrawal classes’ (a parallel coaching institute that ‘prepares’ students for class 12 board exams, so that students would score well then, these scores in turn used to be criteria for admission into graduation courses). In the colony where I used to live, securing admission in Agrawal classes used to be a matter of prestige. ‘Classification’ of students was based on ‘Agrus’ and ‘non-Agrus’. While, I used to care a zilch for such classifications, my parents were visibly embarrassed. They felt I had let them down. They had been telling me repeatedly for past many years to ‘mend’ my ways, not be so casual and over-confident, and to not be so unconventional in my approach to exams. Then there were relatives and family-friends who would speak in patronizing tone as to how ‘Agarwal classes’ was not everything and that other coaching institutes were also good. Actually, these things did not affect me owing to my thick skin, but they had also been sensitizing me to some other much more uncomfortable doubts – “was I being really over-confident?”, “did I really ‘deserve’ the low marks I had obtained?”. Then one another, perhaps, most relevant to the current blog post: “Was God punishing me for my ‘insubordination’?” Was God really like the way other people had thought him to be – like a megalomaniacal boss? I told myself that these were not the right times to think over such issues as I was emotionally disturbed and thus my inferences would be automatically too instinctive and wrong. I told myself that perhaps this was the toughest emotional test God was making me pass through, and that there are much worse things that people go through. But this was for the first time, a doubt had been sown in my mind about the validity of the interrelated assertions: “so shall you sow, so shall you reap” and “hard work always pays”. These doubts were very hard to reconcile with. They had made me feel helpless.

Then, when I reached class 11, I started understanding the Universe lot better than I used to before. This was largely because of reading books on physics. I increasingly started appreciating that the classification of empirically gained understanding of the World into ‘physics’, ‘chemistry’ and ‘biology’ was quite artificial. To be more precise, at most fundamental level, biology is nothing but chemistry (and a bit of physics), i.e., biochemistry and molecular biology and chemistry was nothing but simplified physics. So, I realized that the most fundamental ‘truths’ about the Universe could be explained solely by physics. One of the very basics book on physics had claimed that there were only seven “laws of conservation”, which if taken as premises could explain the whole of physics that we know. And further that, scientists were looking for law of conservation of one physical ‘quantity’, which in turn could account for all those seven laws. Though, I had remained skeptical, the entire idea did not seem implausible. This revelation had taken me closer to my conviction that “yes, there indeed might come a time, when we would be able to understand and explain everything, then what is it that we would need God for as a hypothesis?” At that point I surmised, “though we might find out how the Universe came into being and the way phenomena within it occur, we would never be never able to tell the purpose behind its existence and the way it exists. That must only be known to the God.” But I also found the entire logic quite circular. If the Universe, to come into existence and to have ‘determined’ its manner of functioning (laws of physics), required there to be a God, what made the God come into existence and what determined the manner in which God would function?. This doubt had remained unresolved in my mind for quite some time.

On the other hand, I obviously knew that the day on which we would know and understand everything about the Universe might never come, but that to me started seeming to be a very perverse reason for the belief in God’s existence. The entire basis of God’s existence was wreathed in negativity – ignorance and inability of humans. I started asking myself, “what fundamentally is the difference between saying “I don’t know; I can’t do that” and saying that “God knows; God can do it”"? Also, as explained above, if the basis of our belief in existence of God had to be our ignorance and inability, then shouldn’t we feel less confident about God’s existence as we knew more and could do more? Would that be fair to the God in whose existence we believed? This diminishing divinity of the divine was something unacceptable to me. That made seem God more like an excuse to cover up our ignorance and inability rather than anything else.

Along with above doubts I had, since long I had started getting another lurking doubt – if God had determined everything about our lives (fate), what was the original basis for such determination? If, e.g., my fate on a given day was determined by God to develop an impulse to steal, and if God knew about this impulse, and just like everything else in the Universe, it is only God who made the existence and occurrence of such an impulse possible, then how was it my *fault* that I would develop that impulse, not have the will power to resist it (remember, God only left me bereft of the requisite will power) and that I end up acting on that impulse?

This question had thoroughly shaken the foundation of my morality and my basis to judge others and myself. It is at this point that I substantially lost the smugness I felt for being what I considered to be more moral than others.

It was in midst of such doubts that on an impulse, I had conducted a thought-experiment. I decided to close my eyes, and contemplate for a couple of minutes a Universe where no God existed. I had an impending feeling that I was about to do something very significant, that there was some great threshold I was about to cross. True to my usage of the word ‘experiment’, I had no idea what feeling would I end up with on trying the experiment. Would I feel so agitated and distressed that I would have to open my eyes? Or… I did not know what else could have been felt, because that is the only thing I thought could be felt, and perhaps even secretly wanted to feel. It is thus that I closed my eyes. I had purged the lurking God out of my mind. I tried to visualize the billions of stars falling over each other in crowds called galaxies, that in some corner was this Solar system, and in it, the Earth. I vanished the Earth. Nothing happened. Nothing happened! No galaxies had wept, not God was beating his chest in despair. There was no God! Whether there was this Earth or not – it made no difference to everything else that existed. Whether there was God or not – it made no difference to everything that otherwise existed. That something existed was the only truth. And whatever existed, even if it were to stop existing, it would make no difference. And no, I did not feel agitated. I opened my eyes. And I was confronted with a question: Did I still believe that the God existed? How could have I lied to myself. I now knew there was no God. But there were so many other questions to answer. What if I were wrong, would I not miss out on such a beautiful conception as the God? Would I not be unfair to the God, in that case? Also, I hated to admit it, but I realized that if I were to stop believing in the God, there would be a huge vacuum in my life – both on the emotional front, because God was a support for me to rationalize that after all things were not always in my hands and secondly, a vacuum of purposelessness. What was the purpose of my existing? It was the very last time I had spoken to my God and was something on these lines:

“God, I do not know if you truly exist. I have realized that to believe or not believe in your existence is after all a matter of choice now. You had been with me for so long. I realize that I would feel weak if I were to stop believing in you. But there were these two minutes when I just tried to contemplate Universe’s and my existence without you and yes I could do it. So, if I were to still keep on believing in your existence, it would be a most fundamental dishonesty. I would be lying to myself. And most important, lying in matter of something that I hold so dear to myself, i.e., you. I can bear the pain that not believing in you, if any, might cause, but I cannot bear to live with the fact that my belief in you would be calculated and be guided by a certain kind of shrewdness that believing in you ‘helps’. Hence God, hereon you do not exist.”

Stopping to believe in God did not trouble me to the extent I had anticipated. But there was something else that troubled me. “What was it that I had been believing in for so long, with which I used to talk, and in a way, for which I had been living my life? What was it?” I was afraid that I knew the answer. It was me deluding myself. I felt very angry. I felt betrayed in a very deep sense. Something that had meant so much to me was just an illusion? And much worse, an illusion created by own mind to deceive myself? How could I do this to myself? I had not been able to forgive myself back then. I still cringe to think I had done all that to myself. Perhaps, the reason I could buffer the anger and the shock that ensued was simply because I also felt relieved. I felt relieved that no longer did I feel an obligation to believe in something that I had basically stopped believing in, and perhaps even, never even believed truly in. I felt relieved that I had gotten rid of a falsehood that had warped my world. This – perhaps the most memorable event in my life – had occurred when I was in class 11, and I guess I must have been on the verge of turning 16.

Yet, when I thought of others who believed in the existence of God, I never found them wrong. I felt that God was a hypothesis that could indeed be used to account for the Universe’s existence in addition to all the science that we know of, what is the harm in presupposing that a God must have created and determined the nature of all this that we call the Universe? So, in that sense I was still not a complete atheist, more of an agnostic, in the sense, feeling that the question whether God existed or not could not be answered convincingly.

In those days, I had been an avid reader. Two unrelated things I had learned/realized changed my outlook a lot. First was my learning about ‘action potentials’ (nerve impulses). I realized that from simple twitch of a finger to something as complicated as the urge to commit suicide – all were generated by chemical processes as simplistic as few ions like sodium, chloride, potassium, etc., moving in and out of cells containing and surrounded by water. This sounded pretty mundane and ordinary to me. I could not reconcile with the fact that my spirit, my emotions that drive me to endure this largely painful life, and the one at the end of which I would get nothing (I don’t remember at what point, but I had stopped believing in the existence of soul – in all likelihood – with coming across that biochemical definition of life), and which make me place myself at the very center of the Universe, so much so that I could see everything only one perspective – *my* perspective – is nothing but a simple play of physics and chemistry! Fundamentally, there was no difference between my emotions – what I consider a life unto themselves and a ‘nonliving’ rock. The same laws of physics could account for their behavior. I had for two days become extremely disturbed. I was filled with such great depression, I would not have panicked even if someone would have told me I were to die in next two minutes. That is the degree to which nihilism had permeated my psyche. My conscience did not allow me to even discuss this predicament with my best friend as I was convinced that complete understanding of what I had realized would make anyone depressed and suicidal. It was a true existential crisis for me. Though, in those two days something gave me the confidence that in course of time, I would after all find some purpose of living this life. Finally, I did: though, my life might have no purpose and all the emotions I experience are merely ions following the laws of physics, I ‘like’ to feel happy. Dying would require lot of courage and anyway, why lose life when the step of dying would be irreversible? What’s the harm in continuing to live? As it is, I am enjoying my emotions. I also realized that it is not good to contemplate on such important issues related to life when I was myself emotionally so disturbed.

The other impactful thing that I had come across was some article on the Times of India. It had something to do with ‘causality’ and ‘determinism’. The author had explained how owing to laws of conservation of linear and angular momentum, etc., if we could determine the current positions of each and every particle in the Universe and the direction and magnitude of forces acting on them, we could predict every event that were to occur in the Universe. Of course, I fully appreciated that we would never be able to determine the positions of every particle (applying Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle only further complicated the entire occurrence), so the question of being able to predict was redundant. But what was disconcerting about the above submission was that irrespective of whether we could predict or not the future events, that they would occur was already determined by what had happened in the past. And on applying this principle to the nuerotransmitters and ions that make the brain cells work, it became amply clear that what thought we would ‘get’ given an event in the ‘external’ world, or even what emotion we feel on a given day ‘spontaneously’ were already determined by the past and current ‘positions’ and ‘trajectories’ of the same ions and neurotransmitters in the brain.

No wonder, I felt a sudden loss of control. My emotions, my thoughts, my existence – all that I used to so much covet, I realized were not central to anything the way I used to think them to be, but were merely incidental; incidental to where certain photons and particles might have been positioned in the vast sea of space-time.

God had not come to my aid in all of this crisis. Because, though God could have been something more, but now surely for me he was the outcome of the same neurotransmitters and ions that had made me accept the hypothesis of his existence as well as made someone posit it in the first place. Yet, there was something that had kept me hung on to the idea that God could exist. What was the purpose of the existence of this Universe? What was the meaning behind what seemed so patently meaningless to exist, that is this Universe?

I remember vaguely that in class 12 NCERT physics text book something non-rigorous was written about the Universe’s existence. It also had something to do with the ‘purpose’ for Universe’s existence, or how there might be no such purpose. It is for the first time I questioned myself as to why did we presuppose a purpose each time we contemplate the Universe’s existence? Why can the Universe just not exist? I smiled as I realized that that such thinking was also an outcome of a flawed perspective humans hold of seeing everything as human-centric. I answered that since all we see around us, is ‘created’ from something else, we think that everything that exists needs ‘creation’, but that this assumption is flawed! Why can something not just exist ‘since eternity’, why does it have to be ‘created’? It is at that point that I turned an atheist in the truest sense. I had stopped believing that God exists, I had stopped believing that the hypothesis of God added any value to our understanding of the Universe, and most important, I was comfortable with all these realizations on an emotional plane. I had just turned 17, then.

Following that, another upset had occurred in my life – I had got a much worse rank in Maharashtra medical entrance exam than I had anticipated. It was another of those exams where I had given my very best and there was every reason I should have done very well, but I did not. I had yet again come to doubt the value of hard work and realized the significance of randomness that governed the important outcomes in my life. I however, despite my distress, did not feel tempted to attribute that randomness to God.

I have come across many explanations for many ‘types’ of gods’ descriptions following my turning a negative atheist (‘negative atheism’ = lack of belief that God exists; ‘positive atheism’ = ‘strong’ belief that God does not exist), and also many well-articulated arguments showing their implausibility, but my fundamental beliefs about God’s existence, or rather nonexistence, the lack purpose to life, belief in naturalism (roughly put, only that exists, which can be perceived or which can make a perceptible change in what can be perceived) and belief that we lack free will have not changed. Yes, it’s a different matter that upon reading more I realized what technical term could be applied to the stages through which my beliefs in the ‘God’ had passed.

Many people, it seems, believe that I would harbor contempt for those who believe in the God. This is not true, or may be if true, not in such simplistic manner. Usually, I am not interested whether a person believes in the existence of the God or not, but as to what thought had they applied in course of retaining such a belief or discarding it. To judge a person in this regard it become important for me to know, what is their understanding of the Universe, how much of science have they come across? How much were they encouraged by the social environment in which they lived to think for themselves, etc. It is here important to point out that Isaac Newton was a firm theist and had in fact written more about Jesus Christ than about science or mathematics. But he is one of my favorite scientists. I do not consider him irrational. Because, what he knew about scientific phenomena was very little. But had he been living in today’s era and would have had access to the kind of scientific knowledge we have, I would have considered him dishonest to believe in the God’s existence. But having said all this, I also need to emphasize upon the fact that most people have some or the other insecurities. Most people delude the self in one area of the life or the other. Those who do so in matter of existence of God are who come to be called as ‘theists’. It is as simple as that. In that I do not hold theists’ theism against them. But what I have also observed is theists are slightly more apt to possess what is called ‘magical thinking’ or a liking for the occult. Apart from some very harmful superstitions that such thinking can engender, there is a risk of being unduly influenced by people with ulterior motives (which are not always restricted to earning money), e.g., practice of astrology, homeopathy, etc. I get somewhat irritated by these, because it amounts to a disregard for methodical thinking – something that distinguishes humans from ‘lower’ animals. But yet, I want to point out that ‘amount’ of rationality employed by a person is one of the many axes along which I judge a person. There are many, many other parameters that matter to me. The only reason I speak so much against religion is because it is most prevalent kind of disregard for logic and most prototypical instance of suspension of questioning – both of which I think are responsible directly or indirectly for lot of what ails the humanity.

I turn 26 today, and quite inadvertently, though I had started drafting this post many days back, it is only today that I could finish it. There is only little more to my life than what has been laid out above. :)

I wish to deeply thank Sushmita (click) for having asked me about my beliefs on God. Considering her sincerity as a person, I thought it only appropriate to write this blog post. :)

Pitfalls of Respect for Tradition


I am writing this post with the ideas that I had held for a long time, but using Shankara’s blog post titled ‘Girl child infanticide in India. The truth behind the evil.’ (click) as an illustrative case in point.

Shankara’s basic premise is that because Hindus had traditionally attached divinity with the feminine, respected women warriors (e.g., Rani Chennama, Rani Durgawati, Rani Laxmibai, etc.) and devotees (e.g., Meerabai), “Hindus have respected and adored women, raised them to most exalted positions”. He further states that “no ancient record or Hindu books of itihasa (history) such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata have recorded or alluded to the destruction of girl child in India”. So, he implies that women were considered at par with men in their status, were respected and adored, and the practice of female infanticide, which represents something exactly the opposite of this implication, was alien the Hindu tradition. He points out that it was the Muslim invasions, in which lot of crimes were committed against women, especially of sexual nature, that is what made the parents preempt such pain and humiliation by killing their newborn girls. To support his assertion he points out that this practice was (and is) most prevalent where the Muslim invaders had interfaced first with the Hindu tradition and thus had been most aggressive in their crimes against women. He has cited a few references at the end of his blog post that I have not gone through:

They would regularly kidnap and rape women folk, later selling them into slavery, prostitution or just leaving ravaged women on the streets to become social outcasts.

People living in troubled times and in the path of these marauding Muslim invaders in the north west of India which is modern Punjab and Haryana today bore the brunt of such inhumane acts. As a direct result of such atrocities committed by Muslim rulers the girl child became an unwanted burden an offspring that can only bring misfortune and stigma to the parents and to be done away with at birth. How many parents could bear to see their beloved daughters some as young as 10 years old kidnapped or taken away at the point of a spear or sword to be raped by soldiers in plain sight or carted away as loot to be sold into slavery in the markets of Baghdad.

The above assertions sound somewhat reasonable, and moreover, as I have not gone through the above references, I cannot refute them. However, I would still like to make some significant (counter) points.

The first of the above two statements ends with “…(owing to various crimes committed by invading Muslims against helpless women, women) become social outcasts”. The use of passive voice is surprising here. Nobody becomes an outcast in vacuum. It is the very Hindus who had been worshiping goddesses, that outcast the women against whom sexual crimes were committed, over which they had no control. This does not come out as very respectful of women. In fact, it reeks of an urgency to objectify women and evaluate their worth in terms of who they had sex with (that too under coercion). It is redundant to point out that these girls/women could have still been worshiped, loved and adored and provided emotional support. The subsequent statement “bring misfortune and stigma to the parents” also echoes similar sentiment of justifying castigation of women simply because sexual crimes were committed against them. However, I understand that if the girls would be sold as slaves in foreign lands then that would obviously emotionally very much trouble the parents, and for this reason, it is just about possible that parents would kill their infant daughters. However, the idea that women’s sexuality was a matter of tug of war between a civilization and a warring tribe, is not lost upon me.

One of the commentators, Karmasura, had asked a counter-question:

During Muslim rule, many young boys were also castrated and sold as khusros, yet, we don’t have any such tactic towards the males of the society to prevent them from being castrated.

Of course, it is possible that parents looked at boys as potential protectors of the family when they grow up, as against girls who would largely be incapable of that, hence infant boys were not killed.

Another commentator, Archana, had pointed out few instances from Hindus epics that indicate that women were indeed objectified.

However, despite my saying the above, I find it reasonable to assume that infant girls were not killed as a matter of systematic practice prior to the Muslim invasions of India. I had read in the past that the Purdah system (practice of women covering their face and head with a fold of their clothing) in India had also begun as an attempt to keep away the gaze of lecherous invading soldiers. In fact, the point I want to make depends heavily on this assumption that no such systematic female infanticide used to occur in India, and that it was solely Muslim invasion that had led to the beginning of this practice and its obdurate persistence in certain pockets of India. Quite unfortunately, the idea of inferiority of the female gender has become so prevalent in the society that even places as far (from Punjab and Haryana) as Gujarat and Maharashtra see immense popularity of female feticide (as against infanticide), so much so that, opening up ‘clinics’ with ultrasonography machines that could detect sex of the fetus and thus enable abortion, if found to be female, had become a staple of gynecologists in several districts and cities. The practice still continues, but lot more covertly than before.

But we also know that after a few centuries, the Indian society had reached a semblance of peace as far as friction between Hindus and Muslims was concerned, and further down the timeline, it is tempting to believe things are lot more peaceful. At least currently we are pretty sure than no Hindu girls in India are being openly abducted, raped and/or sold by Muslims, then why still in certain sections of the Hindu society, girls are largely looked at as burden? As far as being a surrogate of discrimination against the girl child goes, there is practically no difference between female infanticide and feticide. This is what an article (presumably) endorsed by the UNICEF (click) had to say:

The decline in child sex ratio in India is evident by comparing the census figures. In 1991, the figure was 947 girls to 1000 boys. Ten years later it had fallen to 927 girls for 1000 boys.

Since 1991, 80% of districts in India have recorded a declining sex ratio with the state of Punjab being the worst.

Shankara himself sort of answers it.

In modern times the practice of girl child infanticide had taken such deep roots in certain sections of the society especially the peasantry, landed communities and poorer sections of the society that it was being practiced blindly as a tradition or received wisdom from the elders that girl child is of nuisance value and not to be had or purely to avoid property and financial loss following the marriage of the daughter.

And in his quote, it is the part I highlight above is what I am most interested in. I believe, that most, if not all, traditions serve to maintain stability in the society. But two things need to be noted here. First, every tradition suits its peculiar circumstances. Second, a tradition is supposed to serve a goal. If either of the two (circumstances or goal) change, so does a tradition need to. E.g., if it is a tradition to wear loose, flowing clothes in a desert during day, it makes sense. The ‘circumstance’ here is obviously the atrocious climate. And the goal is ‘being comfortable’. Such clothing would not make sense in Antarctica.

I believe, the basic goal of any ideology ought to be maximizing human survival and happiness. It stands to simple logic that one of the prerequisites of being able to be happy is absence of conflict between humans. Having satisfied that condition, if a tradition does not uniformly further happiness and comfort for the one contemplating following it, then such following must be reconsidered. If furthermore, such following is against ones conscience, prospects of happiness or system of ethics, then no doubt, it must not be followed.

Just think of the parents who have been killing their newborn daughters. There is little doubt that it takes lot of cruelty and overcoming of compassion and pity to kill a defenseless child. Yet, it is the power of tradition that had made them do it – for centuries, to this extent that in some areas in India, the sex ratio is less than 900 females per 1000 males, meaning more than one in every 10 girls were killed (if it is assumed that once born, the survival-probability for both the sexes must be similar). This blind following of tradition is sourced in lot of social conditioning that we take for granted. At the heart of it, is the (unfounded) idea that somehow those living before us were better and wiser human beings. What makes it apparent that no tradition was ‘perfect’ is the fact that there is such a heterogeneity between different groups of people in any given place. If certain traditions were ‘perfect’ and would have served with same perfection, we would not have had so many different kinds of traditions – all civilizations and groups of people would have followed ‘one perfect tradition’. Another idea that falls in the same league is that of respecting whatever the parents (or elders like teachers) ask the child to do. The idea that an ‘obedient child’ = ‘good child’ is deeply ingrained in the society’s psyche. Society puts immense pressure on its members to ‘fall in line’. Those diverting are harshly critiqued or ostracized. And on the other hand, those who are most compliant (or rather shall I call it pliant?) are rewarded.

The paranoia of a tradition getting extinct is needlessly too severe. What is the harm if any tradition gives way to another one? If a new practice serves a set of people well, what harm is it, if it is ‘imported’ from outside or if it develops de novo? It is not that the society had remained stagnant in the past. On the whole the quality of human life has improved (except for if one truly believes something like Bharat was sone ki chidiya), and ‘change’ is a necessary corollary of ‘improvement’. So, people will do what they feel is the best for them in the altered context of their lives. It is unwise to think that my parents are the wisest and smartest and they have answers for every situation I would encounter, so I must obey and follow them blindly. I am not creating a strawman here. It is precisely what those parents (of murdered girl children) must have thought who had continued to kill their daughters against their conscience and without any ‘need’ to do it… only to perpetuate a tradition.

And that is the pitfall of respect of tradition.

Lastly, I must ask that if the practice of worshiping women as goddesses is so easily attributed to Hindu tradition to show that it respects women, to which tradition should the declining and still less-than-1000:1000 sex ratio that exists in India, and which had required perpetuation and continuation of a practice involving merciless & needless killing of infant-girls be attributed? Please be honest! Even if one were to point out that it were the practices of dowry and girl having to go to the groom’s house that made the girl child disliked, then who were the people who had perpetuated such traditions? What was the compulsion to send away one’s girl to someone else’s house so that she would be thought of as ‘burden’, and to be ‘relieved’ of it, one would have to pay a dowry?

The simple solution is to be proud or ashamed of only those things that we do by our own volition. If we attach personal pride and esteem to the actions of dead ancestors or even to our parents or fellow citizens or co-religionists, firstly it would be illogical to do, and secondly, we would have no control over those actions, which would make it very difficult to retain our objectivity and honesty. So, why attach pride, shame, guilt, etc. to those actions over which we fundamentally have no control?

PS: Too much ranting has happened above. I might try to come up with a more coherent post in the future.

Ego-Puncture: How not to ‘Propose’ to a Girl!


I have conveyed the existence of feeling of love/quasi-love (infatuation, for the mere lesser mortals) to human female subjects on eight occasions, of which two occasions have been just online. Mind you, all of those instances are not the same as pathetic whining of “I love you, so you must love me back in return, or else I will get mad and kill myself, your father and your neighbor’s cat in that order”-kind that passes off as ‘proposing love’. I am full of self-respect, so I don’t ask for favors, that too off a female, and that shows. No wonder, most of the aforementioned female subjects have concurred.

Being a human male, I believe I am a gift to the womankind, which anyway, all the males are. So obviously, I possess passable flirting skills, but which are unfortunately annulled by my fetish for honesty.

Samples:

- 1 -

The girl – ‘G1′ and I are seated outside the college, looking straight ahead, which did not happen to be straight into each others’ eyes for the simple geometrical fact that we were seated on the same bench, with me contemplating our future ahead, and she… also, contemplating our future ahead, more precisely when could she muster sufficient audacity to ask me to go to hell (a.k.a. the boys’ hostel [for strange reasons that I am still unaware of, never called the "Gents' hostel"]), and so she could, to her ladies’ hostel.

I: You see G1, we’ve known each other for so long…
G1: How long?
I: Like… 3 weeks?
G1: So?
I: Have you noticed how close we have grown?

She tentatively slides across the bench farther away from me by half a foot. So, now we are like two feet apart. She visually estimates the distance between us to ensure it is safe enough. Distance makes the heart grow fonder, they say. But kindly notice, the ‘heart’ is in singular.

G1: Hmm…
I: …So, I think I have developed some feelings for you.

Now she shows greater interest, which she indicates by turning her head 5° to the left. Yes, I was also seated to her left.

G1: Feelings?…
I: Yeah, you know those special feelings…
G1: Don’t be nervous. It’s alright, tell me.
I: Nervous? I thought you would be nervous with my telling you this! I was planning to tell you for so long… But you know, na, G1, this is my first time. You’re getting what I mean to say? Please understand, you must have gone through all this many times before, right?

Now she looks at me, smiles and her cheeks turn red. Then, she lowers her gaze and asks me coyly…

G1: I think I can guess it…You mean to say, you love me, Ketan? Ketan, you really love me?

By now she is quite excited, blushing even harder and looking at me expectantly…

I: Well, sort of.

Okay, okay, I made it up… well, sort of. ;) But, the next two accounts are for real. I promise! :D

- 2 -

G2, the girl and I were standing outside the college building. Just a few minutes back, I had asked her to come to a ‘khopcha’ snatching her from the grip of her excessively sticky friends. She had in good humor excused her friends by saying, “excuse me, we are going on a date”. Now, that was the easy part. With her standing before me, I was at loss as to what to say. You know, that one thing you say, and the life would never be the same again between those two people. Any emotion felt, would be in its extremes thereon.

Let me first tell you what her response had been, and what happened following that. She had said, “Ketan, if at all I feel like marrying someday, it is only you I can think of at this stage in life”. She had said that without my asking what she felt about me. I was relieved, no great damage had been done. We had carried on for around 6 months, then owing to some bitter differences between us we had parted ways, but amicably so. Somehow, all my relations have been platonic and perhaps, that is why partings have been amicable.

Anyway, what I had told her was, hold your breath… “As of now there are three girls that I think of as my prospective life partners, and you’re one of them!”. And no, I am not lying. This is the 100% truth. Go figure!

- 3 -

This was during my internship. And I was infatuated (click) by my co-intern. She was about to leave for Mumbai in next 3-4 days for good. This was a stage when I had come out of a very emotionally wrecking break up just 5 months back. I had not at all been prepared to invest my emotions in anyone. So actually, my liking for this girl was pretty shallow. In fact, I did not fancy her companionship much.

So, in one of the night duties in the casualty department, we were seated across the table, and following is what I had told her. She had somewhat known about my breakup.

“Now that you’d be leaving in a few days, let me tell you something that is not very important, but I still wanted to tell you. If possible, forget it as soon as you hear, because it is just one of my silly impulses that I’m telling you this… that I have developed a crush on you, but it’s nothing serious as it’s mostly because of how you look!!!”

She was quite taken aback, but she had held onto her composure. So, she did not immediately appreciate how funny the situation was back then, but in retrospect I realize that was a very foolish thing to say, and for some people, even hurting. But I was carried away by my desire to convince her that my feelings were not serious at all. And of course, I was being honest in what I said. :)

Those were the three accounts I wanted to publish here. I consider myself lucky that these girls had borne my eccentricity with elan, and for which I will always remain grateful. My problem with how I deal with the feeling of love is that I cannot see it as some kind of game to be ‘won’ at all costs. I think of love in very idealistic/romantic terms. My belief is, if I am to any degree less than honest with the person to who I express my love, then firstly, I am myself not considering the self to be worthy of her love, and further if there is reciprocation of feelings, then it would be for the person I had pretended to be, rather than the person I would be. Many might find this ‘too’ idealistic. But I have one pragmatic reason also to be like that: even with greatest degree of honesty, people after settling in a relationship discover irritating/unsavory things about each other. But if two people are as honest as possible, then, at least they have an option of not entering the said relationship, and moreover, if they wish to enter it they know a few things they will have to put up with or compromise upon, and hence they could be mentally prepared. So, honesty at the early stage of or before a relationship begins is better for its longevity (assuming, that is one of the goals, which somehow it has been in my case). And conversely, a relationship built with concealment of significant traits of oneself is very apt to reach a state where unanticipated compromises would be involved, and both the partners would have to rather put up with each others’ company, than enjoy it. Of course, parting would be an option, but with that lot of emotional adjustments would have to be made. And lastly, not to mention, there is certain degree of comfort one feels on being honest – one does not have to be constantly pressured to remember which mask to done. :)

The purpose of above examples was not to portray my behavior as exemplary. In fact, I was going to just stop at the third account; this explanation was an afterthought.

Of course, the above analysis is largely my speculation, because fortunately, to whatever degree I have been in two relations (of which one was with G2 above), none of the persons involved have required to be very pretentious or overtly dishonest, so I have no personal experience to be sure that highest degree of honesty is the best policy to ‘kick-start’ a relationship.

Readers’ views are, of course, most welcome. :)

My first tag!


Owing to my pathetic interpersonal skills, which are as pathetic online as they are offline, hardly any blogger has tagged me up till now. And let me be honest, I always wanted to be tagged, but nobody considered me or my blog good enough to be tagged. :( Okay now, that I’m done with my perfunctory whining against the powers that be in the World and beyond, which I anyway keep on doing with tags like Why the World is Doomed (click), let me get down to business! ;)

—–

Some rules of the Game:

a) Show off your honesty (and modesty) by thanking the person who gave you the award and link to their post.

b) List 15 honest things about yourself. Cheating makes you lame, so just play along, all you taggees.

c) Select 7 other bloggers you think deserve this award and pass it on to them.

d) Notify said bloggers about the award and invite them to be the honest ones next.

—–

a) I wholeheartedly thank Srishti (click), whose strongest claim to being wonderful, phenomenal, sensational, awesome, unimaginablysupercoolintelligentandnice human being is the fact that she tagged (click) me! Apart from that, a fact of unsettled significance is that she blogs. ;)

—–

Okay now coming to the easiest part of the tag – 15 honest things about myself!

1. I’m quite honest!

Of course I am, why else would I consider jotting down 15 honest things about about myself as the easiest task in this tag, huh? But keeping in with my honesty, I must also add that the qualifier “quite” umm… lends itself to be kind of, you know, misused. ;) Moreover, “honesty” is subjective, isn’t it? On a more serious note, I do have an unconventional view of honesty. I feel, honesty, just like other ideals has a higher purpose, and that higher purpose happens to be human happiness. This happiness has to be acquired through pragmatic means – such that it would not cause too much discomfort to others, so as to upset society’s harmony, and nor should it hurt my conscience to the degree that I would develop disdain for myself. So given that goal, honesty would mean telling the truth, not concealing significant aspects of what I would regard as truth, but if my conscience is convinced and rather demands that I deviate from the conventional path of truth, then I would do that as well. I had discussed the related ideas in my blog posts – Ideological vanity (click), My System of Ethics (click), An Ethical Brainteaser! (click) and How Morality is Indispensable to a Social Life (click).

When it comes to honesty, I can be quite extreme on either side of what might be considered the ‘optimum’ degree of honesty. How honest I am with a person depends on how much I value them. I can cook up believable stories very spontaneously and also speak them out with a straight face. I have played pranks using this skill of mine on few occasions, and at other times I did so to bail out myself from difficult situations. But on the other extreme, if I respect a person a lot, then I have decided in favor of being honest to utmost degree. My belief is, if I respect a person, then I must consider them as much deserving as myself to know the same truth that I would, and would also not doubt their ability to handle the truth, and the desire to know it.

2. My first crush was at the age of 5!

What I mean is, the girl was five! Okay-okay, I was also five, back then. :D Yes people, I was quite precocious! Perhaps, my hairline that’s merged with the forehead skin is merely another indicator of my precocity. Though, I must mention here that I had harbored that crush for the girl right from kindergarten to class 9. That is ten whole years! And yet, never could I gather sufficient courage to tell her that. Actually, her family had happened to be friends with mine, and I was worried that if she and in turn my parents were to get a whiff of it, I would be sent to 14 years vana vaas [exiled to forest], notwithstanding the absence of Manthara, Lakshman or Sita in my life. :( Later, I grew out of that crush, and am just about in touch with her. I wonder if I come to know of her being in some romantic relationship or planning to get married, would I still feel a pinch? Perhaps I would, but even that pinch would make me smile, just like most things from my childhood that I consider silly, would. :) As an aside, one of my female class mates during my MBBS course had commented in Hindi, “koi itni chhoti si umar se itna ‘woh’ kaise ho saktaa hai?” [How can someone be so 'that' from such a young age?]. I egged her on as to what she meant by ‘that’ (“‘Woh’ matlab?”). She said, “Samajh jaa na!”. So, I asked, “tharaki?” [Lecherous?]. “Haan wohi!” [Yes, that only!]. Now, I didn’t launch into an elaboration on how not all attractions need be tinged with libidinous desires, etc. That must have dented my reputation, at least she made it seem so, but quite possibly, it would have actually improved among girls! ;) But either ways, I couldn’t be too bothered to find that out.

3. My crush list had consisted of 23 girls by the time I had turned 17!

I know that is quite an awesome figure… for detached onlookeers, that is! :( How many did I manage to pataaofy? None!

Again, quite a few girls take this figure as a sign of my being a loose gentleman [Do you see the contradiction in terms here? It ("loose gentleman") does not come out as well as "loose lady", right? But I have an explanation for that. Unlike what feminists would like to point out, this usage has nothing to do with inherent sexism. The answer lies in poetics - 'loose' and 'lady' are alliterations! ;) ]. But that is not true. My reasons for getting a crush on some girl are very eclectic, but equally weird! So actually, it is quite an honor for a girl if I get a crush on her (duh!). E.g., once after I finished my meal in a restaurant, a girl was inadvertently blocking my way to the wash basin. I said, “Excuse me! Could you please make way for me?” She was visibly embarrassed, and said, “Oh, I’m sorry. Sure!” and gave a sheepish smile and got out of the way. Now of course, this would seem a normal occurrence, but those were the days when the girls in my junior college (class 12) were irritating enough to say haughtily “excused” in response to such requests (inspired by, who else, but Shahrukh Khan!) when in fact, it is they who would be blocking the way and thus be at fault! And lo behold, mujhe us pe crush aa gayaa (woh Hindi wala “lo” tha)! Ah so you see, this fine lady’s etiquette quite endeared her to me. And that I felt she looked good helped. ;) But to be honest, I had hardly looked at her, so I can’t be sure. Maybe it was just her demeanor that made me feel that she looked good. I left the restaurant, feeling thumps in my chest, with this intense desire to go back and talk to her, to look at her face and her smile, to try to get her email ID or Yahoo! ID (those were the days I had been heavily into Yahoo! chatting), but alas, there was no pretext to do that! This helplessness disturbed me for a few days. And quite weirdly, if I were ever to meet her, I would not even be able to recognize her now!!! But that unmistakable feeling of warmth is not lost on me each time I try to recall that incident. :)

4. I can be quite poker faced (but the irony is I don’t like card games!).

This, anyway few of you must have guessed when I talked of making up stories with a straight face. But then there is a flip side, too. It seems that my feelings do not spill over onto my face (whatever that is supposed to mean!). So, if I am really happy, I have to convince others that I would be feeling very happy. Likewise, due to relatively subdued facial expressions, and also the fact that most people consider me quite composed (which I am most of the times), people do not believe me easily when I tell them that I would be feeling sad or troubled or anxious. :(

5. I have cried in public only once.

I cry with difficulty. I don’t know why. It is not that I look at adversely those who cry. In fact, crying can be quite therapeutic. But perhaps I would feel a loss of control if I let myself cry and show emotion. I am not so affected by the attention I might draw on crying, but even otherwise I cry extremely rarely. The last I had cried was after class 12 (which is more than 8 years back, and anyway was not in public).

It is for similar reason that I do not allow myself to show my anger, envy, irritation, etc. As I said, I am hardly bothered by what others think of me, but I do so because when dealing in public I feel people by default are firstly not ‘deserving’ of my emotion (including anger), meaning, I consider my true emotions the precious most things – that people have to reach crossing a few check points in order to be able to ‘access’ [apologies, if that sounds haughty]. Secondly, I feel if I act under the influence of some overwhelming emotion, then that would not be the best decision. This makes me quite a control freak, with the subject of that control being myself. So when I do experience some overwhelming emotion, most of my attention is focused on trying to buffer it, cut it out of my system, so outwardly quite obviously, people cannot make out what is going on inside of me, or even that indeed something significant is going on.

Okay, so the last time I had cried was in class 5! But many people to who I have recounted the incident find the reason behind it very silly. It had so happened that the girl with who I used to share my bench was in a mischievous mood. She was hitting me with my own compass box (metallic box in which I used to carry my writing/drawing material, etc.). She was miffed by the fact that I wasn’t getting angry. So to provoke me, she threw away my box at the wall around 5 m away in front of us. All the contents of the box had fallen out. But I went, collected the box and the items, replaced them and came back with my box. All along I had been requesting her to stop, but perhaps she was bent on testing my patience [unfortunately, I have noticed quite a few people I have met in life have wanted to break my resolve/composure/patience, perhaps because they think of it as some kind of challenge. But they do not understand that I have my personal reasons to be composed, and it is not that I do that to get some kick out of it]. Somehow, my only concern was how to stop her! It did not occur to me that I should get angry at her! In the meantime, she got hold of my some other stuff, and as I went to get it back from her, she took hold of my compass box and threw it again!!! It was actually food break that we used to get midway in the school’s time table, so there were hardly any other class mates in the room. Just one of my class mates who was watching all this came to me and told me something to the effect of: “how could you be so passive! If she threw your compass box, you too must throw hers!”. Now to be honest, even his words were not entirely convincing, because as I said I did not feel angry at all. My only concern was to get her to stop. But then I decided that perhaps he was right. If she had thrown my box, and that too twice, despite my warning and requesting her to not do the same, there was nothing wrong with my doing the same with hers! Moreover, I thought it would be an effective ‘strategy’ to stop her! But there was one problem – her box was made of plastic and it was beautiful (mine was ugly, apart from being metallic). So, I did not have the heart to throw it. But if I remember correctly, she was preparing to play yet another trick to try to gain control of my box and throw it again. So, in one quick motion, I took her box and threw it. Somewhat unexpectedly, one of the hinges of the box’s lid broke off from the main body. Now her box was defunct! She started crying, complaining that she had pestered her mom a lot to let her use that box, as it was actually a birthday gift to her six year younger brother, and that her mom would scold her a lot, and also her brother would be very heart broken. Suddenly, I felt very guilty of what I did. More so, because I too had an equally younger sister, and I knew how difficult it was to negotiate things out of parents! ;) And I started crying – much harder than her, and quite inconsolably. I think the fact that my act was not backed my own conviction or emotions added greatly to my regret. I felt pathetic [the girl was done with her crying till then]. Soon, the break had ended, and all the students started coming into the class. It was quite an unusual sight for everyone, because nobody expected me to cry ever. In some time, our science teacher (who has been one of my all-time favorite teachers) entered. She inquired with others as to what had happened. She told me in Hindi, “Agar kisi ko sataana galat hai, toh us sataaye jaane ko sehanaa bhi galat hai” [If it is wrong to trouble someone, then it is also wrong to tolerate being troubled]. Now, again I wasn’t entirely convinced with that line of reasoning, but simply because it had come from a teacher I was so much in awe of, I thought she must be right! I apologized to the girl and also to the teacher. And no, that was not my tactic to escape punishment! I’m good at pretending to be normal, but I am not at all good at pretending to be crying!!! :)

With that incident I learned that unadulterated guilt is a very difficult feeling to handle for me. It is possible that only to escape that curse of guilt I have tried to develop a system of ethics, which I try to sincerely follow. For in matters of guilt, just like is with medical disorders, prevention is better than cure. :)

6. My favorite animal is cat.

Many classify people into ‘dog-person’ v/s ‘cat-person’. And somehow I do not even find the classification artificial. It does seem that most people are partial towards one and somewhat against the other. I find cats very cute-looking. There is an air of vulnerability in their round face and the way they ‘meow’. Perhaps, it inspires a protective instinct in me. But then, many dogs are also like that, and who I don’t find as much attractive. So what actually impresses me about cats is that despite this seemingly delicate frame, they are quite self-sufficient. Their agility is deceptive. Also, I like cats for their decisiveness, e.g., it is all too common to find dogs goofing up while crossing roads, and getting hurt/killed in the process. Many times they end up harming the motorists also, but cats are not like that. They cross roads quite easily. Another thing I like about cats is that they seem to be very curious – always exploring something or the other in their environs. I have read on the internet that to make blog posts interesting, we must include a few pictures. So here I post a few cute wall papers of cats I had downloaded from Wide wallpapers (click) in hope that my blog gets more popular and I get tagged more often.

I as a child had been so fond of cats, that I used to try to imitate their sound. I used to see if I could attract some kitten towards me thus, trying to make it think I would be its mother! However silly it might sound, I try to do that sometimes even today. If I could understand cat language, I would really like to know how stupid do they find me for that (no, cat’s body language, e.g., scratching and biting does not count as cat language)! ;)

An extremely significant outcome of my immense experience with attempts at ‘catiloquy’ (a la ventriloquy) is the conclusion and the tip I present here, that to best imitate a cat’s sound, one must say ‘v-ynaa-oon’ (with lot of nasal twang) instead of the flat ‘me-eow’ that is more popular. Do let me know your results when you try this! ;)

7. I’m a very disorganized.

Very few people who know me through online contact might believe that, but that is indeed a fact. I like my thoughts well organized, but I do not maintain my material belongings the same way. I find it a waste of time to try to keep things in an orderly fashion, especially, if I would be needing them regularly.

8. I’m VERY afraid of cockroaches!

I have never been able to deconstruct my fear of cockroaches. Perhaps, it has got something to do with the inherent unpredictability of their trajectory and the suddenness of their movements. I’m particularly afraid of the flying variety.

9. I quite like violent (on ears) music.

Again, this might seem to go against my personality, but for some reason, one of my favorite kinds of music happens to be quite jarring. Examples are ‘Smack my bitch up’, ‘Spitfire’, ‘Breath’ (all three by The Prodigy), ‘Ich wil’ (Ramstein), ‘Let the bodies hit the floor’ (Drowning pool), ‘Calm like a Bomb’ (The Rage against the Machine) and ‘Dragula’ (Rob Zombie).

10. I’m quite averse to the idea of bathing.

And of course, that I do to conserve water… would be a prototypical lie. ;) It’s because I’m plain lazy. I would think of bathing as a waste of time that could be better utilized to doing more productive things like tweeting/blogging/commenting on blogs or thinking up a new conspiracy theory! ;)

One of my friends during my MBBS days had told his parents that on one occasion I had not had bath for 30 days! While I will not corroborate that number what I can say is that in terms of ‘order of magnitude’, he was not way off mark! :D But now I have somewhat mended my ways. My frequency has started approaching once a day, something that quite comforts my parents.

Oh, and did I mention it gets quite lonely in the bathroom! ;) Except of course, if I would be given company by a flying cockroack! :O

11. In my childhood (till I was 7 years old) I wanted to become a watchman on growing up.

What used to impress me about the job was the watchman’s uniform. I also used to be awed by the fact that watchmen get to keep a stick with them, which they could use when needed, so everybody would be afraid of them!

Of course, with time I lost my fascination. Following that I sequentially wanted to become paleontologist, archeologist, geologist, astronomer, nuclear physicist, cell biologist (by which time I had reached class 12). Quite ironically, except for during my internship and some time following its completion I never really wanted to be a practicing doctor/surgeon! :)

12. I find ‘The Little Prince’ (click) a very cute story.

I have of course read only the English translation of this story originally written in French. Many sources mention that there is lot of profundity in the story and even small things are allegorical, in that they represent a commentary on (ridiculous) aspects of human behavior. But the part I like the best is where the Little Prince recounts how he had left his beloved flower back at his asteroid. He alludes to certain kind of vanity on part of the flower when she shows her thorns (claws) as if they were sufficient to defend her from the sheep that might eat her! Yet the Little Prince likes her, and strives to protect her! He loves her ‘just like that’ – for the heck of it! This, according to me was one of the most delicate representations of romantic love. It perhaps appeals to some carefree child hidden in me that wants to throw caution to the winds, embark on this journey of love without bothering to see what it gives back and what the journey entails – thus love becoming the end in itself in its truest sense.

13. I type out my blog post drafts in ‘HTML mode’!

I recently realized that this is a very weird thing to do. Of course, it is not a case that I do not know of the conventional mode to type them where what you see is what you get (wysiwyg). But I guess, this tendency stems from the fact that I like to be in control. If there is something that goes around me, and which I am unaware of, the very idea makes me uncomfortable. Of course, I use many electronic devices whose mechanism of working I’m unaware of. But in case of blogging, I like to keep the use of HTML at its minimum so that if I have to edit the drafts some time in the future, I would get an elegant composition as against one with many redundant tags (which typing in wysiwyg mode usually entails).

14. I am very fond of the Indian singer, Shaan.

In fact, Shaan (click) is the only celebrity I very strongly feel like meeting in person. One would be not wrong in calling what I used to (and to some extent, still) feel about him as infatuation (click)!

I won’t write much over here about him as I am sure to end up blogging about him in future.

15. I had been shown to a psychiatrist…

…Because my class teacher thought I was erm… mentally retarded! And my dad was also seemingly convinced. All this because I used to detest school work of any kind – be it studies or be it doing homework. I almost never used to copy down the notes that teachers would write on the black board as I used to find that pointless and boring.

I was made to undergo an IQ test in which I had done exceedingly well, putting to rest my dad’s concerns of my being a retard. The psychiatrist was really nice. I guess, since then, and especially because I got to meet two fabulous psychiatrists during my graduation, I seem to have developed a soft corner for psychiatry and psychiatrists. :)

—–

c) Now coming to the difficult part – tagging others. As I am not sure how many more occasions would I get to tag others thus (owing to [ahem] my lack of popularity), I make maximum use of it, and tag as many people (bloggers as well as tweeters) as possible! And of course, I take this opportunity to sneak out some information off people I have always been quite curious about. ;)

    Bloggers:

  1. Saimukundhan
  2. Stupidosaur
  3. Dr. S
  4. Wise Donkey
  5. Rohith
  6. mgeek
  7. Quirky Indian
  8. Charakan
  9. Sowmya
  10. Bhagwad
  11. Uzza
  12. Darshan Chande
  13. Tumultuous Suspension
  14. smitzy
  15. Chiya/Garmia Dipti
  16. Vishwas
  17. Srinivas

    Tweeters:

  1. @bharkadatta
  2. @Shakti_Shetty
  3. @archie229
  4. @MarviSirmed
  5. @raggedtag – tag completed (click)
  6. @Akhtar789
  7. @p_adic_Saurav
  8. @AnilAarush
  9. @RaapChick
  10. @dremtee
  11. @iBeingMe
  12. @FurhanHussain
  13. @smokenfog
  14. @HaroonRiaz
  15. @orezavi

I would have liked to tag Tangled up in Blue and Insignia also, but former has already done the tag, and latter I suspect to have done it in the past.

I would be happy if anyone else feels like taking up this tag, and please do inform me about it. :) .

I know quite a few of those mentioned above find silly the idea of taking up tags like above, to them I can only urge them to take this up because I am curious! Also, many of the tweeters mentioned here do not maintain a blog, but it would be nice if they could make one just for this once. Thanks all! :)

—–

d) I will make sure that those tagged are informed about it. :)

PS: I will try to link to others’ tags as and when they complete it, and inform me of the same.

Blog updates


As few readers might notice, I have completely changed the template of this blog. I guess, I was quite obsessed with two sidebar-layout. It was making the blog look too cluttered, and a few readers had also complained of the sidebars’ content being distractive.

So finally, I have overcome that obsession. This theme & layout are simpler & hopefully more pleasing to the eye. Your frank feedback is certainly welcome. :)

But most important announcement – I have updated my blog roll. I had to work very hard towards it. I have not merely enlisted the blogs, but also tried to point out what I like about certain blogs and bloggers. Also, I have tagged each blog with broad genres that the posts tend to fit in. Additionally, for almost all blogs I have added two posts that I had remembered as having impressed me the most while drafting the blog roll.

Apart from serving as a guide to readers who want to explore new blogs, through this blog roll I want to convey my heart felt thanks to the enlisted bloggers for enriching my life, giving me new things to think about or feel.

I have tried in the past, but I do not know if I could convey this clearly enough. The people I have mentioned make me think of this World as a better place to live in, and thus, this life more worthy of living.

Those who can believe my sincerity behind saying all this, and can understand what it means for a cynic like me, will appreciate that it is one of the highest compliments I can pay. :)

You can go through the blog roll by clicking on ‘Blog roll’ button below the header, or alternatively by clicking here. :)

If you feel like commenting on the blog roll, kindly do so on the blog roll page itself.

Thank you!