Death of Left

This post is after the crude shock that i have had looking at the turmoil in Nandigram. The left that once used to be the champion of the poor working for a classless society seems to have got it all wrong or should i say that they have finally got it right, communism + capitalism is the way to go. To understand this I think one needs to understand the communist ideology . If you look at the state of various countries who adopted communism as a political tool for creating a socialist equitable society, they have failed (communist Europe), disintegrated (USSR) or move to capitalism. Similar is the case with Nandigram. The left after toiling with the communist\socialist ideology has finally realized that it is the capitalist economic model that works best with communist politics clearly picking a leaf from their bosses in China. I think it is a new type of land reform where the poor, the farmer, the labourer is forced to vacate his land for some MNC, the rest will be taken care of by the cadres of Buddhadeb. Further looking at the case of Taslima Nasreen and the way Nuclear deal has been handled it makes me feel that we are moving towards a political system very similar to the United States where the choice between political groups is just symbolic with the same ideology and same policies. There is no left left in India, the right is left the left is right, and they both are wrong.

Living a thousand lives

Ever been on a trek so steep that you slip a step and its eternity. Ever took a curve so deep that a grain of sand would be enough to take your breath away, literally. Ever put a snail on a steel blade and saw it crawling for survival on every next move. We spent out entire life consciously or unconsciously waiting for that one moment when life cheats us. Ever thought of cheating death, ever thought of cheating your biggest fears, ever took a risk larger than life, this is what living on edge is all about, this is what life is all about, this is about cheating death, this is about living a thousand lives and trust me the snail always wins because he does not have a choice.

On the contrary

It has been a month of charity here at Microsoft, events, auctions, stalls and campaigns all for charity undoubtedly with very good intentions. I used to be involved in charity contributing in terms of money until last year, but since the last few weeks it has been an ideological dilemma. It started with a discussion with one of my friends and very soon I realized that charity is not the way forward.
Before I comment on charity it becomes very essential to understand my perspective of human nature (I stand by neitzsche) and why charity as a concept is totally against the human nature. Nothing, indeed, is more apparent than the essential selfishness of man. In so far as they are able to defy or evade the moral code without shame or damage, the strong always exploit the weak. The rich man puts up the price of the necessities of life and so makes himself richer and the poor poorer. The political boss opposes the will of the people for his own advantage. The inventor patents his inventions and so increases his relative superiority to the common run of men. The philanthropist gives away millions because the giving visualizes and makes evident to all men his virtue and power. Every slave would be a master if he could. Therefore, why deny it? Why make it a crime to do what every man's instincts prompt him to do? Why call it a sin to do what every man does? Very clearly every action of ours is an act of selfishness and charity is not beyond it for it gives a false sense of happiness to the morality striken individuals and makes them think that they are done with the cause that they are morally obliged to.
Now for those who feel that charity is a solution or atleast a way forward I think they should step back and see if there is any good that charity has really done in the past. Has it been able to remove hunger, poverty and at the core of it did it any way bring about an equitable distribution of wealth or has it been more of a tool for the larger nations and larger religious institutes to carry out their propganda and their agenda. Thankfully here atleast i do not doubt the intentions but I certainly have reservation about the method. The first thought on this line is self sustenance. Every year I see the same organizations lined up for charity, it clearly shows that there has to be an alternative, a permanent solution, and certainly charity cannot be one. The next important thing that I feel is that it demeans the guy who recieves charity and clearly establishes a relationship that is not of equals. One might have very strong opinions on my previous statement because all charity is voluntary, but if you look at it from an expectation point of view this becomes very clear. Charity creates exceptions so in a group of underprivileged people it is only a handful (the best among them) who reallly benefit from charity and as soon as they achieve their desired goals they tend to move out of the group and the group loses the most potent spokesperson of its cause.
It is evident to me that at the core of us lies a very self-centered individual for whom charity is just another way of saying "Hey I am done with my moral duty of contribution, and I do not care after this."
I strongly feel that it is not in the capacity (or should I say desire) of an individual for the betterment of the downtrodden or society. But If anything that can be done has to be done by the state (or society). The most important thing is to do with their rights, it is quite evident that because of their handicap they have limitations but should it not be the purpose of the Government to provide a platform for equal opportunity? The platform can be anything from Social Security to Reservations to a Sustained Income. Very clearly the objectives that charity wants to attain in most cases are flawed, what is required are policy changes that would enable the deprived and the disabled a platform for growth, income and self sustenance On the other hand what charity does is quite the contrary. And to all those morality striken individuals, if there is something that you really want to do it is this cause that you can take up to but I know you won't because it hardly serves any of your selfish ambitions.

You and I in this beautiful world:

you and I, in this beautiful world..
green grass blue skies..
you and i in this beautiful world..
winding lanes as streams go by....
u and i in this beautiful world

IITs or Call Centres : What India needs more.

Let me start this blog with a very short true incident that happened with one of my friends during the software recession period of 2001 - 2002. This friend of mine was interviewed for a company and he did exceedingly well in the interview. There was'nt a question that he did not answer correctly and after the interview was over he was quite confident about making the cut.
After a week the company HR mailed him saying he does not qualify for a position. The mail said "The hiring committee carefully reviewed your experience and qualifications and determined that there is not a strong match for our position at this time. We hope that in the future if a position arises that will be a better fit, we'll keep you in mind as we grow and hope you might consider us again sometime down the road. Thanks again for considering us we wish you well in your future endeavors."
The crux of the above mail was that he did not get the job. This guy had another friend in the same company whom he called to find out the exact reasons of he not making it. His friend told him that as he had done exceedingly well in the interviews the company feels that he is gonna leave the company as soon as the market stabilizes.

Was the company right in doing so?

This is a question that came to my mind a lot of time after this incident and almost everytime I felt it was not fair, and I still feel ethically that was not the right thing to do. But thinking practically I realize that the company was right in not hiring him becuase he would have certainly left the day he had a better opportunity.

Khwaish

khwaish teri ab to ek ibaadat ho chali hai,
khwabon ko palko pe pighalne ki ab to aadat ho chali hai.
har shaam youn kshitij ko takti, bas ek hi intezaar mein dhali hai,
ki mit kar mil jaane ki tujhme ab to aadat ho chali hai.

tapti hui zameen par masoomiyat meri kuchh is kadar jali hai,
ki khud ban kar mit jaana ab meri fitrat ho chali hai.
yun hi nehi is kyun mein yeh umar ek muddat se jali hai,
shunya mein hi, par kehin, tu mujhe tanha mili hai.

by Chomsky AKA Amar Singh Chauhan

Zindagi

shaam aayi to bekali layee, seher aayi to beqaraar aayi.
kuchh chand uljhe huye se afsaane, bas zindagi aur kuchh nehi layi.

chashme purnab hai, bahi, bahi na bahi
zindagi hai kal rehi, rehi na rehi.
Tum to kehdo jo tumko kehna tha,
mera kya hai, kehi,kehi na kehi

About me, I collect moments.

I collect moments. I think it is just a few moments that make my life, totally insignificant to someone else but invaluable to me.

the time when my Papa bought me a hockey stick,

picking fused tubelights from the bin and blowing them with my younger bro,

fooling people while exchanging stamps and coins (the feeling was mutual so no guilt),

bunking classes with friends for a morning show,

the coffee on the beach after everyday class,

sitting on the road to plan for the next match with seniors (and losing that too),

the goa trip (and ditching all girls for this, we love your company but sometimes its too much of a baggage),

the mass walkout from the class in front of HOD,

spending nights planning for ...well it turns out to be nothing, and a lots more.


About me, I collect moments.

A view from far

I know this from my personal life,
if there is something I want to do,
I convince myself its right and just,
and put away evidence that shows its not true.

I want to see myself from a distance,
to stop deception from myself,
with my thoughts free of perception,
with my thoughts free from self.

Religion a mind virus (a very interesting study of religion)

Richard Dawkins' essay "viruses of the mind".

Basically, he postulates that you can consider any cultural idea to be something analagous to genes called 'memes'. A meme can be anything, a catchy phrase, a way of dressing, etc. In this passage, he is describing the following things to look for to determine if someone is 'infected' with a viral meme, or a meme that spreads itself similair to a virus, and once infected, takes steps to keep itself there.

1) The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'.

2) Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakeable, in spite of not being based on evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief (see below). This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned has something of the quality of a program that is self-sustaining, because it is self-referential. Once the preposition is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The "lack of evidence is a virtue' idea would be an admireable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programs.

3) A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that 'mystery', per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.

4). The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths. He may be similarly violent in his disposition towards apostates (people who once held the faith but have renounced it); or towards heretics (people who espouse a different --- often, perhaps significantly, only very slightly different --- version of the faith). He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which may function rather like a piece of anti-viral software.

5). The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the one whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place.

6). If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent --- a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St. Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea.

7). The internal sensations of the patient may be startlingly reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. This is an extremely potent force in the brain, and it is not surprising that some viruses have evolved to exploit it. St. Teresa of Avila's famously orgasmic vision is too notorious to need quoting again. More seriously, and on a less crudely sensual plane, the philosopher Anthony Kenny provides moving testimony to the pure delight that awaits those that manage to believe in the mystery of transubstantiation. After describing his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest, empowered by laying on of hands to celebrate Mass, he goes on that he vividly recalls the exaltation of the first months during which I had the power to say Mass. Normally a slow and sluggish riser, I would leap early out of bed, fully awake and full of excitement at the thought of the momentous act I was privileged to perform. I rarely said the public Community Mass: most days I celebrated alone at a side altar with a junior member of the College to serve as acolyte and congregation. But that made no difference to the solemnity of the sacrifice or the validity of the consecration.It was touching the body of Christ, the closeness of the priest to Jesus, which most enthralled me. I would gaze on the Host after the words of consecration, soft-eyed like a lover looking into the eyes of his beloved... Those early days as a priest remain in my memory as days of fulfilment and tremulous happiness; something precious, and yet too fragile to last, like a romantic love-affair brought up short by the reality of an ill-assorted marriage. Dr. Kenny is affectingly believable that it felt to him, as a young priest, as though he was in love with the consecrated host. What a brilliantly successful virus! On the same page, incidentally, Kenny also shows us that the virus is transmitted contagiously --- if not literally then at least in some sense --- from the palm of the infecting bishop's hand through the top of the new priest's head: