Everyone has heard of an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Emotional Quotient (EQ). In a nutshell, these are the scores that generally tell you how smart you are and how well you will perform in a social setting, respectively.
I think there should be a third one, an Eccentricity Quotient for people who can think outside the box and come up with creative, even out-of-the-world solutions and products.
You may have a high enough IQ to crack any math quiz or crossword puzzle and have the charm, grace and people skills needed to be the President of the United States or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company but may not be able to push beyond the boundaries of established thinking.
A person such as Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs truly thinks outside the box no matter what their field. Many geniuses were eccentrics in their own right.
There is a book titled, A Whole New Mind - Why right-brainers will rule the world by Daniel H. Pink.
This post has ideas that are somewhat related to the premise of the book mentioned above.
Disclaimer: I have only skimmed through the book, not read it completely.
I am not sure if all the people I talk about in this post would qualify as right-brainers but they definitely have one thing in common: they are a cut apart from the pack.
Eccentricity Quotient may not even be just a brain function, it could be a combination of creative brain power, talent and pure, raw guts.
Think of a rock band such as Nirvana, film makers such as Martin Scorsese or Alfred Hitchcock, the iPod/iEverything conceiver Steve Jobs, the legendary artist/sculptor/mathematician/scientist Leonardo Da Vinci or even the Wright brothers (who would have thought that someone would actually successfully build a flying machine?). There may be several more in the field of medicine or science taking paths that the ordinary mortal fears to tread.
An eccentric does not have to dress or walk or talk like someone completely out of place with his/her surroundings. They may fit perfectly well otherwise in their social settings. They may not even build/create products. It is their willingness to think beyond generally accepted hypotheses that sets them apart.
For that matter, I would count Malcolm Gladwell (author of Blink, Tipping Point and Outliers) and the authors of Freakonomics (doesn't the name say it all?) Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, too, in this category. Until I read Freakonomics, I did not ever think economics could be so much fun and encompass so many different realms of life. Of course, economics is involved wherever any transaction is present, be it prostitution or investment banking but the way the subjects are dealt with is what sets this book apart.
Outliers confirmed my suspicions about the over simplification of success stories and opened new portals of understanding. This is out-of-the-box journalism.
Nikola Tesla, the discoverer of alternating current (AC), the bedrock of industries and modern cities, was an eccentric, too. He challenged none other than Thomas Edison, the inventor of the electric bulb with his theory that locked horns with Edison's theory of Direct Current (DC) being the solution to all electrical problems. One of the channels, Discovery or Science, had a nice program on the rivalry between Tesla and Edison when Tesla was employed by George Westinghouse.
Do check out the Wikipedia page of Nikola Tesla. Most people would have heard of both the great men, Edison and Tesla and their contributions to the field of electricity and to the progress of humanity. I did not know this much about the man, Tesla and the staggering number of devices and theories that he came up with.
At the time I started this column, I was writing in general about people who strayed off the beaten path but the Wikipedia article blew my mind. He was a genius!
And let us not even begin on Charles Darwin. Can someone imagine telling people who only believed in the literal world of the Bible that humankind descended from apes? That must have taken a lot of nerve.
Think of Gandhi. When the world was going to war left, right and center, Gandhi successfully pioneered what was probably the very first non-violent political uprising on a mass scale in recent history. I may be wrong on the word 'first' but I've never heard of anything of the sort anywhere else prior to the last century.
People who think out of the box today are far less vulnerable to persecution, especially in developed democracies such as the United States. Remember Galileo was not so lucky in his day.
However, without them, the world as we know today would probably not exist. We still have a long way to go in every field, be it energy efficiency, personal relationships, crime prevention or world peace.
May the eccentrics not hide their gifts.
Note: All links, with some exceptions, point to Wikipedia and Amazon.com
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Article in Brink about The Museum of Broken Hearts!
I just discovered 'Brink', UC Berkeley's magazine today.
There is an interesting article featured in the magazine about the museum of broken hearts in Zagreb, Croatia.
I liked the author's views on experiencing love and heartbreak rather than numbing it with medical painkillers. Like Jim Carrey's character in 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', we try to hold on to our loved one's memories desperately. Sometimes, time and new experiences, fresh new faces in our lives help to see things from a different perspective and the pining gives way to a more detached memory of the beloved. There may be some extreme cases when the hole in one's heart does not get filled completely.
However, trying to circumvent life by medical means is missing out on the chance to experience life firsthand and grow as a person. Someone once asked me,"How do you know it is love?". I do not know the precise answer but I do have a strong feeling that true love elevates you spiritually. It forces you to look within yourself, sometimes getting you closer to God or the unknown forces in the universe. It makes you take a good hard look at yourself and find ways to improve yourself and move on even after the relationship is over. Some people take up learning a new language or career advancement, some people become more empathetic and a sounding board for people in similar situations. True love does change you forever.
It can happen before marriage, outside of marriage and any other socially sanctioned setting but it does exist.
It is important not to let the experience embitter you like some people who become cynical about love itself and start bashing men, women and all relationships in general.
I agree with the author's take on getting over heartbreak. There are people who have killed themselves over a broken heart like Devdas and, maybe, for certain extreme cases of suicidal depression, some medical help may be the need of the hour. However, for the rest of us, a good dose of philosophy, spirituality and just plain living and appreciating the small things in everyday ordinary life can get us by.
When you are sad, remembering that life is precious forces you to look at things that you previously took for granted like the love of your family and friends, the beauty of sunshine or blooming flowers, etc.
Life experiences such as love and heartbreak also cause one to question previously held beliefs and open your eyes to a new reality and the vast possibility that Truth has many facets and we as humble human beings may get to see just a few in one lifetime.
I do believe that feeling true love is a gift, even if the other person is not present in your life anymore. We are all together in spirit, as one of my favorite self-help gurus, Steve Pavlina, would say. The hardest part to get over is the regrets that one could have done more to save the relationship. Here, too, spiritual practices such as yoga can help forgive oneself. I found this great yoga article about self compassion.
I hope we as a species do not run away from our unique experiences and become a medicated, dull society with no ups or downs in our minds, just a steady chugging along. Life would truly be robbed of its meaning and potential to think outside our narrow socially conditioned boxes.
There is an interesting article featured in the magazine about the museum of broken hearts in Zagreb, Croatia.
I liked the author's views on experiencing love and heartbreak rather than numbing it with medical painkillers. Like Jim Carrey's character in 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', we try to hold on to our loved one's memories desperately. Sometimes, time and new experiences, fresh new faces in our lives help to see things from a different perspective and the pining gives way to a more detached memory of the beloved. There may be some extreme cases when the hole in one's heart does not get filled completely.
However, trying to circumvent life by medical means is missing out on the chance to experience life firsthand and grow as a person. Someone once asked me,"How do you know it is love?". I do not know the precise answer but I do have a strong feeling that true love elevates you spiritually. It forces you to look within yourself, sometimes getting you closer to God or the unknown forces in the universe. It makes you take a good hard look at yourself and find ways to improve yourself and move on even after the relationship is over. Some people take up learning a new language or career advancement, some people become more empathetic and a sounding board for people in similar situations. True love does change you forever.
It can happen before marriage, outside of marriage and any other socially sanctioned setting but it does exist.
It is important not to let the experience embitter you like some people who become cynical about love itself and start bashing men, women and all relationships in general.
I agree with the author's take on getting over heartbreak. There are people who have killed themselves over a broken heart like Devdas and, maybe, for certain extreme cases of suicidal depression, some medical help may be the need of the hour. However, for the rest of us, a good dose of philosophy, spirituality and just plain living and appreciating the small things in everyday ordinary life can get us by.
When you are sad, remembering that life is precious forces you to look at things that you previously took for granted like the love of your family and friends, the beauty of sunshine or blooming flowers, etc.
Life experiences such as love and heartbreak also cause one to question previously held beliefs and open your eyes to a new reality and the vast possibility that Truth has many facets and we as humble human beings may get to see just a few in one lifetime.
I do believe that feeling true love is a gift, even if the other person is not present in your life anymore. We are all together in spirit, as one of my favorite self-help gurus, Steve Pavlina, would say. The hardest part to get over is the regrets that one could have done more to save the relationship. Here, too, spiritual practices such as yoga can help forgive oneself. I found this great yoga article about self compassion.
I hope we as a species do not run away from our unique experiences and become a medicated, dull society with no ups or downs in our minds, just a steady chugging along. Life would truly be robbed of its meaning and potential to think outside our narrow socially conditioned boxes.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Mumbai terror attacks - an introspection
On July 13, 2011, terrorists hit Mumbai yet again.
As a former Mumbaikar, I, too, am tired of hearing about Mumbai's resilience. For me, it's yet another depressing episode, mixed with worry for my family and friends and relief that they are safe and wondering if I have to someday face what loved ones of those killed are going through now. I can only pray for those affected. Then there is the guilt that I am far away from India and unable to do anything much except write about it, discuss and argue and think about what I can possibly contribute to make the state of affairs better.
There are other related posts written by famous bloggers such as GreatBong.
Yes, we should have had more surveillance cameras installed. Yes, we should have done more in terms of intelligence gathering. The public should put more pressure on our politicians to actually start doing something and demand more accountability. However, it also gets to me when people start drawing comparisons with the United States.
The United States has immigrants from all over the world but generally, the ones who chose to emigrate do so to make a better life for themselves and their families. While the U.S. has historically had issues with race, it has not faced even 10% of India's problems regarding religion. Even today, the U.S. is a largely Christian Protestant and Jewish country (even the atheists and agnostics have been raised in a Judeo-Christian ethos).
There is one more important factor: there is little or negligible home grown terrorism as yet.
America's war on terror has predominantly been waged on foreign shores.
India, on the other hand, is still a developing nation with a historical record of religious strife such as riots between people of various faiths - Hindu, Muslim, Sikh to name the most common, a bloody partition in 1947 whose scars haunt us till date, Islamic extremism and separatism in Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan and tons of other issues. Even in the distant past before the British took over, India has been victim to Islamic persecution under Aurangzeb and the loot of our temples such as the glorious and wealthy Somnath temple by Mohammed of Ghazni. (Note: This does not negate any acts of persecution by ancient Hindu kings but some such as the above mentioned cases more recent and had a huge impact on our civilization because of their extent).
On the non-religious side, there is mayhem to be battled from Naxalites, criminals, political goons and massive corruption.
While we all hurl abuses at the incompetence of our politicians and the police and intelligence forces, at our secularists and extremists of all hues, the larger issue still remains untouched. Just what exactly are we doing about preventing terrorism and crime in general? No, intelligence gathering is only one facet of the exercise.
Do we spend enough and wisely enough on guarding ourselves to even 50% of the extent to which the United States does? Of course, all the money in our coffers may not see the light of day going instead to our corrupt leaders' vaults but that's another issue.
More than America, countries such as India and the United Kingdom need to approach the issue from different angles. In the recent blasts in Mumbai, the Indian Mujahideen is one of the suspects. Apart from the risk of homegrown terror, India still faces a potent threat from organizations that originated beyond its borders and then infiltrated India. In the past, Islamic terrorist outfits such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba have been found guilty of involvement in various incidents. Added to that, even if 1% of our misguided youth actually decide to put their violent ideas of religious domination above respect for human life and love of country, we have a huge problem.
We are a nation of a billion-plus people, overcrowded cities with overflowing trains and buses and thoroughfares and the risk that some crude bomb in some crevice or corner will go undetected is very high.
The war on terror is not merely a war of missiles and bombs. It is primarily a war of ideas.
While many terrorist acts are linked to specific ethnic conflicts, when they are powered by a religious ideology, they become monsters that are a danger to human life beyond their region.
How can India combat these forces at a grassroots level? I don't know the answers but we have to nip them in the bud.
Many of society's problems today are not adequately approached from the prevention perspective. Whether is is battling crime or human trafficking or terrorism or even cancer, prevention does not receive as much attention as war or cure. Prevention does not sound cool.
For one, India needs strong law enforcement with greater involvement from the citizens, demanding accountability. There should be more personnel and technology dedicated to anti-terrorism.
On another note, when I read this piece of news, I was shocked. Is public taxpayer money being used to provide special security to Bollywood stars and builders? True, they may be getting threats from the underworld but isn't every citizen at risk from terrorist acts? In fact, the average citizen who commutes by train or bus is probably at greater risk than a film star who has his/her own car and mostly takes a flight for out-of-town shoots. The state should treat all citizens as equal under the law regardless of their status in society. Is a doctor's life less important than Amitabh Bachchan's or Shah Rukh Khan's? High security is provided to the topmost people in public office such the President, Prime Minister and Chief Ministers and extended to a few others who hold high positions in government. In India, however, we have a skewed logic where public money is expended on unnecessary things but not essentials such as better equipment and training for our police forces.
Movie stars can afford to pay for their own security.
As a nation, we need to sit up and do something about our burning issues, not just rant and rail against the system, then go back to our world and throw up our hands in despair.
As a former Mumbaikar, I, too, am tired of hearing about Mumbai's resilience. For me, it's yet another depressing episode, mixed with worry for my family and friends and relief that they are safe and wondering if I have to someday face what loved ones of those killed are going through now. I can only pray for those affected. Then there is the guilt that I am far away from India and unable to do anything much except write about it, discuss and argue and think about what I can possibly contribute to make the state of affairs better.
There are other related posts written by famous bloggers such as GreatBong.
Yes, we should have had more surveillance cameras installed. Yes, we should have done more in terms of intelligence gathering. The public should put more pressure on our politicians to actually start doing something and demand more accountability. However, it also gets to me when people start drawing comparisons with the United States.
The United States has immigrants from all over the world but generally, the ones who chose to emigrate do so to make a better life for themselves and their families. While the U.S. has historically had issues with race, it has not faced even 10% of India's problems regarding religion. Even today, the U.S. is a largely Christian Protestant and Jewish country (even the atheists and agnostics have been raised in a Judeo-Christian ethos).
There is one more important factor: there is little or negligible home grown terrorism as yet.
America's war on terror has predominantly been waged on foreign shores.
India, on the other hand, is still a developing nation with a historical record of religious strife such as riots between people of various faiths - Hindu, Muslim, Sikh to name the most common, a bloody partition in 1947 whose scars haunt us till date, Islamic extremism and separatism in Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan and tons of other issues. Even in the distant past before the British took over, India has been victim to Islamic persecution under Aurangzeb and the loot of our temples such as the glorious and wealthy Somnath temple by Mohammed of Ghazni. (Note: This does not negate any acts of persecution by ancient Hindu kings but some such as the above mentioned cases more recent and had a huge impact on our civilization because of their extent).
On the non-religious side, there is mayhem to be battled from Naxalites, criminals, political goons and massive corruption.
While we all hurl abuses at the incompetence of our politicians and the police and intelligence forces, at our secularists and extremists of all hues, the larger issue still remains untouched. Just what exactly are we doing about preventing terrorism and crime in general? No, intelligence gathering is only one facet of the exercise.
Do we spend enough and wisely enough on guarding ourselves to even 50% of the extent to which the United States does? Of course, all the money in our coffers may not see the light of day going instead to our corrupt leaders' vaults but that's another issue.
More than America, countries such as India and the United Kingdom need to approach the issue from different angles. In the recent blasts in Mumbai, the Indian Mujahideen is one of the suspects. Apart from the risk of homegrown terror, India still faces a potent threat from organizations that originated beyond its borders and then infiltrated India. In the past, Islamic terrorist outfits such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba have been found guilty of involvement in various incidents. Added to that, even if 1% of our misguided youth actually decide to put their violent ideas of religious domination above respect for human life and love of country, we have a huge problem.
We are a nation of a billion-plus people, overcrowded cities with overflowing trains and buses and thoroughfares and the risk that some crude bomb in some crevice or corner will go undetected is very high.
The war on terror is not merely a war of missiles and bombs. It is primarily a war of ideas.
While many terrorist acts are linked to specific ethnic conflicts, when they are powered by a religious ideology, they become monsters that are a danger to human life beyond their region.
How can India combat these forces at a grassroots level? I don't know the answers but we have to nip them in the bud.
Many of society's problems today are not adequately approached from the prevention perspective. Whether is is battling crime or human trafficking or terrorism or even cancer, prevention does not receive as much attention as war or cure. Prevention does not sound cool.
For one, India needs strong law enforcement with greater involvement from the citizens, demanding accountability. There should be more personnel and technology dedicated to anti-terrorism.
On another note, when I read this piece of news, I was shocked. Is public taxpayer money being used to provide special security to Bollywood stars and builders? True, they may be getting threats from the underworld but isn't every citizen at risk from terrorist acts? In fact, the average citizen who commutes by train or bus is probably at greater risk than a film star who has his/her own car and mostly takes a flight for out-of-town shoots. The state should treat all citizens as equal under the law regardless of their status in society. Is a doctor's life less important than Amitabh Bachchan's or Shah Rukh Khan's? High security is provided to the topmost people in public office such the President, Prime Minister and Chief Ministers and extended to a few others who hold high positions in government. In India, however, we have a skewed logic where public money is expended on unnecessary things but not essentials such as better equipment and training for our police forces.
Movie stars can afford to pay for their own security.
As a nation, we need to sit up and do something about our burning issues, not just rant and rail against the system, then go back to our world and throw up our hands in despair.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Count your compliments
When we have those bad hair days and other awful-appearance days and those times when we feel we are over the hill or too old, it would serve us some good to remember the compliments people sent our way in the past.
Sometimes, I am having a really hectic day at work and a casual chat with a coworker reveals a nugget, "You are so beautiful!" or "You have lovely hair!". (And there are the stares from the handsome coworker, too:)).
It does prove that life is full of pleasant surprises which means that there are still more secret admirers in the woodwork waiting to be revealed :).
I would probably not want the ability to read people's minds. It is sometimes better to assume that people secretly admire you rather than know that they hate you or hold contempt for you.
I am going to keep a note in my diary about all the compliments I have received over the years and have made my day. I also give compliments back to people when I sincerely mean it. People deserve to be told that they are considered beautiful, smart or kind or talented. Pass the love and smiles on!
Sometimes, I am having a really hectic day at work and a casual chat with a coworker reveals a nugget, "You are so beautiful!" or "You have lovely hair!". (And there are the stares from the handsome coworker, too:)).
It does prove that life is full of pleasant surprises which means that there are still more secret admirers in the woodwork waiting to be revealed :).
I would probably not want the ability to read people's minds. It is sometimes better to assume that people secretly admire you rather than know that they hate you or hold contempt for you.
I am going to keep a note in my diary about all the compliments I have received over the years and have made my day. I also give compliments back to people when I sincerely mean it. People deserve to be told that they are considered beautiful, smart or kind or talented. Pass the love and smiles on!
Monogamy, marriage, family and everything in between
I was reading Mark Oppenheimer's column in the New York Times today which also covers Dan Savage's views and all the comments accompanying it.
I do agree with the overall premise of the article - that absolute monogamy should not be the only standard imposed on all people. Everyone may want different things at different points in their lives but this has to be negotiated with their partner. I liked the overall emphasis on honesty and trust in relationships rather than a universal set of restrictions. After all, marriage as an institution is older than any religion.
What I disagree about is that couples should agree on relationships outside marriage just to keep their union intact for the sake of the children. In an ideal situation, where both partners are happy with each other and are perfectly monogamous, there is no question of really sacrificing that much for the sake of the children. However, if one partner wants out of the marriage due to any reasons and is forced to stay because of the kids, what kind of message does society send out about the institution itself? This is supposedly a win situation for the kids and a lose situation for either or both parents.
Is a perpetually unhappy family member an asset or liability to the family unit?
An institution that is supposed to nurture and protect suddenly becomes a sort of prison for one of the parties. How many people would feel enthusiastic about getting hitched? No wonder there are 'commitmentphobes'.
This is also a patently unfair situation condemning one or two people to many unhappy years. There are studies that even report that couples who worked on their marriage reportedly felt happier 5 years later. However, working it out has different connotations for different people. For example, would you continue to sleep with someone you don't really feel like or are not in love with anymore? Would you constantly battle against the urge to walk out for the prescribed greater good of your family? A lot of relationship advice columns and religious folks would say that this is the responsible thing to do and that to shirk it makes you a very selfish person and that this is the reason for the current breakdown of society.
Disclaimer: I have no experience dealing with such a situation and coming from a country where divorce was and still remains a taboo, I do not have much anecdotal evidence or statistics to support or refute any related arguments. These are, therefore, only my thoughts and the questions that pop up in my head when I read about such topics.
At the heart of this debate is the assumption that divorce means only instability, hostility and the constant absence of one parent from the child's life. What about those responsible parents who handle the divorce with as little hoopla as possible and make an effort to spend as much time with their kids as possible, even together at times? Except in cases of abuse, a divorce is almost always less desirable than parents staying together. However, it does not also have to be the miserable hole that it is sometimes made out to be.
In a society where divorce is the exception, children would probably get affected more as their family is perceived as not normal. However, in societies where divorce is more commonplace and even handled gracefully, it may have a lesser impact.
When it comes to statistics, one has to remember that certain issues such as happiness are not easily quantifiable.
The article also raised more questions about the role of religion in defining relationships and family. I wonder about tribal societies where women actually could have multiple partners and they could have raised their children without the biological father living with the family at all times. By creating laws that are in line with the Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon way of thinking, some social conventions that could have actually been beneficial in many cases, have disappeared.
In ancient societies, fathers often went off to war and were absent or killed, leaving mothers and the entire extended family to raise the children. The nuclear family with just the husband, wife and children was not the universal norm and is still not in several countries.
I do not know about the difference between children raised by separated but otherwise loving and supportive parents and the children raised by parents living together but I do believe that children need love and nurturing to flourish no matter what their living arrangements are.
I do agree with the overall premise of the article - that absolute monogamy should not be the only standard imposed on all people. Everyone may want different things at different points in their lives but this has to be negotiated with their partner. I liked the overall emphasis on honesty and trust in relationships rather than a universal set of restrictions. After all, marriage as an institution is older than any religion.
What I disagree about is that couples should agree on relationships outside marriage just to keep their union intact for the sake of the children. In an ideal situation, where both partners are happy with each other and are perfectly monogamous, there is no question of really sacrificing that much for the sake of the children. However, if one partner wants out of the marriage due to any reasons and is forced to stay because of the kids, what kind of message does society send out about the institution itself? This is supposedly a win situation for the kids and a lose situation for either or both parents.
Is a perpetually unhappy family member an asset or liability to the family unit?
An institution that is supposed to nurture and protect suddenly becomes a sort of prison for one of the parties. How many people would feel enthusiastic about getting hitched? No wonder there are 'commitmentphobes'.
This is also a patently unfair situation condemning one or two people to many unhappy years. There are studies that even report that couples who worked on their marriage reportedly felt happier 5 years later. However, working it out has different connotations for different people. For example, would you continue to sleep with someone you don't really feel like or are not in love with anymore? Would you constantly battle against the urge to walk out for the prescribed greater good of your family? A lot of relationship advice columns and religious folks would say that this is the responsible thing to do and that to shirk it makes you a very selfish person and that this is the reason for the current breakdown of society.
Disclaimer: I have no experience dealing with such a situation and coming from a country where divorce was and still remains a taboo, I do not have much anecdotal evidence or statistics to support or refute any related arguments. These are, therefore, only my thoughts and the questions that pop up in my head when I read about such topics.
At the heart of this debate is the assumption that divorce means only instability, hostility and the constant absence of one parent from the child's life. What about those responsible parents who handle the divorce with as little hoopla as possible and make an effort to spend as much time with their kids as possible, even together at times? Except in cases of abuse, a divorce is almost always less desirable than parents staying together. However, it does not also have to be the miserable hole that it is sometimes made out to be.
In a society where divorce is the exception, children would probably get affected more as their family is perceived as not normal. However, in societies where divorce is more commonplace and even handled gracefully, it may have a lesser impact.
When it comes to statistics, one has to remember that certain issues such as happiness are not easily quantifiable.
The article also raised more questions about the role of religion in defining relationships and family. I wonder about tribal societies where women actually could have multiple partners and they could have raised their children without the biological father living with the family at all times. By creating laws that are in line with the Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon way of thinking, some social conventions that could have actually been beneficial in many cases, have disappeared.
In ancient societies, fathers often went off to war and were absent or killed, leaving mothers and the entire extended family to raise the children. The nuclear family with just the husband, wife and children was not the universal norm and is still not in several countries.
I do not know about the difference between children raised by separated but otherwise loving and supportive parents and the children raised by parents living together but I do believe that children need love and nurturing to flourish no matter what their living arrangements are.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Balancing nature with city lights
This is about places I love to live in. I must confess I feel suffocated in cities that are just concrete jungles. Strong old trees and grass always make a heart sing.
Some body of water (clean) such as the ocean or at least a great river nearby would be a must on my list of places to live, too.
Not everyone has the luxury of living in a city surrounded by snow-capped mountains or lovely beaches though if you live in the Pacific Northwest in the United States, you can literally have it all - mountains, rivers and beaches (albeit they are cold most of the year), vineyards and even the high desert. I suspect a lot of it is true for California, too, as that state has a wide range of scenery.
However, each place has its distinct charm and advantages and there are always the little places that are still unspoiled. Maybe it is a river near your house surrounded by meadows, maybe it is a small forest that you love to take hikes in, it need not be a famous tourist destination but something that gives you pleasure each time you visit. I would cherish them because in the rapid flow of urbanization, they may be changed forever or even lost. That is where national parks have an advantage - they will be preserved.
When I was a child, I visited villages with my parents and grandmother where soaking in the warm river water was such a pleasure while taking in the view of the countryside with hills and fields across the banks.
I think of Mumbai, India where I grew up. I was very fortunate to have a national park with wild animals naturally living in it close to my house. I simply loved going there for morning walks and runs (note: the wild animals are further inside the park lest you wonder whether I walked among lions:)). During monsoon and early winter, the place burst in greenery and flowers. I did not have great mountains or lots of such forests but even that one park was a great blessing. What's more, this one had tribals living in it and some ancient caves further inside so there was the historical/cultural factor, too. There are lots of cities like this in India that have natural beauty surrounding them but are developing like monsters with concrete skyscrapers, malls and what not eclipsing all the natural surroundings. Later on, the builders add in 'green space' in the form of spacious lawns, tennis courts and sometimes even golf courts. Tavleen Singh of the Indian Express had written an article long back about the lack of urban planning in India.
However, I would like to see those old banyan, ashoka and jamun trees preserved, acknowledged and cherished. The builders have done that in old housing societies but the municipal corporation has done little to maintain tree-lined streets.
When I think of Mumbai now after having visited and lived in at least a few US cities, I am somewhat dejected. While there are flats being constructed with all the modern amenities, there are very few open green spaces or walkable streets left in the suburbs. Mumbai has a lot of advantages just like many of the West Coast cities. It is not as hot as the interior of India during summers or as cold in the winters as it is warmed and cooled by the breeze from the Arabian Sea. It falls under a high rainfall region so there is lush greenery that naturally sprouts here.
Although the city's beaches are now overcrowded and efforts to clean them up probably fall short, residents can drive a couple of hours or take the ferry south to more pristine beaches on the Maharashtra coast such as Alibaug.
The Sahyadri mountains to the east offer opportunities to hike and scenic locales high up in the clouds such as Matheran. Nasik to the Northeast offers vineyards and the countryside full of fresh fruit and vegetables.
If only we recognized all this bounty better and made efforts to encourage tourism, it would help everyone immensely. I would not say that we should always expect the government to do everything in this regard. Maybe if more Indians followed their heart, we would have more vineyards like the one producing Sula Wines and more bed and breakfasts, little dhabas with clean restrooms, etc. Perhaps there could be more hiking groups formed by yuppies seeking an escape from the corporate rat race and the pollution and crowds of the city or maybe there could be an outdoors company that encourages such exploration. I do think there has been an upswing in such resorts/businesses being opened by private entrepreneurs in India.
Having lived abroad for a few years now, I do not know how much India has changed at the micro level. Young India seems vibrant and ready to explore new things in every area of life. They are also seem like a fun, 'can do' lot. There are probably more river-rafting, rock climbing, beach tanning Indians than I know but I certainly feel we still fall short in this regard. Other well known bloggers such as Rashmi Bansal would have a better idea than me.
The point is that the more there are people ready to explore nature, the more the avenues and amenities that will open up. After all, supply does rise to meet demand.
Some body of water (clean) such as the ocean or at least a great river nearby would be a must on my list of places to live, too.
Not everyone has the luxury of living in a city surrounded by snow-capped mountains or lovely beaches though if you live in the Pacific Northwest in the United States, you can literally have it all - mountains, rivers and beaches (albeit they are cold most of the year), vineyards and even the high desert. I suspect a lot of it is true for California, too, as that state has a wide range of scenery.
However, each place has its distinct charm and advantages and there are always the little places that are still unspoiled. Maybe it is a river near your house surrounded by meadows, maybe it is a small forest that you love to take hikes in, it need not be a famous tourist destination but something that gives you pleasure each time you visit. I would cherish them because in the rapid flow of urbanization, they may be changed forever or even lost. That is where national parks have an advantage - they will be preserved.
When I was a child, I visited villages with my parents and grandmother where soaking in the warm river water was such a pleasure while taking in the view of the countryside with hills and fields across the banks.
I think of Mumbai, India where I grew up. I was very fortunate to have a national park with wild animals naturally living in it close to my house. I simply loved going there for morning walks and runs (note: the wild animals are further inside the park lest you wonder whether I walked among lions:)). During monsoon and early winter, the place burst in greenery and flowers. I did not have great mountains or lots of such forests but even that one park was a great blessing. What's more, this one had tribals living in it and some ancient caves further inside so there was the historical/cultural factor, too. There are lots of cities like this in India that have natural beauty surrounding them but are developing like monsters with concrete skyscrapers, malls and what not eclipsing all the natural surroundings. Later on, the builders add in 'green space' in the form of spacious lawns, tennis courts and sometimes even golf courts. Tavleen Singh of the Indian Express had written an article long back about the lack of urban planning in India.
However, I would like to see those old banyan, ashoka and jamun trees preserved, acknowledged and cherished. The builders have done that in old housing societies but the municipal corporation has done little to maintain tree-lined streets.
When I think of Mumbai now after having visited and lived in at least a few US cities, I am somewhat dejected. While there are flats being constructed with all the modern amenities, there are very few open green spaces or walkable streets left in the suburbs. Mumbai has a lot of advantages just like many of the West Coast cities. It is not as hot as the interior of India during summers or as cold in the winters as it is warmed and cooled by the breeze from the Arabian Sea. It falls under a high rainfall region so there is lush greenery that naturally sprouts here.
Although the city's beaches are now overcrowded and efforts to clean them up probably fall short, residents can drive a couple of hours or take the ferry south to more pristine beaches on the Maharashtra coast such as Alibaug.
The Sahyadri mountains to the east offer opportunities to hike and scenic locales high up in the clouds such as Matheran. Nasik to the Northeast offers vineyards and the countryside full of fresh fruit and vegetables.
If only we recognized all this bounty better and made efforts to encourage tourism, it would help everyone immensely. I would not say that we should always expect the government to do everything in this regard. Maybe if more Indians followed their heart, we would have more vineyards like the one producing Sula Wines and more bed and breakfasts, little dhabas with clean restrooms, etc. Perhaps there could be more hiking groups formed by yuppies seeking an escape from the corporate rat race and the pollution and crowds of the city or maybe there could be an outdoors company that encourages such exploration. I do think there has been an upswing in such resorts/businesses being opened by private entrepreneurs in India.
Having lived abroad for a few years now, I do not know how much India has changed at the micro level. Young India seems vibrant and ready to explore new things in every area of life. They are also seem like a fun, 'can do' lot. There are probably more river-rafting, rock climbing, beach tanning Indians than I know but I certainly feel we still fall short in this regard. Other well known bloggers such as Rashmi Bansal would have a better idea than me.
The point is that the more there are people ready to explore nature, the more the avenues and amenities that will open up. After all, supply does rise to meet demand.
New blog discovered a few months ago
I started reading Steve Pavlina's blog a few months ago and boy, I am glad I did!
He has a fascinating array of articles and the ones that really made me sit up are the ones related to relationships, consciousness and a larger purpose in life.
Warning: You will have to suspend a lot of your preconceived ideas and be willing to challenge yourself. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with each and everything he has to say just like with any other author.
He has a fascinating array of articles and the ones that really made me sit up are the ones related to relationships, consciousness and a larger purpose in life.
Warning: You will have to suspend a lot of your preconceived ideas and be willing to challenge yourself. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with each and everything he has to say just like with any other author.
What Hindus must understand
Note: This was a draft that I wrote in 2006 but never published it for some reason.
A dinner-table discussion that I had about a month ago suddenly veered to religion. It suddenly occurred to me that some Hindus have been having all the wrong expectations of other religions.
Some Hindus complain that while they see the same God everywhere and visit mosques, churches of every denomination and pagodas, gurudwaras, etc., their reverence is not reciprocated. We got to see the facts as they are and not get emotional and expect everyone to fall in line with an all-embracing way of thinking. People of other religions who do not bow down to Hindu deities are not bad people or do not want to take away your right to worship (except the fanatics who resort to crooked means to get their point across).
Not everybody will like you or your religion. If the holy book of some other religion prohibits idol worship, why would they ever want to be a part of your religious ceremonies even if they respect you as a human being and your right to your way of life? If their book claims that theirs is the only route to salvation, why will they ever take you as an equal?
What we need to do is delve deep into our own philosophy and pass it on to the next generation. We do not know our Vedas or Upanashids. How many have even read the Bhagavad Gita? Very few Hindus can even articulate what their faith is all about. If we are not sure about our own beliefs, how can we defend them? Hinduism today, at least the mainstream one, seems to be all about rituals, ceremonies, festivals, going to temples and maybe listening to some holy men.
But somewhere deep within, the eternal truths that have been passed down through the Puranas told to us by our grandparents, maybe even by watching Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana or Sri Krishna or B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata, have been etched into many of us. But, we really need to have a culture of theological research and discussion, like Christianity in the West.
We need not morph into an our-religion-is-always-right mode of thinking. We have made fun of our deities and even incorporated this into our sacred stories. Critical evaluation of heritage is always good for the present. At the same time, we have to learn from others to evolve into a better religion and society.
A dinner-table discussion that I had about a month ago suddenly veered to religion. It suddenly occurred to me that some Hindus have been having all the wrong expectations of other religions.
Some Hindus complain that while they see the same God everywhere and visit mosques, churches of every denomination and pagodas, gurudwaras, etc., their reverence is not reciprocated. We got to see the facts as they are and not get emotional and expect everyone to fall in line with an all-embracing way of thinking. People of other religions who do not bow down to Hindu deities are not bad people or do not want to take away your right to worship (except the fanatics who resort to crooked means to get their point across).
Not everybody will like you or your religion. If the holy book of some other religion prohibits idol worship, why would they ever want to be a part of your religious ceremonies even if they respect you as a human being and your right to your way of life? If their book claims that theirs is the only route to salvation, why will they ever take you as an equal?
What we need to do is delve deep into our own philosophy and pass it on to the next generation. We do not know our Vedas or Upanashids. How many have even read the Bhagavad Gita? Very few Hindus can even articulate what their faith is all about. If we are not sure about our own beliefs, how can we defend them? Hinduism today, at least the mainstream one, seems to be all about rituals, ceremonies, festivals, going to temples and maybe listening to some holy men.
But somewhere deep within, the eternal truths that have been passed down through the Puranas told to us by our grandparents, maybe even by watching Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana or Sri Krishna or B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata, have been etched into many of us. But, we really need to have a culture of theological research and discussion, like Christianity in the West.
We need not morph into an our-religion-is-always-right mode of thinking. We have made fun of our deities and even incorporated this into our sacred stories. Critical evaluation of heritage is always good for the present. At the same time, we have to learn from others to evolve into a better religion and society.
Impressions of India - I
Visiting India after living abroad for a few years always brings a fresh perspective. For me, I started noticing everything such as our family structure, how our public transport works, Indian toilets vs. Western toilets and their impact on the environment and hygiene, the little things as well as the big ones that delight or exasperate us whether it pertains to India or to our adopted lands, etc. I have started to grasp that inscrutable term, 'culture' and how it subtly affects our way of thinking about our life path, our marriages, the number of children we choose to have, our mobility between places and even whether we are city yuppies or laid-back small town types. Perhaps, in some ways, I have also started to understand why India is a spiritual land...
America, for example, is a melting pot of different national origins, ethnic groups, languages and religions. India, on the other hand, at least excluding some trendy metro areas, is largely like an assorted plate of hor d' oeuvres. Indians still prefer to marry within their linguistic group and religion even if they are not caste-conscious. Most of their interaction with people of other ethnic/linguistic groups happens at work, school or purely by an accident of fate such as living in the same neighborhood. Each Indian family thus maintains its distinctive linguistic, religious and even caste heritage.
This is of course slowly eroding in some urban areas with lots of inter-caste, inter-cmmunity and inter-religious marriages taking place. However, for the vast majority opting for arranged marriages, this still holds true.
America, for example, is a melting pot of different national origins, ethnic groups, languages and religions. India, on the other hand, at least excluding some trendy metro areas, is largely like an assorted plate of hor d' oeuvres. Indians still prefer to marry within their linguistic group and religion even if they are not caste-conscious. Most of their interaction with people of other ethnic/linguistic groups happens at work, school or purely by an accident of fate such as living in the same neighborhood. Each Indian family thus maintains its distinctive linguistic, religious and even caste heritage.
This is of course slowly eroding in some urban areas with lots of inter-caste, inter-cmmunity and inter-religious marriages taking place. However, for the vast majority opting for arranged marriages, this still holds true.
Books in the last few years
Since childhood, I have always found companionship in books. Maybe it was my father's influence with his collection of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, P.G. Wodehouse and others. Whether it was the children's detective series such as the Famous Five and Secret Seven or Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys, I have always found a sounding board in books. I have woven dreams about my life based on the characters in them. Even today, I prefer reading stuff online to watching You Tube videos or interviews.
There are several books that have crossed my path over the last few years. I have mentioned some of them in an earlier post. However, there are some that have truly left an imprint.
What Should I Do With My Life by Po Bronson
This is perhaps the most influential book that I have read on a personal level.
Blink by Malcolm Gladwell
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Washington Square by Henry James
I discovered this author after I read about his work in Reading Lolita in Tehran.
The Pact by Jodi Picoult
Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi
Helen of Troy by Margaret George
I also read quite a bit of Cleopatra by the same author.
I had read an abridged version of Jane Eyre as a child. This time, I read the unabridged one and even read the reviews of it written shortly after the novel was published that were included in the preface.
I must say that the books The Age of Innocence, Wuthering Heights and Love in the Time of Cholera together packed such a punch in terms of love and relationships that they have left me even more ready to question my assumptions. In fact, these books keep nagging me long after I put them down.
I have already written about Love in the Time of Cholera and will share my thoughts on some of the others later.
There are several books that have crossed my path over the last few years. I have mentioned some of them in an earlier post. However, there are some that have truly left an imprint.
What Should I Do With My Life by Po Bronson
This is perhaps the most influential book that I have read on a personal level.
Blink by Malcolm Gladwell
Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Washington Square by Henry James
I discovered this author after I read about his work in Reading Lolita in Tehran.
The Pact by Jodi Picoult
Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi
Helen of Troy by Margaret George
I also read quite a bit of Cleopatra by the same author.
I had read an abridged version of Jane Eyre as a child. This time, I read the unabridged one and even read the reviews of it written shortly after the novel was published that were included in the preface.
I must say that the books The Age of Innocence, Wuthering Heights and Love in the Time of Cholera together packed such a punch in terms of love and relationships that they have left me even more ready to question my assumptions. In fact, these books keep nagging me long after I put them down.
I have already written about Love in the Time of Cholera and will share my thoughts on some of the others later.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Love in the Time of Cholera
I searched for reviews on Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novel, 'Love in the Time of Cholera' last evening. Why I did that I do not specifically know. Over the last few years, I have become more interested than ever in love, soul mates and the like plus I love reviews and op-eds of any kind.
I usually try to avoid reading other people's reviews before I post mine because I do not want their perspectives to color mine. However, curiosity got the better of me so I decided to just give it a try. This book has both riled me and intrigued me, I have alternately hated and pitied the protagonists but that is the hallmark of a great work of art. Somehow, the truly great classics do not give you all the answers. You can come out with different interpretations. Human beings are complex beings and often have shades of gray in their character. Great works sometimes take you back to a different era and we are forced to look at the characters' actions within the context of the world in which they lived. After all, can any of us claim to be completely out of the bounds of social convention?
The story begins when a teenager, Florentino Ariza falls madly in love at first sight with a 14 year old girl, Fermina Daza. He writes love letters to her and succeeds in wooing her, at least briefly. Encouraged by her aunt, the girl writes back to him, too. Her father later finds out and tries to make his daughter forget all about her lover by sending her off on a year long trip.
Fermina Daza in now on the cusp of womanhood and more mature. She surprisingly rejects him on returning, saying that their love was just an illusion. She goes on to marry a well off, distinguished doctor whom she initially turns down and repels but is encouraged to court by everyone around her.
Florentino Ariza, though heartbroken, bounces back and determines to win her back after waiting it out for her husband to die. The moment finally comes after 51 years.
Various people have called the male protagonist, Florentino Ariza, a stalker, delusional, an obsessed lover, a pedophile and a sicko. Well, he was a pedophile as, near the end of the novel, he seduces and sleeps with a 14 year old innocent girl who is entrusted in his care (he sponsors her education and is sort of a legal guardian).
I did not find it distressing when he slept with hundreds of women - prostitutes, widows and other lonely souls. In those relationships, both parties knew that it should be a casual fling, to be enjoyed while it lasted. He even had a few real love affairs which died their natural death due to fights and growing apart, just like many relationships and even marriages do.
He seems to have treated the women well and given them pleasure.
So far so good.
But then, he chases and beds a married woman and scrawls tell-tale proof of their dalliance on her body in the most indiscreet and brazen manner. Her husband finds out and kills her. There is a brief anecdote of how he pounced upon another woman and impregnated her. The crowning despicable act is his seduction of an innocent 14 year old who reminds him of the love of his life - Fermina Daza when he first saw her and fell irrevocably and madly in love with her.
The 14 year old falls madly for him and is left desolate when he runs back to the newly widowed Fermina after half a century. He played with and caused destruction in her life. I read this novel many months ago or maybe it was more than a year ago so the names of the characters are sketchy and come to mind when I read other reviews.
However, despite all this, I would not classify Florentino Ariza as a stalker. He never interfered in Fermina Daza's life after she rejected him and married another man. He did not plot revenge against her or her husband and family. He did not try to sabotage her marriage or lure her into an extra marital affair. What he did was keep the flame of adoration and longing alive in his heart, without proclaiming it from the rooftops. In fact, on his side, except his mother and one of his perceptive lovers, no one else knew his secret. He was a determined lover with a strange but unshakable faith that someday, he would win her back after her husband died. He was gambling with death and fate. What if he died much earlier than they did? What if Fermina herself was snatched away by the grim reaper before both men?
In a way, Florentino is what we would call a romantic idealist, in a way. He had his emotional and sexual longings just like anyone else but what is appalling is the way he sometimes used other women with little care for the way he was messing up their minds and lives. On the other hand, to some and perhaps most women, he was a fun lover. What if there was one or maybe a few of them who loved him just as passionately and lastingly as he had loved Fermina? I wonder what would his life had been like had he opened his heart to that possibility.
In waiting for Fermina, he lost the opportunity to be a father (at least one recognized by law and society), to have a family of his own, to be a grandpa. That could be a great regret when you cross over into your sixties. But he seemed unfazed by all those dreary possibilities and in that way, he was a great risk taker, a courageous soul. He did not do what most people do - settle.
Another point to consider would be that 19th-20th century Colombian society may have had different attitudes about extra marital sex and even sex with young teenagers. On one hand was the conservative church that prohibited any relations outside of wedlock and on the other hand, was the society that still had relaxed norms culturally. At least, that is what I gathered from reading both 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' and 'Love in the Time of Cholera'. I am not from Colombia so I do not know for sure. It does seem from these novels that the society had dual attitudes, one of them surprisingly relaxed and even cavalier. Was it the conflict between the mores of the Spanish Catholic conquistadors and the natives?
Had Florentino Ariza lived in today's times, he would have definitely been led away in handcuffs.
Now coming to the marriage of Fermina Daza with Dr.Urbino. Many people say that this was true love, the lasting, stable love between a husband and wife who created a family, complete with ups and downs, children and the accompanying issues.
Some, on the other hand, have referred to it as unhappy or even loveless.
I always got the feeling that Dr. Urbino saw winning Fermina's heart as a challenge initially (I think that this was mentioned somewhere in the novel) and later loved her more than she loved him. In fact, Fermina does wonder after all those years whether it was love or not.
It was a stable marriage that withstood Fermina's frigidity, Dr. Urbino's affair and their subsequent separation for a little while. There could have been emotional attachment and caring for each other. But there did seem to be the lack of mutual passion and true intimacy. Again, the success of such a relationship is highly subjective. In my humble opinion, it was so-so, a stable one but not the one that could be called the love of one's life.
Fermina rejects Florentino because she is disillusioned by love itself, not because she was dragged out of the affair kicking and screaming by her father and that could be the root of many of her problems later in life. She was a little cold, too logical and shut her heart in at least some ways. There is a line, I think, that says something to this effect during her year away from home when her father hopes to cure her of her love for Florentino and hopefully forget him - She knew that she could live without love.
The bigger question is not just about love - is life about the final destination or about the journey itself? I wanted to shake Florentino and ask him, "Was she really worth it?" Yet, I was happy for these two sad souls at the end. There is such a thing called love, the love that stands the test of time. Believing in it is like believing in angels or heaven. You have to suspend a certain amount of reason and listen with your intuition and something deep inside.
I usually try to avoid reading other people's reviews before I post mine because I do not want their perspectives to color mine. However, curiosity got the better of me so I decided to just give it a try. This book has both riled me and intrigued me, I have alternately hated and pitied the protagonists but that is the hallmark of a great work of art. Somehow, the truly great classics do not give you all the answers. You can come out with different interpretations. Human beings are complex beings and often have shades of gray in their character. Great works sometimes take you back to a different era and we are forced to look at the characters' actions within the context of the world in which they lived. After all, can any of us claim to be completely out of the bounds of social convention?
The story begins when a teenager, Florentino Ariza falls madly in love at first sight with a 14 year old girl, Fermina Daza. He writes love letters to her and succeeds in wooing her, at least briefly. Encouraged by her aunt, the girl writes back to him, too. Her father later finds out and tries to make his daughter forget all about her lover by sending her off on a year long trip.
Fermina Daza in now on the cusp of womanhood and more mature. She surprisingly rejects him on returning, saying that their love was just an illusion. She goes on to marry a well off, distinguished doctor whom she initially turns down and repels but is encouraged to court by everyone around her.
Florentino Ariza, though heartbroken, bounces back and determines to win her back after waiting it out for her husband to die. The moment finally comes after 51 years.
Various people have called the male protagonist, Florentino Ariza, a stalker, delusional, an obsessed lover, a pedophile and a sicko. Well, he was a pedophile as, near the end of the novel, he seduces and sleeps with a 14 year old innocent girl who is entrusted in his care (he sponsors her education and is sort of a legal guardian).
I did not find it distressing when he slept with hundreds of women - prostitutes, widows and other lonely souls. In those relationships, both parties knew that it should be a casual fling, to be enjoyed while it lasted. He even had a few real love affairs which died their natural death due to fights and growing apart, just like many relationships and even marriages do.
He seems to have treated the women well and given them pleasure.
So far so good.
But then, he chases and beds a married woman and scrawls tell-tale proof of their dalliance on her body in the most indiscreet and brazen manner. Her husband finds out and kills her. There is a brief anecdote of how he pounced upon another woman and impregnated her. The crowning despicable act is his seduction of an innocent 14 year old who reminds him of the love of his life - Fermina Daza when he first saw her and fell irrevocably and madly in love with her.
The 14 year old falls madly for him and is left desolate when he runs back to the newly widowed Fermina after half a century. He played with and caused destruction in her life. I read this novel many months ago or maybe it was more than a year ago so the names of the characters are sketchy and come to mind when I read other reviews.
However, despite all this, I would not classify Florentino Ariza as a stalker. He never interfered in Fermina Daza's life after she rejected him and married another man. He did not plot revenge against her or her husband and family. He did not try to sabotage her marriage or lure her into an extra marital affair. What he did was keep the flame of adoration and longing alive in his heart, without proclaiming it from the rooftops. In fact, on his side, except his mother and one of his perceptive lovers, no one else knew his secret. He was a determined lover with a strange but unshakable faith that someday, he would win her back after her husband died. He was gambling with death and fate. What if he died much earlier than they did? What if Fermina herself was snatched away by the grim reaper before both men?
In a way, Florentino is what we would call a romantic idealist, in a way. He had his emotional and sexual longings just like anyone else but what is appalling is the way he sometimes used other women with little care for the way he was messing up their minds and lives. On the other hand, to some and perhaps most women, he was a fun lover. What if there was one or maybe a few of them who loved him just as passionately and lastingly as he had loved Fermina? I wonder what would his life had been like had he opened his heart to that possibility.
In waiting for Fermina, he lost the opportunity to be a father (at least one recognized by law and society), to have a family of his own, to be a grandpa. That could be a great regret when you cross over into your sixties. But he seemed unfazed by all those dreary possibilities and in that way, he was a great risk taker, a courageous soul. He did not do what most people do - settle.
Another point to consider would be that 19th-20th century Colombian society may have had different attitudes about extra marital sex and even sex with young teenagers. On one hand was the conservative church that prohibited any relations outside of wedlock and on the other hand, was the society that still had relaxed norms culturally. At least, that is what I gathered from reading both 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' and 'Love in the Time of Cholera'. I am not from Colombia so I do not know for sure. It does seem from these novels that the society had dual attitudes, one of them surprisingly relaxed and even cavalier. Was it the conflict between the mores of the Spanish Catholic conquistadors and the natives?
Had Florentino Ariza lived in today's times, he would have definitely been led away in handcuffs.
Now coming to the marriage of Fermina Daza with Dr.Urbino. Many people say that this was true love, the lasting, stable love between a husband and wife who created a family, complete with ups and downs, children and the accompanying issues.
Some, on the other hand, have referred to it as unhappy or even loveless.
I always got the feeling that Dr. Urbino saw winning Fermina's heart as a challenge initially (I think that this was mentioned somewhere in the novel) and later loved her more than she loved him. In fact, Fermina does wonder after all those years whether it was love or not.
It was a stable marriage that withstood Fermina's frigidity, Dr. Urbino's affair and their subsequent separation for a little while. There could have been emotional attachment and caring for each other. But there did seem to be the lack of mutual passion and true intimacy. Again, the success of such a relationship is highly subjective. In my humble opinion, it was so-so, a stable one but not the one that could be called the love of one's life.
Fermina rejects Florentino because she is disillusioned by love itself, not because she was dragged out of the affair kicking and screaming by her father and that could be the root of many of her problems later in life. She was a little cold, too logical and shut her heart in at least some ways. There is a line, I think, that says something to this effect during her year away from home when her father hopes to cure her of her love for Florentino and hopefully forget him - She knew that she could live without love.
The bigger question is not just about love - is life about the final destination or about the journey itself? I wanted to shake Florentino and ask him, "Was she really worth it?" Yet, I was happy for these two sad souls at the end. There is such a thing called love, the love that stands the test of time. Believing in it is like believing in angels or heaven. You have to suspend a certain amount of reason and listen with your intuition and something deep inside.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Helen of Troy - a new perspective
I started reading Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy'. This is a different version of history - Helen of Troy is told as a first person account of Helen herself.
When I first read an abridged version of Homer's 'The Iliad' and later watched the movie, 'Troy', I was full of admiration for the Greek heroes - Achilles, Odysseus and even Menelaus, to some extent.
I never really cared about Helen and Paris - impulsive lovers who had eloped. Helen was just a beautiful face in the whole story who was coveted by many and the one who had the power to have armies fighting for her return to Sparta.
But, now after reading this beautiful, touching story, I learnt certain things: Helen was a princess of Sparta and could inherit the queenship if a man who did not have a kingdom of his own, were to wed her. That is how Menelaus became king of Sparta - by marrying Helen. Hence, it was a kind of a matriarchical system.
I also learnt that they had a daughter, Hermione (I liked the name Hermione from Harry Potter, now I know its source) and that they were married for ten years before Helen eloped with Paris. Helen was married at a very young age, at fifteeen after an open contest of suitors akin to the ancient Indian practice of swayamvar (where royal brides chose their groom from an assembly of suitors).
But now, it occurred to me - what sort of queen would risk her reputation, the companionship of her family, even the closeness to her own child, not to mention her personal safety for a man, no matter how attractive he was? The story goes that Paris was promised the most beautiful woman in the world as his wife by none other than Aphrodite herself, the goddess of love and beauty in the Greek pantheon. Well, if you are a fatalist, you would believe that destiny or God had a hand in the whole saga. But, Paris and Helen also made a choice to elope. Helen, particularly. Why? Margaret George speaks of the stifling unhappiness in Helen's marriage. Although born a princess with stunning beauty, Helen was far from being truly free and happy. She was like a bird in a golden cage, a cage nevertheless.
We, in the modern era, have much to be thankful for, most importantly, personal liberty. Ultimately, democracy is not just about elections, but about freedom of the individual. Helen, unfortunaletly, did not live in an era where she could file for divorce due to incompatibilty and tell her hubby, "Honey, you are a great guy but we are not right for each other and I'm just just not that into you."
She had few choices - either live a peaceful, unhappy life under a facade or revolt.
She chose the latter, albeit in an impulsive, not-so-well-thought-out manner. Could she have openly decided to walk away, telling her husband the truth? That would have certainly appeared to be more honorable and, perhaps, would have saved Troy and the Greeks many lives, but we will never know.
Helen was, in a way, symbolic of the repression that women faced, quietly sanctioned by society. I do see Helen in a vastly different light and applaud her courage and pity her for her fate. Ironically, even though Helen was a God-fearing woman who loved her family, was not vain and manipulative (according to the novel by Margaret George), she still shook the conventions of the time and proved the adage, "Well-behaved women seldom make history".
When I first read an abridged version of Homer's 'The Iliad' and later watched the movie, 'Troy', I was full of admiration for the Greek heroes - Achilles, Odysseus and even Menelaus, to some extent.
I never really cared about Helen and Paris - impulsive lovers who had eloped. Helen was just a beautiful face in the whole story who was coveted by many and the one who had the power to have armies fighting for her return to Sparta.
But, now after reading this beautiful, touching story, I learnt certain things: Helen was a princess of Sparta and could inherit the queenship if a man who did not have a kingdom of his own, were to wed her. That is how Menelaus became king of Sparta - by marrying Helen. Hence, it was a kind of a matriarchical system.
I also learnt that they had a daughter, Hermione (I liked the name Hermione from Harry Potter, now I know its source) and that they were married for ten years before Helen eloped with Paris. Helen was married at a very young age, at fifteeen after an open contest of suitors akin to the ancient Indian practice of swayamvar (where royal brides chose their groom from an assembly of suitors).
But now, it occurred to me - what sort of queen would risk her reputation, the companionship of her family, even the closeness to her own child, not to mention her personal safety for a man, no matter how attractive he was? The story goes that Paris was promised the most beautiful woman in the world as his wife by none other than Aphrodite herself, the goddess of love and beauty in the Greek pantheon. Well, if you are a fatalist, you would believe that destiny or God had a hand in the whole saga. But, Paris and Helen also made a choice to elope. Helen, particularly. Why? Margaret George speaks of the stifling unhappiness in Helen's marriage. Although born a princess with stunning beauty, Helen was far from being truly free and happy. She was like a bird in a golden cage, a cage nevertheless.
We, in the modern era, have much to be thankful for, most importantly, personal liberty. Ultimately, democracy is not just about elections, but about freedom of the individual. Helen, unfortunaletly, did not live in an era where she could file for divorce due to incompatibilty and tell her hubby, "Honey, you are a great guy but we are not right for each other and I'm just just not that into you."
She had few choices - either live a peaceful, unhappy life under a facade or revolt.
She chose the latter, albeit in an impulsive, not-so-well-thought-out manner. Could she have openly decided to walk away, telling her husband the truth? That would have certainly appeared to be more honorable and, perhaps, would have saved Troy and the Greeks many lives, but we will never know.
Helen was, in a way, symbolic of the repression that women faced, quietly sanctioned by society. I do see Helen in a vastly different light and applaud her courage and pity her for her fate. Ironically, even though Helen was a God-fearing woman who loved her family, was not vain and manipulative (according to the novel by Margaret George), she still shook the conventions of the time and proved the adage, "Well-behaved women seldom make history".
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Higher and lower values
People, especially the orthodox, always tend to focus on the rituals - no sex before marriage, no contraception, no divorce, etc. Few focus on the spiritual side of it as to why these ritualistic rules came into place in the first place not to mention the social and economic state of society when ancient religions were born.
This post has been triggered after reading an article on the Root and the subsequent comments about successful unmarried black women. There were some posts, particularly one from a conservative Catholic unmarried one, that really got me thinking.
Most religions see any sex outside of marriage as a sin or at least something inappropriate. Marriage itself, at least in those days, was probably originally devised as a means to create a family, procreate, provide protection and care during old age and act as a foundation for civil society. Polygamy and even polyandry, in some cases, was accepted in many cultures. In some ethnic societies, premarital sex was not frowned upon. In fact, in matriarchal systems, it was not uncommon for women to lead a family and even have children out of wedlock. The idea of family is much broader than what modern society would have us believe.
A child out of wedlock is considered a sin and a shame and, added to that, even when there is no social stigma associated with it, single working women find it hard to cope with an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, especially in the United States, we have this endless debate about abortion, abstinence and so on.
In modern times, we expect to have romance and passion, economic and emotional sustenance all provided through marriage. Added to that is the additional stress of modern life itself and the possibility of falling in love with other people through increased social interaction between the sexes. Yes, emotional affairs of the heart have a higher probability of occurrence in our age as compared to that of our forefathers simply because women and men were never really permitted to mingle freely or even date for that matter in ancient societies. There was no email, IM, phone or any other means of electronic communication that could be used frequently and sneakily either. Since most women did not work or were too busy raising large families, divorce was probably economically impossible.
The modern individualistic society, despite its flaws, gives each person the potential to fully question his/her motives, aspirations and social conditioning deeply, which brings me to the concept of higher values.
Love for another human being, sharing and caring is the higher value upon which the ritualistic values of marriage and family are based upon. Thus, a family created by people who are not linked by either DNA or a certificate from the priest or the courts, but based upon mutual trust, affection and support, is not any less useful to society than a traditional one.
A couple choosing to go their separate ways because they do not want to lie to each other anymore about the lack of physical attraction, that special spark that brings people together and intimacy or any form of emotional or intellectual incompatibility is not any more at fault than one that chooses to stay together despite a big void in their lives. It is a question of honesty and compassion, the higher values that bind people in relationships.
Concentrating upon the higher values and the plight of our fellow human beings without acting like a martyr, sacrificing personal happiness solely for keeping others in an unruffled emotional state, will probably be the only way to truly find that elusive peace and happiness we all long for.
This post has been triggered after reading an article on the Root and the subsequent comments about successful unmarried black women. There were some posts, particularly one from a conservative Catholic unmarried one, that really got me thinking.
Most religions see any sex outside of marriage as a sin or at least something inappropriate. Marriage itself, at least in those days, was probably originally devised as a means to create a family, procreate, provide protection and care during old age and act as a foundation for civil society. Polygamy and even polyandry, in some cases, was accepted in many cultures. In some ethnic societies, premarital sex was not frowned upon. In fact, in matriarchal systems, it was not uncommon for women to lead a family and even have children out of wedlock. The idea of family is much broader than what modern society would have us believe.
A child out of wedlock is considered a sin and a shame and, added to that, even when there is no social stigma associated with it, single working women find it hard to cope with an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, especially in the United States, we have this endless debate about abortion, abstinence and so on.
In modern times, we expect to have romance and passion, economic and emotional sustenance all provided through marriage. Added to that is the additional stress of modern life itself and the possibility of falling in love with other people through increased social interaction between the sexes. Yes, emotional affairs of the heart have a higher probability of occurrence in our age as compared to that of our forefathers simply because women and men were never really permitted to mingle freely or even date for that matter in ancient societies. There was no email, IM, phone or any other means of electronic communication that could be used frequently and sneakily either. Since most women did not work or were too busy raising large families, divorce was probably economically impossible.
The modern individualistic society, despite its flaws, gives each person the potential to fully question his/her motives, aspirations and social conditioning deeply, which brings me to the concept of higher values.
Love for another human being, sharing and caring is the higher value upon which the ritualistic values of marriage and family are based upon. Thus, a family created by people who are not linked by either DNA or a certificate from the priest or the courts, but based upon mutual trust, affection and support, is not any less useful to society than a traditional one.
A couple choosing to go their separate ways because they do not want to lie to each other anymore about the lack of physical attraction, that special spark that brings people together and intimacy or any form of emotional or intellectual incompatibility is not any more at fault than one that chooses to stay together despite a big void in their lives. It is a question of honesty and compassion, the higher values that bind people in relationships.
Concentrating upon the higher values and the plight of our fellow human beings without acting like a martyr, sacrificing personal happiness solely for keeping others in an unruffled emotional state, will probably be the only way to truly find that elusive peace and happiness we all long for.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Back again!
Whew, dear blog...it's been a really long time since I wrote anything here.
2008 has been a year of great learning...and some wonderful experiences.
I've seen some fantastic movies and events.
There was the delicate, heartbreaking yet inspiring story of Jane Eyre in 'Becoming Jane', 'Valkyrie' - a true story of immense courage and sacrifice, the surprise winner 'Slumdog Millionaire' and as for the event of the year, there's no question about it, the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is permanently scorched in our memory cells.
Among the books that I have read this year are Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' - simply a must-read, Ian Halperin's 'Bad and Beautiful' - the ugly underbelly (or rather, the ignored elephant-in-the-room at times) of the modeling world and Philippa Gregory's 'The Virgin's Lover' - the love story of Queen Elizabeth I and one of her chief court officers, Robert Dudley.
I have also been digging up information on astrology.
2008 has also been a politically eventful year, what with the elections and the contest between President Obama and Vice-President Biden pitted against Senator McCain and Governor Palin. That was one lively competition and provided fodder for comedians such as Tina Fey (perhaps Sarah Palin's lost sister:)) and Jon Stewart and their likes.
Of course, 2008 also brought with it the woes of Wall Street and the slowing down of the economy and we should be thanking God or our good fortune if we still have our jobs and a home and warm food and clothing.
We've also had a 'snowful' (note: I coined this word!) holiday season. So it's been a memorable year and I hope 2009 will be great with its own unique memories.
2008 has been a year of great learning...and some wonderful experiences.
I've seen some fantastic movies and events.
There was the delicate, heartbreaking yet inspiring story of Jane Eyre in 'Becoming Jane', 'Valkyrie' - a true story of immense courage and sacrifice, the surprise winner 'Slumdog Millionaire' and as for the event of the year, there's no question about it, the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is permanently scorched in our memory cells.
Among the books that I have read this year are Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' - simply a must-read, Ian Halperin's 'Bad and Beautiful' - the ugly underbelly (or rather, the ignored elephant-in-the-room at times) of the modeling world and Philippa Gregory's 'The Virgin's Lover' - the love story of Queen Elizabeth I and one of her chief court officers, Robert Dudley.
I have also been digging up information on astrology.
2008 has also been a politically eventful year, what with the elections and the contest between President Obama and Vice-President Biden pitted against Senator McCain and Governor Palin. That was one lively competition and provided fodder for comedians such as Tina Fey (perhaps Sarah Palin's lost sister:)) and Jon Stewart and their likes.
Of course, 2008 also brought with it the woes of Wall Street and the slowing down of the economy and we should be thanking God or our good fortune if we still have our jobs and a home and warm food and clothing.
We've also had a 'snowful' (note: I coined this word!) holiday season. So it's been a memorable year and I hope 2009 will be great with its own unique memories.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Aging for men and women...
I am amused to hear that men are more distinguished and look better as they age (read some of the comments), whereas women do not. Hello, what about balding, middle-aged, pot-bellied, unattractive men? Well, there are some bald men that are sexy..
And there are distinguished looking older women that are elegant. Have we looked at some of the older actresses? Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestley, in The Devil Wears Prada, was one such. Absolute class, authority, confidence, style and elegance. Jamie Lee Curtis in the yogurt ad looks distinguished, too. So does Hillary Clinton.
I think we are confusing attractiveness with sexual desirability. A younger woman with flawless, supple skin, great curves, a firmer body and youthful hair attracts men because she is definitely more Mommy-material to pass on their genes. But, is grey hair by itself, leaving aside all considerations of youth, worse-looking than, say, brown hair? Is grey an unattractive color by itself? Heck, very few people prefer brown sedans to sleek grey ones! If, say, there were a race of people with naturally grey hair since birth, our whole perception of grey hair would change.
It's not that men age better, they are perceived as better-looking as they age. Women find the maturity and gravitas of older men more appealing and since, for centuries, women have traditionally been married to older men, who then in many instances, provided for them, older men are probably also seen as more protective figures. Sounds very gender-unequal but in many societies, women were married off for the security the institution provided, financially, socially, emotionally, physically, etc.
Men, on the other hand, picked younger women for both pleasure and to bear offspring. Nature must have had a reason for the preference for youth and beauty in the choice of sexual partners and that would have been procreation. But that does NOT mean that older women or men are unattractive.
The logic of preferring youth over age should apply to women as well.
Younger men are more virile (no need for Viagra), have a higher chance of fertilizing a woman and are very attractive. Also, since men have shorter life spans, what sense does it make to hook up with someone who will not be there for you much longer?
It's not age alone that is the problem, it is our perception of age that is a bigger one.
The trouble with women is, they fall into the trap of marketers and know-it-alls, think that a few fine lines around the eyes and the mouth are enough to make them look unattractive and totally undesirable. Women seem more desperate to snag a man and look lovely. Part of it could be that a woman's fertile years are limited as compared to a man's. Besides, pregnancy and childbirth, nursing and rearing take up a lot of her energy and time. As they have to do a lot of hard work to get a human into this world, women are also probably pickier when it comes to their choice of mates.
Unless women themselves look at themselves differently, celebrate the attractiveness of youth as well as the dignity and the different attractiveness of old age, we cannot expect any better from the rest of the world.
They will be caught up in the eternal cycle of byaah, bachcha, budhaapa (Hindi for marriage, children, old age).
P.S. This is one of the first posts in the list of probably more to come about byaah, bachcha, budhaapa...
And there are distinguished looking older women that are elegant. Have we looked at some of the older actresses? Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestley, in The Devil Wears Prada, was one such. Absolute class, authority, confidence, style and elegance. Jamie Lee Curtis in the yogurt ad looks distinguished, too. So does Hillary Clinton.
I think we are confusing attractiveness with sexual desirability. A younger woman with flawless, supple skin, great curves, a firmer body and youthful hair attracts men because she is definitely more Mommy-material to pass on their genes. But, is grey hair by itself, leaving aside all considerations of youth, worse-looking than, say, brown hair? Is grey an unattractive color by itself? Heck, very few people prefer brown sedans to sleek grey ones! If, say, there were a race of people with naturally grey hair since birth, our whole perception of grey hair would change.
It's not that men age better, they are perceived as better-looking as they age. Women find the maturity and gravitas of older men more appealing and since, for centuries, women have traditionally been married to older men, who then in many instances, provided for them, older men are probably also seen as more protective figures. Sounds very gender-unequal but in many societies, women were married off for the security the institution provided, financially, socially, emotionally, physically, etc.
Men, on the other hand, picked younger women for both pleasure and to bear offspring. Nature must have had a reason for the preference for youth and beauty in the choice of sexual partners and that would have been procreation. But that does NOT mean that older women or men are unattractive.
The logic of preferring youth over age should apply to women as well.
Younger men are more virile (no need for Viagra), have a higher chance of fertilizing a woman and are very attractive. Also, since men have shorter life spans, what sense does it make to hook up with someone who will not be there for you much longer?
It's not age alone that is the problem, it is our perception of age that is a bigger one.
The trouble with women is, they fall into the trap of marketers and know-it-alls, think that a few fine lines around the eyes and the mouth are enough to make them look unattractive and totally undesirable. Women seem more desperate to snag a man and look lovely. Part of it could be that a woman's fertile years are limited as compared to a man's. Besides, pregnancy and childbirth, nursing and rearing take up a lot of her energy and time. As they have to do a lot of hard work to get a human into this world, women are also probably pickier when it comes to their choice of mates.
Unless women themselves look at themselves differently, celebrate the attractiveness of youth as well as the dignity and the different attractiveness of old age, we cannot expect any better from the rest of the world.
They will be caught up in the eternal cycle of byaah, bachcha, budhaapa (Hindi for marriage, children, old age).
P.S. This is one of the first posts in the list of probably more to come about byaah, bachcha, budhaapa...
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Some songs to cheer you up...
There are some absolutely lovely songs that you MUST have on your listening list in your iPod/MP3 player/car CD player, anywhere where you store your favorite tunes. They will perk you up when you are in the dumps..
I am inspired by GreatBong's school of humor, so read on ..
Take this priceless gem - Ankhiyon ke neeche from Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.
It is one of the truly international songs with a French word - Monsieur embedded inside whacky Hindi lyrics, in a Hinglish sentence - No, no Monsieur no no itnaa simple nahin... (meaning, No no Monsieur it's not that simple..).
Also, it addresses the object of the hero's affection as a mint candy - mint ki goli. How refreshing...
Not to mention the enactment of the French Revolution in the hallowed vicinity of the Eiffel Tower, where movies such as the recent Da Vinci Code were set. I mean, just take a look at the costumes of all the extras in the song..assorted countesses, courtiers and probably all the 18th century junta of France parading about in a manner that would probably invoke the dead souls of all the poor souls who lost their lives in that violent period..and I mean all the souls whether on the exploited side or the exploiter's side.
God help those who shot that movie..
Another movie that would cheer me up anytime is Bunty Aur Babli, the cute, outrageeous, rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-at-times comedy featuring Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukherjee as a conning duo that somehow manage to win your heart.
There are many more that I may share later...
I am inspired by GreatBong's school of humor, so read on ..
Take this priceless gem - Ankhiyon ke neeche from Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.
It is one of the truly international songs with a French word - Monsieur embedded inside whacky Hindi lyrics, in a Hinglish sentence - No, no Monsieur no no itnaa simple nahin... (meaning, No no Monsieur it's not that simple..).
Also, it addresses the object of the hero's affection as a mint candy - mint ki goli. How refreshing...
Not to mention the enactment of the French Revolution in the hallowed vicinity of the Eiffel Tower, where movies such as the recent Da Vinci Code were set. I mean, just take a look at the costumes of all the extras in the song..assorted countesses, courtiers and probably all the 18th century junta of France parading about in a manner that would probably invoke the dead souls of all the poor souls who lost their lives in that violent period..and I mean all the souls whether on the exploited side or the exploiter's side.
God help those who shot that movie..
Another movie that would cheer me up anytime is Bunty Aur Babli, the cute, outrageeous, rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-at-times comedy featuring Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukherjee as a conning duo that somehow manage to win your heart.
There are many more that I may share later...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Cheeni Kum
I watched "Cheeni Kum" the other day. I found it refreshing. None of that melodrama where the guy or girl doesn't express his/her feelings to either their parents or the object of their affection, and mercifully, no aerobic gyrations by scantily clad gals and guys on the streets of London. A story about love that can happen at any age without being apologetic for it. A story that does not have sugary sweet parent-child emotions where the kids “obey” their parents and parents mouth philosophical dialogues straight out of Ramanand Sagar’s mythological serials.
Amitabh Bachchan plays Buddhadev Gupta – a chef with an acerbic tongue that does not even spare his own aged mother, an ego, attitude and a passion for his work all related to each other and single at 64. Yes, never been married! He owns a restaurant called "Spice6" in London, of which he is also the head chef, considering the culinary practice a work of art.
Tabu plays Nina Verma – a 34-year-old single, lovely lady, who’s visiting London and as fate would have it, walks right into Buddhadev’s restaurant and his life.
They meet when Nina sends back a plate of Hyderabadi zafrani pulav that is too sweet for her palate and Buddhadev comes to the table and unleashes his ire and ego at her. She leaves but not without sending him hand-cooked authentic zafrani pulav soon, thereby humbling the otherwise cocky restaurant owner cum head chef. Their romance unfolds slowly with Nina being classy and bold at the same time. Not for her the coy, come-hither-but-stay-away-from-me confusing signals typically sent out by our heroines. By the way, our heroines are saying out loud what is in their heart, be it a Kajol in “Fanaa”, or Rani Mukherjee in “Hum Tum”. The background score by Ilaiyaraja as well as the one or two songs are superb, understated but mellifluous and creating the mood for the romance.
Another endearing part about the movie is when Buddhadev and Nina have a small disagreement over the perennial vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. They are sitting at this seaside café/restaurant out in the open. Nina orders a fish dish and Buddhadev orders vegetarian pasta. When Nina asks him how he manages to eat “ghaaspoos” (grass – the term used to tease vegetarians with), he launches into an ardent speech about how the fish that she is eating are being missed by their relatives.. something that I, as a vegetarian, can identify with. They end up calling each other “ghaaspoos” and “tangdi kabab” (a meat dish).
The measure of how far our cinema has come when it comes to matters of a sexual nature is illustrated not by passionate lovemaking scenes but by cheeky, double-entendre scenes:
Nina asks Buddhadev to do a sprint towards a tree and back to check whether he has the stamina to do something beyond just holding hands. And then, there is Buddhadev, covered in awkwardness as he attempts to buy a condom at the local pharmacy owned by an Indian sardar. If I were him, I would sneak off to a local, white-manned department store, where I could pick up the said item anonymously. But, it just shows how taboo having a sex life at 60+ still is, for some Indians.
The “Meet the Father of the Bride” session is totally whacky with Paresh Rawal essaying the part of Nina’s father, a self-confessed Gandhian, who indulges in some non-Gandhian practices, such as consuming chicken and the occasional social whiskey. He launches into a “satyagraha” without food or drink when he hears from Buddhadev in the loo of a hotel, that he wishes to marry his daughter. The daughter does not bow to emotional pressure either. Some of the dialogues will be pretty hard to stomach – such as Nina asking her father when he is planning to die as he says that he would not allow Nina to marry Buddhadev as long as he is alive. But, it is not that Nina does not care about her father. She rushes to Delhi from London when her dear papa is sick and sits by his side through most of his self-imposed hunger strike, trying to win his approval. But, seriously, this part is what made the movie drag on and on.
Finally, all’s well that ends well.
Zohra Sehgal as the aged but spirited mother of Buddhadev, who revels in “Sex and the City” (gosh, she, too!) and “WWF” on the flat screen TV in Buddhadev's sprawling London home, is a delight to watch. She should get more meaty roles.
Swini Khara as the young, precocious cancer patient, who wants to watch adult DVDs before she dies as she is not going to live to see them, does a great job, too, leaving her mark even in a side role.
Amitabh and Tabu play their parts to perfection. Amitabh probably never had it this good even in his youthful heyday. He is like a bottle of wine that tastes better as it ages. As for Tabu, her long silky straight hair, radiant face and traditional salwar kameezes, kurta-and-jeans attire, add a luster and sexiness to her, even without revealing costumes.
Paresh Rawal is hilarious, as usual.
Finally, a round of applause for the debutant director,
Balakrishnan. He deserves to be commended for this work. More power to less-shrill dialogues, less loud humour.
All in all, a sweet movie, without the dripping, sickly sugary-sweetness of most of our romantic movies. Truly, “kum cheeni” (less sugar)!
Amitabh Bachchan plays Buddhadev Gupta – a chef with an acerbic tongue that does not even spare his own aged mother, an ego, attitude and a passion for his work all related to each other and single at 64. Yes, never been married! He owns a restaurant called "Spice6" in London, of which he is also the head chef, considering the culinary practice a work of art.
Tabu plays Nina Verma – a 34-year-old single, lovely lady, who’s visiting London and as fate would have it, walks right into Buddhadev’s restaurant and his life.
They meet when Nina sends back a plate of Hyderabadi zafrani pulav that is too sweet for her palate and Buddhadev comes to the table and unleashes his ire and ego at her. She leaves but not without sending him hand-cooked authentic zafrani pulav soon, thereby humbling the otherwise cocky restaurant owner cum head chef. Their romance unfolds slowly with Nina being classy and bold at the same time. Not for her the coy, come-hither-but-stay-away-from-me confusing signals typically sent out by our heroines. By the way, our heroines are saying out loud what is in their heart, be it a Kajol in “Fanaa”, or Rani Mukherjee in “Hum Tum”. The background score by Ilaiyaraja as well as the one or two songs are superb, understated but mellifluous and creating the mood for the romance.
Another endearing part about the movie is when Buddhadev and Nina have a small disagreement over the perennial vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. They are sitting at this seaside café/restaurant out in the open. Nina orders a fish dish and Buddhadev orders vegetarian pasta. When Nina asks him how he manages to eat “ghaaspoos” (grass – the term used to tease vegetarians with), he launches into an ardent speech about how the fish that she is eating are being missed by their relatives.. something that I, as a vegetarian, can identify with. They end up calling each other “ghaaspoos” and “tangdi kabab” (a meat dish).
The measure of how far our cinema has come when it comes to matters of a sexual nature is illustrated not by passionate lovemaking scenes but by cheeky, double-entendre scenes:
Nina asks Buddhadev to do a sprint towards a tree and back to check whether he has the stamina to do something beyond just holding hands. And then, there is Buddhadev, covered in awkwardness as he attempts to buy a condom at the local pharmacy owned by an Indian sardar. If I were him, I would sneak off to a local, white-manned department store, where I could pick up the said item anonymously. But, it just shows how taboo having a sex life at 60+ still is, for some Indians.
The “Meet the Father of the Bride” session is totally whacky with Paresh Rawal essaying the part of Nina’s father, a self-confessed Gandhian, who indulges in some non-Gandhian practices, such as consuming chicken and the occasional social whiskey. He launches into a “satyagraha” without food or drink when he hears from Buddhadev in the loo of a hotel, that he wishes to marry his daughter. The daughter does not bow to emotional pressure either. Some of the dialogues will be pretty hard to stomach – such as Nina asking her father when he is planning to die as he says that he would not allow Nina to marry Buddhadev as long as he is alive. But, it is not that Nina does not care about her father. She rushes to Delhi from London when her dear papa is sick and sits by his side through most of his self-imposed hunger strike, trying to win his approval. But, seriously, this part is what made the movie drag on and on.
Finally, all’s well that ends well.
Zohra Sehgal as the aged but spirited mother of Buddhadev, who revels in “Sex and the City” (gosh, she, too!) and “WWF” on the flat screen TV in Buddhadev's sprawling London home, is a delight to watch. She should get more meaty roles.
Swini Khara as the young, precocious cancer patient, who wants to watch adult DVDs before she dies as she is not going to live to see them, does a great job, too, leaving her mark even in a side role.
Amitabh and Tabu play their parts to perfection. Amitabh probably never had it this good even in his youthful heyday. He is like a bottle of wine that tastes better as it ages. As for Tabu, her long silky straight hair, radiant face and traditional salwar kameezes, kurta-and-jeans attire, add a luster and sexiness to her, even without revealing costumes.
Paresh Rawal is hilarious, as usual.
Finally, a round of applause for the debutant director,
Balakrishnan. He deserves to be commended for this work. More power to less-shrill dialogues, less loud humour.
All in all, a sweet movie, without the dripping, sickly sugary-sweetness of most of our romantic movies. Truly, “kum cheeni” (less sugar)!
Marriage and Family
This week’s U.S. News and World Report (October 15, 2007 issue) editorial column talks about how children in two-parent households have a better life than those in single-parent households, how the husband-wife traditional family is the best to raise kids who turn out to be healthy, responsible citizens.
Well, common sense suggests that if both parents are educated and if there is a constant source of income in the household, be it from one or both parents, the children are likely to receive a good education, healthcare and other benefits. This is definitely a good thing.
What about children in bad marriages or of divorced parents? The author in the said column even goes further as to say that Social Security and benefits programs should encourage marriage and not single parenthood.
But, can personal behavior really be incentivized? Maybe, in some cases, yes. For example, the Indian government did encourage smaller families to control the population, by massive public broadcasting programs and other means. But, in a democratic setup, people have to essentially believe in the principle behind the measure, to be a participant in implementing it.
The people who believe that marriage should not be a precondition for sex are going to go ahead and do it, anyway. Carelessness about contraception or the failure thereof is going to result in at least a few babies out of wedlock. Even among those who wait to get married and have babies, there is no guarantee that the couple is not going to split or that both parents will be alive till the child turns 18.
This brings us to the term – “family”. In today’s times, the family, at least in America and even in urban India, is mostly the parent/s and the kids living together. In the old days, in India, many people lived with their parents well after marriage. In fact, one sometimes had all the brothers living together under one really large roof with their wives and kids. Even today, there are quite a few such units that we call “joint families”.
In the modern or nuclear family, single parenthood is a costly thing. The single parent is the sole provider/caregiver/mentor for the children and this can be a particularly overwhelming task. In a structure where the spouses are not the sole providers/caregivers, the children are also looked after by other elders such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. It is like having free daycare cum family atmosphere. I sometimes wonder, if Americans also lived in such structures, rather than moving out of their parents’ nest after 18, would the single-parent statistics be very different? Another factor working against single-parent families is the low-income individuals who undergo out-of-wedlock pregnancies and do not have much of an education or high income to support their kids with. Added to that, if these parents are already in the grip of drug/alcohol addiction, then the children would really have a rough childhood.
But, what about the educated, well-paid professionals who don’t find the “right person” to commit a lifetime to, but find that their biological clocks are going away, tick-tock, tick-tock? Will they not also just have a baby so that they don’t miss out on motherhood? I am saying “motherhood” because it is usually women who have a shorter fertile period to have babies and also motherhood is, well, physically far more demanding than fatherhood (not the raising of kids part, just the bearing them part, before all you men jump at me).
Affluent actresses such as Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen adopted children out of wedlock and they are greatly admired for it. Many Hollywood celebrities bear children before getting married and the father is also pretty well-known.
In my opinion, marriage was originally meant as a structure for companionship, support in old age as well as emotional, physical and financial support throughout, as well as a unit to raise children. Today, we expect romance, great sex and the world out of it besides the above-mentioned factors. We expect to commit to one person all our lives and have emotional, physical, social and financial fulfillment till death do us part. Whether this is possible for all marriages on earth is a question that yours truly cannot answer as it is too profound, too complex for any individual alone. No wonder, commitment-phobia seems to be more common.
But, was marriage always the one man-one woman sole family unit? History points out quite the contrary. While the single husband-single wife union seemed to be pretty common, polygamy and polyandry were quite rampant, too, at least among the royals and other elite people. Did the children of such structures end up as lesser human beings? We don’t know. In the Ramayana, that epitome of family values, Rama was the eldest son, his father had three wives and the step-brothers got along so fabulously that today’s blood siblings would be ashamed of their own petty rivalries. Now, don’t for a moment, think that I am endorsing polygamy/polyandry.
All I am saying is, both marriage and family, as social institutions, have changed with time, across cultures around the world.
I somehow don’t buy the argument that marriage-first-kids-later, is going to solve all the socioeconomic problems of the world. What any child needs is love, acceptance and responsible caregivers who are genuinely concerned about his/her wellbeing and who are there for him/her not only till he/she is ready to fly, but also later. A loving father and mother united in a socially-sanctioned institution is a great gift to a child. But to say that the others who make a genuine effort to raise children right in a responsible way, who have made choices that society does not approve of, are somehow doing a lesser job, makes me feel a tad little uncomfortable.
Well, common sense suggests that if both parents are educated and if there is a constant source of income in the household, be it from one or both parents, the children are likely to receive a good education, healthcare and other benefits. This is definitely a good thing.
What about children in bad marriages or of divorced parents? The author in the said column even goes further as to say that Social Security and benefits programs should encourage marriage and not single parenthood.
But, can personal behavior really be incentivized? Maybe, in some cases, yes. For example, the Indian government did encourage smaller families to control the population, by massive public broadcasting programs and other means. But, in a democratic setup, people have to essentially believe in the principle behind the measure, to be a participant in implementing it.
The people who believe that marriage should not be a precondition for sex are going to go ahead and do it, anyway. Carelessness about contraception or the failure thereof is going to result in at least a few babies out of wedlock. Even among those who wait to get married and have babies, there is no guarantee that the couple is not going to split or that both parents will be alive till the child turns 18.
This brings us to the term – “family”. In today’s times, the family, at least in America and even in urban India, is mostly the parent/s and the kids living together. In the old days, in India, many people lived with their parents well after marriage. In fact, one sometimes had all the brothers living together under one really large roof with their wives and kids. Even today, there are quite a few such units that we call “joint families”.
In the modern or nuclear family, single parenthood is a costly thing. The single parent is the sole provider/caregiver/mentor for the children and this can be a particularly overwhelming task. In a structure where the spouses are not the sole providers/caregivers, the children are also looked after by other elders such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. It is like having free daycare cum family atmosphere. I sometimes wonder, if Americans also lived in such structures, rather than moving out of their parents’ nest after 18, would the single-parent statistics be very different? Another factor working against single-parent families is the low-income individuals who undergo out-of-wedlock pregnancies and do not have much of an education or high income to support their kids with. Added to that, if these parents are already in the grip of drug/alcohol addiction, then the children would really have a rough childhood.
But, what about the educated, well-paid professionals who don’t find the “right person” to commit a lifetime to, but find that their biological clocks are going away, tick-tock, tick-tock? Will they not also just have a baby so that they don’t miss out on motherhood? I am saying “motherhood” because it is usually women who have a shorter fertile period to have babies and also motherhood is, well, physically far more demanding than fatherhood (not the raising of kids part, just the bearing them part, before all you men jump at me).
Affluent actresses such as Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen adopted children out of wedlock and they are greatly admired for it. Many Hollywood celebrities bear children before getting married and the father is also pretty well-known.
In my opinion, marriage was originally meant as a structure for companionship, support in old age as well as emotional, physical and financial support throughout, as well as a unit to raise children. Today, we expect romance, great sex and the world out of it besides the above-mentioned factors. We expect to commit to one person all our lives and have emotional, physical, social and financial fulfillment till death do us part. Whether this is possible for all marriages on earth is a question that yours truly cannot answer as it is too profound, too complex for any individual alone. No wonder, commitment-phobia seems to be more common.
But, was marriage always the one man-one woman sole family unit? History points out quite the contrary. While the single husband-single wife union seemed to be pretty common, polygamy and polyandry were quite rampant, too, at least among the royals and other elite people. Did the children of such structures end up as lesser human beings? We don’t know. In the Ramayana, that epitome of family values, Rama was the eldest son, his father had three wives and the step-brothers got along so fabulously that today’s blood siblings would be ashamed of their own petty rivalries. Now, don’t for a moment, think that I am endorsing polygamy/polyandry.
All I am saying is, both marriage and family, as social institutions, have changed with time, across cultures around the world.
I somehow don’t buy the argument that marriage-first-kids-later, is going to solve all the socioeconomic problems of the world. What any child needs is love, acceptance and responsible caregivers who are genuinely concerned about his/her wellbeing and who are there for him/her not only till he/she is ready to fly, but also later. A loving father and mother united in a socially-sanctioned institution is a great gift to a child. But to say that the others who make a genuine effort to raise children right in a responsible way, who have made choices that society does not approve of, are somehow doing a lesser job, makes me feel a tad little uncomfortable.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The most beautiful?
I had written a post long ago on the subject of beauty, Aishwarya Rai, celebrities, etc. here.
In my humble opinion, the whole idea of "the most beautiful", "the sexiest", etc. is a ridiculous notion. Consider this: a celebrity magazine decides, based on very debatable polls, that so-and-so is the most "beautiful woman" or the "sexiest man" in the world. In the WORLD!!
Their list of the top ten in 2005 may be:
1. Eena
2. Meena
3. Deeka
4. Seena
5.Xena and so on.
Those of you who have such real names, please, this doesn't refer to you and is in no way meant to offend you.
Come 2007 and their list reads as:
1. Xena
2. Meena
3. Eena
4. Seena
5. Deeka
Come again? Did Xena get transformed into the most beautiful woman in the world in the span of two years (unless and until she went under the surgeon's knife to get herself 'sculpted')? Whatever happened to Eena, the-most-beautiful-in-2005?
Now, the part about the poll. I agree that some people appear more attractive to a lot of people as compared to others. But, when it comes to the most beautiful, there are bound to be different opinions.
Secondly, what do you mean by "the most beautiful"? Among whom? Maybe, among the famous actors/models/pop artistes of that time. These people represent not even 5% of the population in a country. Even if one assumes that only 10% of the world's population is good-looking, then, too, how many people would have had the opportunity to see even a tenth of that?
Thirdly, there is no way you could compare a celebrity who takes very good care of himself/herself, wears great outfits and has the best stylists at his/her beck and call, to an average Joe/Jane. Imagine if the average good-looking non-celebrity was nicely dressed, made up, coiffed, photographed under the right lighting, from great angles and the result were converted into a glossy wallpaper. You would have a star-in-the-making. Can such a thing be accessible to the millions who toil under the sun, who don't have the resources to slather on sunscreens, anti-aging creams, the latest hair colour, etc.? Nope.
Beauty comprises of two parts - the natural, God-given looks and one's own input in the form of a healthy diet, exercise, grooming and , yes, happiness and inner peace that reflect on your face. Sometimes, we see people naturally well-endowed when young, not getting their due notice while some others, who might have been average-looking in their teens, soar to popularity later. Of course, blooming into the youth of the 20s happens. But, a lot of times, a pretty-faced woman who dresses like a rag, does not bother to maintain herself, becomes frumpy and fades into oblivion whereas a slightly-above-average looker works out, eats right, has oodles of confidence and steals the limelight.
As they say, it's not just what you got but what you do with it, that matters.
In my humble opinion, the whole idea of "the most beautiful", "the sexiest", etc. is a ridiculous notion. Consider this: a celebrity magazine decides, based on very debatable polls, that so-and-so is the most "beautiful woman" or the "sexiest man" in the world. In the WORLD!!
Their list of the top ten in 2005 may be:
1. Eena
2. Meena
3. Deeka
4. Seena
5.Xena and so on.
Those of you who have such real names, please, this doesn't refer to you and is in no way meant to offend you.
Come 2007 and their list reads as:
1. Xena
2. Meena
3. Eena
4. Seena
5. Deeka
Come again? Did Xena get transformed into the most beautiful woman in the world in the span of two years (unless and until she went under the surgeon's knife to get herself 'sculpted')? Whatever happened to Eena, the-most-beautiful-in-2005?
Now, the part about the poll. I agree that some people appear more attractive to a lot of people as compared to others. But, when it comes to the most beautiful, there are bound to be different opinions.
Secondly, what do you mean by "the most beautiful"? Among whom? Maybe, among the famous actors/models/pop artistes of that time. These people represent not even 5% of the population in a country. Even if one assumes that only 10% of the world's population is good-looking, then, too, how many people would have had the opportunity to see even a tenth of that?
Thirdly, there is no way you could compare a celebrity who takes very good care of himself/herself, wears great outfits and has the best stylists at his/her beck and call, to an average Joe/Jane. Imagine if the average good-looking non-celebrity was nicely dressed, made up, coiffed, photographed under the right lighting, from great angles and the result were converted into a glossy wallpaper. You would have a star-in-the-making. Can such a thing be accessible to the millions who toil under the sun, who don't have the resources to slather on sunscreens, anti-aging creams, the latest hair colour, etc.? Nope.
Beauty comprises of two parts - the natural, God-given looks and one's own input in the form of a healthy diet, exercise, grooming and , yes, happiness and inner peace that reflect on your face. Sometimes, we see people naturally well-endowed when young, not getting their due notice while some others, who might have been average-looking in their teens, soar to popularity later. Of course, blooming into the youth of the 20s happens. But, a lot of times, a pretty-faced woman who dresses like a rag, does not bother to maintain herself, becomes frumpy and fades into oblivion whereas a slightly-above-average looker works out, eats right, has oodles of confidence and steals the limelight.
As they say, it's not just what you got but what you do with it, that matters.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Can we compensate for this?
The horrific tragedy that took place in Nithari has been reported in various news agencies such as the Times of India and rediff.com and some bloggers have also presented their opinions - one of the illustrious denizens of the blogosphere is
GreatBong.
The government is now giving each of these poor families Rs. 5 lakhs (5,00,000) as ex-gratia. Now, one can understand if compensation or ex-gratia is paid to workers of a factory who have met with an on-the-job accident or to people who have lost everything in a natural disaster. That money is meant to help the devastated families rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet. It does not certainly mean that the loss of human life has been made up for. In the former case, it is also a liability cost borne by the employer.
But, what do you do when a child has been killed? That, too, by a criminal? Will paying Rs. 5 lakhs in any way mitigate the grief and loss of those hapless parents?
If I were a poor parent whose child was a victim of a well-publicised crime and I received an amount of money that is quite an amount by my standards, would I feel guilty about using it for my own betterment or for my loved ones? Legally, a child cannot really be an earning member of a family so what does this ex-gratia mean? The parents may still continue to live but for many, that life would seem bleak and empty.
Money to a dead child's family seems like weighing the child's life and worth in terms of money, the possibilities of what he/she could have blossomed into, is reduced to an economic statistic. Another reason could be that the government is apologising for the gross negligence in handling the case due to which many preventable deaths occurred. In that case, these families should be suing the government. Even in that case, the people in charge will only feel the pinch when the mooolah comes from their own pockets. They usually get away lightly, emptying the public coffers while merrily ignoring their own incompetence. What we really need is a better law and order system with more sensitive and responsible, honest police officers, those who don't
harass family members of victims when they approach them for help.
Secondly, the Nithari case is now well-publicised as it is a shocking, unheard-of case with crime being committed on a large scale. Hundreds of children and adults are unfortumate victims of terrible crimes in our society. If this is what we do in one case, then all those families deserve ex-gratia. Police negligence, after all, cannot be unique to only this case.
Thirdly, there are some situations where you cannot blame the government or even the society for what has happened. Natural disasters are one such instance. But, the compensation given to those families is for an entirely different purpose. It is more under the category of aid. As for victims of riots, well, society and the state can prevent them or at least control them after they have broken out. But, individual crimes? Some person kills someone, out of mental disease or malice or pure accident. Neither the state nor society can always prevent that. They are not obliged to pay for it and cannot possibly do so for everyone. What they can and should do is take steps to nab and prosecute the culprits and deliver justice to the families.
GreatBong.
The government is now giving each of these poor families Rs. 5 lakhs (5,00,000) as ex-gratia. Now, one can understand if compensation or ex-gratia is paid to workers of a factory who have met with an on-the-job accident or to people who have lost everything in a natural disaster. That money is meant to help the devastated families rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet. It does not certainly mean that the loss of human life has been made up for. In the former case, it is also a liability cost borne by the employer.
But, what do you do when a child has been killed? That, too, by a criminal? Will paying Rs. 5 lakhs in any way mitigate the grief and loss of those hapless parents?
If I were a poor parent whose child was a victim of a well-publicised crime and I received an amount of money that is quite an amount by my standards, would I feel guilty about using it for my own betterment or for my loved ones? Legally, a child cannot really be an earning member of a family so what does this ex-gratia mean? The parents may still continue to live but for many, that life would seem bleak and empty.
Money to a dead child's family seems like weighing the child's life and worth in terms of money, the possibilities of what he/she could have blossomed into, is reduced to an economic statistic. Another reason could be that the government is apologising for the gross negligence in handling the case due to which many preventable deaths occurred. In that case, these families should be suing the government. Even in that case, the people in charge will only feel the pinch when the mooolah comes from their own pockets. They usually get away lightly, emptying the public coffers while merrily ignoring their own incompetence. What we really need is a better law and order system with more sensitive and responsible, honest police officers, those who don't
harass family members of victims when they approach them for help.
Secondly, the Nithari case is now well-publicised as it is a shocking, unheard-of case with crime being committed on a large scale. Hundreds of children and adults are unfortumate victims of terrible crimes in our society. If this is what we do in one case, then all those families deserve ex-gratia. Police negligence, after all, cannot be unique to only this case.
Thirdly, there are some situations where you cannot blame the government or even the society for what has happened. Natural disasters are one such instance. But, the compensation given to those families is for an entirely different purpose. It is more under the category of aid. As for victims of riots, well, society and the state can prevent them or at least control them after they have broken out. But, individual crimes? Some person kills someone, out of mental disease or malice or pure accident. Neither the state nor society can always prevent that. They are not obliged to pay for it and cannot possibly do so for everyone. What they can and should do is take steps to nab and prosecute the culprits and deliver justice to the families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)