sudhansu: Control the controllable, don't worry about the uncontrollable
me: this is a good thing, where you learn it from?
sudhansu: Coach of one IPL team told, "we try to play with new youngster, so that they can play with confidence and give their best"! Hence I thought, we too should give the best shot of whatever is with us.
me: I feel we all give our best shot all the time. In the given conditions anyone of would have acted the same way as somebody else acted. Knowingly why should someone take the second best option? Better or worse; whatever we did was the best we could have done.
sudhansu: I think if one has the "striving for better" attitude, that's the best.
me: But the attitude also wont come to all! Because of history, past, and breeding etc.
sudhansu: Who so ever has not got the attitude, haven't yet realized his best.
me: who defines the "best"?
sudhansu: he Himself
me: If he himself defined the best, then why did he not work for it?
sudhansu: If he thinks later that he could have done that way or this way...means that that was not his whole hearted effort.
me: Once it is "later" its all done! Exactly at that instant he did not do it. Thinking of it "later" is like commenting on cricket live matches: the player should have played like this or should have taken that shot etc.
sudhansu: That's how he learns, next time he knows where he did the mistake.
me: Yes thats all fine; but at a particular instant still he is doing his best.
Lets say i am short tempered. After a spree of anger i think i shoud not have got angry. Then I can do meditation etc etc. But at that moment i did not do anything wrong!
When air flows through leaves no one says its right or wrong; I think our actions are like that.
Each moment we do the best. Even a dog wont take the second best path if he knew tat its the 2nd best.
sudhansu: If he knows that it's the best, then he should gracefully accept the results of his action.... and he understands everything he is going through is for his actions only... and... that's his best action
me: Yes
sudhansu: Then he is always happy!
me: Happy... may be may not be!
But he is certinly not unhappy
sudhansu: Is it, then there shouldn't be any sorrow and happiness!!Some are in that state, but many are not... they feel sad,
me: Yes; but surprisingly we all can be happy... somewhere I read "if u want to be happy, be".
sudhansu: I read somewhere that we are naturally all happy but we created misery around us.
me: That too is a problematic thing! Its basically blaming us, which i don't feel comfortable with!
But one thing I marked: life is interesting :)
sudhansu: People are living as rich and the poor. There must be something. Otherwise all the poor would have drowned in indian Ocean!
me: still they live! Why they live?
sudhansu: Because life is interesting!
me: yes :)
Because we think that their life is not worth living! But that may be true for us; not for them! Even a daily beggar with one eye goes on living...what for?
sudhansu: we have taken so much of a burden to think about others lives rather than ours
our standard is by our means
me: I think yes; this is a good phrase "life is interesting"; I cant say life is blissful or bad or good... yes... life really is interesting! Sometimes i feel very much amused; so much so tat i wish i could live 1000 years just observing life and people and creation :)
sudhansu: But there are 1000 lives around you every year!
me: yes :) That bargain is also fine with me; if i could live all the lives at a time...
sudhansu: that's equivant to 1000 years!
me: 1000 lives either in space or time :) ... Yes; very interesting concept! Great!!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Necessary and sufficient conditions for friendship!
A question cropped into my mind yesterday.
Who is a real friend: one who feels for your in your happy moments or one who feels for you in your moments of need?
Answers were many. Someone also gave the example of how when she was under distress, only a few friends would call her every evening. And that made her feel so much better. I also have my own life-experience, when during one of my calamities I suddenly opened my door to discover three of my long-forgotten friends standing. That did made me feel so much better. Hence, it seems the question is baseless and has but one equivocal answer. A friend is one who stands beside you during your hour of peril.
However, I always believed that a real friend is one who can be heartily happy for your happiness! I thought a bit more and discovered a nice observation!
Agreed that; a friend is one who stands beside you during your hour of peril. But not all those who stand by you during your calamity are your friends! During your moment of calamity many will come out to help you. This is the natural human tendency! We feel pity for one in calamity. Most (not all) will feel an ego-boost to find someone is calamity. Thats why we all get a feel-good tango when we do some social work! It may sound blunt, but this is the fact. We dont feel intimidated by seeing someone in trouble.
Whereas, if someone is prospering our ego feels belittled! We may feel that logically he is my friend and I should be happy for his prosperity. Hence most of us show that we are happy when any of our friends is having more happiness than we have! But in our heart of hearts we know that there is a tinge of jealousy!
Hence, its easy to get people who will be sad when you are sad. But to find someone who will be happy (from his/her heart) when you are sad, is a herculean task!
Mathematically speaking the condition 'to feel sad when your friend is sad' is a necessary condition for being a true friend. But the condition 'to feel happy when your friend is happy' is a sufficient condition for being a true friend!
In other words, a true friend need to be sad when you are sad. But just because someone is sad when you are sad, does not make him your true friend. Whereas if someone is happy when you are happy, then he IS your true friend!
I.e. 'being sad when you are sad' is a quality of true friend; whereas 'being happy when you are happy' qualifies a true friend...
Who is a real friend: one who feels for your in your happy moments or one who feels for you in your moments of need?
Answers were many. Someone also gave the example of how when she was under distress, only a few friends would call her every evening. And that made her feel so much better. I also have my own life-experience, when during one of my calamities I suddenly opened my door to discover three of my long-forgotten friends standing. That did made me feel so much better. Hence, it seems the question is baseless and has but one equivocal answer. A friend is one who stands beside you during your hour of peril.
However, I always believed that a real friend is one who can be heartily happy for your happiness! I thought a bit more and discovered a nice observation!
Agreed that; a friend is one who stands beside you during your hour of peril. But not all those who stand by you during your calamity are your friends! During your moment of calamity many will come out to help you. This is the natural human tendency! We feel pity for one in calamity. Most (not all) will feel an ego-boost to find someone is calamity. Thats why we all get a feel-good tango when we do some social work! It may sound blunt, but this is the fact. We dont feel intimidated by seeing someone in trouble.
Whereas, if someone is prospering our ego feels belittled! We may feel that logically he is my friend and I should be happy for his prosperity. Hence most of us show that we are happy when any of our friends is having more happiness than we have! But in our heart of hearts we know that there is a tinge of jealousy!
Hence, its easy to get people who will be sad when you are sad. But to find someone who will be happy (from his/her heart) when you are sad, is a herculean task!
Mathematically speaking the condition 'to feel sad when your friend is sad' is a necessary condition for being a true friend. But the condition 'to feel happy when your friend is happy' is a sufficient condition for being a true friend!
In other words, a true friend need to be sad when you are sad. But just because someone is sad when you are sad, does not make him your true friend. Whereas if someone is happy when you are happy, then he IS your true friend!
I.e. 'being sad when you are sad' is a quality of true friend; whereas 'being happy when you are happy' qualifies a true friend...
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Free will
The way I see it, we can have two schools of thoughts:
1- God-believing: If we believe in God, then that God has to be omnipotent. Hence there is always a preplanned destiny. Because what use is a God who does not have control over time !! I read somewhere in a book by some physicist from UK: our condition is like a fly crawling upon a dusty picture. As its treading ahead, its deciphering a part of the picture. For it, its all new, its all his choice and all that. But for someone who can see the 'big picture' (pun intended), its all obvious!
2- Atheistic view: If our knowledge till the date is fine, then there was a big bang and the creation (including time) started from there. After that things started spreading out. But the origin is one. And we also know that there can be no effect without a cause. Hence with the cause being the same, the effects are all deterministic. Rather its calculable (but may not be predictable).
Hence, free-will is but an illusion! We just feel that we are taking a free-willed decision! But actually we are not... or may be I am wrong somewhere...
1- God-believing: If we believe in God, then that God has to be omnipotent. Hence there is always a preplanned destiny. Because what use is a God who does not have control over time !! I read somewhere in a book by some physicist from UK: our condition is like a fly crawling upon a dusty picture. As its treading ahead, its deciphering a part of the picture. For it, its all new, its all his choice and all that. But for someone who can see the 'big picture' (pun intended), its all obvious!
2- Atheistic view: If our knowledge till the date is fine, then there was a big bang and the creation (including time) started from there. After that things started spreading out. But the origin is one. And we also know that there can be no effect without a cause. Hence with the cause being the same, the effects are all deterministic. Rather its calculable (but may not be predictable).
Hence, free-will is but an illusion! We just feel that we are taking a free-willed decision! But actually we are not... or may be I am wrong somewhere...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Dejavu: Forbidden Love!
(originally written on 28-Jun 06)
Few years back I read a novel in OdiA, "kahibAku lAja" (tale of shame), which described the love between two cousins! Forbidden love. There are societies where cousin love and marriage is accepted. But where they are not, its a shame, its a sin, its a sabotage of culture, to do it. Surprisingly I found recently a friend who had done the sin of loving his cousin! Might sound disgusting to some. But how can you stop the force of love? It just happens. They might have been close. Then they attend puberty. Find that their ideas match. They get closer at a higher level. And before any of them realized, they are in love....or whatever word you chose for this feeling. (It might sound filmy but it IS the fact.) Then what? In the novel, the lovers finally got married, against the will of the society. Here the reality differs from story. My friend was helpless. He knew they could never get married. What they did was forbidden love. He had started a story with no end!
Same way, depending on the society, there can be forbidden loves of so many types. Every society has its own taboos and rules. Starting from extremes of gay-love to simple thing like loving some one from the same neighborhood, love can be forbidden in society.
My point is, what is it like, to be in a forbidden love? When you know that you cant dream of things like "getting married" or "being together for ever"? When you know you cant stake many for one. When you know running away wont be the best option. When you know love is painful, still you cant NOT do it. Does it make love more pure? Or at least as per the conventional philosophy? Because here you love for the present, knowing very well that there is no future! Does forbidden love teaches you the gist of love, to love with no expectations, to work without any desire for the fruit ("mA faleshu kadAchana")?
Few years back I read a novel in OdiA, "kahibAku lAja" (tale of shame), which described the love between two cousins! Forbidden love. There are societies where cousin love and marriage is accepted. But where they are not, its a shame, its a sin, its a sabotage of culture, to do it. Surprisingly I found recently a friend who had done the sin of loving his cousin! Might sound disgusting to some. But how can you stop the force of love? It just happens. They might have been close. Then they attend puberty. Find that their ideas match. They get closer at a higher level. And before any of them realized, they are in love....or whatever word you chose for this feeling. (It might sound filmy but it IS the fact.) Then what? In the novel, the lovers finally got married, against the will of the society. Here the reality differs from story. My friend was helpless. He knew they could never get married. What they did was forbidden love. He had started a story with no end!
Same way, depending on the society, there can be forbidden loves of so many types. Every society has its own taboos and rules. Starting from extremes of gay-love to simple thing like loving some one from the same neighborhood, love can be forbidden in society.
My point is, what is it like, to be in a forbidden love? When you know that you cant dream of things like "getting married" or "being together for ever"? When you know you cant stake many for one. When you know running away wont be the best option. When you know love is painful, still you cant NOT do it. Does it make love more pure? Or at least as per the conventional philosophy? Because here you love for the present, knowing very well that there is no future! Does forbidden love teaches you the gist of love, to love with no expectations, to work without any desire for the fruit ("mA faleshu kadAchana")?
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Dejavu: Feline Love
(I thought of reviving some of my old blog postings!! This one was written 02 JULY 2006.)
I was walking today from my flat to the university, and saw a black cat sitting in the sun. I went near her; she was not at all disturbed. I sat with her, she took the pain to look at who this god-damn fellow is! I patted her on her head. She rose. I knew what the cats like the best, a cuddle beside their neck. I did that and she was ecstactic! She mewed, came closer, straightened her tail, and purred! This love went on for a few minutes. I stoped cuddling, and rose. She immediately went back to her original position in sun. I started to depart. Looked back once or twice, only to find Ms.Cat happily enjoying the sun, as if nothing happened. Levae alone coming behind me, she even did not bother to give me a parting look (the looks that you get from dogs!).
This is feline love......detached, mature, and impersonal. Love that happens and only cares about present! No past acquaintance is needed for this love, nor does it leave any mark for future. Is this what seers describe as pure love? At the moment, as if there is nothing more to it, as if there is nothing above it. Just the very next moment, as if nothing has happened! Something to learn from my black cat, whom I loved for a few minutes???
I was walking today from my flat to the university, and saw a black cat sitting in the sun. I went near her; she was not at all disturbed. I sat with her, she took the pain to look at who this god-damn fellow is! I patted her on her head. She rose. I knew what the cats like the best, a cuddle beside their neck. I did that and she was ecstactic! She mewed, came closer, straightened her tail, and purred! This love went on for a few minutes. I stoped cuddling, and rose. She immediately went back to her original position in sun. I started to depart. Looked back once or twice, only to find Ms.Cat happily enjoying the sun, as if nothing happened. Levae alone coming behind me, she even did not bother to give me a parting look (the looks that you get from dogs!).
This is feline love......detached, mature, and impersonal. Love that happens and only cares about present! No past acquaintance is needed for this love, nor does it leave any mark for future. Is this what seers describe as pure love? At the moment, as if there is nothing more to it, as if there is nothing above it. Just the very next moment, as if nothing has happened! Something to learn from my black cat, whom I loved for a few minutes???
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Satyagrah III
This is the third post on this topic, written based on my limited understanding and appreciation of Gandhian philosophy. This time I will give the example of a current day problem prevalent in most of the academic campuses round India. We will try to find a solution to the same following the principle of Satyagrah.
Economy is sluggish, market is down and things are in utterly bad shape. Bad times bring forth the worst in human character! Hence the moral responsibility of the young mass is finding it hard to be up! A common off-shoot of the same in campuses like IITs is found among the final year students. Here, companies come to the campus to recruit students. Lets say you have been selected in a company. Later if a company comes whose salary package is at least 20% higher than the company where you have been placed, then you can appear in the interview of the new company as well. This is allowed once 80% of the students from the branch have been placed. This time companies were few and all wanted to take the brightest few. Lets say Hari is a bright student and have been placed in a company. Given the above situation he has all right to sit for the new company. However when 60% of his batch mates have not been placed, should he sit again and consume one sit? As a matter of fact many do sit. And many others who are sure that they wont be doing job and would rather go for higher studies, are also sitting for the next round. This in my opinion is utterly unethical. Now the question is can we use satyagrah to stop this practice?
Of course while handling this issue the first question that cropped in my mind was is this situation fitting in to the domain of satyagrah? What or which is the 'satya'or truth for which we are displaying 'agrah' or fondness?
I have been thinking on the above question for last two days. But still could not find an answer to it. May be this is not 'satyagrah', rather trying to establish our own vested interest or our own personal idea of morality...!
Economy is sluggish, market is down and things are in utterly bad shape. Bad times bring forth the worst in human character! Hence the moral responsibility of the young mass is finding it hard to be up! A common off-shoot of the same in campuses like IITs is found among the final year students. Here, companies come to the campus to recruit students. Lets say you have been selected in a company. Later if a company comes whose salary package is at least 20% higher than the company where you have been placed, then you can appear in the interview of the new company as well. This is allowed once 80% of the students from the branch have been placed. This time companies were few and all wanted to take the brightest few. Lets say Hari is a bright student and have been placed in a company. Given the above situation he has all right to sit for the new company. However when 60% of his batch mates have not been placed, should he sit again and consume one sit? As a matter of fact many do sit. And many others who are sure that they wont be doing job and would rather go for higher studies, are also sitting for the next round. This in my opinion is utterly unethical. Now the question is can we use satyagrah to stop this practice?
Of course while handling this issue the first question that cropped in my mind was is this situation fitting in to the domain of satyagrah? What or which is the 'satya'or truth for which we are displaying 'agrah' or fondness?
I have been thinking on the above question for last two days. But still could not find an answer to it. May be this is not 'satyagrah', rather trying to establish our own vested interest or our own personal idea of morality...!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Gandhi for current day crisis
The other day I was listening to a welcome address by an octogenarian Gandhian. He was talking about his experience of Indo-Chinease war period. During the 1962 Chinease aggression, he was doing some social work in one of the north-east provinces of India. After the news of Chinese aggression, people started talking of "how Gandhi would have reacted to such a condition". There, this person made a nice remark. "All the time no one ever thought of how things would have been done in a newly independent country had Gandhi been alive. Suddenly when we faced a problem people started thinking of Gandhi."
Hence, in this article we will not talk about how to solve the current generation crisis through Gandhian ways. This will drag down the status of Gandhian ways to that of some pain killer medicine! You have some pain, you take a few pills. Gandhian philosophy is rather like naturopathy, where there is complete thrust on the holistic way of life. This is a way of life, to be led, to be practiced and ,above all, to be enjoyed. This is not a quick solution to some of your personal problem which you have brought across of your own accord!
Still, all is not doomed or lost yet. We may not solve the current problem, but we can always stop making new problems. This reminds me of a nice word from Sanskrit, "sanskara", for which I could find no English equivalent. Sanskara is the set of acquired characteristics that we gather over the years. Sanskara determines our attitude, disposition and our personality. It can be either positive or negative. Building of sanskara takes years and its a Herculean task to break a person's sanskara. However, seers say that with constant practice sanskara can be changed! Similarly, current day problems are acquired sanskaras of our society. We cant suddenly get rid of them. A determined and constant practice can only turn it round.
Hence, as far as my understanding goes, there is no solution for the current day crisis. There is no revolution that can give a not-so-temporary solution. We have to depend upon evolution.
Here, we shall discuss about three of the most easily practicable philosophies of Gandhi, viz. Satya, Ahimsa, and Iswar-bhakti.
Satya or truth is one of the most adored principles of Gandhi. Truth not just only means speaking the truth. Truthfulness, as I understand it, is the lack of hypocrisy. Its a condition where your mind, words and action are in unison. Its very interesting to mark here that if my mind, words and action all advocate some so-called-bad action, then also I am a man of truth. In this I am sure many of you will agree to the fact that a hypocrite gentleman is worse than a sincere, if I may use this adjective, goon!
Ahimsa or nonviolence is an excellent ideology of Gandhi, which I could partially comprehend after reading a book called "Vinoba on Gandhi". Its not simply not harming anyone. Its about loving everyone and everything. There is a subtle difference between not hating and loving. Gandhi's Ahimsa springs from the ideology of loving all. And if you love some one then you cant harm him. Even if you harm him, it will be like a father's punishment to his son, meant for his well being only. Interestingly if you really love everyone, then all other principles follow automatically. A loving person can not be a hypocrite. One particular practice helps me a lot in my tryst of loving all, viz. having empathy. With empathy, you try to be the person or thing you are looking at or are interacting with. Automatically love and compassion will flow of its own accord.
Lastly we come to Iswar-bhakti or bhakti for God. And please mark that I am not telling about Hndu or Muslim or Christian God. God, I am sure, has no religion! I have nothing against my agnostic or atheist friends. However, I feel, at my level, that it helps. I don't care if I can not prove the existence of God or not. As a matter of fact I don't have to! You just love God. And if you love God, how can you hate his creation? And once you love God and his creation, there is bliss and only bliss for you under all conditions! Whatever I do, if I shall do for the good of God's creation, then all my action will be purified. I don't have to fear of any failure or expect any jubilant success. I know that whatever I am doing is by the grace of Him and for His creation. Personal success or failure has no position there! Hence as you mark, Iswar-bhakti is the more subtle principle, after which the above two follow automatically.
Out of many original and innovative principles of Gandhi, I found the above three simplest and practical enough to be implemented in day-to-day life. Of course practicing them again needs the building of new sanskars. It by building new sanskaras only, that we can get rid of the old and not-so-good sanskaras.
Till now, I talked about the application of Gandhan philosophy at a personal level. What about the whole society? I think society is well capable of taking care of itself. Lets fix our own sanskaras. If sanskaras are strong enough they will spread like an epidemic! And believe me or not, if you practice the above three principles, you will find nothing but bliss in this creation. Problems will melt down as if they never existed! Hence, there wont arise any need to search for a solution.
Hence, in this article we will not talk about how to solve the current generation crisis through Gandhian ways. This will drag down the status of Gandhian ways to that of some pain killer medicine! You have some pain, you take a few pills. Gandhian philosophy is rather like naturopathy, where there is complete thrust on the holistic way of life. This is a way of life, to be led, to be practiced and ,above all, to be enjoyed. This is not a quick solution to some of your personal problem which you have brought across of your own accord!
Still, all is not doomed or lost yet. We may not solve the current problem, but we can always stop making new problems. This reminds me of a nice word from Sanskrit, "sanskara", for which I could find no English equivalent. Sanskara is the set of acquired characteristics that we gather over the years. Sanskara determines our attitude, disposition and our personality. It can be either positive or negative. Building of sanskara takes years and its a Herculean task to break a person's sanskara. However, seers say that with constant practice sanskara can be changed! Similarly, current day problems are acquired sanskaras of our society. We cant suddenly get rid of them. A determined and constant practice can only turn it round.
Hence, as far as my understanding goes, there is no solution for the current day crisis. There is no revolution that can give a not-so-temporary solution. We have to depend upon evolution.
Here, we shall discuss about three of the most easily practicable philosophies of Gandhi, viz. Satya, Ahimsa, and Iswar-bhakti.
Satya or truth is one of the most adored principles of Gandhi. Truth not just only means speaking the truth. Truthfulness, as I understand it, is the lack of hypocrisy. Its a condition where your mind, words and action are in unison. Its very interesting to mark here that if my mind, words and action all advocate some so-called-bad action, then also I am a man of truth. In this I am sure many of you will agree to the fact that a hypocrite gentleman is worse than a sincere, if I may use this adjective, goon!
Ahimsa or nonviolence is an excellent ideology of Gandhi, which I could partially comprehend after reading a book called "Vinoba on Gandhi". Its not simply not harming anyone. Its about loving everyone and everything. There is a subtle difference between not hating and loving. Gandhi's Ahimsa springs from the ideology of loving all. And if you love some one then you cant harm him. Even if you harm him, it will be like a father's punishment to his son, meant for his well being only. Interestingly if you really love everyone, then all other principles follow automatically. A loving person can not be a hypocrite. One particular practice helps me a lot in my tryst of loving all, viz. having empathy. With empathy, you try to be the person or thing you are looking at or are interacting with. Automatically love and compassion will flow of its own accord.
Lastly we come to Iswar-bhakti or bhakti for God. And please mark that I am not telling about Hndu or Muslim or Christian God. God, I am sure, has no religion! I have nothing against my agnostic or atheist friends. However, I feel, at my level, that it helps. I don't care if I can not prove the existence of God or not. As a matter of fact I don't have to! You just love God. And if you love God, how can you hate his creation? And once you love God and his creation, there is bliss and only bliss for you under all conditions! Whatever I do, if I shall do for the good of God's creation, then all my action will be purified. I don't have to fear of any failure or expect any jubilant success. I know that whatever I am doing is by the grace of Him and for His creation. Personal success or failure has no position there! Hence as you mark, Iswar-bhakti is the more subtle principle, after which the above two follow automatically.
Out of many original and innovative principles of Gandhi, I found the above three simplest and practical enough to be implemented in day-to-day life. Of course practicing them again needs the building of new sanskars. It by building new sanskaras only, that we can get rid of the old and not-so-good sanskaras.
Till now, I talked about the application of Gandhan philosophy at a personal level. What about the whole society? I think society is well capable of taking care of itself. Lets fix our own sanskaras. If sanskaras are strong enough they will spread like an epidemic! And believe me or not, if you practice the above three principles, you will find nothing but bliss in this creation. Problems will melt down as if they never existed! Hence, there wont arise any need to search for a solution.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
idea of doing!
I was talking to one of my friends. We often end up discussing hypothetical and abstract things. Things went in the direction of love and Radha-Krishna. There he made a wonderful remark. "May be they did not actually like to be together; rather liked the idea of being together". Then I pondered over the stuff and realized that its true most of the times. Most of the times we like the idea of doing something rather than doing that thing actually. For example I like the idea of sitting in an evening and reading through some book. But I never could end up doing it! Similarly if we analyze our life, we will find that many times we like the idea of doing something than doing it actually. And in case of love also things are no different! Many times lovers like the idea of being together than actually being together!
Lalita-mAdhava-katha
We all know of the love between Radha and Krishna. The love hat was tainted, short-lived, blemished yet complete. The life of Radha-Krishna love was not more than a few months. However, length of love has nothing to do with the depth of the same. Few months' true-n-complete love was enough to create the inspiration and hope in Radha to live her whole life. How could anyone lead his/her whole life by the help of a few months' love?
Contemporary love has different priorities. We believe that longer the love more is the pain of separation and hence more is the suffering. By the fear of future suffering many never are able to start loving in the very first case. And things are worse in case of marriage! People keep on thinking that they have all the time of a life-time; they take each-other for granted. And again the result is that they can never start living and loving.
Well, the matter of discussion here is not the philosophy of love; rather the life of another Gopi named Lalita! Many of us might have heard of Gita-Govinda, the famous Vaishnav epic describing the "Mana-bhanjana" of Radha by Krishna. The stage for the epic is like this. Krishna has spent a night with Lalita and came to Radha in the early morning. Radha has waited all night long and looking at the condition of Krishna, she could guess a lot. Then stats the epic. But no-one ever has mentioned anything about Lalita. Lalita, who could get Krishna's embrace only for a single night. A single night's love: was that enough memory for a life? After Krishna leaves, Lalita's mind asks few things to her heart. That will be mentioned in a poem in my next blog! In the poem, each stanza ends with two questions. The second question is actually the answer to the first one!
Contemporary love has different priorities. We believe that longer the love more is the pain of separation and hence more is the suffering. By the fear of future suffering many never are able to start loving in the very first case. And things are worse in case of marriage! People keep on thinking that they have all the time of a life-time; they take each-other for granted. And again the result is that they can never start living and loving.
Well, the matter of discussion here is not the philosophy of love; rather the life of another Gopi named Lalita! Many of us might have heard of Gita-Govinda, the famous Vaishnav epic describing the "Mana-bhanjana" of Radha by Krishna. The stage for the epic is like this. Krishna has spent a night with Lalita and came to Radha in the early morning. Radha has waited all night long and looking at the condition of Krishna, she could guess a lot. Then stats the epic. But no-one ever has mentioned anything about Lalita. Lalita, who could get Krishna's embrace only for a single night. A single night's love: was that enough memory for a life? After Krishna leaves, Lalita's mind asks few things to her heart. That will be mentioned in a poem in my next blog! In the poem, each stanza ends with two questions. The second question is actually the answer to the first one!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
prem!
जीवन की सारी स्मृतियाँ, जन्म जन्म की अनुभूतियाँ
क्या इस जन्म के आगे है कोई और जन्म ?
शायद नहीं,
या शायद है अनंत जन्म,
क्या ये सब जी सकते हो, बस इक दो पल के सहारे?
क्या सागर पार कर सकते हो, इक छोटी सी नाव के सहारे? १?
कुछ पल में बने अपने, लम्हे थे या कोई सपने
क्या इससे पहले किया था कभी प्यार ?
शायद नही,
या शायद आज ही किया प्यार का प्रथम आविष्कार
क्या ये सब लम्हे समेट सकोगे, इस नन्हे से ह्रदय में ?
क्या इतनी सारी खुशबू समा सकेगी इक छोटे से गुलाब में?२?
बीता हुआ कल और आने वाले पल, कुछ भी तो नही था उस पल में,
क्या इसी को बोलते है पूर्ण प्रेम की अनुभूति?
शायद हाँ,
या शायद प्रेम है कुछ और कठिन शास्त्र
क्या इतने कठिन पाठ को जान पाओगे, बस दो पल की अनुभूति से ?
क्या इतनी बड़ी किताब पढ़ पाओगे इक छोटे सी दिए की रोशनी से ?३?
तुम न मेरे हो, न मैं तुम्हारा,
हमेशा हमेशा का साथ न हो सकेगा हमारा,
क्या सारा जीवन तनहा और दुखी कट पायेगा,
शायद हाँ,
या शायद इसी से हो सकता है जीवन से असल परिचय,
क्या ये पूरी जिंदगी झेल सकोगे बस दो पल के सहारे?
क्या इतनी अँधेरा लुप्त कर सकोगे एक दिए के सहारे? ४?
आज हो तुम मेरी बाहों में, तो कल का क्या हे फ़िक्र ?
क्या ऐसा प्रेम फिर नसीब होगा जीवन में?
शायद हाँ, शायद नही
या कुछ और प्रेम भी मिल सके,... कुछ शास्वत और चिरंतन,
क्या इसी से होता है ईश्वर प्रेम का आरम्भ?
क्या इसी से खिलती है जीवन के मरुस्थल में प्रेम की कमल की सुगंध ?५ ?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Pure-milk
This time I was at home, my father told me this beautiful thing. Here is my version of what he told:
Many a time we all must have heard this phrase: pure-milk. Have we ever wandered what on earth does this mean? Try to think of the meaning of pure-milk. Many of us will finally say that, milk that has not been adulterated. There you go. Milk as such is just milk. You do anything to it, you can only make it impure, you can never make it purer.
Same is the case with this creation, our society, this nation and all this. We all complain about all these. Many of us try to change things for better; and ultimately meddling with it's delicate balance.
Hence, the status-quo is always the purest status. You meddle with it, you make it impure! Just relax and enjoy the show!!
Many a time we all must have heard this phrase: pure-milk. Have we ever wandered what on earth does this mean? Try to think of the meaning of pure-milk. Many of us will finally say that, milk that has not been adulterated. There you go. Milk as such is just milk. You do anything to it, you can only make it impure, you can never make it purer.
Same is the case with this creation, our society, this nation and all this. We all complain about all these. Many of us try to change things for better; and ultimately meddling with it's delicate balance.
Hence, the status-quo is always the purest status. You meddle with it, you make it impure! Just relax and enjoy the show!!
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Satyagrah and terrorism!
Bombay has been shaken, so has been the foundations of Indian democracy. In the last 6 months we have had more than 8 chain blasts in this nation. What are the implications and causes? With these there are other stray violence related to militants, (a)cross-border fire-exchange, naxal movements, mafia-war etc etc. Its as if we are in the midst of a civil war. And no one seems to be thinking about the root cause and how to eradicate this feeling of insecurity. Most of us want an eye for an eye (sometimes both the eyes for an eye). This will leave the whole world blind! So what is the solution?
Lets communicate. Lets talk, lets chat across all borders of caste, religion and region. Let the other not feel insecure.
Lets help out. Swayam-seva eba swaseva! i.e volunteering is basically serving ones own self!
And lastly, lets pray and repent for the fault of our keens (yes you are right, the terrorists!).
And let us spread this news that we stand together against all terror and terroism; terrorists ye be warned!! We will not finish you, we will finish the terror in you and will convert you!
We have had enough of blame game. As Captain Jack Sparrow would say, "there comes a time my friend when you should take the responsibility of your own deeds!" We have been callous and this is the result. Lets act sensible, lets have compassion...
Lets communicate. Lets talk, lets chat across all borders of caste, religion and region. Let the other not feel insecure.
Lets help out. Swayam-seva eba swaseva! i.e volunteering is basically serving ones own self!
And lastly, lets pray and repent for the fault of our keens (yes you are right, the terrorists!).
And let us spread this news that we stand together against all terror and terroism; terrorists ye be warned!! We will not finish you, we will finish the terror in you and will convert you!
We have had enough of blame game. As Captain Jack Sparrow would say, "there comes a time my friend when you should take the responsibility of your own deeds!" We have been callous and this is the result. Lets act sensible, lets have compassion...
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Satyagrah II
There were some nice discussions on my last blog, discussions which were more lucid than the seed-blog. Hence am putting them in this blog:
-
deepanshu said... I am sorry to say but I found the blog a bit absurd. (now I might be naive but if you can elaborate, it will be clearer) "To first understand truth, you have to first love all the things and beings" why??
I understand that a rotten thing stinks and I keep away from it. same with people. how can you love someone/somethings when they are not pleasing to your senses be it intellectual or moral. moreover how can i love/like something, it always comes from within. Simulating emotions might be a lie(not satyagrah).
Secondly, loving or granting your sanction to everything is equal to giving someone something what he actually doesn't deserve. And just like currency, if you give it to everyone, it finally has no value. And thus the person who really deserves your love/appreciation gets that hollow coin which everyone already has.Thus injustice.
Personally I believe by doing justice, by giving your sanction to deserving and scorn/criticism to undeserving, keeps the value of your moral currency. Now doing justice is another form of satyagrah, isn't it?
lastly, the basic assumption underlying in the love story is that boy also loves gal and thus he cannot see her suffer. was it really true with Gandhi and British? doesn't self-sacrifice dwell on other's mercy, his wish to care or not. Isn't this weakness. 
Mister Mangu said...You are right deepanshu. But most of these arguments are given by looking at what the other deserves or not; if the other loves you or not. These depend on without, whereas emotions are from within. Certainly you cant fake an emotion, nor should you. That will be fundamentally against satyagrah. A flower emits fragrance. Its its characteristics. It does not matter if its in a forest, or in a temple or in a whore-house. Similarly once we get that stage, we cant but love. This will not depend on what the other deserves .
What is truth? I don't know. But its something I wish to know. Truth about me, about you and about this creation. Its like any profession. Unless I like circuits, I cant understand them properly. Unless I like maths, I can never be truly able to understand it. Similarly when it comes to truth about the creation, I have to first love it all...nay, love should come to my heart of its own accord for all... for the whole creation.
What I presumed about Gandhi and Brits, is just my assumption. It may not necessarily be true. But it may be true as well. When I love, its because I enjoy loving. If I suffer because I cant see my beloved ones doing mistake, then that cleanses my spirit. Its all me. There is no dependence on others.
About weakness... you may have heard Gandhi saying "ahimsa is only for the strongest"! It needs real strength to stick to your principles, even when the whole world is against you, even when your wife may die if she does not take beef-soup, even when you son may die if he does not take brandy... Thats why Vardhamana Jaina is called Mahavir (when all he preached was extreme nonviolence!).
PS: Most of what I just have written is bookish. But may be an iota is there which came from my heart.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
satyagrah!
Some people hate Gandhi, some treat him as a saint. I have been trying to understand what exactly he used to say. Luckily I got a rusty old book from Howrdah station this Puja, named "Vinoba on Gandhi". Reading the book was enlightening. Of course this is one of my first books on Gandhian philosophy. And I am lucky to get Vinoba in my first book.
This is how he explains satyagrahi and the method of non-violence.
One who likes truth is satyagrahi. For that you have to first understand truth. And for that you have to first love all the things and beings. Love and hate are two blinders for us. Both have to be get rid of, to see truth. Getting rid of both being difficult, lets first get rid of hate. One who loves all cant harm anyone. This is ahimsha! Lets say, there is a love duo. Of them the guy smokes. The gal will try to explain things to him first. If that does not work, then she may try to take extreme steps. She may shout at him (but for his own good). And if she really loves him, she may not be able to shout at him. That case she may turtore herself to make him understand. This is nonviolence. It comes from love. Because you love the other person, you can not tolerate that he is doing something wrong. You try to explain things to him and worst case turtore your own self to make a point.
Mark that, nonviolent opposition is a misleading phrase. It can wither be opposition or nonviolent. Cant be both at a time.
So according to this Gandhi had to do fasting etc to make a point to the Brits. Its because of his love and compassion towards Brits. More on this in my next blog...!
This is how he explains satyagrahi and the method of non-violence.
One who likes truth is satyagrahi. For that you have to first understand truth. And for that you have to first love all the things and beings. Love and hate are two blinders for us. Both have to be get rid of, to see truth. Getting rid of both being difficult, lets first get rid of hate. One who loves all cant harm anyone. This is ahimsha! Lets say, there is a love duo. Of them the guy smokes. The gal will try to explain things to him first. If that does not work, then she may try to take extreme steps. She may shout at him (but for his own good). And if she really loves him, she may not be able to shout at him. That case she may turtore herself to make him understand. This is nonviolence. It comes from love. Because you love the other person, you can not tolerate that he is doing something wrong. You try to explain things to him and worst case turtore your own self to make a point.
Mark that, nonviolent opposition is a misleading phrase. It can wither be opposition or nonviolent. Cant be both at a time.
So according to this Gandhi had to do fasting etc to make a point to the Brits. Its because of his love and compassion towards Brits. More on this in my next blog...!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Education for all!
At home shared auto is one of my favorite modes of commutation. Not only is it cheap, it also gives you the golden opportunity to have fleeting interaction with the hoipoloi of the city.
One of these times I had a small lad of 11 or 12 as my co-passenger. He boarded the auto with a big empty bucket. He was there in the auto with me for some 10-15 minutes. All the while I was observing him. There was a unique brilliance in his face. A typical satisfaction which is atypical of the school-going lads of his age. On interacting with him I came to know that he was going to some place for some wall-penting. So he was a child labour devoid of education. But then he was happy.
This made me think about the contemporary education and if we should make this type of education as compulsory. The education that the Indian government can make compulsory and free, is simply good for nothing! You have to be extra brilliant in numbers to get any benefit from that education. If you are mediocre or less then you simply waste 10-12 prime years of your life. Do we have the right to shatter the lives of so many kids of the nation in the name of "right to education"? May be we should look around for a better education system before making it compulsory and a right. This might sound harse, but then lets stop living in a fool's paradise; lets stop speculating sitting in our cosy rooms, lets come out and look at the problem with proper empathy...
One of these times I had a small lad of 11 or 12 as my co-passenger. He boarded the auto with a big empty bucket. He was there in the auto with me for some 10-15 minutes. All the while I was observing him. There was a unique brilliance in his face. A typical satisfaction which is atypical of the school-going lads of his age. On interacting with him I came to know that he was going to some place for some wall-penting. So he was a child labour devoid of education. But then he was happy.
This made me think about the contemporary education and if we should make this type of education as compulsory. The education that the Indian government can make compulsory and free, is simply good for nothing! You have to be extra brilliant in numbers to get any benefit from that education. If you are mediocre or less then you simply waste 10-12 prime years of your life. Do we have the right to shatter the lives of so many kids of the nation in the name of "right to education"? May be we should look around for a better education system before making it compulsory and a right. This might sound harse, but then lets stop living in a fool's paradise; lets stop speculating sitting in our cosy rooms, lets come out and look at the problem with proper empathy...
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tale of two blogs!
Blog 1: Village Republic
Went home for Durga Puja. On my way I had a looonngggggggg halt in Howrdah station. Howrdah station can be a mine of lost treasures for book-hunters. I fished a book called "Vinoba on Gandhi"! Somehow I have got tremendous appreciation for these freedom fighters, esp. Gandhi, Vinoba and Gokhle. We know so little about these guys. These people I consider as real polymaths. Anyway, in that book, I discovered a new term: village republic! What a wonderful idea! I often think that USA is better off a part because of the fact that it has a looser federation than India. Independence at local level solves many problem in one go. It makes smaller independnet entitites, encourages healthy compition and lastly it also gives a community identity which lacks so badly in India. This idea of village republic seemed to solve all the problems.
Guru-and-sisya
The sort of relation that we have between teacher and student, is something unique to orient. I am not going to tell you about how great is this or if this is all bullshit! I will just write about a sloka I read this time in home. In my home, I find many old books from no where !! This time I found a book by Pandit Gopabandhu. He was one of the major figures in British OdishA. He was also a passionate educator and along with some others has started the first Gandhian school in OdishA, named Satyavadi-banabidyalaya. In the book I got hold of, he was talking about education. There he quoted a sloka which reads:
"sarvatra jayamanwichhet,
sishyat icchet parajayam!"
I.e. aspire for victory in all fronts; from your student aspire a defeat! I was really touched by the idea. How great the mind might have been which conceived of such a piece of thought...
Went home for Durga Puja. On my way I had a looonngggggggg halt in Howrdah station. Howrdah station can be a mine of lost treasures for book-hunters. I fished a book called "Vinoba on Gandhi"! Somehow I have got tremendous appreciation for these freedom fighters, esp. Gandhi, Vinoba and Gokhle. We know so little about these guys. These people I consider as real polymaths. Anyway, in that book, I discovered a new term: village republic! What a wonderful idea! I often think that USA is better off a part because of the fact that it has a looser federation than India. Independence at local level solves many problem in one go. It makes smaller independnet entitites, encourages healthy compition and lastly it also gives a community identity which lacks so badly in India. This idea of village republic seemed to solve all the problems.
- This will make independent village economy. With proper planning this can be done. E.g. there are many villages in coastal OdishA called Sasana-villages, set by medival kings. In such villages there are few families of almost all clans, some smiths, some farmers, some priests, some weavers etc etc. Hence, this is no new idea.
- This will also make democracy more realistic. Today one legislator represents huge number of people. Hence, Indian democracy has become a mockery. At a very local level things will be more trackable. Even for independent decisions all villagors can be drawn to the assembly hall.
- This will create a bond. Given sufficient independnece this village identity may come over other differences like cast and religion.
Guru-and-sisya
The sort of relation that we have between teacher and student, is something unique to orient. I am not going to tell you about how great is this or if this is all bullshit! I will just write about a sloka I read this time in home. In my home, I find many old books from no where !! This time I found a book by Pandit Gopabandhu. He was one of the major figures in British OdishA. He was also a passionate educator and along with some others has started the first Gandhian school in OdishA, named Satyavadi-banabidyalaya. In the book I got hold of, he was talking about education. There he quoted a sloka which reads:
"sarvatra jayamanwichhet,
sishyat icchet parajayam!"
I.e. aspire for victory in all fronts; from your student aspire a defeat! I was really touched by the idea. How great the mind might have been which conceived of such a piece of thought...
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Why are we in a mess??
The other day I was thinking why are we in a mess in India? May be the beginning was not so good? May be the starting point was not well conceived? Of course I am not saying that the great personalities of that time did any blunder. I am sure given those conditions, they have done the best thing. Still these are my personal views, dreams rather...
The list goes on. We never had a real independence. We never got that confident outlook that an independent sovereign state should have. And at the same time the short-cuts we took actually has put us in long-cuts... I dont see any solution though!!!
- First of all, constitution of the republic was almost the same as that of the colonial India. Hence, we never had a new start.
- Those officers and police who were serving the Britishers till independence retained their job. So, those who were killing and oppressing the freedom fighters and who were philosophically against the idea of independent India, were suddenly given the right to rule independent India. They should in fact have been treated as prisoners of war and properly tried. And under no circumstances they should have been allowed to retain the power. So basically we drove the foreigners but kept the instruments of foreign rule.
- Next, we forced the complete British India into a single republic. It was made a federation, but the states had little power. Neither was there any proper common thread for unity nor was there sufficient independence for diversity.
- Hence, it was neither like Europe not like America. People may oppose this view of mine. But, we we see it objectively without prejudice, I don't see any reason for including unwilling princely states forcibly. Gandhi's idea of local governance was completely sabotaged!
The list goes on. We never had a real independence. We never got that confident outlook that an independent sovereign state should have. And at the same time the short-cuts we took actually has put us in long-cuts... I dont see any solution though!!!
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Triology!!
Have not blogged for weeks! Thought of making a hatrick trilogy!!
- Space research: We in IITG had our technical festival few days back. In one of the events, we have organized a student model competition (for school kids). It had a preliminary round and only the selected few had come from all over the country. I was a judge. Many models were on outer space exploration. I remember, in my teenage I also was fascinated by space. So I asked them about ISRO. But to my surprise, none of them knew about any achievements of ISRO. Few even did not know what is ISRO. They all knew what is NASA!! I know its not proper to blow ones own trumpet. But when the world is getting increasingly deaf, we have to blow trumpets. Why is it that media never talks about success of ISRO or the failures of NASA? This makes people think that ISRO has no success and NASA has no failure!
- Kishore Kumar: Its been a habit for me to go to a rickety tea-shop beside the institute campus, almost every evening, for tea and samosa. One day I was alone and there came a guy. From his talks to the shop-keeper I thought he is some gunda! Then I realised its his style! Then he sat beside me and ate something. There was a glass/tubler beside my plate and it was empty. There was also a jug full of water in the table. In India many people like to drink directly from the water jug (it has a different feeling when you are really thirsty!). But mind that they pour the water from a hight so as not to touch the jug with their mouth. Anyway, our friend must have been damn thristy. He took the jug, saw my empty tubler and filled it up and gobbled up the water. This he did as if its the natural way to drink water for human beings, i.e. first feel up the glass of others and then drink yourselves! And I was also not supposed to say any thanks or such after this action. The main show came after that. He was there for almost 15 minutes. In those time he joked and talked with almost everyone in the shop! It reminded me of Kishore-Kumar's movies. May be these are the characters who inspired those filmy characters!
- Natural selection: I was revising some texts on genetic algorithm (GA) few days back. One thing struck me! I have always had this doubt about evolution theory. If its simple "servivial of the fittest" philosophy, then all we should have been left with is a single specis. What then is the cause of diversity in nature? Then I realised that the cost-function in nature (or the fitness curve) is not a smooth one. Rather it has loads of local maximas. And thats why species can settle down at these local maximas and stay for ever in the same state of affairs! These local maximas correspond to niches in natural habitat. So far so good. But then if this is so, then GA should not work. But to my little knowledge GA guides itself by almost all the rules of evolution. Hence, may be the rules of evolution need some finetuning! Bad for GA (that then it wont be able to converge at the global maxima); but we will get a better evolution strategy... more close to nature!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
India, trend, movies and allies
Just had the chance to view a hilarious song (http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=ja3XCe4e2gc&feature=related). This made me look for other songs from the movie "boot-polish". I came across another touching song (http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=IrSEQpUmq30&NR=1). And this song left me to ponder on many things.
Why do not we see movies like 'boot-polish' now a days? That was an era championed by Raj-Kapoor and his generation. That was an era of the erstwhile USSR and an era of India's tilt towards communist countries. Nehrujee might have preached the philosophy of NATO. But we all know that the USSR was a supporter of India (for whatever reason). May be thats why almost all middle-class family had some books on Communism. Almost all middle class youth had that bleeding heart for the poor. That was an era when seeaigenti (CIE agent) was a foul name to call anyone! That was an era when Bollywood movies professed the moral-strength of the poor, showed half-naked slum dwellers and demonstrated the superiority of the proletarians over the rich.
Has the poverty of the country vanished in these few decades? Have the slums and their dwellers disappeared from the face of earth? Does India now consist of only NRIs and industrialist? Why then I don't see any poor man in any movie from Bollywood? Why all box-office hits in small screen show women with kilograms of golden jewelry on them? Why there is no single movie like "boot-polish" or a TV serial like ham-log? Suddenly it seems everyone has become rich!
I do not know about the reasons. I also don't want to brood on them. But this is what I think its propagating. This is professing market-economy. This is professing all the wealth that you need in a small life. This is professing dis-morality. Lastly if anyone has marked, Indian cinema was based on the poor and suddenly its based on the life of rich. It missed the bridge, i.e. middle class. So this is propagating a race for easy-money!!
PS: And of course in the world portrayed by today's film and media, there is certainly no place for the poor! They are just forgotten, and at the same time all the audience (from inland and abroad) are made to forget them. To think India is shinning!!
Why do not we see movies like 'boot-polish' now a days? That was an era championed by Raj-Kapoor and his generation. That was an era of the erstwhile USSR and an era of India's tilt towards communist countries. Nehrujee might have preached the philosophy of NATO. But we all know that the USSR was a supporter of India (for whatever reason). May be thats why almost all middle-class family had some books on Communism. Almost all middle class youth had that bleeding heart for the poor. That was an era when seeaigenti (CIE agent) was a foul name to call anyone! That was an era when Bollywood movies professed the moral-strength of the poor, showed half-naked slum dwellers and demonstrated the superiority of the proletarians over the rich.
Has the poverty of the country vanished in these few decades? Have the slums and their dwellers disappeared from the face of earth? Does India now consist of only NRIs and industrialist? Why then I don't see any poor man in any movie from Bollywood? Why all box-office hits in small screen show women with kilograms of golden jewelry on them? Why there is no single movie like "boot-polish" or a TV serial like ham-log? Suddenly it seems everyone has become rich!
I do not know about the reasons. I also don't want to brood on them. But this is what I think its propagating. This is professing market-economy. This is professing all the wealth that you need in a small life. This is professing dis-morality. Lastly if anyone has marked, Indian cinema was based on the poor and suddenly its based on the life of rich. It missed the bridge, i.e. middle class. So this is propagating a race for easy-money!!
PS: And of course in the world portrayed by today's film and media, there is certainly no place for the poor! They are just forgotten, and at the same time all the audience (from inland and abroad) are made to forget them. To think India is shinning!!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
First war of Independence!
August 15th is coming. So I thought of blogging again! Over the years I saw dwindling enthusiasm of people in celebrating the day. We used to get so much excited when this day would come. First of all this brings a holiday and with that a toffee distributed by the school-principal! When TV came to our household, with these two things came the added benefit of watching some nice movie. Once I left my home-town the importance of this day has decreased, so has the importance of a free toffee. Today I find that a free toffee is almost of no value for the current generation of kids. The excitement for watching a patriotic movie has also almost vanished. As a matter of fact I dont think many can link to that past. Take for example Sepoy Mutiny, which some historians call the first war of independence.
Once I was thinking about this war. I think it was after the release of the movie "Mangal Pandey". Why should we call this the first war of independence? Who among the leaders understood the meaning of indepedence? When an action is taken, we have to look at the cause and the desired effect. What was the cause for which all those leaders jumped into war? To me it was the simple motive of regaining their kingdoms or zamindaris. Amongst all the leaders were from royal families and have joined the force because of the "Doctrine of Lapse". They had no direct son and hence East-India Company took over their zamindari. So they did not come for independence. Now look at the Sepoys. They were all Indians. They were mainly pissed off my the Enfield Rifle. And when they saw their own Rajahs leading a war their loyalty made them join force. So these to me are the causes of the war. Now lets look at the desired goal. If we observe the happenings in the war, it tells us a lot. People went till Delhi, captured it and declared the poor Nawab as the Nawab of Hind! This shows the lack of any immediate future plans. With all these pitfalls, I don't see why should we call it the first war of Independence? There were wars fought before this, there were sacrifices made before this. So why this one? Just because there were more Nawabs and Rajas involved here? Or just because Delhi came into picture here? I don't know. ..
Once I was thinking about this war. I think it was after the release of the movie "Mangal Pandey". Why should we call this the first war of independence? Who among the leaders understood the meaning of indepedence? When an action is taken, we have to look at the cause and the desired effect. What was the cause for which all those leaders jumped into war? To me it was the simple motive of regaining their kingdoms or zamindaris. Amongst all the leaders were from royal families and have joined the force because of the "Doctrine of Lapse". They had no direct son and hence East-India Company took over their zamindari. So they did not come for independence. Now look at the Sepoys. They were all Indians. They were mainly pissed off my the Enfield Rifle. And when they saw their own Rajahs leading a war their loyalty made them join force. So these to me are the causes of the war. Now lets look at the desired goal. If we observe the happenings in the war, it tells us a lot. People went till Delhi, captured it and declared the poor Nawab as the Nawab of Hind! This shows the lack of any immediate future plans. With all these pitfalls, I don't see why should we call it the first war of Independence? There were wars fought before this, there were sacrifices made before this. So why this one? Just because there were more Nawabs and Rajas involved here? Or just because Delhi came into picture here? I don't know. ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)