Sex and Slavery in South Asia

The Land of Chastity

South Asia has to be called the land of chastity. The sexual activity of women is taken very seriously here and is one of the major topics of conversation-albeit indirectly. The whole of the Indian subcontinent is inordinately concerned over the issue, so much so that at the slightest hint of a woman having sex outside of the socially allowed boundary, boom and she's killed by the social guardians, the spidermen and supermen of these countries, who focus not on crime, but on the sexual proclivities of individuals and how to maintain the boundaries that have been set by their tribal predecessors several thousand years ago.

You would not believe how many times have I been asked this question. "Why don't you concern yourself with the sexual life of your mother and your sister?"

The form wasn't the same, it was couched in the language of honour, which is more appropriately captured by the word 'izzat' and the masculine/feminine definitions of the word are differently put so that for a male- having sex with as many girls as he can is something that everyone can be proud about, while for a woman it can mean death. The males have to keep the females of their family/quasi tribe in check, while they go about fuc*&ing those women they can.

This irks me. The entire concept does. Bollywood of 90's is replete with instances of Indians going abroad and loosing their morality/culture ( used interchangeably) where strangely morality doesn't mean ethics in life, goodness, kindness... but only the following of the existing norms (even if they are superstitions) and protecting the chastity( especially virginity) of women. You can be mother Teresa, but the moment you have sex outside of marriage ( only for females), you are a slut and then anyone can rape you( because you are a free slut).

Such implications mean that both men and women are mentally trapped in the sort of the social box created. When you are fixated on sex, keep on devising secret ways of obtaining it and at the same time, abhor even it's mention in public life, you create a sort of an impossible trinity. It means that mass behavorial psychosis takes place and public behaviour/debates/attitude revolves around this highly repressed yet highly enticing topic.

One of the biggest reasons for the kind of underdevelopment, poverty and crime in INDIAN SUBCONTINENT can be directly attributed to this line of thought.

In the name of culture - the primeval tribal culture persists, where caste replaces the tribal identity. Here too violence is used to suppress individuals and keep the leaders powerful. But what instrument can be used to acheive obedience?

The chief instrument used is sexuality and it's counterpart religion.

HOW IT HAPPENS?

How what happens? Control that's what the game is about. Control is done by the people themselves. It happens via a very simple process, wherein the religious norms defines the groups to which the people belong. Earlier it used to regulate dress, diet, job- and everything else. Even now it's a potent influencer of these things. The rich and the very poor are largely excluded from control essentially because they cannot be controlled by the mob.


To maintain social order, sexuality is regulated strictly. This ensures that the in-group remains the same always and a constant situation of hostility remains with the outgroup. Hindus and muslims are the major antagonist in this situation but fear not, even if these two big groups weren't there, there were plenty of smaller groups to fight themselves to death... various castes, professions, every sort of division exists in the Indian subcontinent.


SO you have the groups and you have religion regulating their formation and keeping them in order. The purpose of having more groups is that some one can LEAD THEM and thus become an ELITE. In a hierarchal society, this is the most important part - to become the leader of some group/ any group. The powerful have a great incentive of doing so, for then they are spared of doing any work/ are free of social rules/ can pass on this advantage to their children.

Anyhow, the motive of restricting sexuality in the name of ethics and morals is to create a powerful PSYCHIC REPRESSION. This violent force is then transformed into SLAVISH OBEDIENCE OF THE LEADERS. How is that done?

When the basic need of a person is repressed, they cannot mature into an integrated wholesome person. It makes them stuck at a lower level development cycle- the higher needs of esteem/self actualisation are never met and the immature citizens are like putty in the hands of leaders to be used to their advantage without ever encountering any resistance!!!

It's all the more the most effective way of repressing people, for almost everyone feels the need to have sex due to their evolutionary characteristics. By repressing it, you make people PERMANENTLY GUILTY and such people are liable to be lacking in self confidence in their own ability to challenge the dictatorial leaders.

The hidden aspect of it leads to violence against women. I mean if you don't allow people to become mature and then make sex the forbidden fruit and eulogise those who conquer the women, you are bound to have some loons going over. The silliest part is that it didn't have to be sex at all. It could have been any thing - tabooing certain foods, tabooing certain exercises ...what not?

Cleverness lies in carefully weaving honour-culture-morality-sex in a single piece of psychic cloth that envelops everyone from childhood to death.

I want to tear this cloth open, but TRUTH and RIGHT WRONG are essentially principles of the social acceptability i.e.. you believe in what the majority say is right. I know that the entire concept is severely fun&*d up, but then if everyone around you violently believe in a principle, you are forced to stand back and mould yourself according to the social rights and wrongs.....

Why is India failing - citizen viewpoint

Max Weber defined the state as the "monopoly of legitimate violence" in society. This monopoly and the centralisation that it entails allows the state to become the enforcer of law and order, the provider of public services and to serve as the petri dish of economic activity. 

If the state fails to achieve any of these aims, the society sooner or later descends into chaos. India has recently seen a spike in violence emanating essentially from the calloused religious philosophies, that threaten to derail the growth of a modern state. 

With the coming of power of the BJP, the far right fringe of our country has had no hesitation in wielding the cudgel of violence upon those who they think are opposed to their philosophy. Essentially, this has meant that the vigilantes are allowed to supplant the state with the 'hood-winking' from authorities concerned as the beating of Dalits and massacre of Muslims show. 

Another threat to the legitimacy of the state comes in violence stricken areas like Kashmir and Manipur, where the brutal AFSPA act has allowed presumed subvention of justice. This has made the infuriated citizenry to rise up in arms and deny the state the legitimacy to control the situation. 

So far, the explanations given for the failure of the state to maintain its hold in these areas has been to blame external actors, to blame cultural/religious factors or even to blame the people themselves who have suffered the most out of the failure of the state's institutions. 

In Daron and James's 'Why nations fail', attention has been focused on the economic and the political institutions that govern any country and their role in success or failure of the nation. Wherever crises has presented a strong economic incentive, a political sub structure has automatically cropped up. These structures enable the elites controlling the political structure to choose concomitant economic institutions without any constraints. This feedback loop forms the bedrock of an 'extractive' economic setup; enriching the same elites who use political power for their economic ends. 

Incomplete Business of Independence

In more ways than one, the problem of Kashmir traces back to the very root of the problem that India as a nation is facing. Solving it would help us unravel the obstacles hindering our march to growth and prosperity. The violence of the partition and the quick war that followed forced Sardar Patel to retain the colonial administrative structure in order to consolidate the newly emerged nation's power. 

This might have been helpful in the initial dark days, but since then, this decision of Sardar has brought on darker days. The legacy of the Raj, the Indian Administrative Services, retained the inegalitarian ethos and the mentality of an extractive institution. Same sort of oppression was used against the local populace, but this time the beneficiary was different. The articulation of post independence governance structures has been to perpetuate the inequity and to consolidate the power of the new elites. 

It is for this reason that India cannot be said to have attained it's true independence even now. The elites might have changed their garb after independence, but the on ground situation for the millions of oppressed and deprived is yet to change. 

The ineffectual judicial process, the biased policing and the corrupted political process cannot give rights and resources to the people in general. This leads to dissatisfaction, which can lead to violence and which in turn allows the draconian institutions to extend their power for the supposed reason to contain the violence that they helped create in the first place.

The economics of Kashmiri unrest 

If there were no gains to be made by anyone, no revolution or revolt would ever start. The Kashmir problem has taken the shape of a village fair, where the same performances are repeated year after year for an enormous amount of profit for some and losses for others. The real question is to ascertain who profits from this entire show, year after year. 

There is no doubt that the state of J&K is one of the most corrupt and mal-administered. There are pilferages at every stage and if there was no Kashmir issue, and no consequent central help packages, the state would have floundered long ago. Separatist leaders, Pakistani handlers, terrorist recruits all derive their profits in one way or the other; otherwise they wouldn't have orchestrated the massive propaganda campaign. 

AFSPA keeps terrorist activity under control, however it also generates more terrorists, acting as a causa sui and thereby perpetuating another deadly cycle. Since almost no civil servant has been held accountable for the violence, the mishandling of the situation, the inability to counter the propaganda and the general mishandling of the state's economy; there is absolutely no incentive for the administration to improve the situation except for personal or moral reasons. 

On the other hand, the powers and revenue mobilised to control the problems gives administrators more powers than they would have otherwise had. There are ways to control the crowd amicably, there are ways to set up intelligence networks to trap the key perpetuators of violence, to engage the society and so on. What is not there is the will to control the situation from within, for the elites and their extractive policies allow them to prosper out of this very situation; from extractions made on businesses, to cowing down people who raise dissent, to solidifying political positions, everything is as it should be, but only for some people. 

Hollow Idealisms and Solid Money

It is like the middle ages all over again where princes fight for lands and glory, while the soldiers die. How would a common Kashmiri, a common Pakistani or a common Indian be better off with or without Kashmir? The children of the separatist leaders, of the political leaders on both sides of the border won't die and suffer. The biggest irony is that even if Kashmir goes to Pakistan (or becomes independent and then gets invaded by Pakistan), the common man would suffer more economic and political hardships like their brethren do in Pakistan Administered Kashmir. Then, the idealism of 'Azaadi' is revealed as hollow. 

In the same vein, the rise of the right wing extremists is also because of the economic incentives gained by suppressing a certain class of people. Here the elites want to maintain their traditional socio-political hegemony by employing the spectre of the cow and religion.

Since the religion invoked sanctions won't work any longer, vigilantes try to enforce the inequity by force, making Dalits and Muslims suffer. Since the perpetuators and the ones who are in charge of controlling the situation both belong to the elite sections, the entire pogrom seems to be a ruse in order to increase economic and social powers of the elite. 

The real problem is therefore that of political and economic structures and the real solution is a realignment of society more equitably. The vicious circle of poverty, poor education, lack of opportunities, frustration-violence, fringe political mobilisation has to be breached at every level simultaneously. 

For this to be done, immense political will is required. Politics works on the incentives of the voters and thus ultimately, the burden of responsibilities comes down to us. The civil society needs to hold it's political representatives accountable for their actions and not be swayed by atavistic divisive campaigns. 

A change has to begin with the civil society, but it has to begin with the individuals constituting it first. Unless each and every one of us becomes more compassionate, egalitarian, truthful in our daily lives, we will continue to suffer under a manufactured tyranny of those who choose to scare the masses and by whom the masses choose to be scared. an

India-Pakistan and Water woes in a nuclear reality

Water has an incalculable significance in human life, it's not merely an economic resource that can be substituted. It is the life blood of nations, the cradle of civilisations, one of the most basic human rights and increasingly now, the most controversial geo-strategic topic of the world. 

From Chinese incursions into the rights of lower riparian states, to the perennial conflict on Cauvery, we already had a lot on our hands till the Indus Water Treaty meeting between India and Pakistan that had endured the worst wars fought between the both nations was cancelled by Modi and we can expect another big flare up on the water issue. 

Retired generals and 'brave' T.V anchors have all sounded the clarion call to at least cut off the rivers and dehydrate millions of Pakistani 'enemies' to death by abrogating IWT (Indus Water Treaty) and diverting rivers. For every military strategist sitting in his/her bedroom, the prospect seems tempting, to operate on a strategic chess board where killing the people are merely words like collateral damage, where shutting off the tap for a thirsty, underdeveloped country is a strategic move to secure national interests. 

Deadly Jargon

Dehumanising language allows the shift of priorities, from the individual to the greater good of the nation in which he/she is a mere cog. Nationalism can be a good thing, if it serves to increase cooperation, to increase sympathy and brotherhood. But nothing of that sort was visible in the post Cauvery decision flare up and only the ugly side is visible in case of the Indus. Is destroying the perceived enemy is now the only definition of nationalism? 

Who is this enemy anyway, who is it that we so desperately want to crush, even at the cost of our own lives? Is it the Pakistani General, the ISI agent, the terrorist commander, who is this Pakistani? 

For most part, believe it or not, the hated 'Pakistani' that we've conjured is just another human being like you and me. The average one is probably a farmer, working hard under an unjust system to make ends meet. They too are fed the same vitriol of jingoism, religion, patriotism that makes them forget the 'real' troubles, of inequity in resource distribution and focus on the 'reel' troubles of the lurking nuclear armed enemy. They're also told to keep supporting the soldiers, to keep making sacrifices, while their upper classes clink their crystals and berate the foolish masses. 

For an average citizen, Pakistan is the 'demonic other', an identity in itself that cannot be shown mercy or be sympathised with. There's no scope for rationality either. In this morbid atmosphere of constant hatred and threat, anything becomes possible. But what would happen if a common man is given a knife to murder an innocent child of the 'other' nation? Would he do it? What will the nation do as our leaders propose that they're cutting the life blood of the other nation? Will the nation stand up? 

Idiosyncratic Possibilities 

If, and this is an if laden with lot of consequences, if we are able to somehow divert the waters of the rivers that go into Pakistan and still not suffer flooding in our own cities, then what would happen? 

First of all, a vast scale human tragedy would be generated and the poorest lot of the Pakistanis would suffer the most. Thousands would die, millions would suffer. This is the script that the T.V anchors have been raring to follow. 

But, the real question is; what would happen next? 

Short of a full fledged nuclear war, the Pakistani military would step up infiltration attempts and the intelligence network in India would suffer consequently. India would also lose it's moral stance internationally and several nations, especially the OIC ones would come out in support of Pakistan. The tragedy aired live across televisions sets of world would force us to release the water and apologise, maybe even lose hold on Kashmir. 

And if we refuse to give in, there's a distinct possibility of a nuclear war, simply because Pakistan would see that option as the most logical given the public pressure and the fact that their lands having been already destroyed, they'd want to destroy ours too. China can make a case for diverting our waters and we wouldn't be able to put forth any moral defence.

Blood and Water 

For several years, India has held out a promise to the world. A promise that growth can take place in a moral and principled way, that poverty of millions can be vanquished that a better life is possible in the 'third world' too. We're finally near the realisation of that dream. 

The question that needs to be asked is that whether we are ready for the kind of tragedy that would unfold once we decide to up the stakes, are we ready to give up on our promise for the sake of our competing concepts of nationhood? Are we ready to deprive millions of a chance to lead a dignified life, only because our security setup was too weak to predict and stop handful of terrorists?

Our Prime Minister recently said that blood and water cannot flow together. Blood and blood can, but is that what we really want? A nation hostage to it's own deluded elite has to be dealt with in a nuanced way. It's always the people who hold the ultimate power, who recognise that they have more in common with the poor across the border and want peace if allowed to. 

Pakistan can also develop, give its people education and economic growth required for the nation to mature. By stopping it's water, we will only delay the process, empower the generals and the ISI and derail it's democratic growth. Even if we were to win a pyrrhic war against it by starving millions, would our nation still be worthy of Gandhi's legacy? The militants would have won in the truest sense. 

Does that mean that we do absolutely nothing about the attacks? We absolutely should, but our response cannot be a copycat of Israel or North Korea. This is where the wisdom of our thousands of years of continuous existence comes into play, this is where we show that India can remain being India and not turn into the demon that Pakistan imagines us to be.

quirk or not, quirk!

should I strive to keep my individuality intact or change according to whatever situation life throws at  me?

I would conclude by saying that middle path is the best decision. That's my nature. I had learnt about the life of Buddha, which has always turned me towards the middle path.

My quirky nature, is always tuned to extremes. That's how I have been in all my endeavours. Today I finished 50 levels of a game ( AoD) and the day just ended. That's how I approach life, fantastically, passionately screwing one thing and then deleting it forever, from fullness of one impression to another.

This is not something that Buddha said.This is not what society has taught me ( at least overtly). My tendency to go to excess might have been caused by some psychological fixation. Maybe, it's a shout of help, for the love I felt I was denied as a child, maybe it's an escape from the overabundance of love that I was shown, as a child. All I am saying is that this characteristic has become immutably my own.

Should I embrace it? In an interview when they ask me about it, I would lie. I can't say that I oscillate between maniacal interest and disinterest to the point of disgust. In effect, I deny my real self to the world. This is a small example, but it is true.

I have adjusted in several ways. I feign interest when my friend is sad, to give him company, because I feel I have to be compassionate.

 I have, I haven't, I ... I, haven't I,  have I

When in Rome, do as Romans do.

In a world where survival was the top priority and Maslow was a weird name ( psychologist who gave theory of levels of needs), people adapted pretty quickly in order to meet their physical needs in various circumstances. Darwin pinned fitness to this ability, the ability to adapt, to change and to mould.

Our personality is in a dynamic relation with environment, forever changing it's countries,borders and from start to the end.. there is merely a story to bind it. Still, it is valuable to people. Even those who don't claim to be too indiviudalistic would readily protest if something is done against their personal ideals. We all protect our constructed egos/ our constructed selfs/ our stories against the other stories, especially the ones that merge with ours.

why?

Why do we resist change when Darwin said that this is the very thing that helps us, makes us fittest ...

What is an individual, if not a flowing continuum ? Then why do people often take a snapshot of some time and then try to make ti permanent for ever, have principles and rules in life? Become out of date and expire?


Is it better to be yourself and quirky or to merge with the emergent tide of times, become passive when in North Korea, become hyper when in North America, like a horse when in Mongolia, like a cow when in India .....

Who decides these things in a particular place? Tradition?

What is tradition based on? Moslty, I think it's practicality, the easiest way of doing things, of surviving. Taking a bath in a tub in Sub Saharan country during a drought is definitely quirky, but what if thats the story I've accepted about myself, that I am the guy who only takes bath in a tub...

Reality is still an abstract experience, what minds of large number of people seem to perceive. believing in that is again denying our own ability, deny our perception for that of others, when we are limited brutally to our own perception. balls would be needed to live that life, to always remain true to one's own nature and self. INconvinience is avoided by simply adjusting to the average of life experiences of the people around us.

take the middle path, even Frost forgot about it ( the path less taken)

HIATUS, When Eyes of Storms meet.

We're living in the time of the quiet. 

This is how the time seems to me, personally as well as for the wider world. 

Let me start with myself, as everything for everyone does. I am studying for an exam, a tough one. If I qualify, I would have the life I want. In the meanwhile, everything is in a preparation, even my life is being lived in the preparation of the life to come. But since the future is so uncertain, so is my life. 

The world, it seems is living in a similar hiatus. Either something really serious would destroy it, or we would pre empt the worst disaster that can happen and radically change our society. 

The really bad thing that seems to be happening is related to inequity and the environmental overload, which is building up to a catastrophe in both these spheres. 

I remember a story about the inhabitants of Greenland, who tried to keep cows and live like the mainland Europeans. The soil gave up and the elites were left with a few cows behind barricades. One day, the people revolted and attacked their masters. They had their fill of food, wine and blood. Then everyone slowly starved to death. 

We knew about social inequity and the impact that things like robots are going to have on our society. Bankers essentially control the resource base of our society through their control of money. But what money is, essentially something of denotative value, a value given by people and not machines and therefore, it would have value only as long as people value it. Beyond a certain level of inequity, people might not remain happy within the formal system and the power of the elite, the purely positional power, might just vanish and then we will slowly starve to death. 

I read something about the environment, here it goes: 

"Banuri and Opschoor (2007) have conclusively argued that the accelerated and unchecked momentum in economic, demographic, and climate change processes will result in a dramatic increase in the level of Co₂e³ (carbon dioxide equivalent), which will further increase temperatures from anything between 1.6˚c to 6.6˚c. Mirroring the HANDY study’s findings, they further posit that if global temperatures increase beyond a 2˚c temperature line (or the critical threshold), the world would witness dramatic and irreversible consequences of climate change. For those critical of this position, the Mauna Loa measurements would serve as an adequate empirical evidence to warrant a serious rethink (Beck 2008). These measurements indisputably show that the level of Co₂e has risen from 317 parts per million (ppm) in 1959–61 to 375 ppm in 2003 to 430 ppm Co₂e in 2007. Every year, we add over 3 ppm of Co₂e globally. Banuri and Opschoor’s 2˚c temperature line corresponds to 450 ppm Co₂e, which means that by 2017 (not accounting for annual ppm increases in Co₂e) we would cross a point of no return. "

The whole thing seems to have a very negative tone. That is the reason that people avoid thinking about it. I mean, who wants the stress right? Leave it and it would go do whatever its supposed to right? 

I feel that most of the times. Since nothing tragic has happened yet, I keep running my AC overtime, using electronic gadgets that have been sourced from far away, having massive environmental footprint and plastics that'd end up chocking fishes. I know what would happen, but I guess the practical effort required to change my behaviour is too much to bother ! And I don't want to be the mad one out, who is taking unnecessary stress and is uncool. 

Inequity is in the bloodstream of India, the very basis for it's magnificent monuments (slave labour) and it's anticipated growth (cheap engineers). When I have a cup of coffee and cake, the amount could feed a family of four who are probably starving outside. But I don't give them the money. Why would I? It's a market economy, there are rules and you are allowed to not feel guilty about living in such unabashed manner. I have accepted the way things are. 

Hiatuses are like eyes of a storm, or maybe two storms converged for a brief moment so that the centre seems calm. The world then seems like ducks sitting right in the middle, ( who are also generating the storm in the first place) blissfully unaffected. 

Maybe everything will go away on it's own. Yawn!

Should I raise my children as psychopaths?

Should I raise my children as psychopaths? 

Were Plato and the ilk preaching against the open and free society? They did have their ethics based on the intrinsic value of the ethics and nothing else. There was a scope left for the powerful to define the foundations of ethics according to what suited them and therefore conform the society to their rule. 

When someone goes to a luxury hotel, the services of the employees are like those of slaves of the older times. It’s remarkable, for the garb in which a customer is able to ‘enjoy’ these services come under the regimen of free market enterprise, the merit based culture and the competition selecting the very best. 

However, we have to realise that in the making of a successful man of this world, several factors are at work and many of them are outside of the control of the individual. A female, black, disabled,poor  Somali entrepreneur would not be able to get the same bang for his buck as a white, privileged Swedish man would. This much is glaringly clear that efforts are not always the straightest way to success, the circumstances matter too. 

Under the veil of our prejudiced mind, the mind that wants to appropriate whatever is advantageous for it, we easily disregard the hurdles that others might have had to face for achieving the same level of success as we did. My uncle had once remarked that anyone with the brain of Einstein would have been able to come out with the theory that he came up with, even if it was the case of a black man in slavery. He said that he wouldn’t want to help anyone with education and financial help, for it would reduce his relative position in society if such a thing was to be operationalised. “And any ways, it’s their own Karma”

The last thought struck me as something viscerally wrong in our conceptualisation of the world. We have built a system of ethics that has radically different levels of treatment based on the position of the person in a society. Ethics become the chains that keep the oppressed, well oppressed. But then again is that so? 

One cannot say why or what exactly turned us into civilised people who can read and think and neatly fold the napkins before disposing them into appropriate dustbins. The modelling effect that taught us many of our unconscious learnings is invisible to the naked eye. Not that we cannot see others, but precisely because we see the going ons at all times, we ignore it. Just like your nose, but the moment you start paying attention, you can see both!

The root of the question of ethics is that of the source. It’s nearly impossible to get an impartial one, without leaving rationality behind and it’s very nearly impossible to have a perfect code, if it’s impossible to change. Certain things in the society have the power to change the thinking of the majority. This becomes the new ‘right’ against the old ‘right’. Almost always, the definition of what is right is related to what has been happening so far and in which book it’s support comes from, but then a time comes when everything changes, even if slightly so. But was it the time which played the magic or was it because of some individual. 

The most emphatic phenomenon of the effect of an individuals will over an entire society comes from observing the rise of religions. India had long been an agricultural society, an expanding society where the land was still ample. As the boundaries needed to be constantly expanded, the priests could play the role of the explorer, depending upon the customary donations to make their living. They would spread civilisational ethos to the tribals and all that deserved that they be rewarded. Ages went by, agriculture covered all the lands that could’ve been covered and even then the priests wanted their customary fees, for a job that wasn’t relevant anymore. 

What was being done was good and should be continued, because the society hasn’t collapsed. Probably that was the line of thought that enabled the Priests 2600 years ago in India to keep on demanding the sacrifice of animals, money and sex services from their congregation. Buddha realised the farce, that was his Nirvana. He made an atheist religion, expounded a scientific outlook and an open society. His morals still had the fear of divine punishment as the backing, but  it worked and soon India became almost wholly Buddhist. 

However, that wasn’t the point, that was me digressing. The point is that around that time, the Indian trade with Rome was making the merchant class fabulously rich. They needed to change the Hindu feudal morals that was making them guilty and unhappy, for no reason. Buddhism was a perfect company. 

A thousand years later, the Roman trade collapsed. Society relapsed into an agrarian model, where the domestic product was the produce of the farmer and to appropriate it another system of ethics was required, that of the Hindu hierarchal society and of the divisions. This ensured that masses toiled and the elites could enjoy their hard work without guilt. Sunshine and laddoos! That might also be the reason that the ultra rightist parties of India want to go back to that glorious time. 

Leap forward to today, the 22nd of September in the year of the lord two thousand and sixteen. I have seen the heroines of the 60’s reverting to clothing of the 20’s when they wanted to appear ‘cultured and good’ and those of 2020’s reverting to that of 80’s to do the same thing. Old people of every generation determine what is ‘good’ and that’s how it goes, not only with the clothing, but with morality and language and culture.

Information is pretty free today compared to the stone tablet era and yet we haven’t become the liberated, thinking individuals that would have broken the shackles of the ‘information less’ stone age. Still, society pretty much functions on the basis of ‘what is old is good’ and ‘the new is against the culture’ paradigm. Maybe it’s how the wiring of the brain is done, to form some sort of sense of the world. To change it would mean attacking the core of our beliefs lie, where the illusionary ‘self’ resides and to change that would take so much psychic energy that we prefer status quo of the ‘flawed but okay (flokay)” old philosophy to the ‘perfect but ever changing ( panging)’ new one. 

These are the contexts laid bare.The nature of the human mind to idealise a certain philosophy as good against the evidence of it’s rottenness makes the initially good philosophy a shield to do all sorts of shits. Christians massacred millions in the new world, in the name of piety. Hindus legalised slavery in the name of Karma and all the way to today when we are turning humans into robots in guise of meritocracy and constant flashy optimism to live a good life, which like a rich man’s house is filled mostly with empty winds. 

What about goals of life? Surely, if a person doesn’t develop the good bad paradigm, how would they determine where they would want to head? But, as I already said, nobility and radicalisation has done more wrongs than a clueless ‘dude’ could ever have. And not knowing the societal good would help them realise their internal definition of ‘good’ and if according to them, good is killing people, then so be it!

It’s too late for me. I already believe in truth and goodness and all sorts of humbug superstitions.Non believers of this creed are termed as psychopaths. But I can turn my children into psychopaths so that they like the leaders of our society can use the farce of ethics, religion and optimistic meritocracy to reach the top and kill me and my wife to get some more cash. And then, and then, and then, I don’t know. Was that the goal? Rewind. 

So ,the top secret plan was to make my children free of the guilts. Human beings are naturally perceptive. They’d empathise with others and set some automatic boundaries on their behaviours. Yes, they wouldn’t kill me I am sure. Further, as they experience the world, without the framework of ethics to guide them/bog them down, they’d align themselves to the Kantian line of thought, that their actions be judged by how they themselves would feel if someone had done the exact same thing to them. 

What about the sins? Overdoing pleasurable things only serves to make you sadder at the end of it, if only because you drop from the happiness cliff. Aren’t ethics instrumental for us in the sense that they help us to cultivate that serenity in life rather than experiencing the brutal ups and downs, the detachment makes us who we are, for otherwise, we wouldn’t be differentiable from our surroundings… I don’t know actually. I think it’s a personal management skill, personality skill that can be learnt without relying on philosophical intellectualisations. 

Respect would have to be earned, artificiality would become redundant and mind games of priests/people they meet in life wouldn’t work on them. I just hope they’re not total a&&holes and psychopaths, not that there’s anything bad with that, it’s just my own chains that constraint me into thinking along those lines!

I am not against the children studying and discovering new value systems after they mature and have developed their own internal sense of good-bad, but until then… I’d let them be free of it all. 

IF your life was a movie

The lives of  a minor character of any move have remarkable consistency generally. It's intentionally done, so as to keep the focus on the main character itself. I think I'd be a side character in my own movie.

The hero has some verve, drive and at the very least, interesting things keep n happening to him. My picture is either some drab art movie where the entire plot is meant to confuse the critics into submission or it's still the opening scene of some hero movie, but the darkness before it starts hasn't lifted yet, so everything is a kind of a prelude.

I only hope, I don't star in some geriatric movie. I don't have any qualms with the oldies, just that the idea of starring in my only movie makes me choose a romcom rather than a cynical end of life film. I've not yet seen a heroine, or a villain or even a grand story. It may be a petite french film, that show without subtitles and are really just monologues, and turn out to be a dream within a dream in the end, with a twist.

This lack of a plot is the writers fault. What should you do in such a movie where the director and the script writer have proved to be absolutely worthless ? One should take charge and tackle the story in whatever manner one feels fit. This way, atlas it wouldn't be a confounding ending.

the ironical thing about philosophy is that it's really overthinking, does formally. Even if I were to succeed, I would only reduce everything to absurdity. That's why you don't have nice little moral of the story in most of the philosophical tales, you take a teaching according to your own level of understanding.

A Panchtantra tale I remember is pertinent to the point. 6 men go up to a holy man and ask him for some sort of a boon. He gives them 6 feathers and tells them to climb a tall mountain, with an instruction to dig wherever their feathers fell.

When the first feather falls, they dig to find bags of wheat and barley. "let's go home. This is more than enough for weeks altogether. The mountain is endless and who knows what troubles lie ahead" But the others disregard him. Eventually he goes back.

Similarly, the second feather falls and they find a roomful of copper coins. The same routine takes place again and again, till finally the 5th feather falls and there are only two men left. It's a room full of diamonds and rubies that they had discovered. "Brother you can't possibly find a richer haul, lets' go back. It's a straight slope ahead and impossible to climb."

 The last man disagrees, " I want to see what destiny has in store for me" He says bravely.

The path is very treacherous and with severe difficulty he reaches the top to see an empty throne. Just as he sits there, a shining crown descends upon him. Soon a blinding pain engulfs him. "What is it" he says between his cries.

"Thank god you came, I had been waiting for centuries for someone to come up and take my place". Saying this, this other man leaves and the 6th man suffers for many centuries to come.

THE END

I never could understand what the tale meant. It could be a cautionary tale about not going too far in the quest of your goal. But how far is too far? And who's to say?

Or it could be telling us that to be happy is to be satisfied with what we have. A person who is forever unsatisfied, can't be happy even if he reaches the top.

I'd like to re-write this tale, but let me re-write my life first.