One of the most beautiful pieces of prose I have read:
A snowy-white wand lambent atop stood on the table in front of me. Watery wax overflowed from the puddle below the flame. Teardrops glistening in the buttery glow rolled onto the milky mini-stalactites on the sides of the candle.
Was such a bright glow crying? The enveloping gloom seemed to make it cry. Tears of joy. A swaying smile. It lit my face in the darkness. It was six in the evening.
The power cuts in the summers of the late 80s and early 90s in Kolkata were like seasonal rainfall, interminable. They called it load shedding. When the power suppliers shed their load, we had to sit in the dark. The light bulbs seem to set with the sun. Bulbs cannot hold a candle to sunlight but in those days night meant no light. Candles were the staple source of brilliance in the night.
It was the solitary sight during the so-called load shedding. The taper was an ancient but necessary thing I used to think. Why, it was Brutus who said "Get me a taper in my study, Lucius: / When it is lighted, come and call me here/" in Julius Caesar. Homework meant two candles - one for the room and the other for the study table. And when my eyes drifted from the books to the flame I was transported to another world, mesmerized by effulgence of the honey glow.
I looked in the mirror across the room. The reflection of the candle flickering behind me, or was it in my eyes? It was beautiful. The glow brightened. I saw a feminine face. Tears rolling down her cheeks. Like the candle in the dark. Her face looked pale in the candlelight. The flickering candlelight made me strain my eyes to look at her reflection. I shielded the flame with my fingers. The glow brightened. She wasn't there anymore. Who was she?
Did she have a story to tell? The thought disturbed me. Years later I thought I had seen in the reflection of the flame other’s stories. Waiting to be seen. Waiting to be heard. Waiting to be told. I wanted to be a voyeur who desired to see it all. And a raconteur trying to narrate it all…
13 December 2004
10 December 2004
How it feels to be hungry
I didn't have a meal yesterday. Not because of emotional or monetary difficulties, but for a religious reason.
It had been years since I felt the emptiness of my stomach. Not that it was totally empty. I ate fruits, drank milk and juice, but didn’t have a solid meal. Yet, my stomach kept rumbling through the day. I kept returning to thoughts of food: when would I have my next meal, what would I eat, etc. By evening, I began to feel a little weak and sleepy.
Most of you who are reading this blog have perhaps never been forced to be hungry, and perhaps will never be. Like me. We may choose to skip a meal because of work pressure, emotional ups and downs, or might even had some monetary difficulties at some point in life. But very few of us are doomed to a life of hunger.
And nowadays, it's like hunger doesn't exist. It's hardly discussed among most people I know. I think I last discussed it when I was in journalism school.
How does it feel to be hungry, to be hungry almost everyday, to be empty and weak all over, with head spinning? And even when you get to eat, it would perhaps be rotten, or just a morsel. Then you see such brutal prosperity all around. Brutal, because it can never happen to you. Brutal, also because it strikes your eye so. Rich buggers are everywhere. Why wouldn't I want to steal, snatch, cheat, kill, if that would mean two square meals a day? Perhaps I would do that even if it didn't mean two square meals a day. Just for the heck of it. Just to get back at them. Yes.
Once in journalism school, a debate was on about why mainstream media sidelines poverty. One bhadralok woman said it was because no one was interested, no one wanted to read about poverty and that not many were affected by poverty issues. I asked, "So is no one affected by crime, congestion in cities, pollution, unemployment, etc?"
I still haven't understood how we can pretend that poverty doesn't affect us. Are we so blind, or dumb? Or are we just inhuman? I don't know. Survival concerns of the poor are being neglected.
Villages are increasingly becoming poorer, unlivable, depressing, and empty. The rich farmers' households are pretty intact. I know a good-looking, well educated boy from a prosperous family in my village who can't find a bride for himself. Reason: every girl wants to marry someone who lives in the city, even if it may be in a one-room hole. These trends are ominous. They are all around us. We can be aware of them, if we want to. More often than not, we choose not to.
We, the educated middle class, have no time to protest about anything, so caught up are we with daily routines, and weekend relaxations. Most of us think that all's well because there are huge shiny plasticky shopping malls coming up all around us; because everything is so accessible, and because there's water running in our taps. Because we can get on to the Net and blog. Because we can end any substantial conversation with a 'whatever.' I don’t want to paint generalized pictures, but it is the default setting.
Hunger is dangerous, for everyone, regardless of your agreeing or your knowing. Recently a slum 'caught fire' in Mumbai. For good reasons, I am sure. After all, don’t you want to build more of those plush apartments where you can cuddle up and watch the TV with your family?
It had been years since I felt the emptiness of my stomach. Not that it was totally empty. I ate fruits, drank milk and juice, but didn’t have a solid meal. Yet, my stomach kept rumbling through the day. I kept returning to thoughts of food: when would I have my next meal, what would I eat, etc. By evening, I began to feel a little weak and sleepy.
Most of you who are reading this blog have perhaps never been forced to be hungry, and perhaps will never be. Like me. We may choose to skip a meal because of work pressure, emotional ups and downs, or might even had some monetary difficulties at some point in life. But very few of us are doomed to a life of hunger.
And nowadays, it's like hunger doesn't exist. It's hardly discussed among most people I know. I think I last discussed it when I was in journalism school.
How does it feel to be hungry, to be hungry almost everyday, to be empty and weak all over, with head spinning? And even when you get to eat, it would perhaps be rotten, or just a morsel. Then you see such brutal prosperity all around. Brutal, because it can never happen to you. Brutal, also because it strikes your eye so. Rich buggers are everywhere. Why wouldn't I want to steal, snatch, cheat, kill, if that would mean two square meals a day? Perhaps I would do that even if it didn't mean two square meals a day. Just for the heck of it. Just to get back at them. Yes.
Once in journalism school, a debate was on about why mainstream media sidelines poverty. One bhadralok woman said it was because no one was interested, no one wanted to read about poverty and that not many were affected by poverty issues. I asked, "So is no one affected by crime, congestion in cities, pollution, unemployment, etc?"
I still haven't understood how we can pretend that poverty doesn't affect us. Are we so blind, or dumb? Or are we just inhuman? I don't know. Survival concerns of the poor are being neglected.
Villages are increasingly becoming poorer, unlivable, depressing, and empty. The rich farmers' households are pretty intact. I know a good-looking, well educated boy from a prosperous family in my village who can't find a bride for himself. Reason: every girl wants to marry someone who lives in the city, even if it may be in a one-room hole. These trends are ominous. They are all around us. We can be aware of them, if we want to. More often than not, we choose not to.
We, the educated middle class, have no time to protest about anything, so caught up are we with daily routines, and weekend relaxations. Most of us think that all's well because there are huge shiny plasticky shopping malls coming up all around us; because everything is so accessible, and because there's water running in our taps. Because we can get on to the Net and blog. Because we can end any substantial conversation with a 'whatever.' I don’t want to paint generalized pictures, but it is the default setting.
Hunger is dangerous, for everyone, regardless of your agreeing or your knowing. Recently a slum 'caught fire' in Mumbai. For good reasons, I am sure. After all, don’t you want to build more of those plush apartments where you can cuddle up and watch the TV with your family?
08 December 2004
Passion defined
Warning: very personal blog
I never knew I could be so crazy about an actor until I first watched his movie. The movie was Satya. I was filled with sheer delight to see such talent, but I also remember thinking that this guy had no chance in Bollywood. Reason being I thought he was too good for Bollywood.
On seeing Manoj Bajpai's later films, I realised that he would probably never see a day in his life when he'd have no roles. One doesn’t necessarily have to get roles in big banner films to grow as an actor. Good actors bring to the character more than its conceived capacity. Of course, they can contain themselves within the character, too.
His eyes have an intensity that is so convincing. He just had to mouth the dialogues in Shool: his eyes had done the job for him. It didn’t take Samar Pratap Singh much to woo an already dazed audience.
You can hardly miss his simplicity, on screen or off screen. No nakhras, or attempts at creating colourful personas. And somehow, I have connected so easily with him. I find him so believable. There are things that he believes in that I share and respect. Sometimes, I think, he is too good to be true. Sometimes, it's like this guy could have been in my college, my village, just living across the street.
I have always loved acting and had even thought of choosing it as my profession. I have done very little acting, but whenever I get to see some good acting, I get so involved. Vicarious pleasure. I recently re-visited all but four of MB's movies, excluding the newest one. And I saw something I had missed before: MB had been so consummated by his roles that MB, the person, was seen nowhere. I mean, that in Satya he is Bhiku Mhatre; in Kaun he is this nosy stranger; in Ghaath he is Krishna Patil. When I say, 'he is,' I mean, 'he is.' 100%. Of course, he brings to each role that characteristic finesse. But there is no leftover.
Each character is filled with fresh and unique life, stands on his own, speaks with natural ease, sits and walks as only he would. A good actor would know when to switch on and off her 'self,' and yet retain her core sensibilities that make the portrayal of the character so special. This may be a little dense, but hold on. It's just this: the actor steps out of herself, steps into the character, and comes home again. For this to happen, two things are essential: a substantial knowledge of the self and a total awareness of the character. This is easier said than done.
When I watched Bandit Queen, and then Satya, and then Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar, and then Aks and so on, I saw this happening. MB, the person, had dissolved into MB, the artiste. So I knew MB, so I didn’t know MB.
He has achieved this fluidity, this ease with his self and his characters. I once read in an interview of his that he had spent the night drinking beer in front of a Satya poster the day it released. Nothing can match the happiness you get when you do something that you were born for.
But my fears about Bollywood still persist. Its rarely able to give challenging scripts to a mature actor. I hope I am proved wrong.
I never knew I could be so crazy about an actor until I first watched his movie. The movie was Satya. I was filled with sheer delight to see such talent, but I also remember thinking that this guy had no chance in Bollywood. Reason being I thought he was too good for Bollywood.
On seeing Manoj Bajpai's later films, I realised that he would probably never see a day in his life when he'd have no roles. One doesn’t necessarily have to get roles in big banner films to grow as an actor. Good actors bring to the character more than its conceived capacity. Of course, they can contain themselves within the character, too.
His eyes have an intensity that is so convincing. He just had to mouth the dialogues in Shool: his eyes had done the job for him. It didn’t take Samar Pratap Singh much to woo an already dazed audience.
You can hardly miss his simplicity, on screen or off screen. No nakhras, or attempts at creating colourful personas. And somehow, I have connected so easily with him. I find him so believable. There are things that he believes in that I share and respect. Sometimes, I think, he is too good to be true. Sometimes, it's like this guy could have been in my college, my village, just living across the street.
I have always loved acting and had even thought of choosing it as my profession. I have done very little acting, but whenever I get to see some good acting, I get so involved. Vicarious pleasure. I recently re-visited all but four of MB's movies, excluding the newest one. And I saw something I had missed before: MB had been so consummated by his roles that MB, the person, was seen nowhere. I mean, that in Satya he is Bhiku Mhatre; in Kaun he is this nosy stranger; in Ghaath he is Krishna Patil. When I say, 'he is,' I mean, 'he is.' 100%. Of course, he brings to each role that characteristic finesse. But there is no leftover.
Each character is filled with fresh and unique life, stands on his own, speaks with natural ease, sits and walks as only he would. A good actor would know when to switch on and off her 'self,' and yet retain her core sensibilities that make the portrayal of the character so special. This may be a little dense, but hold on. It's just this: the actor steps out of herself, steps into the character, and comes home again. For this to happen, two things are essential: a substantial knowledge of the self and a total awareness of the character. This is easier said than done.
When I watched Bandit Queen, and then Satya, and then Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar, and then Aks and so on, I saw this happening. MB, the person, had dissolved into MB, the artiste. So I knew MB, so I didn’t know MB.
He has achieved this fluidity, this ease with his self and his characters. I once read in an interview of his that he had spent the night drinking beer in front of a Satya poster the day it released. Nothing can match the happiness you get when you do something that you were born for.
But my fears about Bollywood still persist. Its rarely able to give challenging scripts to a mature actor. I hope I am proved wrong.
01 December 2004
Where Google cant help me
Life is in disarray. Moving too fast. Damn slow sometimes.
Feels like great things are happening outside while I am sitting here typing this. Sigh.
No time to read, nor to write. Yet, I am not doing all the things that I want to.
Just no time. And sometimes I dont know what to do with it.
This too is not complete. How much more patience?
Want to go back to the start point. But am some way from it already.
No, its not that bad as it seems.
But sometimes I want to ..., let it be.
Music blaring in my ears. Cant hear it though.
Circle in the sand. Heaven is a place on earth.
When will I live the life I want to live? Where is it? One thing Google cant search for me.
Cathartic lines ...
Madness subsiding ...
Slowly.
Feels like great things are happening outside while I am sitting here typing this. Sigh.
No time to read, nor to write. Yet, I am not doing all the things that I want to.
Just no time. And sometimes I dont know what to do with it.
This too is not complete. How much more patience?
Want to go back to the start point. But am some way from it already.
No, its not that bad as it seems.
But sometimes I want to ..., let it be.
Music blaring in my ears. Cant hear it though.
Circle in the sand. Heaven is a place on earth.
When will I live the life I want to live? Where is it? One thing Google cant search for me.
Cathartic lines ...
Madness subsiding ...
Slowly.
24 November 2004
Love, or boredom?
Am pasting below excerpts from a recent chat conversation I had with a friend. We started by talking of ingrained values, how they are automatiocally accepted, of romantic vis-avis unromantic love, of love across the age barrier, etc. The conversation did open up some windows, but no flooding of light.
Darkness persists, provokes.
Friend: Is romantic love nothing but the working of hormones? Only a prelude to mating---which ends it all? Is it just Nature at work with its "propagation of the species"? Are we just the deluded?
Me: Romantic love is definitely a prelude to mating, but love doesnt have to end there all the time.
Friend: And what is un-romantic love? What attracts people to each other when there is no mating possibility?
Friend: No. It doesn't have to. But how does one explain eroticism creeping into parental or filial love and overtaking what would normally pass for parental love?
Me: Well, love doesnt have to be romantic. Maybe initially, it is. But it cant be starry eyed for long. What remains after the dust has settled, is either love or boredom
Friend: No, mating ends the "starry-eyed" business. But what then explains the problems created by eroticism overtaking other forms of love?
Me: Hm, i get what u say
Friend: "is either love or boredom"---yes, that's good. The question then is which remains? Boredom? Which is why couples cheat on each other? Or is "cheating" once again just the hormone-driven mating game again?
So two questions: 1. Love, or boredom---after the mating is over? 2. How does eroticism overtake other forms of love where it "normally" shouldn't appear?
Me: The first question, of course, each one has to answer for herself or himself. "But how does one explain eroticism creeping into parental or filial love and overtaking what would
normally pass for parental love" -- do u here Mean love that appears between 2 people of vast age differences? or do u mean incest?
Friend: And the second? How does one, for instance, explain the horrible incidents one reads of---of middle-aged men "raping" an infants? Molesting little children? Paedophiles? How does eroticism overtake "normal" affection? Just "perversity"? And how does such "perversity" work?
Me: the answer to Q 2 is beyond me
Friend: "love that appears between 2 people of vast age differences? or do u Mean incest?"---both. How does one explain this?
Me: Why cant love happen between 2 people of vast age differences?
Friend: "why cant love happen between 2 people of vast age differences?"---The problem is, it DOES happen ever so often. But why does it? It's not "normal" in the conventional sense, is it?
Me: Well, who's given a damn about 'conventional' anyways. I mean, incest, love of the kind discussed above, and homosexuality have always existed, despite social strictures to the contrary. The only difference is that people are now becoming more vocal about their sexual rights.
Friend: There is something akin to incest in such impulse, isn't it? The older man (let's say) begins with fond fatherly affection for a young girl (student/neighbour/whatever and then at some point begins to feel "strange" erotic attraction. The Lolita syndroMe . . . But why should it? Especially, if he remains fond and retains his initial fatherly feelings?
Me: Contradictory feelings, hm. But something else is the point here. We always expect a kind of uniformity, continuity, consistency, soMething explainable. We seek this in the world around us, as well as in the self. And when we find contradictory feelings: either around us, or in us, then we are destabilised, confused, sometimes disturbed. We dont realise that contradictions are but natural. Why the contradcition happens, well i dont know.
Friend: The question is, is the "inexplicable" to be viewed as just "kinky" behaviour---something inexplicable? But it happens ever so often---too often to be just wished away, right?
Me: yeah. Again, i wud want to wish away somethng like middle aged man raping infant, but not
something like love across generation gap.
Friend: But love across generation gap too isn't quite normal, is it?
Me: Unusual, yes, but not abnormal. Because eroticism is so different for everyone
Friend: "because eroticism is so different for everyone." But when it comes to patriarchal societies, the Lolita syndrome is quite common among older males. Wonder what it may have been in matriarchal set-ups? Did older women take young lover boys? There are some indications they did. Older woMen takeing young "beach boys" is something very common among young widows of old, rich landlords of Midnapur, West Bengal, for instance. Also, in western societies. Have you seen Liz Taylor in "Night of the Iguana"?
Me: nope
Friend: Middle-aged Liz Taylor is rich and is bored. And so she engages two "beach boys" to take her to the sea each day and stir her with love bites and foreplay till she wants them physically. The "beach boys" are young enough to be her sons.
Me: my point is: sex appeal doesnt always have to be bound by age. And that is what I meant by eroticism being different to everyone. Older men/women preferring younger people: well, we can think of substanital reasons for it. But if younger men/women prefer older people: it is unusal, but again it aint abnormal.
Friend: Too long have such incidents been dismissed as "kinky/perverseness" without any discussion on how all this works. There has never been any EFFORT to understand or analyse such things. At best oversimplifications such as "cheating/boredom" etc
Me: hm
Friend: ": but if younger men/women prefer older people"---that's rare. But why is it rare?
Me: because nature's dictates require mating to produe the best progeny. And old/young coupling may sometimes go against this dictate.
End of conversation.
Darkness persists, provokes.
Friend: Is romantic love nothing but the working of hormones? Only a prelude to mating---which ends it all? Is it just Nature at work with its "propagation of the species"? Are we just the deluded?
Me: Romantic love is definitely a prelude to mating, but love doesnt have to end there all the time.
Friend: And what is un-romantic love? What attracts people to each other when there is no mating possibility?
Friend: No. It doesn't have to. But how does one explain eroticism creeping into parental or filial love and overtaking what would normally pass for parental love?
Me: Well, love doesnt have to be romantic. Maybe initially, it is. But it cant be starry eyed for long. What remains after the dust has settled, is either love or boredom
Friend: No, mating ends the "starry-eyed" business. But what then explains the problems created by eroticism overtaking other forms of love?
Me: Hm, i get what u say
Friend: "is either love or boredom"---yes, that's good. The question then is which remains? Boredom? Which is why couples cheat on each other? Or is "cheating" once again just the hormone-driven mating game again?
So two questions: 1. Love, or boredom---after the mating is over? 2. How does eroticism overtake other forms of love where it "normally" shouldn't appear?
Me: The first question, of course, each one has to answer for herself or himself. "But how does one explain eroticism creeping into parental or filial love and overtaking what would
normally pass for parental love" -- do u here Mean love that appears between 2 people of vast age differences? or do u mean incest?
Friend: And the second? How does one, for instance, explain the horrible incidents one reads of---of middle-aged men "raping" an infants? Molesting little children? Paedophiles? How does eroticism overtake "normal" affection? Just "perversity"? And how does such "perversity" work?
Me: the answer to Q 2 is beyond me
Friend: "love that appears between 2 people of vast age differences? or do u Mean incest?"---both. How does one explain this?
Me: Why cant love happen between 2 people of vast age differences?
Friend: "why cant love happen between 2 people of vast age differences?"---The problem is, it DOES happen ever so often. But why does it? It's not "normal" in the conventional sense, is it?
Me: Well, who's given a damn about 'conventional' anyways. I mean, incest, love of the kind discussed above, and homosexuality have always existed, despite social strictures to the contrary. The only difference is that people are now becoming more vocal about their sexual rights.
Friend: There is something akin to incest in such impulse, isn't it? The older man (let's say) begins with fond fatherly affection for a young girl (student/neighbour/whatever and then at some point begins to feel "strange" erotic attraction. The Lolita syndroMe . . . But why should it? Especially, if he remains fond and retains his initial fatherly feelings?
Me: Contradictory feelings, hm. But something else is the point here. We always expect a kind of uniformity, continuity, consistency, soMething explainable. We seek this in the world around us, as well as in the self. And when we find contradictory feelings: either around us, or in us, then we are destabilised, confused, sometimes disturbed. We dont realise that contradictions are but natural. Why the contradcition happens, well i dont know.
Friend: The question is, is the "inexplicable" to be viewed as just "kinky" behaviour---something inexplicable? But it happens ever so often---too often to be just wished away, right?
Me: yeah. Again, i wud want to wish away somethng like middle aged man raping infant, but not
something like love across generation gap.
Friend: But love across generation gap too isn't quite normal, is it?
Me: Unusual, yes, but not abnormal. Because eroticism is so different for everyone
Friend: "because eroticism is so different for everyone." But when it comes to patriarchal societies, the Lolita syndrome is quite common among older males. Wonder what it may have been in matriarchal set-ups? Did older women take young lover boys? There are some indications they did. Older woMen takeing young "beach boys" is something very common among young widows of old, rich landlords of Midnapur, West Bengal, for instance. Also, in western societies. Have you seen Liz Taylor in "Night of the Iguana"?
Me: nope
Friend: Middle-aged Liz Taylor is rich and is bored. And so she engages two "beach boys" to take her to the sea each day and stir her with love bites and foreplay till she wants them physically. The "beach boys" are young enough to be her sons.
Me: my point is: sex appeal doesnt always have to be bound by age. And that is what I meant by eroticism being different to everyone. Older men/women preferring younger people: well, we can think of substanital reasons for it. But if younger men/women prefer older people: it is unusal, but again it aint abnormal.
Friend: Too long have such incidents been dismissed as "kinky/perverseness" without any discussion on how all this works. There has never been any EFFORT to understand or analyse such things. At best oversimplifications such as "cheating/boredom" etc
Me: hm
Friend: ": but if younger men/women prefer older people"---that's rare. But why is it rare?
Me: because nature's dictates require mating to produe the best progeny. And old/young coupling may sometimes go against this dictate.
End of conversation.
18 November 2004
Internet is shit
The Internet never was and never will be a credible source of information, unless you know the source of information. And even that is not a guarantee.
But I still wouldnt say Internet is shit. Its full significance can only be grasped by people bound by the culture of secrecy.
But I still wouldnt say Internet is shit. Its full significance can only be grasped by people bound by the culture of secrecy.
09 November 2004
Non-geeks of the world live long!
Something that made my day: computers are not that smart after all.
At some point in life, the cursed comp has handed out to each one of us some gibberish error message. And made us feel stupid, coz we couldnt decipher the gibberish. How could we, its gibberish after all.
An article in the Economist, damn, I cant give the link, because its premium content, assures us that it is the comp, and not we who are stupid. A friend had made the same point a few days ago, but I didnt thnk much of it, because he was a geek. And geeks, I thought, can afford to look down on the comp, not non-geeks like me, who are forever trying to avoid the next error message.
The point is that, technology does not serve its purpose if it makes life more complex, and not simpler for everyone. If only geeks can be comfortable with computers, it cannot have a very strong mass following. Read: no market. If it has to be all-pervasive, it has to be all-friendly.
Again, its not as if geeks find comps manageable all the time: the article begins with an MIT prof whining about his comp the way you or I would. So IT, as it stands today, is flawed. Yippppppppppeeeeeeeee!! All IT majors from Intel to IBM to Microsoft agree that the challenge now is to simplify things. Intel has introduced the 'on-demand business' concept; others have their own jargon.
Ha, I cant stop smiling. If you dont make it simple enough, you geek, you just aint smart enough to figure me out: I am analog, not digital.
At some point in life, the cursed comp has handed out to each one of us some gibberish error message. And made us feel stupid, coz we couldnt decipher the gibberish. How could we, its gibberish after all.
An article in the Economist, damn, I cant give the link, because its premium content, assures us that it is the comp, and not we who are stupid. A friend had made the same point a few days ago, but I didnt thnk much of it, because he was a geek. And geeks, I thought, can afford to look down on the comp, not non-geeks like me, who are forever trying to avoid the next error message.
The point is that, technology does not serve its purpose if it makes life more complex, and not simpler for everyone. If only geeks can be comfortable with computers, it cannot have a very strong mass following. Read: no market. If it has to be all-pervasive, it has to be all-friendly.
Again, its not as if geeks find comps manageable all the time: the article begins with an MIT prof whining about his comp the way you or I would. So IT, as it stands today, is flawed. Yippppppppppeeeeeeeee!! All IT majors from Intel to IBM to Microsoft agree that the challenge now is to simplify things. Intel has introduced the 'on-demand business' concept; others have their own jargon.
Ha, I cant stop smiling. If you dont make it simple enough, you geek, you just aint smart enough to figure me out: I am analog, not digital.
08 November 2004
Zaheera Sheikh
This post comes a bit late, thanks to Blogger not loading on Friday.
Zaheera Sheikh's turnaround is critical to how communal politics will turn in India. The truth will never be known, of course. There will be many truths. But Modi is happy for now.
Also, on Saturday, the different hues of saffron were on display. Bal Thackeray's estranged son is set to join the NCP. Also, the VHP said it would choose Hindutva over BJP, if it came to that.
Zaheera Sheikh's turnaround is critical to how communal politics will turn in India. The truth will never be known, of course. There will be many truths. But Modi is happy for now.
Also, on Saturday, the different hues of saffron were on display. Bal Thackeray's estranged son is set to join the NCP. Also, the VHP said it would choose Hindutva over BJP, if it came to that.
03 November 2004
Of raisin sized brains
Ha, I cant believe it that Bush is leading, though by a slim margin. Shucks. The other day, I watched Question Time on BBC. And Clinton's speech writer said that the majority of American voters did not have a clear understanding of either candidate. Also, they believed that their choice is seconded by the world in general.
I KNOW HE'S RIGHT.
I KNOW HE'S RIGHT.
02 November 2004
Questions, questions
A friend asked, "Is homosexuality nature's solution to overpopulation?"
Is it, really? What drives people to be homosexual? At what point in life do people turn gay? Or, were they always so inclined?
Do homosexual people have no desire to leave some of their trace on earth, that is, to reproduce? And hence, is it nature's solution to overpopulation? If yes, is it welcome for that reason?
Is homosexuality in the genes? Or is it a modern day phenomenon? Is it natural? Will it always be a fringe phenomenon?
…………….
Also, is lesbianism the best guarantee of women's empowerment? Sexuality is a double-edged weapon, remember? Let there be no penetration/perpetration of violence? Is that why men are intolerant of lesbianism, as it makes them dispensable?
Do we accept that man-woman relationships fail, by default? Because men just cant understand how women feel, and vice-versa? Could lesbians have more fulfilling relationships? No complications, eh? At least, no unwanted pregnancies to worry about. Less mess?
Any answers?
Is it, really? What drives people to be homosexual? At what point in life do people turn gay? Or, were they always so inclined?
Do homosexual people have no desire to leave some of their trace on earth, that is, to reproduce? And hence, is it nature's solution to overpopulation? If yes, is it welcome for that reason?
Is homosexuality in the genes? Or is it a modern day phenomenon? Is it natural? Will it always be a fringe phenomenon?
…………….
Also, is lesbianism the best guarantee of women's empowerment? Sexuality is a double-edged weapon, remember? Let there be no penetration/perpetration of violence? Is that why men are intolerant of lesbianism, as it makes them dispensable?
Do we accept that man-woman relationships fail, by default? Because men just cant understand how women feel, and vice-versa? Could lesbians have more fulfilling relationships? No complications, eh? At least, no unwanted pregnancies to worry about. Less mess?
Any answers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
