Losing your un-balance

A balanced life is not only elusive... but an impossibility.
The moment things start getting balanced, one moves towards un-balance to balance out the balance!

Anyway, what is it about late nights and slow music and subtle yellow lights lying undisturbed under the quilt? Its a perfect recipe for gracefully sliding into blissful reverie.

The current favorite song is Sajni (slow version) by Jal (pardon the video).

What does it feel to make music? Does the creator feel just as enchanted by that perfect symphony of notes and lyrics? Or does he drown even further into the magical spell of his songs?
Does the singer of Sajni feel a heavy heart when he listens to this song? Or are his feelings diluted by the incidents that occurred when the band was trying to come up with this song (small tiffs and arguments, different variations of the tunes etc)?

It would be a great pity if the band could not enjoy (and get entranced by) the song as much as the general listeners.

But then again, builders don't live in the houses they plan and build and put their heart into for years, or programmers don't use the programs they create for their purposes, or more interestingly, Darwin might not have seen the full implications and power of his insights?

Does the joy of creation surpass the joy of consumption?
Would you rather create the perfect symphony and be ecstatic when you come up with it, or would you instead enjoy the perfect symphony created by someone else... in your room, under the quilt, in yellow light... and shut your eyes and imagine away a vivid scene... of the monsoon... in the wild green pastures with drops shining on the slippery blades, and the rain-drops hitting your face like a strongly welcoming bear-hug given by an old friend, and your bare feet immersing in the soft mud till your ankles feel the wetness around them and you feel safely ensconced, and there is an old valley in front of you with signs of civilizations - small huts and plantations, and you look around... and you see those eyes that read yours', and reciprocate the value of this beauty.

Oh well, it is so easy to digress, and so difficult to teach discipline to the mind. It wanders into cul-de-sacs and happily returns, only to enter another cul-de-sacs, as if it has no intention of learning from 'mistakes'.

An attempt at rationalizing...

We reside in our more-or-less bound sphere of influence. The term 'influence' is the pivotal one. As I write, I think of my sub-world of influence. This sub-world has different categories of people.

There is the typical 'layman', who continues living with helplessly-acquired nonchalance. He is rarely intrigued by moral conundrums, psycho-philosophical debates or what have you. He has the formula for life entrenched in him, by societal interactions and his particular upbringing. He is not out there to challenge much, even though his particular belief system might contradict a point or two with society's. He, in general, is at peace with the world, or more appropriately, hasn't even thought of it. One may doubt if the layman's existence is exciting, but one often admires how the layman has steered clear of dilemmas that could potentially disturb a peaceful existence.

Then there is the 'loser'. Now the loser may not be very different from the layman in terms of philosophical depth and questioning. But the loser is different in that he is fatalist, and moreover, is upset that he got an incorrigibly bad fate. He is 'doomed'. Even within losers, there are blatant losers, who openly voice their concerns about how the world is against them... and then there are subtle ones. 

Then there is the 'moderate'. Of course the moderate does not know this. The moderate thinks he is crazy and living an interesting life. But he is only doing things which are 'crazy' according to the layman. He does not understand that crazy is a relative term.  For instance, it is not entirely crazy for a model to walk in a bikini... but if a somewhat conservative gujju lady were to do so, that would be outright crazy. Anyway, going back to the description of the moderate, he is ambitious. He always tries to scale up the ladders of adventure (but the problem lies in his view of these ladders). Nonetheless, he tries to tread the path between what he knows to be 'out-of-question crazy' vs 'doable crazy'. He has his head on his shoulders, and can understand, and almost empathize with other categories of people. He, in my opinion, is who my heart goes out to... simply because HE is the one who must be salvaged and helped from falling into philosophical abysses and repaired from knotted moral conclusions and psychological delusions. He is lost and needs direction, although on the exterior, he seems to be the most stable and sometimes, even the most successful.

The next more interesting category of people are those who are 'cool'. It often is difficult to find out why they are cool. I surmise that many of us find a large variety (and often conflicting) personalities cool. There are those who have a rebellious streak within them, which instantly gratify the rebellious demon within us and we take to an instant conferring of the title 'cool'. Then there are those who are cool because they seem to breeze through life. These could be 'cool laymen'. They seem amazingly happy and sorted out.

And then there is this sub-category of 'cool' whom you cant figure out. They seem deeply immersed, they seem to care two pence about society and how it works, but they actually deliberate on such issues for hours. They seem to have understood something that most of us fail at comprehending. At different stages of their lives... at each stage they have a more developed theory or philosophy... so to say that they evolve much faster. They are not scared of voicing their opinions, but at the same time, they are not over-eager to do so. Sometimes they may not have an opinion on an important matter and they confess that so matter-of-factly, that one might be relieved (if the 'cool' person is devoid of opinion on this matter, perhaps it is okay if I don't have an opinion either). They seem to be in a world of their own... and often, transcending different worlds. The typical concerns of 'how do i look with this shirt on', or 'what will people think if they find out...' hardly seem to bother them.

And somehow, almost all the people in my sub-world who fall into this (almost 'supercool') category have tried and purportedly enjoyed experiences of altering one's consciousness through different means. It seems that one is missing a lot of interesting, super-insightful, crazy, mind-boggling, life-changing experiences in the pursuit of being the 'moderate'. It is not a pro-active choice one makes. It is just a choice that demands less courage or lesser resistance to. (There was a time when I simply could not understand what could drive my very beautiful friend to diet and refrain from eating the most tempting desserts... that is to say that I could not understand the pay-offs of looking super-beautfiul versus the surreal gastronomic pleasures such delights could provide. I still don't completely relate to that friend on these principles, but I have begun to understand the pay-offs. Similarly, I could not understand why a friend refused to get into a relationship on the reason that 'that's not the right thing to do in Indian society').

There are times when one is naive and does not understand the cost-benefit analysis.

Perhaps getting a glimpse into different levels of consciousness is an experience worthy of treasuring, but at the same time, it could alter one's perception of reality to a point of no return.

Of course, there are scientific studies that can accurately describe the effects of certain consumptions.. but certainly, the first-hand experience would be incomparable.

The important point is I am not convinced that such desires are driven entirely by curiosity, which is what makes the decision a hard one. I suspect that the 'wannabe' section of my mind is playing a massive role, something that I don't want to accept. But aren't the not-so-cool people suppose to 'wannabe' super-cool?

In deep Slum-ber

The attempt at eradicating, or at least minimizing, slum habitations in the city is an overwhelming task. It might not seem overwhelming if one were to shrug one's shoulders and think that it was the government's responsibility/job and give it no further thought. 

It might be the government's responsibility, but one big reason the gov. can't handle/do it is because it is too sensitive an issue and the solution is almost invariably likely to place the gov. in a bad light, no matter what the outcome. This is because there is a certain section of society (and to make it worse, its the weaker section) that will be inconvenienced to a very large degree. And this section seems to be an all too important chunk of the vote-ban for the gov. to take any chances with.

Some of the popular reasons for eradicating slums are:-

1. They give a 'filthy' look to the city

2. Unaccountability of usage of shared (between citizens) resources (like electricity, water).

3. A potential breeding ground for anti-social activities/elements and easy exploitation opportunities (because they are typically occupied by those 'desperate' to make money to get out of them).

A tangential point (recently raised by local activists) is that they form a class of 'outsiders' who 'snatch' jobs away from the hands of local residents.

So lets say there are reasons to think of means to eradicate slums. And not only that, we would like to be a little more futuristic and have a secondary goal that our means/policy should be such that it discourages the growth of slums in future. 

Firstly, is this a viable goal? Is it even possible to achieve the goal of eradicating slums from Mumbai?

Right from ambitious politicos to promising NGOs to corporate honchos and real-estate czars have had their hands burnt in this unappeasable fire. That is not to say that the situation hasn't bettered. Perhaps it has. But by and large, there seems to be no obvious relief to the city's general landscape. So whether this is a viable goal or not, is difficult to answer given that even the bright minds and the influential power-houses have not solved it. 

And the reason for that, to me, seems to be either misplaced priorities, or a lack of understanding of the problem. 

From what I understand, initially, the gov. tried to be nice and build alternative cheap (not cheaper than the slums, but cheaper than average legal residence) homes for the slum-dwellers. There seemed to be several problems with this approach. Were there enough for all? How would you find a legitimate slum dweller who claimed responsibility for such a house? Did the gov. make losses or book profits? Somehow, this didn't turn on any magic.

So a smart initiative was to involve the real-estate guys who were experts in assessing land-related situations and building houses. These guys were alloted a a slum land (land where currently there are slums), and allowed to build their commercial ventures. They HAD to house the slum-dwellers they were displacing from that land, in low-cost housings. Once they constructed housing for the slum-dwellers, they could do their usual business in the remaining part. The trick was of course, they were allowed greater FSI (Floor Space Index: essentially a ratio of how much area you can build to how much area of land you have. An FSI of 1 implies that if you bought land of 100 sq.metres, you can construct only 100sq.metres. If FSI was 2, you could construct 200 sq. metres).

This seems to be an attractive scheme. Real-estate developers could do business and do good to the city in terms of social responsibility. I personally don't know if this works, or is working, or whether it will or not.

But my guess is that this is where we are going wrong. The root of the issue is not addressed. The people residing in the slums are those whose livelihood depends much on the middle-class. The people in the slums comprise of taxi-drivers, maids, sweepers, waiters, small-time tailors etc. Their income depends largely on the activities of the middle-class. It is the family which needs a doodh-wala, bartan-wala (man dish-washer), dhobi, istri-wala, aayya for their children, jaaduwala etc  that gives employment to so many of them. If they are paid well for these tasks and not monetarily exploited like they generally are, then it makes sense to give them better housing.

Low-cost housing is of no use if they do not have the livelihood to maintain the housing. They will resort to tactics like selling the house to someone else, and go back to a slum which is a more economically viable option, given their meagre incomes.

But if one were to raise their standard of living some way or the other (don't know how!), only then it seems to be justifiable to give them an alternative better residence. And somehow, given the recent movement of 'richness', the middle-class is being offered 'better' alternatives to their current lifestyles. They have malls to buy their food from (so the vegetable vendors suffer), they have fancier washing and cleaning equipments like the classical dish-washer and laundry and drier from the western world (which eliminates the need for so many servants), and we see fewer families taking their kids to local parks and letting the street-performer earn his 2 pennies and the juice-wala or the candy-wala do their part. Instead, we have swarms of families moving into multiplexes for entertainment.

There is nothing morally, or otherwise, good or bad about any choice the middle-class makes (and in any case, thats not the point). But, it seems that cheap alternative housing, given either by the gov. or private real-estate developers will not click, no matter how plausible that solution may seem.

Barcelona vs Barcelona

She walked along La Ramblas, watching the performers and applauding them in her mind. She liked this colorful street, full of hopeful artists and starry-eyed tourists, fancy-looking restaurants and inviting bars, the colorful market with paraphernalia lying around. She had a tempting glass of Orange juice, and then a rarely delicious vegetarian lunch made for her by the Indian-origin manager at the market. He even paid for her food.

And then the typical DDLJ stuff happened. She entered the Metro station hoping to get to one of the destinations which was a must-see according to the Lonely Planet guide. Lost in her world, she stood staring at the Metro map, trying to figure out the way. He stood right next to her. 

She didn't know for how long they stood, aware of each others' presence, and yet avoiding any awkward communication. Finally, a chance glance where both were caught

She: Do you know how to get to place X?

He: Ya, do blah-blah-blah

She: Oh thanks

He: You traveling by yourself?

She: (A succinct) ya

He: Wanna join me? I am going to go to place X eventually. Until then, we could go to this highly recommended place Y.

She: (dammit...  hot guys and chance encounters are difficult to turn down.. and this was a chance encounter with a hot guy.. so hesitantly..) Alrighty

They talk and talk... he is a chef in a restaurant in England. She, well, for him, is 'into computers'. It was a fun conversation... and a little company doesn't hurt.

They saw the colorful musical fountains, and had food. They drank a little Cerveza and then finally talked through the night. 

That was the Barcelona she had seen. In May 2008.

Cut to Scene II.

Barcelona again. May 2009.

She recognized parts of the city. She wished she remembered more. But cities were rarely places to her, cities were a remembered by the feelings they triggered in her, her opinions, her inner voices. 

This time, she had company. 3 friends. She saw Antoni Gaudi's Casa Battlo again. They had Cerveza, and vino, and went clubbling. Just the stuff tourists are expected to do when they land in big cities, especially Spanish cities known for their night-life.

They danced and danced until time lost its significance. Was it daylight? Or did she stop seeing stars?

They traveled to their castle-like, museum-like hostel, and crashed on the bed.

Barcelona, this time, was sight-seeing, eating, drinking, dancing, getting friendly, getting flooded by feelings of empathy for friends, crashing and hang-overing.

The sights of the city are juxtaposed by two snapshots in time. The mind channelizes its energy in trying to force out a decision: "was it better now, or did you like the previous experience?". The comparisons and debate continues with thoughts running into dark pits of unguarded territory. The 'responsible' version of self says "why compare? what's the point? Everything is good 'in its own way'! They were 2 different things, cant be compared". 

Would one like to be the Kareena of Chameli singing 'bhaage re mann', or would one rather be Saif of DCH singing Dil Chahta hai, kabhi na beete..?

Do's and Dons

Things I am supposed to be doing:-
1. Calculating the defaulters list
2. Checking the million periodic-test papers.
3. Studying for tomorrow's lecture to avoid any 'run-time' error

Things I am NOT supposed to be doing:-
1. Browsing thru random pages
2. Going to the kitchen every 10 minutes to check if the supply of snack has increased or gotten more interesting
3. Listening to very enthralling Hindi tracks and dancing like a foolish clown to their tunes
4. Going out to drink... and getting buzzed.
5. Reading Agony-aunt columns in each newspaper

But but but... such is human nature.
We just don't stick to our decisions, do we?

Why, Oh, Why do we enjoy the feeling of 'having so much to do' more than the satisfaction of 'getting it done'! I think a bigger to-do list gives a greater comfort than a greater just-did list.

** typed while listening to the Pardesi track from DevD and munching on little fatty bundles of joy and with a hundred tabs open on Firefox. Now I just need my beer **

Obsessive Compulsive Order

----- Beginning of Excerpt----

I find your memories in the recesses of my mind,
and in the portrayals of shady Hindi songs played in the rikshaw.

I hear your ideas and smirks in random conversations,
and a creepy tingling sensation passes through my spine.

I travel, sneeze, slurp, exercise, and smile with you,
And I believe you like it that way.

I share the bed with you every night,
whether you respond to me or not.

The problem (or the lack of it) is that there is no you.
There is only me.

And you are my creation.
Yet you are uncontrollably out of control... like a experiment gone horribly wrong... the typical sci-fi one where the creators are hounded by their creation.

I can't hold on to you because you make me dangerously obsessive.
And that is precisely the reason why I can't let go of you.
I am afraid I will miss you... and lose my few shreds of sanity

--------End of Excerpt---

The need for a sanction

We are raised in a social structure that have rules and guidelines - explicitly or implicitly laid down. We are taught, and we learn by experience, that generally, living within the framework of these rules and guidelines results in us winning the social game. Of course, there are those who venture beyond this framework, and hence are often viewed differently (awed, booed, outcasted, envied etc).

But most of us find it difficult to challenge this established rulebook. We might not agree with all the social norms, but violating them in an exaggerated fashion not for the reason to prove that you can, but because you actually want to, is unusual.

It is in fact, difficult to even think of violating most of the laws. For instance, a child brought up in a strictly disciplined environment where the 'right conduct' is highly rewarded and slightest deviation from it is stringently punished, might never evolve the need to, say eve-tease a passing girl. It just would not occur to him. It is 'wrong' in his eyes. Even if a desirable girl passes by, the idea of teasing her would not cross his mind, perhaps because such a behavior has been looked down upon.
However, eve-teasing occurs rampantly and that is testimony to the fact that there are people whose social structures do not consider this act that big an offense.

An interesting collision of thoughts occur when you disagree with a social rule. You see nothing wrong in certain activities that are considered 'taboo' by your social structure. You are convinced of their rightness. Not only that, you feel the need to indulge in them. So, there is an activity that is given a clean chit by the court in your mind, and is desired by the I-really-want-to-do-this section of your mind. However, it still requires great courage, conviction, confidence to actually indulge in it. This is probably because your brain gives conflicting signals. It wants to indulge, but it also knows that the person indulging in it is generally penalized by the society. In fact, even when you don't care about the penalty at all, you still hesitate.

It is strange - the mind.