It's been nearly a month since I last posted, and there has been a lot of water flowing under the bridge since then. My aunt and uncle and cousins came over to visit, and I shall post about the zoo. Then I went to Perhentian and dived and shall post about that as well.
Today I added to my still nascent collection of books. The Castle. By Franz Kafka. One post about the novel as well, I hope to have all three of his novels soon.
I'm thinking about writing for the joy of it, not to publish, but as an artist wields the brush, as a sculptor his chisel and as a rocket scientist his partial differential equation.
To create a reservoir, not just of my memories as this blog is, but of my feelings and emotions as I look around this world. Maybe someone will read them some day.
Until later. Au revoir.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
The First War of Independence
I've been reading a lot of news articles recently on the celebrations for the 150th year of Indian Independence. You know, the 1857 "uprising" where India took up arms against the colonial British yoke. It beats me how such a normal, decent matter can end in controversy. But that's India, isn't it?
Controversy 1: Apparently a lot of the Sikh parties are being extremely vocal about the terminology "The First War of Independence". They feel, perhaps rightly, that the many Anglo-Sikh Wars in the 1840s should be termed the first. But by that logic, why not the Battles in Bengal? Or those of Tipu Sultan?
These arguments can go on for ever. The point most of these parties fail to get is that the War in 1857 was the FIRST time the country fought as a country, for the independence of India, not for a particular princely state.
Controversy 2: There was some plan to bring back the remains of Bahadur Shah Zafar to India. The RSS opposes this (surprise!) on the grounds of Muslim King, what the ,...! Which is the oddest most irritating thing about it. This man, by all accounts, was not a great king. His rule barely extended to the Red Fort. He was one of the great Sufi poets. And in the best tradition of Indian kings, he viewed his "praja" as one - irrespective of religion. He was also the last Emperor of India, unless you count Queen Victoria and King George.
The point is, it was under this king that almost all of India united, irrespective of religion and caste and royal province to overthrow the imperalists. This man was the first nationalist, and if his remains come back to India, it might well be a place of worship. A monument to the last Emperor. A place where both Hindus and Muslims would go to pay their respects. One monument that may at last bring equality out of division.
Perhaps thats why the RSS opposes it.
Controversy 1: Apparently a lot of the Sikh parties are being extremely vocal about the terminology "The First War of Independence". They feel, perhaps rightly, that the many Anglo-Sikh Wars in the 1840s should be termed the first. But by that logic, why not the Battles in Bengal? Or those of Tipu Sultan?
These arguments can go on for ever. The point most of these parties fail to get is that the War in 1857 was the FIRST time the country fought as a country, for the independence of India, not for a particular princely state.
Controversy 2: There was some plan to bring back the remains of Bahadur Shah Zafar to India. The RSS opposes this (surprise!) on the grounds of Muslim King, what the ,...! Which is the oddest most irritating thing about it. This man, by all accounts, was not a great king. His rule barely extended to the Red Fort. He was one of the great Sufi poets. And in the best tradition of Indian kings, he viewed his "praja" as one - irrespective of religion. He was also the last Emperor of India, unless you count Queen Victoria and King George.
The point is, it was under this king that almost all of India united, irrespective of religion and caste and royal province to overthrow the imperalists. This man was the first nationalist, and if his remains come back to India, it might well be a place of worship. A monument to the last Emperor. A place where both Hindus and Muslims would go to pay their respects. One monument that may at last bring equality out of division.
Perhaps thats why the RSS opposes it.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Song
This one's for D. A song she adores. A singer I admire. A smile millions of girls died for.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The VDNA
Everyone seems to be getting one done on their blogs you know. The salient features of my DNA, if you are at all interested.
The Mood: Easy Rider. That means I am drawn to the drama of a big spectacle, I love the unpredictability of nature. I like to think differently, always from another perspective, and I love life rugged. I have a good sense of humour, my music is about memories, I am fun, easy going and my tongue is always firmly in my cheek.
The Fun: Escape Artist. Am always the first to take the leap, and I try not to have any regrets. I like to indulge my passions for kicks and am probably happy spending my time alone. My drive and curiosity take me all over the world!
The Habits: Back to Basics. I never have enough rest - too busy, too exhausted or a tad lazy? ;)~!Snooze is my best friend, and style is not the top of my list.
The Love: Love Bug. I'm a bit of a softie. Huh? What? Unconditional and loyal love, freedom equals energy and activity, exploring my boundaries and pushing the limits.
The Mood: Easy Rider. That means I am drawn to the drama of a big spectacle, I love the unpredictability of nature. I like to think differently, always from another perspective, and I love life rugged. I have a good sense of humour, my music is about memories, I am fun, easy going and my tongue is always firmly in my cheek.
The Fun: Escape Artist. Am always the first to take the leap, and I try not to have any regrets. I like to indulge my passions for kicks and am probably happy spending my time alone. My drive and curiosity take me all over the world!
The Habits: Back to Basics. I never have enough rest - too busy, too exhausted or a tad lazy? ;)~!Snooze is my best friend, and style is not the top of my list.
The Love: Love Bug. I'm a bit of a softie. Huh? What? Unconditional and loyal love, freedom equals energy and activity, exploring my boundaries and pushing the limits.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Books
Have you ever wondered how the books that you read have such a marked impact on your life, and your personality? It was something that I was thinking about the other day, and it seems to have worked in my life, at any rate. Let me try and explain what I'm talking about.
I started reading (apart from the obvious ABC books) with Noddy. Now the thing about Noddy, if you have ever read these books, is that he is almost never ever sad. If anything depresses him, he is immediately counseled by Big-Ears and he is back to his car and his songs and his parp-parp. Noddy taught me that things always work out, and never to lose heart. One of the very first lessons I learnt, that has stayed with me through life.
Then I moved on, to the great Enid Blyton mysteries. The Secret Sevens, the Famous Fives, and that series with R-titles. You know, Rubadub Mystery, Ragamuffin Mystery and so on. These books opened my eyes with curiosity. I began to look for mysteries in every tiny aspect of life, and became the curious geek I am today. I actually graduated pretty fast to Hardy Boys after that, which deepened my mystery mania, which was also fuelled by Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes.
And then it was time for Sidney Sheldon, Grisham, Forsyth and Harold Robbins. Taught me all the adult things about life. Not just sex. Its more about how the world is not such a great place after all. There are things that go on that are well, let's say not ideal. And its not the perfect black and white world of the Hardy Boys either. These books taught me that the line between right and wrong is often blurred, something that is a tough lesson to learn while growing up.
In IIT, I was exposed to Lord of the Rings and the Hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy. One taught me about honour and goodness and adventure - mottos that have guided my professional, academic life - and the other taught me about randomness - a motto that has guided my fun times. I think I have the most fun when I am the most random. I wonder if that's true for everyone.
I then got serious about Ayn Rands and Franz Kafkas. Dark books that taught me about sinister dark corners of life. About how things can go wrong all the time, even if you do everything good and right.
And who can underestimate the Wodehouse books that taught me about humour, and Indian fiction that influenced my styles of writing and reading? And what of the mythological Ramayana and Mahabharata, that influenced the conservative person that people tell me I am? Or Alice in Wonderland, or the Chronicles of Narnia - two books that have made me more imaginative than I ever thought I could be? Or of Oliver Twist, or of The Importance of Being Earnest, or all of Shakespeare - that allowed me to view ages and times that I could not live through?
There are so many books that have shaped me, I can only thank the authors of these marvellous masterpieces. They will always be revered.
I started reading (apart from the obvious ABC books) with Noddy. Now the thing about Noddy, if you have ever read these books, is that he is almost never ever sad. If anything depresses him, he is immediately counseled by Big-Ears and he is back to his car and his songs and his parp-parp. Noddy taught me that things always work out, and never to lose heart. One of the very first lessons I learnt, that has stayed with me through life.
Then I moved on, to the great Enid Blyton mysteries. The Secret Sevens, the Famous Fives, and that series with R-titles. You know, Rubadub Mystery, Ragamuffin Mystery and so on. These books opened my eyes with curiosity. I began to look for mysteries in every tiny aspect of life, and became the curious geek I am today. I actually graduated pretty fast to Hardy Boys after that, which deepened my mystery mania, which was also fuelled by Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes.
And then it was time for Sidney Sheldon, Grisham, Forsyth and Harold Robbins. Taught me all the adult things about life. Not just sex. Its more about how the world is not such a great place after all. There are things that go on that are well, let's say not ideal. And its not the perfect black and white world of the Hardy Boys either. These books taught me that the line between right and wrong is often blurred, something that is a tough lesson to learn while growing up.
In IIT, I was exposed to Lord of the Rings and the Hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy. One taught me about honour and goodness and adventure - mottos that have guided my professional, academic life - and the other taught me about randomness - a motto that has guided my fun times. I think I have the most fun when I am the most random. I wonder if that's true for everyone.
I then got serious about Ayn Rands and Franz Kafkas. Dark books that taught me about sinister dark corners of life. About how things can go wrong all the time, even if you do everything good and right.
And who can underestimate the Wodehouse books that taught me about humour, and Indian fiction that influenced my styles of writing and reading? And what of the mythological Ramayana and Mahabharata, that influenced the conservative person that people tell me I am? Or Alice in Wonderland, or the Chronicles of Narnia - two books that have made me more imaginative than I ever thought I could be? Or of Oliver Twist, or of The Importance of Being Earnest, or all of Shakespeare - that allowed me to view ages and times that I could not live through?
There are so many books that have shaped me, I can only thank the authors of these marvellous masterpieces. They will always be revered.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Of Love and Relationships
I'm a romantic at heart.
Not M&B stuff though. Romance means adventure. Sea Spray, Unexplored lands, hidden treasure and dragons to slay. That's true romance. Damsels in distress are just the side dishes, if you will. Perks of the job, and all that.
Having said that however, there is a place in this large heart of mine for the softer emotion. I have been in love. I am in love as of this moment. But I don't believe in love at first sight. Not any more at least.
I believe in attraction. At first sight, definitely. You can be physically attracted to a person, and that makes you see stars and makes you feel like a little kid who first sees a cotton candy cart. But that isn't really love. Love is about getting to know someone so well that you are able to read her every emotion, her every whim. You needn't cater to these whims, but anticipating them helps.
As a consequence of no love at first sight, there are no soulmates. Since love is something that develops, excruciatingly, over time, it stands to reason that every relationship (or those based in love) should be an effort, a whole phantasm of hard work, planning and mind reading.
Now this is eye-opening. Most people expect relationships to go well, without realising that you need to work hard at it. Some days you need to work really hard. And sometimes you fight and scream and say nasty things. But you work at it, and you work at it. And finally like a sculpture emerging from a block of granite, you realise that you actually are soulmates.
Its hard back breaking work to keep your relationship healthy, but if effort doesn't go into it, it stagnates. And insead of Venus di Milo, you end up with a misshapen rock with two stumps. That's not fun. And now I'm sounding like one of those Agony Aunts you see on Page 14 of the newspaper, who gets letters from people with names like Desperate Diva or Harried Housewife.
I'd better sign off before Amorous Amy gets ideas and starts emailing me!
Not M&B stuff though. Romance means adventure. Sea Spray, Unexplored lands, hidden treasure and dragons to slay. That's true romance. Damsels in distress are just the side dishes, if you will. Perks of the job, and all that.
Having said that however
I believe in attraction. At first sight, definitely. You can be physically attracted to a person, and that makes you see stars and makes you feel like a little kid who first sees a cotton candy cart. But that isn't really love. Love is about getting to know someone so well that you are able to read her every emotion, her every whim. You needn't cater to these whims, but anticipating them helps.
As a consequence of no love at first sight, there are no soulmates. Since love is something that develops, excruciatingly, over time, it stands to reason that every relationship (or those based in love) should be an effort, a whole phantasm of hard work, planning and mind reading.
Now this is eye-opening. Most people expect relationships to go well, without realising that you need to work hard at it. Some days you need to work really hard. And sometimes you fight and scream and say nasty things. But you work at it, and you work at it. And finally like a sculpture emerging from a block of granite, you realise that you actually are soulmates.
Its hard back breaking work to keep your relationship healthy, but if effort doesn't go into it, it stagnates. And insead of Venus di Milo, you end up with a misshapen rock with two stumps. That's not fun. And now I'm sounding like one of those Agony Aunts you see on Page 14 of the newspaper, who gets letters from people with names like Desperate Diva or Harried Housewife.
I'd better sign off before Amorous Amy gets ideas and starts emailing me!
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Cricket
And finally, it's all over. Awesome Australia win again. It's getting to be impossible to beat them. I know, I know .. New Zealand swamped them 3-zip before the World Cup, and even England (though who am I to comment, at least they got to the super 8s) beat Australia a couple of times before that. And McGrath is gone. So is Warne. But does that make them beatable? I can't think of any team capable of even coming close.
Cricket is a money sport, a sport for professionals who aim to make as much moolah as they can get. Gentleman's game, sure. But gentlemen bring home the bacon, and don't you forget it. And is that really an explanation for the other team's pathetic displays? (Barring Sri Lanka, I thought they were marvellous throughout - and its a shame the final ended the way it did). What I'm trying to say is, I'm sure the Aussies are as interested in cash as the other teams and the ICC are. It's just that they are more professional I guess. Whatever that means.
Its been a disillusioning past few years for me - and I used to be such an avid fan of the sport. I think Olonga and Flower demonstrated spirit perfectly in 2003, and look how they paid for it. Sri Lanka demonstrated that spirit this time around, the game is supposed to be fun, for God's sakes!
Otherwise, its just not cricket.
Cricket is a money sport, a sport for professionals who aim to make as much moolah as they can get. Gentleman's game, sure. But gentlemen bring home the bacon, and don't you forget it. And is that really an explanation for the other team's pathetic displays? (Barring Sri Lanka, I thought they were marvellous throughout - and its a shame the final ended the way it did). What I'm trying to say is, I'm sure the Aussies are as interested in cash as the other teams and the ICC are. It's just that they are more professional I guess. Whatever that means.
Its been a disillusioning past few years for me - and I used to be such an avid fan of the sport. I think Olonga and Flower demonstrated spirit perfectly in 2003, and look how they paid for it. Sri Lanka demonstrated that spirit this time around, the game is supposed to be fun, for God's sakes!
Otherwise, its just not cricket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)