NANOCREATOR

आज़ादी का लड्डू

2011-08-14T18:25:00.001+02:00

आज़ादी का लड्डू

बहुत साल हुए की स्कूल के ज़माने से देखा मैने

आज़ादी के मायने एक लड्डू और छुट्टी में समाये हुए थे

सुबह झंडा फेहरा के एक मशीनी कतार में खडे होके जोर जोर से नारे लगाने का इनाम

एक लड्डू, कुछ भाषण और यह जानना की देश की शान में एक और साल जुड़ गया है और देश और महान हो गया है

फीके भाषण और फीकी देश की शान के बदले, मीठे लड्डू उस दिन की लाज बचा लिया करते थे

तब मैं सोचता था की लड्डू ना होते तो इस १५ अगस्त की फीकी आज़ादी को कैसे पचा पाता

थोडा बड़ा हुआ तो जाना की लड्डू और आज़ादी का रिश्ता और भी मज़बूत है
अब मेरा वही आज़ादी वाला लड्डू, बूंदी का ना होके ठोस विचारों का बनने लगा था

वोह विचार जो कभी बचपन में किताबों के पन्नों में छपे थे और दिलोदिमाग पर छाप बना चुके थे
लड्डू की मिठास की पहचान अब इन विचारों के अमल में महसूस होती थी

पर भाई यह नया लड्डू तोह पचाने में बड़ा जद्दोजेहत वाली चीज़ निकला
एक एक विचार सामाजिक दीवार पे माथा मारे और चूर चूर होकर वहीँ धूल में मिट जाये

ज्यादातर दोस्त इस बदहजमी भरे लड्डू का मोह छोड़ दुनियादारी से हाथ मिला बैठे
बोले बेटे बडे हो गए हो अब! दुनियादारी समझो और बच्चों के किताबी विचारों से बहार निकलो

असली दुनिया में सब कुछ बिकता है और ख़ास तौर पे यह आज़ादी का लड्डू बहुत कीमत दिलाता है

बस एक बात का ख़याल रहे, यह एक बार बिकता है क्यूंकि बिकते ही साड़ी मिठास हवा हो जाएगी

और मैं ठहरा मीठे का दीवाना तो
बस इसी शर्त ने मेरे आज़ादी के नन्हे लड्डू को बचाए रखा
और उसकी मिठास ने ज़िन्दगी के मायनों को टिकाये रखा

कल फिर १५ अगस्त के बहने मैं खुद के लिए और वही आज़ादी का लड्डू बनाऊँगा
आप खाओगे ?

Who Am I

2011-06-29T12:14:00.002+02:00

Who Am I

A truth seeking lair
A clipped wings flyer

Who Am I

Untamed and unconquered spirit
Playing with words as a habit

Who Am I

Doubting every possible conclusion
Yet holding some of them even at the cost of seclusion

Who Am I

With thousands of kills and bruises
Knife in one hand and other hand full of roses

Who Am I

Am I myself
Yes I am

And that why I claim my life with such arrogance :)

आज मैने रसगुल्ले खाए और वोह बहुत स्वाद थे

2011-06-09T15:06:00.001+02:00

एक बाबा जिसने एक ही सांस में अहिंसा का दम भरा और सेना बनाने का वादा भी किया

फिर आये हमारे अन्ना जिसने उसी अहिंसा के चीथड़ों को अगले ही दिन सिया

और फिर सरकार बोली की यह क्या बवाल मचा रखा है

ढंग से "खाने" भी नहीं देते , यह क्या अनशन-अनशन का शोर लगा रखा है

आम-आदमी के आम का जूस सारा निचोड़ मारा

अब छिलका और गुठली के साथ गुस्सा लिए बहुत सारा

वोह चल दिया राजघाट और जंतर मंतर पे लिए तिरंगा

मिल जुल के एक समाज बनाने सतरंगा

पर रुको, मैने यहीं बैठे बैठे क्या किया यह तोह आपने पुछा ही नहीं

मैने तोह भैया आज रसगुल्ले खाए और वोह बहुत स्वाद थे

Living without GOD

2011-05-15T22:08:00.005+02:00

I guess it has been well over a decade and half since i shunned the notion of GOD even though i started questioning it as early as 5-6 years old.

Initially, this act was not welcomed at home. Even though dad, mom and bro aren't devoted religious people, but being at-least "believers", me turning into a so-called non-believer (i would contest this tag later in the post) worried them a bit more than, if somebody outside the family would have done that. I think the first thing i did towards exerting this act was not to be part of Diwali pooja (special worship during Diwali festival where whole family participates) and then shamelessly acknowledging that if i have to go to the temple, i would go only to have the tasty prasad and i don't think god exist there or anywhere even for the sake of the argument. Later when i turned towards science with great curiosity and started liking physics, dad tried few times with arguments like "even Einstein believed in God!" to which i had to say,"o yeah, good for him :) ".

My first question against the concept of GOD came with the fact that "god can punish or reward for bad or good deeds". Though my parent never told me this (as they don't believe in it either as i know) but this seemed the most popular belief amongst my peers and other people i met during childhood. I experimented with it a lot and observed that outcome was rarely influenced by an external agent and was mostly decided by present circumstances.

First incidence around me wondering on GOD question, was when all four of us use to go to temple occasionally (like once in few months, usually for family photo as temple always had a nicely maintained garden for a good background). My dad didn't use to go inside, especially in front of statues for worshiping, saying that he does not believe those statues had GOD in them. Instead, he said, GOD is everywhere, so no need to worship that particular statue and it was sufficient to come to temple and remember him. Also being a very hard-worker, he told us the old famous quote "work is worship". Doing good deeds and doing his job best, was sufficient to be okay with GOD thing. When i asked, "then why do u come here at all", he use to look at mom and tell me, "i like the place, its nice and quite etc" but the unanswered question lingered in my consciousness forever.

One incidence which shook (and then firmed !) my atheistic belief was when my bro was preparing for military school exam, which he so much wanted to go into, and i thought that if there is a GOD maybe i should transfer all my good deeds to his account so that he goes through (considering our daily fights and his evil ways to score points over me by cheating, he had no chance with GOD there :P). He did went through making to the toppers in all-India merit list but i observed that, that was because this 10 year old kid studied with determination and dog-fight which i have seen only in best athletes like Abhinav Bindra and in the movie character Rocky. So it was more than my transferred data than his own efforts which made him get his aim (even afterwards going on to the best positions in his career). I was madly confused if i am wrong in any way about GOD and its influence.

Over some more months i met some other friends of mine and his, who have been doing good in academics or athletics and i found the same trend. The argument "GOD helps those who help themselves" was a very lousy explanation for me and it seemed more like an excuse to run away from investigation. Some more dramatic incidents and within a year i finally concluded that external influence, if any, is of minor importance and also i was not sure if this external influence is GOD or more from the sum-total environment (society, parents, situations etc) around the individual. This was the final nail in the coffin and GOD went buried down into the darkness of my consciousness never to be needed.

Also being a stammerer, i wondered if i can speak normal if i be nice all the time. First of all, its a hell to be nice all the time :P especially with well proven assholes all around :P but anyway, i tried my best and i was still the same. Occasional improvement was more to do with my own effort to understand it and study it systematically. After 8 years of concentrated work on it when i speak normal now, i am confident it was the systematic study and logical remedies than GOD thing. Infact, by "their" standards, i should have been made to suffer stammering all my life for blasphemy :P

Now in the absence of GOD, despite the common perception about "feeling emptiness" about logic and purpose of life, i felt quite opposite. Also i don't think GODlessness has made me any less empathetic and emotional. Detachment from notion of GOD did not made me go against the believers either. Infact, it made me study their ways in more finer ways and maybe i now appreciate the reasons behind their acts more than they do, since many a times, they are prohibited to question and ask for reason.

My romance with physics was at initial stages in those early teenage days, but the boring ways to teach it on black-board made me seek the answers with me myself doing something about them. I discovered most of the answers about life and its existence on earth quite satisfactorily within science (at-least at that time, now i do have some doubts about learning all those theories in detail). Without a creator most of the life could be explained. But here again i was surprised about the fact, why i was the only fool to deny its existence when all around me (who knew all of what i knew, most of them could write it better and score better grades than me too!) were very comfortable with contradictory beliefs. George Orwell's 1984's ideas like double-speak and double-think were the living standards for them.

I have been a very straight thinker i.e. My life is good when i have crystal clear viewpoint and hence clear view before me about things around me. Hence contradictions needs to be sorted out and i can't live with them. I asked some of these people about living with contradictions (from conclusions of reason-based systems and faith-based systems) and they said, its okay to be both ways since everybody else is that way too! (thats a lousy reason for me). Science for money and religion and god-beliefs for living in society. Well it made sense for them and i had to satisfy myself with the fact that "i am different" (they said "god's special people who needed some more megawatts of GOD's illumination than usual" :P ). At first, being different was uncomfortable, added with the fact that i was a stammerer and had to struggle to converse and make friends. But as i crouched back to my own world, discovering the beauty of solace and company of few, it became my lifestyle. Further investigation revealed more interesting facts about GOD and its concept, which might be worth categorizing:

Mostly, GOD was an excellent excuse to convenience. For example: It was convenient for a male dominated society to define laws for women folks and their regulation in life-affairs. Traditions are wound around this convenience in the name of GOD since once GOD's word is associated, obedience is a must. One more indicator of convenience based origin of GOD thing is that almost all GODs have been imagined in human form and even if they have partial animal appearance or characteristics, they final submit to majorly human form. Thats because, its a man-made concept. We don't like cockroaches, so they have no chance to be any GOD ever!
GOD was also a great unifier. Though my Bro would eventually contest that, religion and GOD are two different things and must not be confused to be same (i would agree with him now), but show me a religion without a GOD and show me a GOD which do not have a religion at its tails end. A group needs a symbol and when group grows too big, GOD is found to be a very convenient point of unification. The problem occurs when different GODs clash, then the same unifier becomes diversifier and discriminator. Poor GOD guy is un-necessarily painted with human hatred but being an excellent excuse, divinity overcomes the guilt of wrong-doings in the name of GOD. But its not always put to a bad name. Religious organizations around the world are known to be the front-runner in humanitarian aid providers and deeds of people like Mother Teressa are found to be excellent excuse when purpose of religion is objected.
GOD is essential for existence of a society made up of non-individualist. Being an individualist, i rely on my own judgement for my life (in a way i am my own GOD :P). But if someone does not do things this way, its necessary for him/her to have a good start with the established ideas (holy books, sayings of holy men, holy ways of living life or something else which is "holy").
GOD also is an excellent source to hide their fears and insecurities. Biologically, we are a carbon based life-form. At a psychological end, we are a fear based life-form. We fear almost every conceivable idea. Best and worst performances are equally feared. And we find a fine excuse in GODs. Fear based hatred, which is the source of xenophobia, makes them harm/kill each other without guilt and you wouldn't wonder where the guilt goes off to :)
Blind following is the most objectionable of all the issues. Objecting, not even existence, but an minor issue like; was he/she human by an chance, would be sufficient to ignite anger. Almost all religions like to consider GODs to be superhuman (but still in human form) for obvious human desire to see their own performances beyond the "so-called" capabilities.
Lazy-ass ignorance is another name for GODliness. Those who never dared venture to understand themselves about how and why things behaved around them, simply declared it "work of GOD". Science had to make an uphill climb to prove most of the things without a creator and now ironically, "scientific" explanation for GOD has become a fashion in the age of science.

There are many more but i wont like this already stretched out article to go beyond its elastic point :P

I must clarify one final point. Not believing in GOD does not makes one a non-believer. To make a decision, a framework is required. My framework does not involve an external source (even if it exists). Also, questioning own belief system to its very core, is most essential part of being GOD-less living lifestyle. Leaving room for questioning, lets me breathe easy within the framework which is constantly updated with new experiences (which makes new beliefs). You can understand this in terms of Open source software and proprietary software. Proprietary software is very convenient since things are already done for you, but it comes at a price of being caged within no-change clauses. At the other end, Open source puts you into a dark well where you build up your own thing according to your own need and share with others without loosing your individuality.

Every GODless system is individual, since it does not obeys the laws of collectivism by its very definition. I do not demand any other god-less idea to be compatible by mine. Neither do i demand GOD believers to turn to my ideas and make a religion out of it. Collectivism breaks the very idea of GODlessness.

I do see beauty in definitions in worldly religions and GODs (infact the most objectionable idea is blind following and if this condition is removed, i have had wonderful conversations with GOD people without any problem). I like the story books which religions call holy books. Their characters are made GODs and worshiped out of insecurity but i like those characters for their qualities. For example: I do admire Rama for his standards except for abolishing his wife for public acceptance. I do admire Shiva the most since i guess that dude would have hated to be a GOD. I do like stories in Kuran since it shows the hardships of tough guys surviving in hostile environment in the middle of a desert. I do enjoy music written in praise of god, but for the music and poetry. Jesus guy had been preaching all nice stuff all his life and i wonder if he would have really said that he has anything to do with GOD or was it the people around him who made it all up about GOD thing.

Anyway, the sum total of all these words is:

I am okay with NO-GOD and anybody believing in GOD.
I don't ask you to believe in my belief and neither should you.
I don't feel pity or similar things because i don't think your belief is ignorance. It can be termed ignorance from my point of view but being an individualist, my point-of-view is limited to me. Your GOD filled world has many flaws from my point of view but my world will also have equal number of flaws to satisfy symmetry :)

We can still find sufficiently pleasant and infact wonderful grounds to live a wonderful life on earth. Infact, as i see it, we both fill gaps in our approaches. World would need some objectors to every philosophy in order to maintain healthy life and avoid stagnation due to static conditions.

The took your life, they could not take your pride

2011-04-08T23:50:00.005+02:00

I did not knew Juliano Mer-Khamis. Never heard of him. Never knew his work. Yet when i heard of his assassination (on same day as Martin Luther King), something hit me deep inside. I wondered why. How can you move so much by death of stranger when your own would certify you to be as cold as rock when it comes to emotions towards a human.

To get an idea of what and how i felt, you would have to see the movie he made: Arna's Children (BUY THIS DVD all the money from this purchase keeps Freedom theater alive)

His mother started it all. Arna started a theater in war torn Palestenian village of Jennin and tried to give a way out of the madness all around. Juliano was perhaps the only one who could understand the full intensity of her effort and her logic behind the same. You can see this in his movie. You see the children taken from war torn society struggling amongst hatred and conflciting propagandas. Then you will see them pushing the anger (born out of so called injustice) and channelise it into thier talent. Then you would see how talented they become at actual performance (to me they seemed better actors than the trash i see on screen). You can also see the hope in their eyes. Then you are introduced to the darker side of story when you realize that they end up dead for the cause of "their people". You could see all this because Juliano made you see through his lens. He could make you see all this because he could understand the issue to its core. He could see a way out of propaganda and was perhaps disturbed by the way Arna's effort could not compete with the realities of time.

He continued the same efforts and "they" took his life. They tried to kill hope. Hope of a way out. Because "they" like madness to hope. They would rather prefer gun over stage. The cycle of violence seems more sacred to them. The un-named and masked "them" wanted rational to shut up since its too loud and disturbing for irrationality they live.

I don't know yet what i can and will do about this but its for sure that I wont let the idea die.

Some videos involving Juliano's work:

हवा महल

2011-03-28T21:43:00.001+02:00

इस दीवानी दुनिया में, इक दीवाना घूमता है

इश्क की तनहाइयों से कोई बहाना ढूंढता है

घूमता फिरता शहर दर शहर, वोह इस बडे से हवामहल में आ पहुंचा

ढूंढता है इस हवामहल में की कोई प्यारा लम्हा मिल जाये

छोटा मोटा ही सही कोई बहाना मिल जाये

हर खिड़की पर एक लम्हा अपने आप को बेच रहा था

इतनें सारे लम्हों में उसे तलाश बस एक झलक सच्चाई की

नौटंकी की पपड़ी उतर फेक , एक फांक अच्छाई की

छील छील के दीवारें, महल नंगा हो गया है पूरा पर दीवारें और खिड़कियाँ अब भी गूगी रही

तभी एक छोटी सी दबी कुचली सी आवाज़ आती है

सामान के ढेर के नीचे से दबी हुई सी बुलाती है

उसकी बुदबुदाहट भी दुनिया के शोर से ज्यादा साफ़ सुनाई दे रही है

वोह हाथ बढ़ा के आवाज़ को सहारा देता है तोह वोह बोलती है

और सबसे बड़ा जीवन का रहस्य खोलती है

मुर्ख, मृगतृष्णा में बावला हुआ फिरता है तू

यह महल, सामान, दीवारें और खिडकियों से बहार निकल

और ज़िन्दगी की धरा में बेख़ौफ़ बह जा विकल

जो मिला न मिला, जो खिला न खिला

उम्मीदों की उड़ान सारें ऐशों आरामों की राख पे चलती है

उस राख की हर फांख एक नयी मंजिल फलती है

स्वाद की मिठास जीभ पर कम और मन में ज्यादा पकती है

उसी आवाज़ में उस दीवाने की दीवानगी का खुदा था शायद... जो वोह खुश हो के, पोटली बाँध और नयी मंजिलों को तीरता हुआ एक नए हवा महल की तलाश में निकल पड़ा...एक आखिरी हवा महल...आखिर मृगतृष्णा का सवाल है बाबा :)

- संदीप नागर

We The people of India

2011-03-28T12:55:00.003+02:00

A few days ago i got an interesting forwarded e-mail from a friend. Unfortunately there is no way to locate the original author of the article, so please excuse me for mentioning it anonymously. So first you would have to read the original article (brown font below) and then my views on it.

Note: My views may seem a very pessimistic viewpoint to describe a nation which is growing fastest by many standards, i would say that most of the facts mentioned are quite accurate.

For the convenience of non-Hindi and non-Indians readers i have illustrated some concepts in italics with blue color font :)

original article:

Why Indians don't give back to society & Why don't we worship Brahma?

Brahma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma) is amongst the three gods responsible for creation. Brahma creates, Vishnu maintains and Shiva destryos: and hence they complete the cycle of life. Amongst millions of temples for various versions of vishnu and shiva, there is only one single temple of Brahma at a place called Pushkar and whereas its a religious duty to worship shiva out of fear (since he can destroy) and vishnu (since he maintains harmony) almost nobody cares for brahma :)

Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism.

Why don't we worship Brahma ? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as the creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But in what way does our religion shape our culture?

Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US, Germany and Britain as coming from their populations Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, was missing from the Catholic populations of South America, Italy and Spain. Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity message of doing good deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate motive: public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US, from John D. Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.

What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different.

Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. One good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observe the opportunism in the behavior of the Indian driver. Where traffic halts on one side of the road in India, motorists will encroach the oncoming side because there is space available there. If that leads to both sides being blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted to stay in his place.

The Indians instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced that the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoring cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and drove away.

We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the-world leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights. We form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for the plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boarding announcements for Indians taking international flights.

Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good. Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pick up the rubbish we throw. Thailand's toilets are used by as many people as Indias toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but spotless. This is because thats how the users leave them, not the cleaners.

The Indians reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A study of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier Science/Das- Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that declining assessment intensity had a significant negative effect on
compliance, while traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution activity) had only a limited effect on Indians.The authors puzzled over the fact that India's income tax performance (was) below the average of countries with similar GDP per capita.

We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguity extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms. Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue inIndian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court, can hold legitimate hope of a comeback unthinkable in the West.

The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone elses rules well, even if we cant enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless at the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, which in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent for adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.

The question is: Why are we opportunists?

In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewards religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the after life. This is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create skeptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this
in Hinduism. Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no after life in Hinduism and rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our death rites and beliefs -- funeral in
Kashi -- seek freedom from rebirth.

Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about how not to return to
earth, because its a rotten place. Naipaul opens his finest novel with the words The world is what it is, and Wittgenstein (The world is all that is the case) opens his Tractatus similarly.

Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is. Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view -- which is zero-sum -- from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of his fellow man. But why?

The Hindu devotees relationship with god is transactional: I give you this, you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the universes blessings towards you. God gives you something not through the miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging

that something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedic fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religion is about bending gods influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement, through offerings.

Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give back to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) because it hasnt given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth
of his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fighting hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entire fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani International School has annual fees starting at Rs. 47,50,000 (with a Rs 24,00,000 admission fee) and Mukesh Ambanis daughter was made head girl.

An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith or has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question we started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He has nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.

My views:

thats a cool take on Indian Psyche (see below). I agreed with most of the points that culture (which does erupts out of religion beliefs) does have a major chunk of opportunistic attitude in friends, family and society in general. Its also hard to disagree from the point mentioned about Brahma since it looks very logical from the argument presented. Though ascribing almost everything to Hindu viewpoint is understandable from the fact thats its a majority, but then it wont be accurate. Almost everybody (even from other religions and belief-systems in general, event atheists :) behave that way : the so called "Indian way" (which some like to call the "chalta hai" attitude)

So maybe the next question is why did Indian subcontinent developed this way?

Maybe its because this land was the land of plenty. Few natural disasters occurred here (fewer than civilizations on shores and in extreme cold and hot climates and those on an island with limited resources). There was ample of food and resources which led to development of big cities and then to kingdoms. The role of kingdoms is an important one here since this is where oppurtinism became a feasible option of interacting with peers. All you had to do is to be okay with king (in general "the authority" like school masters, head priest in temple, bread earner of house, head clerk of an administrative office: We developed our love for hierarchy here. The so called "kissa kursi ka" :) ).

If (s)he changes, change with them and just be okay for you can only survive this way. This explain why most of the wars with so called "foreign invaders" (as Hindu fundamentalists love to put it though they will vehemently oppose the idea of Aryans themselves being foreign invaders) were lost due to betrayal of a key minister/ally at just the right moment since (s)he was offered something more lucrative. Loyalist were the crazy ones. More interestingly, loyalist were conveniently used by the opportunists to fight their wars for them and this idiosyncrasy is repeatedly observed in almost all major conflict (recently it was Kargil when BJP government forced army to to make a "quick" war to gain political and social points, instead of letting the intruders face the harsh winters and continuous bombings for longer time which would reduce Indian troop casulaities).

the term "kissa kursi ka" literarly mean the "story of chair" and it means that Indian society has a strong tendency to grab a "position of authority" (usually a chair in an office which controls the management of many people: like a principle in school, boss of a lab, head of university, president etc ). There is also a tendency to not only grab the chair but "not to leave it" for as long as possible. Take a look at politicians, offices, management etc in India and mostly you would find an old guy who cant even walk and talk properly and has one leg in coffin, but wont be ready to let go off the chair he holds since "chair defines him" by the virtue of authority it holds.

One funny way of understanding this opportunism based way-of-life can be shown in the statement which somebody mentioned to me many times : मुसीबत में गधे को भी बाप बनाना पड़ता है

(" मुसीबत में गधे को भी बाप बनाना पड़ता है " which says that "when you are in trouble, you should even accept donkey to be your father". Donkey is used in negative sense as the animal which is retard because he carries loads for no profit of his own :)

INTEGRITY becomes a trade-able entity in such societies.

(Wo)Men-of -honor (i must clarify here that honor does not lies outside you in materialist things, its inside

so as the video goes, shaurya isnt the dress, but the idea of the man who dons it as a standard and this is amplified in the line "marti marti is duniya mein, nihathey datey rehney ki himmat") are the crazy ones who makes their family and everybody else suffer because of their "crazy principles".

Translation of poem in the video: "shaurya kya hai" (translation: what is honor):

what is honor?

The thundering noise of marching soldiers

or is it the noise of blitzering guns screeching a quite sky

what is honor?

few medals on your green uniform

or making borders in the name of unseen divisions

what is honor?

to shoot down a quietly flying bird with your gun

or to burn down a city with your firepower

Honor !

is it achieved when a hot boiling blood running in veins suddenly stops

or when we make about present hell in search of an unseen heavens as promised

what is honor in this sky full of smoke

what is honor in the cries of funeral at a small village in the valley

Honor!

maybe its a strong belief

maybe its a will

deep inside us

a will to hold hand of someone by breaking religious rules

to give a challenge to the thunderous sound of bullets with your silence

To stand unarmed in the world going crazy arming themselves

Honor!

To save my part of the beautiful world for coming generations

what is honor !

This poem from renowed poet Javed Akhtar comes at the climax of a movie called "Shaurya (Honor): It takes courage to make right...right" ()

Double standards and plastic smiles are two very obvious side-effects of this way of life (opportunism). I think i need not explain them as they are very obvious around us.

But the important fact is that despite all this, society hasn't collapsed and its still thriving with life maintaining itself in a surprising dynamic equilibrium. When everybody distrusts everybody, we expect society to crumble under its own pressure but this has not happened. why? Frankly i don't know for sure but "i would like" to ascribe the non-collapsing nature to the "few" (but very strong minority) of those who-do-not-put-their-pants-down in the face of adversity. They exist invisible mostly because they don't run to grab attention. But they exist and will continue to exist for some reasons which are beyond my intellectual capacity. Another reason might be that even within the group of distrust, there is a short term trust, which holds the group as a single intact structure (hence i used the word "dynamic equilibrium" previously). Short term trust works better in this kind of society and hence it becomes a national standard to way of life. So in this system, people are in general good to each other until the point you really need them. In general the life flows nicely, peacefully and harmony can be easily confused with the fake smiles and attachments people will show for each other. The real test of times differentiates them from the short minority i talked about. I could guess (from my very prejudiced viewpoint) only two of these reasons to understand why system hasn't collapsed (and will not) but maybe there are some more too.

But wait, am i talking about just Indian society or humans in general :P

I have given a different name to the concept of opportunism (as described above). I call it "The LAW OF CONVENIENCE" which states that humans desire and hence design the most convenient path for social activities. So if they "believe" that there is no use and harm to worship Brahma, they would "prefer" not to do it until some inconvenience comes up.

This law is very universal and applies to western world too. Recently there was a debate in Sweden around a companies idea which marketed unhappy relationships (http://www.thelocal.se/32682/) by proposing to provide links to people wishing to have an "affair" instead of divorce. Now this might seems off the scale but isn't this happening already, though in secret. This also signifies the same opportunism (but with different clothes, maybe the fancier ones). Also there was a very disturbing news (for me personally) when a man was discovered to be dead after 3 years (http://www.thelocal.se/32836/20110326/) and the place where he was living isn't very remote area. The notion of family and caring for each other is diminishing not because the social pressure has capped off, but because its now easier to abuse the freedom, rather than use it :)

So i guess the saying from india "धोती के अन्दर सब नंगे है " (everybody is equally nude inside their clothes) signifies the very fact that the topic under discussion is a global phenomenon :)

The Great Indian Tamasha (circus)

2011-03-28T09:07:00.003+02:00

It has been more than 3 years since i came to Stockholm and have been working at KTH. It was a bit surprising to see such an ordered way of managing student affairs and student union taking constructive ways to improve student experience, as this is not what i use to experience back in India. Student unions in Indians are connected very closely to political parties and their affiliations oblige them to obey directives from party high-commands, directly or indirectly. In view of the coming student elections, i would like to share some experiences which i had in India around the same issue.

As i mentioned above, almost all major political party put their weight behind a particular student political party in elections. Hence the scenery around student elections change to very much what we see in national elections. Prospective student leaders roam around the campus asking to vote for themselves. They are allowed few minutes of time in each faculty where they come to classrooms and put up their agenda. Posters spring up on walls of university and university gates usually are hoarded by their volunteers trying to woo students by all possible means. The main motivation of student leaders behind running for the student office are power, money and future.

POWER:
Student office can exert major pressure in the decisions taken by university administration and this gives student leaders tremendous power to put up their political agendas in university policies. So if national opposition parties decide to protest against a government policy, you can see the universities “controlled” by their student leaders organizing these marches on their behalf and at the same time student party affiliated to government tries to do the opposite and this puppet game mostly affect the studies too. Almost all Indian universities provide hostel facilities to students and hence hostels become a major power hub for student leaders where they accumulate their representatives who control the resident students and manipulate their opinions (sometimes by brute physical force too!). Some student hostels became infamous for harboring criminal elements too as these criminals were used by politicians for their own needs and safely placed under the “protection” of their pet student leader. The taste of power which a student leader feels, when (s)he can exert his opinion on thousands of people, makes him/her addicted to this game and hence almost all of them end up becoming local or national politicians. Also, their interaction with criminal elements (who help them secure votes by illegal means like kidnapping, threats and likewise activities ) stays much longer than their student office tenure which introduces criminals into political systems.

MONEY:
Money is one of the major factor in this case. Student union controls the budget for various campus activities and corruption is a way of life. Budgets of major universities runs in millions and significant portion of this money is directly controlled by student union. Since the money runs in millions, so its not surprising when student leaders invest few hundred thousands during elections and one wonders how can this guy/gal afford this kind of money when (s)he doesn't come from rich family background. They know that they can “earn” more than what they are going to invest.

FUTURE:
Present student politicians end up future politicians as the party high commands evaluate their performance during their tenure at universities, especially their obedience to their “orders”. This makes them mere puppets and they end up doing the same when they end up a politician. This vicious circle promotes only those kind of people “who can be controlled” and have low self-esteem for their individuality. Hence its not surprising to see dynastic tendencies in political parties in India.

One of the most disturbing face of this above mentioned system came to light prominently during the anti-reservation protests in 2006 when a non-political student organization “youth for equality” spearheaded massive nationwide student protests and local students offices were kept mum by major political parties, who made that issue at first hand (to gain major portion of the vote-bank). It was particularly shamefully to find that in one of the major student protests against government, students offices had little to do for the fear of their own future, even if they understood the rational argument involved.

The most disturbing aspect of the whole issue of this article is that the so called educated people in universities are electing these kind of people and this makes me doubt if we can claim that education improves the rational powers to decide for individual or society. Those students who have complains against the system, choose not to get involved in controversies since student leaders can actually exert their “powers” to disturb their studies and their performance in their degrees. This hidden blackmail, in a society where education is valued as one of the few liberating ideas from poverty and uplifting societal status, fuels the system to continue in its ugly form.

But not everything is lost. We do encounter some leaders who go the “other” way even at the cost of resistance and pay the price for the same. I hope that the present popular opinion in India saying, “when you try to change the system, system eventually changes you”, will change to something more constructive. India is now emerging from its sleepy and dark past of ugly politics to more open and establishment-resistive systems and student politics cannot remain isolated from this phenomenon. Their constructive role in student life is still pending in a big way. We have learnt lessons from the past and present students are becoming more aware of the issues through media and are beginning to question student leaders who enjoyed going un-questioned in past.

(This article was also blogged at "the international party" @ stockholm university, Sweden http://vote4tip.blogspot.com/2011/03/great-indian-tamasha-circus.html )

PRIZES ARE FOR CHILDREN

2010-12-03T20:38:00.006+01:00

The title of the post was quoted by Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize. He stated much more than a statement. He released a quantum of information in this short statement, about the way we (as a human society) has progressed. Let me explain this in more details below.

The incentive to do a particular thing is considered the source of energy to do that act. Without incentive, there will be no act. If we never felt cold, we would never invent heating systems. If we never felt the need to rise above another, we would never invent the concept of lies as well as hard work. So we see that "incentive" is the pivotal point in the hub of activities.

I feel that this concept of incentive can be best understood in the words of Dr. Feynman who illustrated why he considered prizes as useless entities.

Just like people doing science (as explained in above video), there are two kinds of people: one who seek pleasure-of-doing stuff as their sole incentive and those who associate some reward outside the pleasure-of-doing stuff as their incentive.

Both of them are valid incentives and they make a hell lot of difference for us as a human society.

HOW?

Those of you who have read Ayn Rand's Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, would now appreciate that all she described ever, were the former kind of people and the kind of society they would make (Galts Gultch) and the ironic question "who is John Galt" simply emphasize the existence of these kind of people as a finite minority. Those kinds who have the whole world in their own existence and find meaningful existence within them-self. This doesn't mean an islander's life at a social level (as it is usually contested by those who fail to appreciate this viewpoint) but instead mean that the pleasure of doing the stuff is the sole purpose of doing it and no reward would ever match that kick of accomplishment. Infact, rewards become meaningless and this is why Charles Ives quotes that a less mature existence on an intellectual plane would prefer reward-based-incentives. Howard Roark's speech from Fountain head and John Galt's speech from Atlas shrugged emphasized the line of thought for these kind of men and the reprecurssion of deviations from that respectively.

John Galts speech divided in many parts to emphasize the relevance of text in present times :)

The difference between these two approaches makes the world as we know it now. After industrial revolution, reward based systems drove humanity towards earning more and more rewards for their acts (which made them superior) in terms of land, money power etc. At some points, money and power becomes the sole point of existence. This fact is beautifully depicted in a brilliant movie "American Psycho" (read my review here) where a group of businessman base their whole existence on the beauty of thier business cards, which others appreciate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y).

In-fact the recent conflict around possibility of data sharing and corporate profit which owns the data is a result of this approach. The meager monetary payments to creators become valid means of owning the data and its use for a certain period of time (which can then be extended from time to time, as per convenience) become (or rather "are made") legal. Recently i interacted with one of the most original musicians from India: Indian Ocean band, and they told me that they have voluntarily put up songs of their latest album to download for free since they want the music to reach out to their intended audience and actually music companies hinder in this path more than they can facilitate it. This is true for not only entertainment industry but scientific industry too. GM killed electric car after the big lobby of oil corporations went against it and layed off the precious work of many engineers who made that marvel possible.

It is also important to understand at this point that the nomenclature which we ascribe to the ideas shows our approach towards the same. "Industrial world" means the world of material production (by any means) more than it means innovation and hard-work based progress. Morality is best derived from texts (religious or some leader's mouthpiece) rather than inventing and deriving it through reasoning. "Democracy" means more towards submission to the new kings (which are now elected rather than born) than the power to decide for yourself rationally. Submission in the name of fear(S) becomes order of the day. Wars and violent conflicts becomes the way to solve disputes and any serious attempts to solve problems in a rational manner (like UN) is sabotaged and abused to grab more power instead. These few actions are the result of the system we have chosen for ourself (voluntarily or involuntarily: those who refuse to give up this system choose it involuntarily)

Having criticized this approach, I must emphasize that I do not mean that incentives are useless. They are the fact of life and any system which asks for abolishing them will be un-natural for the human systems we know now. Instead, what i emphasized is that there exist two separate categories of humans : one whose incentive isn't materialistic (in terms of money, power, praise etc) but just the pleasure of doing the stuff and learning something new and at the same time there exist a majority of humanity which choose to work another way. Since majority dictates the way a human system drives towards future, so we have a reward based system dictating our ways to exist and hence exploitation becomes inevitable.

I do not know what future will bring us but changes are inevitable and i could somehow sense that we are recognizing the flaws of present system and we might shift our gears to a new one, which might be prize-less :)

Realism versus Delusion

2010-11-30T19:45:00.004+01:00

The idea for this post started with this video

But this idea goes beyond the business world...it can be generalized to life and almost everything else too.

The basic idea is that Realism (art of identifying objective reality of an idea) leads to a concrete helpful solution than delusion-based-solutions in the REAL world.

Let me explain from my personal experience.

I was a stammerer for all these years and it cost me many things in life. For all these years i was suggested to ignore stammering and concentrate on the other abilities i had and it helped a lot to strengthen them but stammering pulled me down at the very moments i needed to jump off the cliff and get my aims. The delusion-based-solution of ignoring the REAL PROBLEM led to the conflicting behavior where i would go along with an idea just for the heck of it. Lately, i understood finally that the problem needs to be sorted out on a real platform and first step towards sorting it out is to acknowledge it, then identify it in real time, find real solutions, work on them and succeed. My success is a proof about this approach.

But i must also add that realism helps in long run but delusions CAN BE solutions for a short term (provided we remain conscious about that delusion). At some points of times, i believed in the delusion that if i am the speaker, then i hold the stage in the sense that all listeners are idiots. But it was important to realize that this delusion is acknowledged and it just helped to overcome the mental blocks (which are critical for stammering). It wasn't the final solutions but just a "virtual" stepping stone.

Realism should not be confused with standardization of reality where ideas are ascribed definite values and our abilities are judged according to the fact whether those values are achievable by these abilities or not. Instead realism is simply acknowledging the objective reality of a fact however inconvenient it be.

The best example in this regard is the movie "Gattaca" and my review might help you to get more insight regarding the idea i am proposing (though you will have to see the movie for yourself). Here the fact that genetically, Vincent is inferior to others, is a reality but so is the reality that "there is a way out". He works on BOTH the realities together and gets what he wants. The delusion based solutions would have suggested him to strike head-on without any concern to the fact that his genetic material do not match the requirements and he has to do something about it.

As i said earlier, realism is valuable to many other sphere of life including relationships, professional carrier, personal aims in life, motivating others if asked for, advising others etc. Perhaps its one of the most important facts of life.

Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw explains this very idea which he used to win a war in 12 days...

1+1+1+...=1

2010-11-10T15:34:00.002+01:00

Recently a dear friend of mine, Atousa, posted "to be honest 1+1=1" as her Facebook profile status. This seemingly funny expression, easily ignorable as a mistake, did interest me at that very moment and i went ahead to ask what does it mean (since i could take out many many meanings out of it). Instead i was asked to put up various meanings i could take out from this expression and I went ahead with some within few minutes, like:

1+1=1

a man and a woman in love
right hand side one is bigger than two left hand side smaller ones
paradox of life like life don't follow strict logic
"to be honest" one has to accept that 1+1=1 will come along this way i.e. dishonesty will come their way and they would have to live with it
however high you add up things and people in your life, you end up same i.e alone in life

There can be numerous other imaginative meanings of this expression. Mathematically it might be incorrect, but this expression holds tremendous power in imaginative world.

The fun part began today when she wrote a new status saying "to be even more honest 1+1+1=1" and here a whole new world of branched imaginations sprouted out of last days arguments. While readers may independtly post their own imaginations, i would like to post few of mine which i could come up within 5 minutes right now:

power of one
read between the lines as in "middle finger salute"
singularity
After some time, a"+" becomes "=" as in, after some time, you have to conclude instead of keep adding things for infinity.
love of being single
boasting solitude
there is only "one" chance
Everything adds up to one single fact, the singular ultimate and absolute truth
To transform from "honesty" to "even more honesty", one has to take "one" more step.
Add up as you may, it will result the same
To add is to fool yourself (metaphor related to "things" in life)

This game is turning interesting now. As i proceeded to another level, i question what would it mean if we replace all symbols with another ones like "multiply", "divide", "substract", and logical symbols of "union", "intersection" etc.

This blog will expand as i get more ideas on each symbol and it will further expand when i increase the series with mixture of symbols.

Please feel free to put up your imagination in the comment section.

HATRED SELLS BETTER THAN LOVE

2010-09-25T01:39:00.001+02:00

Even if they remove the video ever, the "idea" will not die...

hatred is a better commodity than love, to sell :)

i remembered a movie called "the wave" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(2008_film)) which is based on the idea of an experiment called "The third wave" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave) in which a group of students asked a teacher, why did German people accepted mass murder of people by Nazis and instead of giving them an answer, make them go through the process of brainwashing to realize that it does not takes superhuman capability to believe and perform anti-humanity activities, instead one just has to stop asking questions and making out reasons (this is what i understand as "training to be a sheep")...

This behavior is so widespread amongst humans from around the world and from different ages that the answer must lie in human behavior (both as an individual as well as MOB)...

I suspect if our brain is more receptive to excitement produced by violence than the calmness produced by love...excitement of violence calms down the inner conflict and confusions by channeling our anger towards one particular direction whereas love tries to "passify" the excitements to equilibrate the emotional high states over a period of time, which might be counter intuitive to the usual functioning of brain (which is to have data for processing, not having data might be disturbing)...

Also, usually a person finds identity within a mob which is much stronger than when he is alone...it has been repeatedly noted down that in a mob the same person who will burn down his victim alive and enjoy the show, would piss in his pants if slapped on a street when he is alone...

In the context of video, i guess any kind of censoring will only empower this "idea"...rather i would suggest a solution which shabana aazmi gave to shahi imam of jama masjid when he called Indian Muslims to join afghan Taliban to fight against US forces...she said "drop him by parachute into Kabul, this solves his problems and ours too"...How many of these preachers will accept to live "without security" in Kashmir for "thier cause"

KASHMIR

2010-09-25T01:32:00.003+02:00

I havent seen Harud yet but it seem to be a movie needed for a very long time now...

Recent unrest in Kashmir for past few months seems to culminate into one of the most serious problems of our times. The blame game of apathy of Indian government towards grievances of Kashmir and hidden agenda of separatist who misuse the idea of freedom to cloak their religious arguments, has grown into serious stone pelting and police firing situations where human lives are lost. I am supposed to have an opinion and i must clarify i rarely align my versions to official versions of nations and governments so here is mine...

I do not have first hand experience in this issues so my opinions expressed here are limited by that fact, but as i see it, hardliners/fundamentalists are aligning people's anger (generated due to bad political governance over the years and excesses by military) towards creating a strict Islamic state which may easily amalgamate into Pakistan in the name of religion. The "Only" Islamic nature of their demands makes it sound illegitimate from a secular point of view. Fundamentalism turned Pakistan into a rogue state and beggar economically despite having all the potential in its rich culture, heritage and hard working people. Do i want the same fate for Kashmir, NO.

Also issues of human right violation by security forces are valid. There has been excesses and violations.In a conflict zone, this is obvious. When a soldier experiences an innocent looking teenager blowing up his buddy by a grenade, next time he blows up any other innocent teenager without checking properly, which will then be categorized as excess. Some other times, security personals take advantage added powers of immunity from prosecution, to settle personal scores or to get awards and medals.

This fact is then used by hardliners to instigate general population against the security forces. This vicious circles eat up human bodies which both sides choose to ignore and rather start playing the blame game around the argument "You started it first".

In any case, a human life is lost and unfortunately human lives are categorized differently based on their affiliations...this vicious circles consumes human lives for sustaining itself...

The issue of (so-called) freedom is very important here...Pardon me if u feel offended for me using the connotation of so-called before the word freedom, but it feel so hollow to talk about freedom in this context. Text below will explain some more around this idea.

A minority of Kashmiris would like to have "free" country but fail to state how will this country survive...can tourism support economy?...and whats the guarantee that they will not want to divide further based on regions and religious affiliations, again in the name of freedom?...Leh and Laddhak people never asked for freedom so how will they make a country cut off from Pakistani side by Leh and Laddhak?

A group of harlined Muslim fundamentalists just don't want a Hindu majority to "rule" them mainly because "their maulanas say so". Their sentiments (based on religion) are as much valid as that of fundamentalist Hindus in Gujarat who ask for India to be a Hindu nation by any means. This is the group i despise the most and this is the group which scream freedom the most, which then feels so ridiculous.

Now remains the question of Minorities in kashmir.

Its not surprising that this word "minority" is categorize based on their religion, which indicates the hidden intentions :). Who should they support. Hindus and Sikhs would like to remain being part of India for their religious reasons which makes them feel to have a secure future. They also control a appreciable portion of economy so their demands have a economic "feel" too.

This is all about Kashmiri opinions. Indian opinion is against further divide, based on religious and egoistic issues.

The most amazing point in the whole argument is the hidden part of "religion" but thats rarely accepted or even acknowledged. Even though Kashmiris boast brotherhood across religious lines but past performance of this brotherhood is so fractured that it seems hard to believe them with any confidence.

So its right to say that the real problems/solutions do not lie in economics and genuine aspirations for true freedom. Its actually RELIGION. Both sides tries to avoid this arguments for the sake of loosing their secular face which makes them internationally accepted as a "valid" party in the argument. After-all in the era of religious fundamentalism "it no more cool" to have an argument based on religion. So the arguments are hidden under the cloak of more "appealing" universal ideas like freedom, democracy etc.

Since rationality is not so popular way of life amongst us as a specie, so its impossible for me to state a solution. Otherwise it would have been as easy as rational symbiosis. India and for that matter of fact any country, do not make sense in parts. We make sense only as a one country.

Without central India's ores, industries in Gujarat, Maharashtra and south will die of starvation, without tourism in Kashmir, Goa and Kerala, we would have little to show in "incredible India" campaign. Without North east India we would loose the true variety which is the essence of "Indian character". We don't make sense in parts, we make sense together. This reason is not based on some irrational faith, rather its based on pure logic that we, as "independent" parts can't survive by present standards of prosperity. "Genuine" good intentions would have attracted kashmiris over other parts of India and the problems would have dissolved over few generations (definetly by now). We would have reduced separatist support to bare minimum if good governance would have made them feel comfortable with India. Separation of religion from state as a habit, would have had a contagious effect by now and Kashmir could have come up as a secular place. Economic packages are usually defines as aids to beggars and beggars cant be choosers. That is a fault of both the beggars and aid providers. Economical self empowerment of kashmiri people would have had different effect.

Its pretty hard to define a solution now. UN resolution calling for plebiscite presents another problem, Kashmiri demography was changed by Islamic terrorists when they killed non-Muslims in mass numbers and hence dragged the remaining out of the state making it easier for them to win a vote based on religious argument.

Good governance with rational way of judgement could be a solution but it doesn't seem to be possible in coming times :(

So i feel bad to conclude that unless people on both sides of argument adopt rational ideas, its hard to solve and pretty easy to move in circles running along with swords in hands aiming for each others neck.

As I See It All

2010-09-18T02:13:00.002+02:00

There is no fairy tale and there is no fairy world

there are only PEOPLE unfurled

some with knives to do the damage
and some with the cuts plus a message

Messages which echo till eternity

With broken hearts and damaged spirits
we make walls, islands, mountains and our limits
We soon forget the lost hope we once treasured
let anger and sorrow permanently anchored

Amongst all this, I forget the basic rule of life

Fairy world is my imagination of my undamaged self
All imagination needs a reality with physical shelf
I shelf up that imagination in me and walk all around
Try to run very fast with my hands bound

And i fall down and realize

Life is more than my despairs and fallouts
Its actually the referee of my boxing bouts
If i bow down and let IT hit me hard
I will never get the HAPPYNESS green card

So i must collect my broken fragile piece

And i will rise bigger than my sorrow
Taste the sweetness of every tomorrow
Because i am not a bloody coward
I may be hurt but i ain't countered

I still hold my image in the mirror with pride and smile back to it

Come next time and i will be here
waiting for you all, reading Shakespeare :)
I will not take these blows easy now
what do you expect me, to bow! :P

No sirs and madams, i will stand tall

Because now i am myself and i am a whole
I tamed time and learnt art of wormholes
through these i travel back and learnt my true worth
I phoenix-ed each time after the damage, my new birth

I made myself more than what i was

And i learnt that things happen for good and bad
but i should only take them as experiences to add
Fuck that cuts of yours you gave me and my life
Now I do not fear you coming with your knives

Because I AM FREE and I AM.

-------------------------

Note:

wormhole is a concept in physics where we can make a hole in time and travel back and forth

HAPPYNESS is deliberately misspelled to emphasize the concept shown in the movie "pursuit of happyness"

Beyond Barbie Dolls

2010-09-13T01:23:00.005+02:00

As humans, we make relationships. Some of them come (so called) natural to us when we are born, but some of them, we make over the course of our lifetime. They makes us happy if they flourish the way we wanted them to and makes us sad otherwise. Happiness makes us feel good about things around us and sadness makes even a grand comedy movie look dull. Experiencing these emotions is directly proportional to the intensity of conviction we have/had. As i see, life is sum total of the experiences with relationships that we had with humans as well as ideas.

For me humans always represented ideas. Here the idea of the Barbie Doll(s) comes up.

Its pretty, It touches good, can smell good, can make us feel good too. But the "real stuff" is missing.

What the hell is this "real stuff"...

The real stuff is unexplainable in words...its best felt/experienced...

Its the aura. Its somethings which charges the day. It shoots up hormones but at the same time instills calmness. Its eternal. Its permanent. Its a company which understand without words. Its a hand to hold on and a hand worth offering a helping hand of yours. Its the inspiration to "be good". Its the unstoppable fire which burns inside. Its the stuff which makes the relationship go beyond hurdles of testing times. Its the confidence in each other. Its the good face of humanity. Its the strength of the identity of your existence which is shared with the partner. Its simply EVERYTHING...

I am glad i know some of them who are beyond Barbie dolls. Sometimes they try hard to fit in this Barbie world and fail and I hope they will realize the reality of thier core idea of being inherently different than masses.

May the insanity and romance never die :) Amen \m/

Note: i hope that readers can understand that the term Barbie Dolls represents more than just the opposite sex. One of my review for the movie American psycho which talks on the same lines.

Right to suicide

2010-09-10T23:38:00.004+02:00

The idea for this post came out from a conversation with a dear friend Lizzie who is training as a nurse, and i must confess that i never thought about this issue as much as i now think which i believe is important to think about.

Generally, suicide is accepted as BAD idea. Reasons vary from religious and social morality to the argument in favor of living the tough life instead of giving it up. To analyze this ideas, I prefer a game which i call "why and why not", which will be clear further down the post.

Almost all religions accept suicide as a bad idea since life is given by god and hence should be treasured. Society wants individuals/society to grow and hence would term suicide as a bad idea. Individuality of an individual give him/her right to do whatever with his life including ending it.

Being an individualist, I will go with the third idea above. But i would also like to add that, like any other decision in life, one must explore all the possibilities against it. A thorough investigations "for and against" a particular decision is the key to right decision.

Majority of humanity goes through at least one situation when we do consider suicide as an option. Stepping off from the train of "painful" experiences seem to be the only way out. But, is that the ONLY way! This must be judged carefully. This is particularly difficult in an emotionally charged state at that time. But so are most of the decision making times and when it comes to life and death, why not give this thought a chance.

Sometimes, we do ignore our own potential (consciously and unconsciously) and this makes us feel weak. Here the well wishers (family, friends and in general people you love) must be sought to advise (not to dictate decisions!). Maybe they can introduce you to a hidden value which might be useful for you to eject out of the mental trauma. You can always find at least one human being, fit enough to talk to and you must talk to him/her.

In the case of incurable physical sickness (as judged by medical science), if a well informed patient decides to end the pain, i see no reason for anybody else to stop him from that. Either cure him/her by all possible means or let him go off if (s)he wishes to.

I changed my opinion that suicide is always an act of cowardice, thanx to Lizzie. But i still fail to imagine (maybe because i lack first-hand experience of an extreme situation) a situation, whose solution can't be found and it seems that there is no option. To me, suicide is honorable to myself and hence acceptable, only when i break my own honor code for myself.

BTW i remember a great Iranian movie on this subject by Abbas Kiarostami called "the taste of cherries". see the trailer below:

and one more sequence from the movie "Rog"

Half baked siddhartha effect

2010-08-07T18:37:00.002+02:00

Past few months have been quite illuminating for me since witnessing Maoist insurgency at India, footilla incident, Bhopal gas disaster's judgement etc. I have been part but mostly a mere witness to a lot of debates, both online and offline. My natural instinct to study the debaters which funds my study of patterns of their mental process (which generated their ideas) led me to conclude about a phenomenon which I termed "half-baked-siddhartha-effect"

Siddhartha,who later became Gautama Buddha,went through a process which starts from starling "new" revelation and ends up devotion of ones life to an idea generated by the new revelation. The process encompasses following steps:
1) observing a new revealing incident/ phenomenon
2) getting curious about this new observation
3) cross checking for existing solutions from personal knowledge database
4) observing that this new observation do not have a known solution to either person or immediate family and friends
5) deciding to find answer
6) experiencing great urge to devote full time to find the answer
7) leaving behind personal comfort zone to be objective and dedicated to find the answer
8) issuing all efforts at all costs to find answer
9) finding the answer
10) personal interpretation of great truth

So now that we have categorized the "siddhartha effect", we can proceed what's an half-baked or incomplete siddhartha effect and it's personal and social consequences.

Incomplete process simply means leaving the process in-between. The motivation to do so is usually inconvenience package which attached to the process. For example, many people who debate about Maoist movement in India would like to do so in a cozy environment. The main flaw in these debates is that they are far from ground realities and should be acknowledged as mere conversations between arm chair philosophers.
Apart from generating a tendency to adopt arm chair philosophy as a way of life at a personal end, this act also have a grave social consequence. When majority of decision makers fall into above mentioned category, thier solutions follow thier philosophy and hence generate more misery in the population concerned. Kashmir is a recent live example.

But then the question arise: "everybody can't become siddhartha" :)

Why not?

Don't give me a convenient answer and don't expect to have cozy life with harsh answers. Siddhartha wasn't super human. He was merely the person who did
what he was after and engages into the dogfight until the last. :)

Inconvenient corruption

2010-06-21T13:49:00.002+02:00

This post started with an interesting article at TOI which was mentioned at a post at google buzz...I suggest you first read the article to get a grasp of the contents of this post...

cmon read it :)

ok so Pritish Nandy did a pretty good job in illustrating the problem...We do have a problem and we all know it and most of the times i had discussions with friends, colleagues and family, they stop at the acknowledging the problem...what about solutions?

Within a democratic system, solutions aren't easy because they can't be "unique"...solution must entertain variety which is the essence of true democracy...rationalization of laws (social and legal) and their practice will always be challenged by non/semi/classical intellectuals for obvious reasons (gives them a kick of satisfying their status seeking ego)...A military state isn't a solution too since there is nothing worse than a corrupt military state...you dont have a choice to oppose since you can be shot for opposition...Religion has failed to moralize people in true sense and rather provided them opportunity to be double-faced hypocrites...so where does our solution lies which could be practical...

To seek solution we have to dig deep into question: what makes certain people honest even at the cost of their life...it has to be more than their belief system...it has to be more than what they were taught...it has to be : what and how they understood whatever fact were presented to them...it has to be more about their choices about not putting the pant down in severe situations....

Some people reason that awareness is the key and i say its just part of the solution and not the actual solution...we all are aware of the above mentioned problem...even after reading this article (which i think millions must have read since TOI is most circulated Indian daily newspaper), readers can't claim lack of awareness now, but they will still go along with the corrupt system

why?

the keyword is CONVENIENCE...its inconvenient other way...this is how i reached the conclusion "religion has been the only religion of humanity ever"

So the key is to remove the convenience with corruption...if it is inconvenient to be corrupt, we wont be corrupt...

How should we achieve that...

A very common answer i usually get is by making tougher laws...It does not work...in fact it makes the case worse since it violates the law of "spring reaction" for human behavior...the more u suppress, the more it springs back at given opportunity...Also the laws breeds loop holes which seed corruption...the law to check the corruption in monetary process of any government organization makes them employ a large group of people to check the money flow and it is these people who then takes bribes to ensure a proper money flow to a desirable end which is mutually beneficial for them as we as the asshole who bribes...so u see, it doesn't work that way and in fact fails miserably.

Morality cant be taught...Fear based systems like communism and religion for example, ended up more corrupt than any other counterparts...

We have to recognize the simple fact that humans react to environment presented to them and they will choose a most convenient way to get a most convenient state (minimum energy path and minimum energy state in physics)...corruption is a convenient social interaction path and hence its preferred...If it can be made inconvenient, it will not be preferred...

Without brute force and fear, how can we make humans go incorruptible?

I still dont have a complete answer. I better discuss the answer when i complete it. But suggestions are always welcome. :)

Society

2010-06-08T23:55:00.006+02:00

Well this post originated from a discussion at another blog

Then i gave it some more serious thought and finally got convinced that this should be a new blog post here...so here it is....

What exactly is society and what place should it have in my life...few months back this question came back at my face and stood staring at me very strong, since this time it was my near and dear ones who were part of this question...the people i loved and admired all my life...it was finally time to conquer this conquest once for all...

As i see it, Society is an idea which arose out of need to find security (of most forms, physical, emotional, financial etc). “Laws” transforms this mental (idea) into a physical structure which we then term as a society. This is true for human as well as most of the terrestrial life we see on earth.

All through history i could see that societies were made in the name of kings, race, color, nations, books (termed holy), gods (termed holy), environment (recently) and all the notions that could differentiate humans beings. To “maintain” this structure (so called society) some “laws” come into existence by “common minimum intelligence” (analogy of LCM-least common multiplier in mathematics i.e something which almost everybody will agree to). This is why these laws are usually “unsaid and unwritten”; like most (not all) societies developed with a notion that women are inferior to men in most terms, homosexuality is a sin, marriage should be the only symbol of a loyal sexual relationship and likewise, families should be raised within societal standards and values should be instilled in young generation for the same, punishments tend to decrease undesired tendencies etc.

There is a hidden aspect to the idea of society and that is about laws and people who initiate, makes and maintains them. I will term them “leaders” as they are the ones who initiate the nucleation of society. They could be religiously, politically, socially or just personally motivated.

FIRST leader randomly decided to be the boss and using his/her superior skills (mental/physical/psychological or social), (s)he starts dictating the terms thus laying the foundations for the LAWS (i would refer readers to see the movie “blindness” to get more insight into this idea).

Leader(s) has to submit to LCM level to maintain his/her position and hence most laws as mentioned above can be found in ancient as well as modern societies in almost same raw form.

Family being the basic unit of societal system, sons (usually!) take over as future leaders and even if he does not match his fathers and forefathers in leadership, if he can maintain LCM laid down by them, he is usually accepted (example : royal families around the world present to this date) even in modern times. Ladies have found place in royalty only when "they" could not find a suitable male.

The “mob” (which accepts leaders) behaves like a shit-scared individual who is ready to buy security at any cost (freedom, individuality etc.) and the leader who promises to provide that, is welcomed as a savior. This is as much true for kings of ancient kingdoms as its is for modern day CEOs of big corps, presidents of nations and religious leaders. The leader promises to maintains the “status quo” in the societal structure formulated by previous generations. This structure is made and maintained by LAWS.

There is a very common confusion about laws been divided in two separate sets: Social and Legal. I do not see the difference. Legal laws are defined by constitution which is considered to be a modern product and professing progressive thoughts which would avoid conflicts and solve past problems. Social laws on the other hand are considered to be born out of nowhere just like society. Social laws or better termed as social norms are set of rules which everybody obeys to be part of the society. Social laws have local character whereas legal laws are said to have humanitarian and global character. But i fail to see any objective implementation of legal laws. The illusion of different legal and social laws is a modern phenomenon. None of societies in past and present could afford to have a complete set of “objective” laws (All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others – George Orwell in Animal Farm). In practice social and legal laws have never been different. If a society is made to feel that capital punishment is bad, it enters legal system within few years. If a society is made to feel that Aryans is a superior race, then it enters legal system over some time. Legal laws are reflections of social laws with a time delay

As i see it, laws are reflections of our fears (We have laws for each possible fear). We say that laws are necessary to maintain peace whereas in effect we actually covertly mean that we fear the changes we might have to face if we remove these laws.

Duplicity in notification of our fears, enable the leaders in any system (fascist, democratic, aristocratic etc) to rule by making laws to satisfy our fears and makes us feel comfortable and hence they get acceptance to their existence as the protectors.

This “fear based grouping” of humans as well as other non-human systems has enabled them to be alert and more fit for physical survival but also pulled down the majority of the population’s mental level to a common minimum and any attempt to go beyond it is/was usually perceived as threat to own existence.

How about those who dont follow laws?

Can all of them can be termed as rebels?

I would like to elaborate in detail in this regard because this is the most misjudged and loosely quoted term i have heard.

The “true” REBELS are the misfits. I added the word “true” to signify the ones who “could not be tamed” and those who went on new path out of their own passion (which will exclude the “ambulance chasers” obviously). For example, the true rebel in single mother-ship are the women who did that when it was considered a bad notion, not the ones who “chose” to be one since its no more uncomfortable.

By this philosophical standard, rebels have always broke LAWS for which they suffered but when fruits of these broken laws tasted good, then “mob” makes them a law instead (since they don’t know anything better to do with them other than mindlessly asking everybody to conform to the new rule which few of them understand). This illustrates why the thickness of the book called constitution expands each year. Sins of past becomes acceptable with time and turned into laws. What was unimaginable for one generation, now becomes the obvious reality for the new one. I see this pattern repeatedly in almost all societies, ancient as well as modern.

I concluded about a year back that “convenience has been the only religion of mankind ever”. The concepts of society, religion, science, technology, family are towards one end: convenience. It can be convenience of not been alone or been able to do more than ones capacity or convenience of feeling to control others and hence satisfying own insecurities etc. I guess convenience will be the keyword which an intelligent alien life will associate us.

To conclude, i would say Laws (legal or social, to me they are same) and society represent our fears and love for convenience. It has an Darwinian advantage which enabled us to survive effectively, produce in mass numbers and rule the earth but it also has an draconian disadvantage of limiting human mental potential by bounding it with limits (since laws are limits).

Of course there is no better music and song than Pink Floyd matching here :)

मेरा अपना रावन

2009-09-28T12:20:00.007+02:00

मेरा अपना पर्सनल रावन आज थोड़ा थोड़ा जल जाएगा
मेरा राम ही उसे जलाएगा

सो आज शाम मैं मननं करने बैठूंगा
लेखा जोखा खोला जाएगा
एक पूरे साल के कारनामों को
राम और रावन में बँटा जाएगा

राम अपने हिस्से से रावन को मरने का समान खरीद लेता हैं मुझसे
और रावन मरने से पहले पूरी टक्कर का समान जुटा लेता हैं
मरना तोह हैं पर युद्घ जरूर करता हैं

क्या रावन को मालूम हैं की वोह मरेगा ?
जब मैने रावन से यह पुछा तोह वोह हँस के बोला,
अबे, अगर पिछले साल मैं मर गया होता
तोह इस साल तू राम को याद करता!
अगर मैं मर जाता तोह राम भी ख़तम हो जाता
राम का अस्तित्व मुझसे ही हैं
मुझे जिस दिन पूरा मार दोगे तोह राम की जरूरत ख़तम हो जायेगी
और अगर मैने राम को मार दिया तोह
तुम्हें रामायण फिर लिखनी पड़ेगी और
हिंदुत्व के ठेकेदारों को मेरी आरती उतरनी पड़ेगी
फिर लंका में मेरा मन्दिर बनाना पड़ेगा
इसलिए बस चुप चाप यह मान लो
की "राम ने रावण को मार दिया"
मिठाई खाओ और खुशियाँ मनाओ

मैं बोला की सुन रावण, यूँ चुप चाप बात मानने का आईडिया मुझपे नही चलता
सच सच सब कुछ बता की यह खेल क्या हैं

वोह घम्भीर होके बोला, की बेटा खेल समझना हैं तोह अपने अन्दर देख
मैं दिख रहा हूँ ?
मैं बोला हाँ, तू दिख रहा हैं
और यह क्या!
तू तोह राम का हाथ पकडे बैठा हैं
तुम दोनों में यारी कब हो गई?

वोह बोला की बेटा अब तू राज़ समझ गया
हम दोनों तोह भांड हैं
हर साल खेल खेलते हैं
लोगों का मन बहलाते हैं
लोग भी खुश की रावण मर गया
उनको भी कुछ न कुछ तोह मारने को चाहिए
बेजान ज़िन्दगी की भडास इसी बहने निकल जाती हैं

पुतले नही जलते दुशेहरे पे
हमारे ही कुछ हिस्से जल मरते हैं
ताकि नए सिरे से रावन को राम में बदल सके
अगले दुशेहरे के लिए ...

Stockholm syndrome

2009-07-25T21:42:00.005+02:00

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Above link explains Stockholm syndrome in psychological context. I feel it can be extended to almost all part of human behavior, mob as well as individual. Let me explain a bit.

1. GOD

Biggest reason to write this article was to investigate how does GOD got so popular, even after we have witnessed so many dark consequences in his/her name.

This concept abducts and hostages individual usually in childhood. But as we grow up, we starts to question. Here comes the crucial stage when it becomes more and more inconvenient to question existence of GOD. Isn't this a glaring example of Stockholm syndrome. Most of us, join the others supporting the existence and reap the benefits of being within the mob event at the cost of our own reason. This is done after recognizing the irrationality in the whole argument against the existence. What else can explain this behavior if not Stockholm syndrome. Religions, Classes, Castes etc etc , these are just the projections of this behavior and we all have seen the consequences. Still masses disapprove to get out of abductor. They feel enraged to talk against the hostage taker. Hostages go for war in the name of their abductor. We learned from history that we never learned from history. Mass human behavior has no significant evolution along with physical evolution. Faith-based-hijacking of reason has dominated all ages of human history.

2. SCIENCE

When science is treated as religion (blind following, no questioning!), this phenomenon is observed amongst scientific community. Followers of Pre-quantum mechanics, opposed the new-science as vehemently as any religious group. Love and respect for the abductor which has been nurtured over the schooling and university years made them so adamant to disapprove the new inconvenient concepts that they ridiculed and opposed it even after understanding the truth. Even so-called men of reason hide behind faith-based arguments when confronted with an opposing view and then to make things more worse, they try to impose authoritarian hierarchy into scientific community. This behavior clearly indicated the infection of Stockholm syndrome.

3. PARENTS

This ideas also applies to the parent-child relationship. When we are children, we usually idolize our parents. Slowly we realize that they are also full of faults. Here comes the major turn towards maturity. Whether we give in to our irrationality due to our deep love for them or whether we turn the tables upside down and come to terms that they CAN BE WRONG, makes a hell lot of difference the way we approach our future. West boast about getting away from this problem but do they actually manage that, or do they become the same for their own children unknowingly. If not then that society must have become entirely rational by now. It didn't.

4. JOBS

Many of us are stuck with jobs we don't like. We keep convincing our self against freedom. Again the hostage taker (The Job) wins most of the times, except for few who manage to pursue what they like the most.

5. FAMILY

Same arguments as in section for parents. But I must clarify that there is a difference between these two cases. We don't choose our parents but we do choose our family. We decide who to marry and how to continue with the family making process. It does not behave as a hostage-taker if the decisions has not been based on compromises and instead based on true mutual understandings. Since i consider friends within the family so the argument goes the same for them.

6. MONITORY PROFIT

This is the case of business institutions. Most of them are established by creative men in search of inventing better tools than existing at their time. But soon the mirage of monitory profit acts as a hostage-taker and people who have no idea of real production, MANAGES and decides the market strategies for the new inventions. Almost all business houses end up striving for monopoly using patents, sabotaging competitors and whoring law/governments. What started as a game for being creative and advancing human civilization ends up in doing opposite and they also show great resistant towards any attempt to free from their hostage. They would make more money doing opposite but probably that's tougher choice and hence not smart enough :)

So then the main question which arises is that, Why do we observe this behavior? What does abductor fill up which satisfies hostage?

As i see, following is the list of attributes being filled up for different abductors:

1. God fills up greatly the identity crisis. It also fill up to great extent the feeling of companionship in hard times. It gives aid to the sense of belonging to a mob for mutual security [social, political, economical, psychological and many other...als :) ]

2. In the case of Science, It fills up the false notion of having respect from others for what we know. If a new science has to change that then they feel threatened to loose their status and the respect associated. Feynman gave an excellent interview in this regard.

3. Parent's case is much more straightforward. Childhood learning period shapes the whole personality and its most difficult to reverse/turn some other away. In many cases the nature of this phenomenon is entirely innocent.

4. Job gives security in many senses and hence this case is very obvious.

5. This has same arguments as the section for Job. Compromise based family is nothing but a series of Stockholm syndromes in succession and inter-twinged so heavily that after some time, people start to ignore it since its too heavy to recognize and live with.

6. Monetary profit secures future and satisfies the individual desire of superiority amongst fellows.

To get out of this loop and see a birds eye view of this whole situation, it took me whole 3 months...Now that i know it, i am free off it :)

आज बारिश हुई हैं

2009-06-03T10:17:00.003+02:00

आज बारिश हुई हैं
मेरे आसमान ने जी भर के पानी बरसाया
और मेरी ज़मीन ने भी सारा का सारा अपनाया
कुछ फूल खिलने के इंतज़ार में थे
कुछ सूखे पत्ते बहने की इंतज़ार में थे
और मैं बारिश की सुगंध की राह में बैठा हुआ था
वोह महक जो ज़िन्दगी वापस लती हैं
वोह महक जो माहोल महकती हैं

बारिश हमें शायद यह ही सिखा जाती हैं की
ज़िन्दगी नए रूप में बार बार आती रहेगी
अपनी जिंदा फुहार बरसाती रहेगी
हमें बस उसके लिए तैयार रहना हैं
और बारिश में झूम झूम के कहना हैं
"बारिश तेरा शुक्रिया"

बारिश की बूंदों की बातें सुनने और समझने की कला
हमें ज़िन्दगी से मिला जाती हैं
और सिखा जाती हैं की
ज़िन्दगी बार बार बहार लगेयी
हर जीत का जशन बारिश की बूंदों की तरह
पुराने गिले शिकवों को धो जाएगा
और मैं फिर तय्यार हो जाऊँगा
एक नई ज़िन्दगी के लिए

मेरा आज

2009-05-23T12:10:00.003+02:00

मौसम बदलते रहे

हम सरकते रहे

और यहाँ पर आ पहुंचे

जहाँ पर मेरे अलावा बस एक और इंसान की जगह है

एक इंसान जिसे ज़िन्दगी के मायने समझाने नहीं पड़ते

जिसके साथ हिसाब किताब नहीं करना पड़ता

जिसकी रूह की खुशबु से दिन महक जाता है

और मैं पूरा हो जाता हूँ

वोह भी पूरी हो जाती है

और एक पूरी ज़िन्दगी बन जाती है कुछ ही पलों में

मौसम तोह फिर भी बदल जाते है अब

पर अब सरकना नहीं पड़ता

गहरा सच्चा रंग

2009-02-15T19:39:00.006+01:00

कौन सा रंग अपनाओ मैं यह सब बताने को
इतने सारे किस्से, और इतने कम रंग

सवालों के लाल रंग क्योंकि
इन्हें देख कर लोग भाग जाते हैं

जवाबों के कई रंग होते हैं

सच्चे जवाब का रंग पारदर्शी
झूठे जवाब का स्याह कला
मन बहलाने वाले जवाब का रंग पीला
मन मचलने वाले जवाब का रंग नारंगी
जो जवाब होश उडा दे उसका रंग नीला
और जो जवाब होश वापस लाये वोह रंग हरा

बाकि जवाब इनके ही मिले जुले भाई बहन होंगे

हम हर रोज़ होली खेलते हैं
रंग में अपनी ज़िन्दगी को रंगीन करके
खुश होते और मुस्कुराते हैं

मेरे लिए जरूरी यह हैं की
जो रंग हो मेरे जवाब में, वोह सच्चा हो
वोह जवाब अपना रंग न बदले
समय के साथ अपना चरित्र न खोये

हे रंगों, मेरा प्रणाम स्वीकार करो
अपने इन्द्रधनुष से दुनिया को रंगबिरंगा रखो

--- संदीप नागर

CHE

2009-02-09T23:37:00.004+01:00

I extensively examined the literature about Che Guevara during past few days. For sure he was an individualist and honest man: to be put correctly he was the "right" man. I say this because he hated the concept of one man taking advantage of other. Men, whom i rather term parasites (organisms which live at the expense of other immorally), were his problem.

3 movies give more or less a complete picture of who Che was. Motorcycle diaries+Che part1+ Che part2.

Che turned red eye to capitalism because, world at his time, only saw parasites germinating from capitalism (another form of collectivism). So communism was the only way he could turn to. Had he lived long enough, he would have seen how communism breeds worst strain of parasites. He was more right than any other leader of his times. Any kind of oppression was unbearable to him.

Those who blind-worship Che for communism fail to recognize that he was an individualist. A free spirit. Otherwise why should he leave a cozy life in Cuba and go to Congo or Bolivia. He didn't went there not to relieve the country out of dictators. He went there to satisfy his inner self (hence an individualist) which abhorred any censor on freedom to a man.

I wish his spirit of freedom lives long. I wish people love his ideals more than his symbols. I wish people understand true Che.