A fall from a train

It was a day like any other; though the date was different than that of any other day, though the people I encountered seemed as alien as others would be any other day, though I had a ticket, unlike my usual ticket-less "up and down", I would still fool you into believing that the day was like any other day, weaning you away from the thousands of idiosyncrasies that feebly pass beneath our prospective, juggernaut-ical self, softly wailing to be heard. Still, something about us would want us to believe that it is a state of normalcy, a state, seen in the light of all that was narrated till now, seems as hypothetical as only it can be, for if we were to abstract one normal bowl, or one normal fisherman, or one normal date, wouldn't it seem a midget in comparison with the sum total of all hypotheses, of an all pervading normalcy? Still, missing this reality, I have the valour to entreat you to a glimpse of it, cutting myself short, keeping to tradition, and calling the affairs of that day absolutely normal till then. And that tradition is not without its reason: it expresses our tendency to find continuity in things, though making us immune to the varieties; those continuities must be our own, for outside us is a new world everyday (almost new), having different permutations and even combinations of people, objects, thoughts presented to us without; within, we find the idea that all is normal.

Having thus established what I mean by 'normal' (along with establishing why this concept is dubious), I now move on to examine that which is 'abnormal'. I shall start with an incident, and hopefully, and un-prophetically, end there too. On a normal day, sitting in a train at five 'o clock, supposed to depart at five-four, I am settling down inside the normalcy, looking at my fellow commuters, perhaps with a sense of triumph at having jumped in like a hunter and occupied the best seat with the most amount of breeze to it. That was a diktat of competition: if you want to stay strong, if you need to get the best, you must be ahead of everyone. All this in the last four lines would mean I must board a not yet stationary train which has just entered the platform. However innate this competitive streak might seem, it isn't without its soothsayers; you might come across it anywhere, rather, almost everywhere given today's standards. Our day begins with it - scuttling for toilets, agreeing with it in a newspaper and so on - and even ends with it - making it in time so that television privileges may be exploited to the fullest, etc. During daytime, one finds a platform raised completely for such competition, and which allows for nothing else on it, having at the same time magnetic properties of repulsion and attraction: we call this employment. But as much as the soothsayers of competition may tell you, they fail to tell you that there surely are limits to this principle. If you look at things the way I am looking, from a normal train window at five-four, you could probably cross-examine those soothsayers more easily. Because at thirty seconds past five-four, the train has already started moving, and from the station entrance a few paces behind, five competitors start running towards the door in front of me, giving me a clear account of their game/life. With every second, the train is accumulating speed, and every competitor takes one and a half second (circa) to get in. Till the chance of the fifth competitor, the train seems faster than an average human, yet #5 thinks: "If only I could catch this one.." or "Aai guh, can't miss this one..." or "I think I can make it...". Mostly something like this, for his hand doesn't let go of the train-handles. His feet, though, are less competent, and he is pulled away by the train at one point, the next human instant of which he lets go/is made to let go, horizontal, and sliding forward, finally falling off the brink of the platform making the noise of a potato sack. It is to be noted that he couldn't have heard or thought anything else at that moment, for I, having seen the fate of such an obsession, had, as duty to myself, shouted out loudly: "chhod" ("leave"). That was the limit the soothsayers didn't specify.

This event made this day rather abnormal.

FUN FACT: the word 'competition' is formed using latin roots 'com' (together) and 'pletere' (to seek). Though analytically broken down as 'seeking together', this word is used and practiced in a vehemently opposite sense.

How human societies developed

The idea of evolution of human societies has today been severely questioned. That all societies are fated to follow the same line of development seems rather absurd. Not only was this idea incorrect, but it also played host to a host of notorieties. It set forth the final aim of all societies- those who created it, the Western scholars- and demonstrated that which they considered the nascent stages of man in general- the "savages", "primitive peoples", etc. as found in the newly explored areas of Asia, Africa, Australia, Oceania, Latin America, and even the fringes of North America and Europe.

However, giving up such an evolutionary view of societal development need not mean giving up a linear view of it. In fact, it is a linear view that makes a historical appraisal of a given society possible and without which one would have to remain mum about how any given group of people are living today as they are.

For this kind of an approach, it would suffice to look at our own society at the outset: from the right to adult franchise at one point of time, we moved towards a right to get information about what had been classified government documents. These two points (though it is too simple like this, considered in isolation) give a certain direction to the kind of life that we are living and will live in the future. Take, as a more plentiful example, the development of communication in our society. From telegraphs and letters to the radio, newspapers and telephone, then the cable TV along with emails and today social broadcast networks. Along with a technological development, we can see a linear development in the amount of comfort that one could afford, in the amount of roles one could have played, in the amount of exposure to information (and misinformation) one has had and also the amount of time one can waste. This is the case of our society. How about finding such 'points of interests' in other societies, and seeing how they join together? For example, for aboriginal Indian people, the British caused a drift towards alienation from what was considered legitimate living. Though they were close to the rest of the nation in the independence struggle, one sees them, today, again as the scapegoat of many govt. laws and policies. Is it not possible to construct a linear flow from that point to this?

Linear patterns need not be altogether difficult to see through time, but they need not be cosmically predetermined too.

Kinship terms: age or relationship?

Kinship enjoys a special place in anthropology. Understanding how people are bound into a family is considered the first (and most certain) step towards understanding how people are bound into a society. Such relationships, because of their structure, acquire regular patterns in regards to the age-relationship interface or the gender-relationship interface as far as consequences of the relationship are concerned (like flow of respect, roles allotment, etc.). If a relationship broke this pattern in structure, it gives curious results.

Having recently attended a wedding, I found myself left with such a peculiarity: my maternal uncle (mama) had come too; he was only sixteen years old. I, being almost twenty, couldn't bring myself to call him mama. At least not seriously, as one usually does by force of being related in that way, unaffectedly. Nor could he give any credulity to my constant addressing him as mama and found it shameful at best. Relation-wise, he is superior to me, meaning one generation ahead. But age-wise, he is far younger. So is it that one's age determines the relationship that one assumes with others, on the spot? This reminds me how people spontaneously enter into relationships on streets, in trains, during economic transactions, etc. Chacha, kaka, bhau, bhaisaab, taayi, Sir, boss- each call, along with other factors, has a consideration of age involved. Misplacing these factors could give funny but insightful results (the epithet dangerous is not altogether ruled out). Age is more active a factor in setting up the relationship between two people, at least more so than formal expectations, which evaporate in front of it.

Further thinking about this provisional leads us to another question: how well can one know someone's age at first glance? Mostly, the answer to this depends upon the situation. For a sixteen year old encountering a sixty year old with white hair and loosened skin, the age difference would be most apparent. However, we must not consider loosened skin and white hair the same as old age. Its only too apparent that age never comes at the same time to all. Attributing predicates to subjects is always a tricky thing if left to speculation. To a three year old girl, a boy seeming ten year old could be anything from a nephew to a brother to an uncle (even a grand-uncle, if one could but stretch one's imagination), though he may invariably be interpreted as one of these (grand-uncle being the least likely, brother being the most). Given that it is impossible to make such lengthy calculations (due to lack of means of thought that are precise) , one makes do with available modes of reasoning (approximate precision from appearance). So further sharpening our idea, its the momentary appearance of age that plays a more important role in this entire business.

However, if we were to put formal relational ascriptions completely out of the picture, we would find it difficult to confront certain questions: how do those attributes invoke precisely those kinship terms? Why does appearance get tagged with age? I think at play is a scenario in which the mind has certain basic relational indicators to operate with, imbibed with growth and association, which one puts to a pass or fail test during active situations. Because appearance is something that holds more certainty than age in mere situations (as opposed to situations with knowledge), the relation-building process follows its lead more than that of accurate relations in the network of the family.

Use this diversion....

It be too hard,
aye it sure be
with the same vision
all things to see..
Whence let me keep
two ends of a stick away,
if politics by the night,
then uncoloured thought by day.....

This blog is specifically to publish that which is not political in nature, as opposed to that which is, which I intend to keep here.

Ways of teaching/learning

Things may be explained in more than one way. I remember when I was in school, I and many of my friends used to find text-books tiresome. It somehow became a task which ought to be done, simply for its sake. The tone of discourse is somewhat like this: there is something in the text which is true. Your job is to take that truth, imbibe it fully and be able to revoke it when required. It is, in a way, something that begins with the reader from the book, and goes back to the book. Take for example the last time I felt this happen. I was reading Linguistics when I suddenly started getting bored. I had started with bright prospects, and had shown some interest in the early stages. But soon, I started giving up. It got progressively boring and sleep-inducing. I was reminded of the impervious school texts and was rather disappointed that Linguistics, which had an aura of nobility and intelligence to me, was actually the same as that. I made, in fact, a decisive stand that Linguistics is not made for me. In fact, I proclaimed that no formal discipline is made for me, and I need something like writing fiction throughout my life, which is allegedly without any formal necessities. As you might have imagined, I met with failure there too. For if nothing else, writing fiction requires that disciplined regularity and concentration which other 'formal' pursuits do to. Underlying moral was that one would have to work hard for anything, and thus obviously, the problem was in my approach of finding the right bird to nail, meanwhile finding faults in every bird that came one's way. I could see an underlying snobbishness in my approach to things and it was that which was preventing me from confronting them reasonably.

This idea first struck me recently twice: one was when I was reading Premchand's Pratignyaa. In a way, it seemed that I had come out of a fast moving whirl-wind of fiction, and had entered a very calm sea which belonged to the same world, but a different hemisphere. When I try to account for the difference, this is what I arrived at: most of my reading in the past two years had been of 'modern' or 'post-modern' or 'magical realist' or some other nature which had been contrived into a movement. The idea of a movement is a curious one: it seeks to find the ideal in everything (what should be) and, once found, seeks to propagate it, in a way that reminds one of conquests. Usually though, in art, unlike warfare, the ground to be covered in endless, and thus there isn't any prescribed way that this is directed in. As a result, it is impossible to think of art as having one aim. What happened with Pratignyaa is this: having to read in Hindi meant having to pay special attention to the words (Hindi being relatively newer to me) and that automatically led me to understand it more carefully. Suddenly, it dawned on me that a text wasn't something to be read and conquered, but was like nutrition that had to be taken in spoonfuls and absorbed. The idea of time for me changed: previously, I lived in a world wherein there were loads and loads of books, and too little time to read them. As a consequence, I felt need to rush on with books. After this episode, it came across that skimming through a book is not exactly reading it; and once I followed its implications, I have now realized that I have all the time in the world to read. In fact, what is necessary to read is not speed, but consistency. The story of the hare and the tortoise would hold true here.

Similarly, would an education exercise in which the students study out of fear of exams at the month's end provide them with an opportunity to understand with a moment's peace ? Is it possible that the 'need' to assess a student's performance has now become cause for the student's shift of focus from studying to that need ? I think that is presently the case; and the shift is caused not only in students, but also in their parents. Parents have endorsed all sorts of ways to make sure that assessment comes out good: tuitions, indoctrination, beatings, etc. In a way, at all corners of discussion, the student is mostly given all ends in sight except the simple one, namely, understand what is in front of you. What is needed is that first of all the parents and teachers must take back all force from over the student. Secondly, it is necessary that as studies, they imbibe the habit of uniting the text with the world to the student. Thirdly, they must not make the assessment an object of their performance, but must simply act as disinterested mentors.

Obviously....

Obviously, it has been a while since I last wrote. Let me attribute this fault of mine to a tendency far more greater than me: its called the maelstrom effect. For every time that someone finds life as something that has to be enjoyed only, one loses an ability to think beyond that enjoyment. Enjoyment, I am led to believe, becomes an end in life. To think, I am also led to believe, requires a sense that everything one does is not for itself, but a means to other things. A good example to clarify with- one could board a local train for a trip to wherever one wants. Depending on what the local train gives, one could either enjoy it or find it distasteful. This approach is binary and leaves no choice. If approach were altered a little, we could find a neutral mean, which means something that would broadly be liked, but not dependent on temporal, sensuous stimulations. The braoder principle at work is: I write because I think.

Malhar- Evaluation

I recommend a reading of the previous note 'Malhar- Situations' to properly imagine what I mean. This note brings out the essence of what the other note tries to preserve. While that, in it's narrative style, could be called a story, this is actually the non-fictional critique of what happens in that story; a critique of malhar.

No, not all of malhar. Just some parts I found things amiss in, the kind of arrangement held for conducting human 'management'- this is what I felt was dismal, at best. Of course, I am just one person; and my opinion is supposed to be mine, I know all of that, I have been attending Farun's lectures, okay? But I am sure not only mine, for there were others who underwent the same experiences and on whose faces I saw an absurd frustration. I think I will respond to that from the position I am in: a worm's position, looking from ground level whatever is happening.

This must answer those who claim that I should join SECURITY: I think it is necessary for all positions to be represented, and I assume that of the common looker. It is absolutely necessary that someone talk from this position, and I think I am fully justified in wanting to occupy it and look at things from here. Moving on,

'COMPULSORY EXIT'.

phrase of an adj. and a n., meaning you have to go whether you want it or not, at the same time refers to a procedure involving the trapping of ignorant fools in unwarned, innocent corridors and packing them off outside.

There is no sign 'COMPULSORY EXIT'. No warning, except if your friend is in security. A hand tips you slightly and tells you to 'compulsorily exit'. Why, what I have done? No answer is available, since it isn't in the volunteer's job description, nor is he/she too eager to give one. Sometimes, yes, but mostly, no. You'll probably hear again: you have to go. And eventually, you do have to go: you are one and they are many. And they have this divine right of sorts, manifest in their t-shirts and wirelesses. One wonders if one is in USSR or something.

The argument runs hence- since we aren't blessed with too endowed a college (uh, in terms of space) why not let as many people as possible to come in and see? But then, for some to come in, some will have to go out? Yes, they will have to. Bas, chalo, compulsory exit. There is no belaying that. Someone who has been around in college would say "look, i could go up to de-congest these grounds. Why don't you let me do that?" Actually, why doesn't the security suggest that? One answer is-

'JUDGES AND GUESTS'

n., somebodies who increase the plausibility of your festival because of their familiar faces, and even tell you if your events and participants are okay or not.

Anybody familiar with Xaviers' would agree that the windows/passages on the floors above could be wonderful spectator galleries. This is one strong reason, I think, why people would want to go up. But, ASSISTANCE informs me, that Guests and Judges are about to come, and we, being ideal hosts, must give up the cream biscuits for them. Absolutely, no problem. I'll clear off as soon as they arrive. But no. I am told I have to clear off immediately. That place is not for me. Do they realize they are laying waste precious space of our under-endowed, beloved college, if not harming the 'spirit' of malhar that common-folk walk away with? What with the number of judges and guests as compared to that of normal watchers, a child could spot the irrationality of reserving so much space for so few people. I think one shouldn't complain of having less space in college when one is wasting it as it is. The same, by the way, goes for water and electricity.

'CROWD'

cltve. n., if used by someone on the malhar team, it necessarily refers to a huge gathering of people that creates hypothetical stampedes even before arriving and unbearable chaos too(unbearability is, usually, subtly shown by '!' marks), generally assumed unthinking and unreasonable.

My conversations with most of my security pals has lead me to believe that a lot of security guidelines have to do more with cultural knowledge passed from last years' arrangements, than with a different analysis of present possible situations. This knowledge assumes that if not for some regulation, there would be major stampedes. The argument is a crisp phrase, stale, yet freshly accepted in Pol Sci classes- mob-behaviour. This is one reason, perhaps, why none except one have responded to my suggestion of more sane usage of existing space. It simply doesn't feature in the to-do list of the dept/s. what may be responsible.

Why should we assume that this crowd needs guidance? Why should we assume that there will be a stampede? And why should we assume that 'they would never understand, so let's not waste time in trying to explain what we are going to do to them'? This is what i refer to as pessimism. Our security arrangements are based on this idea. It would do well to the SECURITY and ASSISTANCE depts. to introspect if they do not show this unreasonable behaviour towards 'crowds' who actually ask them why this is happening. As I have said, some do manage to at least assuage some unfortunate beings, and actually explain why this is happening. Some also use their brains as per the situation and this makes malhar more human, and less insultingly pessimistic.

CAP'N JACK SPARROW

pr. n., referring to a remarkable personality who devises bizarre responses to bullying, possibly great inspiration for those tired of malhar's self proclaimed securors, who end up making life difficult both for themselves and for others.

S crawls out from under the divider; X asks wierd questions; sometimes, he calls out for reason. These are defiant responses. When confronted with power which doesn't care to explain why is it operating, what can one do? Either one can, like T, denounce such power in words but accept it in actions by walking away, giving up. Or, one can accept it both in words and in actions, which many have urged is necessary. There be a third course, mateys- defy this power in words and actions as long as it is unreasonable. As to the unreasonability, there is considerable scope to find it- if somebody says "could you please move away from here?", one can see a certain civility in the manner, even if the request seems absurd. However, somebody saying "you'll have to go somewhere else" or even taking the liberty to nudge you on the shoulders, show you directions and say "keep moving, keep moving" shows obvious signs of power-tipsiness. Further signs of undue power are refusal to answer, let alone even consider one's questions. After all, how much time does poilte, impersonal behaviour take? Or what harm would answering a few questions do?

Being a smart-alec has more to it then this defiance: suppose you get summoned by compulsory exit in, say, an hour or so. You see your malhar experience going for a toss. You'll have to wait in line again to get in. So where is the fun? Heck, do crazy stuff, derive your fun from what you have- an unflinching volunteer. That is why it is possible for X to feel happy at the end of the day.

'MALHAR'

pr. n., college festival of St. Xavier's College, including students from various colleges visiting and participating in a host of events

I was somehow shocked at being asked "Why do you hate malhar so much?" I have restricted my hatred to something more specific than malhar, namely the arrangement for public management. Malhar, or whatever I could see of it, was quite enjoyable, even necessary because there is hardly such an opportunity if not through a college festival. However, if focus shifts to competitions and judges and bureaucratic procedures rather than humane behaviour and enjoyment, we shift away from what is ideally expected. It isn't a shocker for me to find malhar behind many other colleges ( http://www.campusjunkie.com/FestCentral.aspx?fcp=main ) as far as popularity goes. I look forward to attending these for verification of campusjunkie data, but I think that votes of people all around do make for a permissible reference. My intention for these two write-ups was to first narrate how one could enjoy because of difficult odds (through defiance) and secondly to suggest positive changes that are lacking through the eyes of a worm. I have no intention of spreading malice, I haven't done so, and would appreciate not being accused of anything such.

BUREAUCRACY

n. a form of institution with inexorable rules and procedures, which nobody knows emanate from where, but which have to followed in spite of all their shortcomings. Criticism can lead to accusals of 'all talk, no walk' attitude, demonstration of walking could lead to being ignored.

Bureaucracy generally is accused of making machines out of men. One complains of long queues in general life, of pending court cases, one even supports positive changes in such systems. But in malhar it becomes different: since it is 'our beloved malhar', it has to be perfect the way it is and is beyond criticism. But it is not too difficult to note similar symptoms in it which one condemns in a bureaucracy.

In fact, through my experience of malhar, I noticed it is a micrcosm, a miniature model, of many outside things in the way it is run. Bureaucracy is one of the commonalities; one can find militant intrusionism, as one found in former Soviet Union, or present China; one can find patriotic shouts of 'Malhar Rocks', more emotional than rational. One could find favouritism, like invisible judges being treated to open spaces to look from. All the more, one can find the same points of discussion about malhar that one finds about bureaucracy, society, etc. in general- 'mob-behaviour', 'chaos', 'necessity of procedures' (this very basically means necessary of bureaucracy); all these come from such an analogical discourse.

SITUATION

n., a real life combination of events and entities, that face people in an interactive manner, to which they have to respond.

This write up had to be broken into two, since it came out bigger than anticipated. But this did come out in the way I had planned it to. This is a new and effective method of writing that I have come across, partly discovered. I think this should answer those who think I am generalizing things, and creating caricatures.

What do we mean by generalizing? By applying to a group certain traits just on the observation of a few elements of that group. When it is unjustified prejudice- a judgement BEFORE knowledge. So, for example, one could see gay people wearing pink repeatedly, and assume that gay people wear pink. However, gay people not wearing pink would prove this to be a prejudice. The problem that has happened is that before getting a pure description of what 'being gay' means, one has assumed on shoddy evidence that it means wearing pink, and put it on the whole gay community, i.e., evaluation comes before description of situation. Since this mistake is repeated often in writing, I decided to technically orient this article in a way that the diagnosis (description) of situation comes necessarily before it's evaluation, so that we know enough before passing judgement. That is why the order-

1. 'Malhar- Situations', wherein we understand what we are talking about
2. 'Malhar- Evaluation' wherein we try to find recurring patterns

Let me put up another example (since I terribly wanted it to feature in the other article, but bloody forgot about it at that time)-

SITUATION VI.

Foyer. Huge crowd. Some event is going on, while people are cheering and shouting and whoooooing.
S can't see anything because of the crowd. She asks the guy in front-
"What event is going on"
"I don't know."
"What are you cheering for?"
"I don't know."
"Why the hell are you cheering?"
"Everybody is cheering, so I am cheering too."

EVALUATION

Enjoyment can come out of anything. Even from seeing others enjoy. .... in short, whatever you can conclude from the given situation.

Now one may see at a number of places in the article or the responses that I don't label the ASSISTANCE dept. as 'bad' or 'vile' or whatever. I only go after the practices they do to which don't really go well with a huge number of people. Similar with caricatures- they show less reality than is actually present, because they are a scheme of the author's mind. However, if the writer picks up verifiable situations with verifiable characters, it would either be unwary or unjust of someone to accuse the writer of creating caricatures.

As to selectivity, it is a different matter altogether. Let us assume that malhar is our car, and there is something wrong with it. It would follow that we repair what we think is wrong with it. For this, we ought to focus on the bad part. I am afraid that looking at the good side of the car would hardly be of any use to the car; it may be amply so to our self-esteem of owning a wonderful car, but that would mean living with a faulty car in sheer denial or ignorance. One can't confound selectivity with generalization or prejudice, unless proved so; of such proofs as regards to this article, I am most awaiting.

Hoping for someone to take this up into consideration. Hope to meet again, as a worm, next malhar.