DIMINISHING DAD

It wasn't very long ago when I was big and rich; really big and rich. Less than three decades back.

I had a small telly, the best I could afford with my Navy pay. I didn't have a car since I couldn't afford it. My wife and I used to call our Yezdi 250 cc a donkey since the mobike could carry everything for us including gas cylinders that we used to carry on it from Navy Nagar in Colaba to Worli where, after I got married, the Navy had given me a one room house. It was a large room though. We put a double bed on one side of the room, had a kitchen slab on the other side with a dining table right in front of it. We became very fond of walks along Worli Sea Face since it used to cost nothing. At the end of the walk we used to sit at the breakwater and reward ourselves with two rupees of singdana (peanuts).

You must be wondering where do 'big' and 'rich' get into the description of me? Well, let me explain 'big' first. Immediately after marriage, until several years after that, my wife used to think I was the greatest man she had come across. And then, when the fact of my not being as big and as invincible as she had imagined started to sink in, our two sons were born. I was an instant hero with them until their teens. As an example, the telly was hardly ever switched on; my sons used to think that nothing could be more interesting than what they called Papa TV. After dinner, it was race with them to the bed or the carpet where I used to perch them on my tummy and tell them stories; the most serialised and longest one was the story of the animals in a jungle with such names as Georgie Porgie Lion, Richard Snake, Elizabeth Cow, Charlie Elephant, and Martin crow. They would be breathless to know what happened next when Georgie Porgie took all the animals for a picnic by the Jungle Train. Papa TV had everything: songs, poems, jokes and even commercial breaks when they'd run up to their mom and have milk and come back.



Arjun  & Arun enjoying Papa TV (the actual TV lies switched off)

Interestingly, they were fascinated by everything that I did or said and indeed some of my expressions are still prevalent in the family; for example, whenever I made a proposal, say, about a picnic or to have Kulfi at Punjabi Kulfi at Chowpatty, I'd ask them, "Yes? No? Maybe?" or after explaining something I'd look at their faces and ask, "Not understood?" Recently, Arun, our younger son explained something about what he does at his Animation job and ended up asking me, "Not understood?"

I was  their best toy. With whatever money I had, I had got them the best of toys but they were quiet content playing with me.


Their 'best toy'

 Also, both the children's future passions were nurtured in the childhood. Arjun, our elder son, has emerged as one of the leading critics of pop music in India. Below is a picture of Arjun listening to the first of the songs that he would have understood the tune of. It was on my Sony two-in-one that I got in 1975 on my first foreign cruise as a navy  officer.

Arun (the younger son), on the other 

Arjun's first exposure to music

hand, became adept at a Commodore 64 computer and I got him a few 'video games' to play on it. He had to put a magnetic cassette in a corder attached to the computer and type out 'Load' on the computer and then type out 'Play' and then race those speeding cars with the pointer keys on the keyboard. This he did when he was all of three years old. So, even before he learnt 'A for Apple, B for Bat', he learnt 'L for Load and P for Play' on the com. Arun, later, became the video-gaming champ in India for seven years and went abroad each time to take part in video gaming competitions. Arun, therefore, wants to design his own games and is presently a qualified Animator.

The best education that my wife and I gave them was to be good human beings and gentlemanly at all times. To be able to look themselves in the eye, at all times; to speak the truth even when it hurt them; to be bold and courageous even when the majority did wrong; and to know right from wrong. What about religion? My wife is a Catholic and I am a Sikh. We never forced the children to strictly follow any or both the religions. They are free to choose on their own. Arjun, therefore, believes in God without following any particular religion. Arun doesn't believe in God. Both of them, however, agree with me that organised religion is beginning to do more harm to our society and that religion should become more personal and private. It is better to be good and "irreligious" than to be "religious" but evil.

We never encouraged them to babble so as to look cute. Both could, therefore, express themselves well and freely. Also, both did not have to agree to our point of view. I have enumerated several incidents in this blog when I could learn things from them. For example, on one occasion we, as a family, went by our Maruti 800 (we could get a car in 1988; thank God for that) for a picnic at one of the beaches in Vizag. In my enthusiasm I had driven the car close to the beach on the sand. Being on the East coast, the sunset was fairly early and we later realised that dark was setting in fast. The only difficulty was that as I started to race forward, the right side rear wheel made a burrow in the sand, started digging deeper and panic set in with me since it was as a remote part of the beach with nobody around. The more I tried, the worse it became. Arun, in the meantime, kept telling me, "Try the jack, dad." How idiotic, I kept thinking. This boy of seven had no idea, I thought, that a jack was to be used on a static car and not whilst moving or trying to move. However, finally, after trying various things, I tried the jack for the right wheel. As the car lunged forward with the force of the left wheel, the right too came out of the burrow. The jack of course fell but now the car was out. We collected the jack and drove back without getting into any more panic.

All kids want to step into their dad's shoes

Incidents like these taught me a lesson: to have more trust in their abilities rather than choose the safe option of always trying to spoon-feed them. It took me some time to learn that a child when he steps out of his childhood and enters boyhood, wants to step into his dad's shoes. But then, that's only a transitory stage. Soon, he wants to step out of his dad's shoes and see the world with his own eyes, make mistakes and move on. In Arjun and Arun, the desire to do things on their own was probably more intense than most other children. They'd get very impatient if I would give them detailed instructions about anything. Here is Arjun on the right trying to learn to tie a necktie on his own. Arun too broke a few teeth but learnt to ride a bicycle without my holding the handle or steadying it for him. How did this absence of spoon-feeding help them? Initially, they used to read my poems and articles etc and marvel at how well I'd written these. Later, I found that they could write much better than me.

There were two big surprises for us: one, when Arjun appeared for his CBSE exam (12th std). Because of my frequent transfers, I thought he had not been able to study much and hence, when the results came; we sat around the computer to check these. I said a silent prayer to ensure he'd pass. Just before his mark-sheet flashed on the screen, I asked him what was his expectation? He said he expected to be amongst the top rankers. I made a mental note of his misplaced expectation and thought I must speak to him about it later sometime. But, lo and behold, Arjun with nearly 93 percent marks had stood first in all Naval Public Schools in India.

Arun too gave us a pleasant surprise. The first one was that he could order his computer accessories and parts on the computer at the age of ten. Only when the courier would come to deliver a part at home we'd realise that Arun had ordered it from thousands of miles away. Then one day he asked our permission to take part in a video gaming competition. We allowed him "as an encouragement" but never knew he'd win and would continue winning for the next seven years.

Arun learnt music entirely on his own. He'd sit for long hours in front of the computer and try to learn the basics from the net. A few years later, he could write his own music and play. With another friend of his he formed a band of his own. Nowadays when he plays and gets a fair amount of audience applause, no one believes that he had no trainer to teach him about music or how to play the guitar.

They finally grew very fast and very soon started rubbing shoulders with me. I had got substantially diminished by that time. But, then  I had to be content with the fact that my wife and I gave them values, told them what is good and bad, gave them means to discover their true potential and then left them on their own 

to make their lives the way they felt the lives should turn out to be. In the end, a diminished dad is not a question of parental ego being hurt. It is a recognition of the fact that life is unique and precious and parents ain't God who should, at all times control the lives of their children and mould these to produce clones of themselves. My mother still says, "Bachche tanh kaka bachche hi hunde ne." (Son, children will always be children). True, mom, but they have every right to live their own lives and not their parents' lives. A diminished father or diminished parents is not such a bad thing after all.

In so many different ways, they'd always be children. But, why should I impose my point of view all the times? I don't want them to step in my shoes. I want them to make their unique lives independent of me, whatever they choose. One of my friends, when I told him that Arjun has got into music and Arun into animation, told me about the courage that I had in allowing my sons to follow their passions, even when they ain't earning tons of money, which they would have if they had followed traditional fields.

That brings me to the question of money. At one time, in my childhood, I was very rich indeed. I owned ships, skies, clouds, stars. Here is one of my ships:

I continued being rich in my life; I always had enough. I never scrounged. On my Yezdi, when we travelled, with one son perched ahead on the fuel tank and another in my wife's arms on the backseat, I was rich. I was rich when, as a lieutenant, I took money out of my provident money and took my wife with me to a two week duty cum holiday to Italy, France and England. I was rich when I married my wife on my own and we didn't know how we'd run a household without any money between both of us.

My father too was rich when he earned all of Rupees 150 when I was small. His father once gave him advice, "Mani (my dad's name) I pray to God that you'd spend a lot of money." Dad, at that time thought of it as an idiotic advice since money would grow multifold if one'd save it rather than spend it. Many years later, he learnt the truth. Of course, you can't foolishly spend money. Dad never scrounged and somehow had enough. He passed on this richness to me and I, in turn, passed on this God given richness to my children.

Life is a dream, they say. But, I ask you, how many people have the courage to live that dream and.....allow their children to live their own?

Being diminished, as I said, is not a bad thing at all.

CURTAIN CALL

End of a drama,

A comedy, a farce;

The nice cosy chats we used to have.
And bartering of Love with
Your own version of Love.

No sounds, no whispers, no murmurs.

Except you who can hear

Little children playing in the street,

The ring tone of your phone.
The cackle of your innumerable friends,
The honking of cars,
The chirping of birds
The call of the milk vendor
And the squish of the newspaper
As it lands in front of your door.
Bringing you news
From far places.

I can't hear anything; nor do I try to
I have lost a few senses
I don't know how many
Since I've lost the sense to know.

But, I have to hand it to you,
You really played your part well.
I wish....
I knew
Your lines too

So I won't have mixed
Real life with acting.
I stand unmoving
Speechless and frozen
Waiting for.......
...........applause?

HOW UNBIASED OR INNOCENT CAN WE BECOME?

Is the world an obstacle course to cross and reach God? Is the purpose of our life or existence only to be with God or finally reach Him? Why is it that God can be obtained by the abnegation or denial of all human feelings, desires and wants? In our scriptures and even in ordinary conversation our baser feelings are described as being "animalistic". But, who made those animals? Who made us? We tend to feel that whenever we do or think something 'good', God is controlling us. Then who is controlling us when we do or think 'evil' things? Who decides what is 'good' or 'evil'? Who gives us any knowledge or consciousness? Is it God or does knowledge and consciousness exist in the world like internet; a huge highway?

Lets first examine the concept of consciousness. Consciousness is not an absolute term. Indeed, I have already established that there is no Absolute Virtue in this world (Read 'Absolute Virtue') and all virtues, qualities, good or bad, and hence beliefs and knowledge are in relation to others. Consciousness too is defined as 'the relationship between our mind and the rest of the world with which we interact'. Thus, even though consciousness is awareness, it is subjective. And how do we know about consciousness? It is, we are at pains to say, something intrinsic, something intuitive. Something like our perception of God; an idea that emerged from nowhere but we intuitively know it is the right idea.

Consciousness: a relationship between us and the world (pic courtesy: zazenlife.com)

This then brings us to 'Intuition'. Intuition is known as the opposite of reason. And what is reason? It is the ability that we have ascribed to ourselves to think logically or to make sense of the facts presented to us. In other words, being reasonable is the same as being rational. Intuition on the other hand is the ability to have or use knowledge without reasoning. The origin of the word is Latin 'intueri' which means 'to look inside'. Lets say you weigh factors in your mind and then decide on a course of action, your selection is dependent upon reason. However, if without weighing the facts in mind you, some inner voice or gut feeling tells you what you should do, you do so intuitively. Many people have won great fortunes or warriors won great battles by following their intuitions rather than reasoning. Intuition is also called Guardian Angel. It is not clear at whose behest your inner voice or Guardian Angel speaks to you.

Intuition: seeing it with the inner eye (pic courtesy: mindpowermasters.blogspot.com)

Lets subject Intuition to scrutiny, reasoning or logic. Is it really the opposite of rational and hence irrational or unreasonable or illogical? Then, how is it that even consciousness is what is intuitively known to us? What about post-event analysis or reasoning? For example, if an intuition can save you from an accident, what is irrational or illogical about it? Is it that if with your current sensory and extra-sensory knowledge leads you to disaster, then only it is fruit of a rational thought. Else, it is to be explained with the phrase 'nothing succeeds like success' or with the derisive 'the b____r is just lucky'. About a century ago, in 1921, Carl Jung defined intuition as 'perception by the unconscious'. Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an 'intuitive type', acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception.

Last year, I wrote an article 'Being Nonsensical May Be Far Sighted'. In this I had argued that since we compare our knowledge with what has been in the past, we limit our future knowledge. Therefore, the world's knowledge grows only incrementally. Anybody who takes a leap of knowledge far beyond our current or past thinking is called non-sensical since we are limited by our senses. I also wrote that we live in 'The Virtual World' since even seeing is not believing and also, things do exist in the cosmos that are beyond our senses and hence, simply because we can't see, touch, hear, taste and smell them are no grounds for their non-existence.

Okay, lets see what I have established so far in this article; it is that all consciousness, awareness, knowledge, rational, reasoning and logical approach is after all an attempt to compare the current knowledge with other current or previous knowledge so as to make sense of the facts presented to us. However, when we 'intuitively' arrive at a conclusion, even if it turns out to be more right for us than reasoning, it is still the product of an irrational thinking or simply a 'perception born out of unconscious'.

Intuition, therefore, may be defined as understanding or knowing without conscious recourse to thought, observation or reason. There is a great deal of mysticism or supernaturalism associated with it since we appear to be responding to cues, hints or suggestions given to us by our gut-feeling or without any previous knowledge. However, what if knowledge or awareness or consciousness about this previous knowledge is beyond the ambit of our senses? It would still then be historical data stored in the depths of our mind or hanging in the air, which comes to surface only when we are faced with a particular situation.

Sounds incredible? Well, it is not really so. We already have something called reflex action that makes a child instinctively take its hand away from fire or sharp object without having experienced it before during its short life of say three months. It is because generations of knowledge are imprinted in its nervous system through its parents, grandparents etc. Similarly, could this be that an intuition is nothing but generational knowledge imprinted in our system somewhere and it is designed to surface when it does? In that case, it is still comparing current knowledge with previous knowledge or simply experience. Have we experienced such a thing before? If yes, then how does the current experience compare with the previous one?

Therefore, experience is considered the very essence of consciousness; it is a subjective feeling, something intrinsic with each one of us. We are therefore conscious that there cannot be someone or something devoid of consciousness and still be called human.

Lets return to the original question: 'who, therefore, gives us the consciousness, knowledge, awareness, and even intuition and reflex action, gut feeling or inner voice?' Is there something beyond consciousness that drives us? Whenever we subject anything to our senses, we invariably compare it with a template we have in our mind of an earlier experience or history either directly through our memory or through intuition. Hence, we can never be innocent or unbiased since consciousness, knowledge, awareness, intuition etc all are relative and subjective. There is no absolute objectivity.

At this stage, lets have a look at what exactly is Bias? How many times have you come across the expression, "Saala shakal se hi badmaash lagta hai" (He simply looks like a rogue). Have lets give it a thought as to what exactly is contained in this statement? It is a template in our mind about what we think a rogue should look like. Have we got enough personal experience of rogues to form this template; or is it some one's historic data, or description that has got us swayed?

Bias is, therefore, the tendency to have a one-sided perspective in comparison to other equally valid choices. It is a selfish point of view; something similar to a lover's devotion towards his beloved. It is more emotional than reasoning. The fact is (this is my bias speaking) that everyone of us has a philosophy of convenience and we invariably look for reasons to prove this theory or philosophy right.

A very good way to explain Bias by nirmukta.com

A bias can be cognitive if you take decisions based on cognitive skills rather than through evidence. We take shortcuts to arrive at decisions based on emotional and social factors rather than by seeking the proof of a particular statement, event or person.The term cognition comes from the Latin verb congnosco (con 'with' + gnōscō 'know'), which itself is derived from the Ancient Greek verb gnόsko "γνώσκω" meaning 'learning'. Hence cognition means: 'to conceptualize' or 'to recognize'. If our mind, through emotional or social process of cognition has decided, even before hearing the evidence, that a certain person is bad influence; we cut out all reasoning and arguments against our decision. That's Bias without our even stopping to think and analyse. Many a times we are not even aware that our mind does this to us; since, believe it or not, it is auto-programmed to do it without any inputs or help from us.

Take a mother's love for her child; she gets immune to hearing anything that spoils her impression that she has the most beautiful child on earth.

With the kind of pre-knowledge that we are programmed to have, even before we are born, it is not possible for us to be ever unbiased or innocent. Every thought with us, whether conscious or intuitive, is based on historical knowledge (it may be immediate history or of thousands of years back) and hence, when we tell someone to clear his or her mind of all ideas and then make a decision, we are as far from the truth as we can get. Bias, with each one of us, is present in some manner or the other, in some degree or the other. All thinking is Bias in its larger sense. None of us can ever be totally innocent since all knowledge actually corrupts the mind and keeps the mind from reacting to a new situation or idea based on its own merit and not on historic data in our mind or elsewhere. Also, one can never be completely innovative; for, if one did, it would simply be non-sensical or beyond the scope of senses.

How then can we ever regain innocence? Indeed, this sentence unknowingly suggests that we had innocence at one time and lost it by our own actions, thoughts or inactions. Actually that itself is a myth. Anyway, lets at least examine the chances of our ever becoming unbiased or innocent.

The holy book that I look for guidance is the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Guruji has described something called haume (Self or Ego) that gets into every thinking of ours and we are never free from it. According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, if we can be rid of haume, we would be close to param aatma (Spreme Soul) or God.

Sounds very simple, is it? Get rid of haume and we are next to God. To help us examine it, we have to decide whether we have the Free Will to think or do things independently or some force somewhere guides us all the time?

Historically, there has been considerable debate with scholars and spiritual leaders about whether we have Free Will or not. It is a somewhat divided house. Is a person, of sane mind (whatever that means), to be morally responsible for his/her thoughts or actions or is what one does or doesn't do already determined by a higher force; something that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib calls Kirt (writ already for you for a particular life or determined in advance)? Already, in most courts, a person's guilt is held to be minimised or even held as zero if he or she was not sane or in a position to decide by himself or herself; for example, a small child suffocating her father through sheer ignorance will be held in the courts as innocent because a child is not expected to know what he/she is doing; and certainly not have mens rea (a guilty mind or an intention to commit wrong). However, if we carry forward this argument further, and come to the collective conclusion that no man or woman can ever be totally free to take a decision or commit a deed, what does it make of our collective reasoning to punish such a man? "For heavens sake, a forty year old can't be as innocent as a child"?

Lets study the concept of  Free Will a little more. Free Will is our ability to make choices free from all constraints. What stands in the way of Free Will is metaphysical determinism and what favours is the concept of metaphysical libertarianism.

Determinism broadly means that some form of determinism or pre-set conduct or behaviour is true, and hence there is nothing like Free Will. This takes four major forms: Casual, Logical, Theological and Biological. Lets just take one of these to understand what it is. Logical determinism is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present or future, are either true or false. The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how choices can be free, given that what one does in the future is already determined as true or false in the present.

In Hinduism, the various schools of thought do not agree with one another on whether we have Free Will or not. Here is Swami Vivekananda about it; one of Hinduism's thinking and modern saints: "Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here."

I found this in Wikipedia: However, the preceding quote has often been misinterpreted as Vivekananda implying that everything is predetermined. What Vivekananda actually meant by lack of free will was that the will was not "free" because it was heavily influenced by the law of cause and effect—"The will is not free, it is a phenomenon bound by cause and effect, but there is something behind the will which is free." Vivekananda never said things were absolutely determined and placed emphasis on the power of conscious choice to alter one's past karma: "It is the coward and the fool who says this is his fate. But it is the strong man who stands up and says I will make my own fate."

So, finally, we have come to the end of this long discourse; which is that we can never be unbiased or innocent. However, there is a Consciousness far beyond the western or common notion of consciousness as given above. If, in some way, we are able to arouse this consciousness, we can get over what is pre-determined for us.

Until then, we can be more unbiased or innocent than someone; and at the same time be less unbiased or innocent than someone else. Also, we cannot be absolutely unbiased or innocent. As Eugene O' Neill wrote, "No man's guilt is not yours; nor is any man's innocence a thing apart."

Sri Guru Granth Sahib, which I believe, in large parts, is based on the Vedas (the holiest of Hindu scriptures), has this to say about it: "Man jeete jag jeet" (Conquer the mind to conquer the universe).

Easier said than done, since, you can't free the Mind of Bias (borne out of haume) even for a second.

KACHCHE AAM KA ACHCHAAR (RAW MANGO PICKLE) - A RECIPE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

After the recent petrol prices hike, the Congress functionaries and supporters - of which there are a few thousand, especially in the media and think-tanks - came out in support of the hike on the grounds that the aam aadmi (common man) suffers or has nothing to gain by extending petrol subsidies that only the middle class and the rich enjoy but do nothing to the aam aadmi since he has as much use for petrol as the male of the homo-sapiens has for sanitary napkins; he doesn't bleed (by a petrol price rise) and hence doesn't have to contain the bleeding in a sanitary napkin of subsidies.

Aam aadmi? First of all, I find it rather strange that I and my ilk are not included in the aam aadmi. I am reminded of Spike Milligan who started one of his hilarious books (I think it was 'Monty - My Part in His Victory') with these sentences, "Every sunday I used to accompany my parents to the church and give money and alms for the poor. I used to find it strange since we were actually the poor."

What is the definition of the aam aadmi? He can't simply be the poor man because then he would have been called 'Garib aadmi'. Thanks to the abysmal failure of our policies and family planning measures, we keep adding to the number of the poor in the country. At last count, in the eight northern states of India, we had more poor than in the entire Africa continent. Could it be that the rural people in the country are called aam aadmi? But then, after spending 37 years in the Indian Navy, I turned out to be the poorest in my village in Shimla Hills. No, it can't be. I think very possibly, it is a term coined by the Congress to indicate people other than those who make noise about lack of governance, lack of government policies and visions, and about rampant corruption. Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev and millions of their supporters can't be the aam aadmi since they are routinely subjected to measures ranging from derision to forceful eviction and even arrest. They are often told that the "supremacy of the parliament should be respected" since parliament has been elected by the aam aadmi. Could it be that aam aadmi is the one who votes blindfoldedly?

RK Laxman's aam aadmi or the common man

I think it gets more and more complex and we shall never get to the bottom of what exactly is the aam aadmi, except probably the perception by the government that the aam aadmi has already been rogered enough and can't be rogered any more.

Could aam have anything to do with the king of fruits in India - aam (mango)? Initially, when the idea occurred to me, I brushed it aside as a figment of my contorted imagination (the only type that God was left with after giving the best to Congress functionaries and supporters, as given above). But, the more I looked at it, the more I got convinced that that's what Congress means: aam aadmi is the one who can afford nothing more than an aam (mango) with the above-poverty-line budget of Rupees 28.65 in urban areas and Rupees 22.40 in rural areas. And certainly not an aam of Alphonso variety; most probably the kachcha aam (raw mango).

Here I must indulge in a bit of nostalgia (to hell with my 'Nosey About Nostalgia'). When I was small, this is how my nani (maternal grand-mother) used to make kachche aam ka achaar. She used to pick raw mangoes and chop them into smaller manageable pieces. Then she would keep them spread out on a white sheet on a cot and let the sun season them for several days. This would reduce them to approximately half their size or less. Then, one day, she would garnish and season them with various spices, seasonings and salts and then put them in a jar of sarson oil. Kachche aam in jars would be kept like this for several days in the sun until nani would declare one fine day that they had matured and had been pickled. A similar process is followed by the government for the aam aadmi. You would guess the comparison, starting from cutting them on the lines of religion, caste and creed and ending with seasoning them in oil. Nani could very well have been made a minister in the government.

Here I must let out a secret. Initially, this article was called 'Kachche Aam Ki Chutney' but then, one spokesperson from the government, some Abhishek Singhvi, got in touch with me and said it would be too revealing after the (shocking) petrol hike of Rupees 7.50 and would give further "fuel-for-fire" to a certain Didi from West Bengal.

One of my friends, in his fit of frustration, went to petrol pump today and the following conversation took place:

Attendant: Kitne ka dallun? (How much should I pump in?)
My Friend: Bus do teen rupaiye ka spray kar de; gaadi ko aag lagaani hai (Only spray worth two-three rupees; i want to set my car on fire)

I was reminded of a RK Laxman's old cartoon; in this a burly sardar taxi driver had gone to the bank and demanded angrily, "Remember, you gave me a loan to buy this car? Well, I want another to buy petrol now."

I am told that in India, now onwards, petrol will be called 'Cough Drops'; a few drops and you have to cough up more money.

Oil drop or cough drop?

The argument that the petrol prices should be raised because the aam aadmi doesn't use petrol makes me think that the government can raise the prices of almost everything in the country since the aam aadmi, if I have got the definition right, hardly uses anything at all.

pic courtesy: aeonestudy.com

This morning, when, as usual I drove to my office; on the way, I saw some badly bruised people sitting on the road-side. They told me they were hit by a hit-and-run reckless vehicle. I went a little further and saw hundreds of stunned, bruised, injured, robbed and deceived people. I asked them what happened? They said they were hit by a reckless government. (Read 'How Proud Should We Be Of Indian Republic At 62?'

THE ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN

He is everywhere; even before Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen discovered him. He is in India or abroad but he is never too far from getting into the thick of an argument. Public debate? Intellectual pluralism? For heaven's sake what is the big brouhaha about it? Indians just love to argue. If at any place and time there are two or more Indians sitting, standing, half-asleep, playing, eating, or even just passing time there is potential for an argument developing. It is as simple as that.

Pic courtesy: newslaundry.com

I have come across many an individual who has to take the opposite point of view just to maintain his/her individuality. You can't agree with him/her at all. Even praise won't help to make him/her agreeable. The argument would develop in the following manner:

You (at your agreeable best): Mr. Saxena, I really like the shirt you are wearing.
Mr. Saxena (seriously offended by it and releasing steam through his nostrils): Do you have to make fun of me all the time? You should know that this is the worst shirt I have and I normally don't wear it even though I paid all of Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred for it. But my daughter, who would be a graduate soon, wanted me to wear this horrible thing for her friends; and I did this as a favour to her. But, you had to notice it and pull my leg. Ah, if friends are like this, what can I expect from enemies?

All along the harangue, you keep scratching your head and curse yourself whilst wondering what was offensive about your compliment. And now, you do the worst ever; although at the time when you say it you have no idea it is leading to further vitriol.

You: All I did was to praise your shirt Mr. Saxena.
Mr. Saxena: Now don't sound so innocent. You wanted to show me down. You have been trying to do it for a long time though not succeeding because of my reserve. Tell me what exactly is likeable about this shirt? You probably want to pull the rank on me since you have over a hundred shirts. But, I can tell you I too have quite a few though I don't show them off vulgarly like you do. Ask yourself this: do you really know anything about shirts? Back in America, I get invited as a judge in fashion-shows so often that I have lost count of the number of times. I see best branded shirts from Armani, Arrow, Lee, and Luise Phillip etc. I should know what a good shirt looks like. Ha.

I don't know which race in India has the crown for becoming the most argumentative since I don't have experience of all. But, since I have an experience of the Punjabi, let me tell you how to make a Punjabi do a near impossible thing: challenge him that he won't be able to do it. For example:

You: Bhai sahib, it is virtually impossible to jump from this bridge.
Punjabi: Oh, yeah, who told you that?
You: No one told me; I read it in a book.
Punjabi: Bookish knowledge everywhere with the modern man. Hold my thaila (bag) and I shall show you how easy it is.

The argumentative spirit of the Punjabi is honed with everyday incidents. For example:

Punjabi: Kinne bhra ho tussi? (How many brothers are you?)
Innocent Passerby: Saara (Sir) randa  or two.
Punjabi: Nahin je tin hunde tanh mera ki bigaad lainde? (No, but if you were three what could you have done to me?).


Two Punjabis sorting out an argument between themselves (Pic courtesy: explow.com)

Arguments are taken very seriously in India since they can lead to rage (for example, on the road because of traffic). Two years back, on the Vashi Toll Plaza, a driver killed another driver with a screwdriver over an altercation about jumping lanes. This year, in Gurgaon (Delhi) a driver killed a Toll Collector over dispute about the toll fee. Recently, a boy killed another over a squabble regarding a facebook picture and comments.

Traffic agreements in India start quite innocuously (Read 'If You Drive In India Part I' and 'If You Drive In India Part II'). Lets say you and your family are going merrily in a lane. You won't have noticed but the lane to the right or the left of you has suddenly gone very slow or stalled totally due to an obstruction. So, the car to the left or the right, without warning, cuts ahead of you, making you brake suddenly and almost lose balance. Within no time the lane-cutter's earlier lane starts moving faster and you, full of indignation, go across to that lane and come alongside the lane-cutter. You lower the window and tell him as politely as you can, "Bhai sahib aap ko signal dena chahiye tha; accident hote hote bacha" (Brother, you should have shown indicator; it nearly caused an accident). The lane-cutter gives you a look as if you don't belong. Then he searches and selects the juiciest out of his repertoire of filthy abuses and just to help you get the gist of it, he indicates the meaning of the abuse with his two fingers. You find it very unfair and drive the car in front of him causing him to brake suddenly just as you had to a while back. He comes out of the car and so do you. The other drivers jump into the fray taking one side or the other depending upon their moods. This happens frequently and none of us have been able to find a solution yet. However, whereas the earlier intention was to cut lanes and reach the destination early, now, everyone is delayed endlessly.

That's really the great beauty of the Indian argument: no one ever lets go. In such a scenario, the vakeel or the advocate advises you to file a suit against the other party so that he can take the burden of the argument from you at your expense, time, and energy. Indians now have more cases pending in the courts than the current lot of judges can handle in a century. (Read 'The Great Indian Judicial System')

There is nothing to beat the NRI (Non Resident Indian) arguer. He has the better of both worlds. Whilst in the foreign country he contends how good is the life, customs, traditions, people, places, food, and music of India. Back home, he brings out, without being asked, how good is the life etc of the country of his immigration, say, America. "We have a lot to learn from the Americans" he starts his argument with authority, "I have spent three decades there. It takes a while to understand the American system; but, once you do, you realise it is really the best in the world."

Then there is the political arguer or arguer about the decline in our values. This breed has the debating skills of a bull on rampage. He dexterously takes the opposite view of whatever you say. There would be people around, who, if they have the presence of mind, would point to him that in his hopping from argument to argument, he has well nigh forgotten which side was he originally. Nevertheless, he is the torchbearer of the nation's endless debates on corruption, politicians, industrialists et al.

I just want to describe two more perennial arguers in our society. One is the cricketing arguer. He is forever debating the poor strategy on the part of the team he has taken upon himself to back and the unsportsmanlike attitude of the other team, fans and the umpire. This type is a no holds barred argument that leads to a brawl. One's rank or status in society is considered worth mortgaging to somehow winning the argument even if it is with the security forces.

The other is the arguer who argues for you too; since he doesn't find you capable of building up an argument on your own. That argument goes like this:

Arguer: And now you will say that I am an idiot. (At this he includes all around him for support) And now you tell, bhai sahib, this fellow is calling me an idiot and should I keep quiet? (He again addresses you) You would probably call me a mother-f-----r too. And mind you, you are calling me names but I am not saying anything. You think people who keep quiet are weak? Just because I am being gentlemanly......etc

There is no way you can ever win an argument in India. The argumentative Indian just loves arguments; winning or losing would end the argument, much against what he wants. That would end all the fun, isn't it?

The saying 'Don't argue with a fool; people around you won't be able to make out the difference between the two of you' is never taken seriously in India. At the first hint of an argument developing you jump into the fray and it scarcely matters whether you come out alive or not.

Life goes on.