Big Picture of Social Media

You can either take Facebooking as time killing unproductive activity, or else you can try to see the Big Picture. So many engineers are learning technologies enabling companies, which are investing in analytics and Big Data, to make sense of whatever trends you set here. Photographs, videos, and data like your location and spending pattern, are all of so much importance to them! Firms are hiring social media consultants and content creators and even managers to handle FB ‘Pages’ and Twitter handles! Add to these the whole new world of Online Ads, Apps and games. On the other hand, our corruption-free govt is hiring spies and investing in tools to monitor you all here :) Is not all this getting funnier day by day? :)

- Rahul

RK Narayan’s ‘The Guide’

I finished reading ‘The Guide’ by RK Narayan (ISBN 978-81-85986-07-4; Indian thought Publications) today. It is one of the master pieces of RK Narayan. Of late I have tried to read all of his books; and this one has made me nearer to the goal. Though this story has been made into a very famous movie by the same name enacted by Dev Anand, I have not watched it and hence I could enjoy this book starting from truly unexplored status.

The Guide is indeed a master piece. We can find the width and depth of storytelling and minuteness of details as typical to RK Narayan and at the same time a unique new story to mesmerize us. It is a biography of Raju who sees many twists and turns. The book is written in a narrative style, as Raju is recollecting his life story. Starting out as a Guide, called Railway Raju, he falls in love with a lady dancer who is into an unhappy marriage with an academician living in his own world. The lady’s love makes him ignore his business of being a guide; his infatuation of watching her dance all the time makes him lose his business of running a shop at the railway platform and in order to fulfill all his debts, he loses his home that his father built and his mother had to leave him and go back to her brother when Raju does not agree with her to send away Rosie the dancer. Rosie at this point was very selfish, very well knowing that Raju was losing everything due to their relationship. Raju was so lost in his love with Rosie that he had to be woken up by Rosie who encourages him to get ahead on their plan of seeing through her dancing career. Supported by Raju, Rosie becomes one of the country’s top most classical dance performers and they become very-very rich. But she remains married to her previous husband who had deserted her and had no plans to take her back. Due to this, she does not get married to Raju also, though even Raju does not think about marriage, as if still lost in his fantasy world. He is obviously possessive about her and becomes uncomfortable with the thought of she reuniting with her husband. In the end, just to ensure that she does not see a letter sent by her husband, which he feared may trigger her reconciliation with him, he signs a legal document. Her husband, it seems does remember her and her boyfriend Raju, and seeks a revenge. Raju loses the court battle and is jailed for two years. At this point, Rosie shows insensitive and ungratefulness towards Raju; not forgiving of little mistakes one may make but being too harsh on him. At such points, the rigidness of social structure becomes too evident. Society has made unwritten rules and those who break it feel guilty even if no one blames them for it. Since Rosie was not married to Raju, in fact since she was still married to her uncaring and insensitive husband, she still had soft corner for her husband, which made her seek opportunity to reconcile with him, even if possible only in her thoughts. I think it would have been proper if she had filed for a divorce and married Raju legally many years ago, before becoming a burden on Raju’s mother and reason of lots of gossip about their immoral relationship (for which Raju had to suffer a lot and he lost social acceptance when he was poor). When Raju is in jail, or perhaps when he comes out of it too, Rosie never shows any sympathy towards him, which is inhuman. Perhaps she never loved him but only needed him. On one hand one can ask how could she love him when she was married to someone else? On the other hand, the fact that they shared an intimate relationship, it was only fair if she remained unattached to Raju if she never intended to see them as husband and wife together at some point of time in future. So while on surface Raju can be blamed for a lot of things, I think Rosie was also to be blamed for a lot of things. Her only defense could be that she was helpless and clung to Raju for her survival. But Raju never abused their relationship, never took grant of her and hurt her in anyways, he truly loved her. On financial matters, he became too used to seeing too much money coming in the house and hence did not do any self-check, which often happens. That is a bad thing about money – initially you think you own the money but later on money owns you. Until you have little money, you don’t know what it is to be on the money trail, but once you are on that road, it is a non-stop journey. It is like riding a tiger; you cannot get off from it for the fear of being swallowed away. Blessed at the people who have only that much they truly need; or have the courage to remain content with what they have.

In the end Raju goes to a remote village where no one knows him. People happen to take him as a saint and even this episode is so interesting to read.

How much seriously humorous RK Narayan can be is seen in the following para. Raju was a failure in earlier life but when he goes to the Jail, he is revered there. And he says, “I was considered a model prisoner. Now I realized that people generally thought of me as being unsound and worthless, not because I deserved the label, but because they had been seeing me in the wrong place all along. To appreciate me, they should really have come to the Central Jail and watched me.” :)

It is a marvelous book; full of geniuses of exceptionally brilliant story teller R K Narayan.

Thoughts: Seeing Conversion as an Isolated Incident with Personal Choice

A lot of religious conversions are being done by Christian Missionaries all over India. It has been going on since centuries and we can find mentions of its evils in the writings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda too. But every time you say something against it, there would be some people who would ask, “What is your problem if someone converts into Christianity? After all, it is one’s personal choice to follow whichever religion one wishes to?”
 

Well, if one converts due to personal choice as an isolated event, obviously no one will oppose or say anything. But there are people who want to say that hundreds of people just happen to gather at one church to convert; just it happens that they start getting a monetary assistance from next week onwards; just it happens by chance so that in the same Church another hundred converts every 3 months or so; it just happens by coincidence that the church is receiving foreign funds; and it just happens by chance that all these converted fellows start hating everything Indian. Everyone knows that all such things just don’t happen by chance but there is an organized effort with specific goals in mind to destroy ageless cultures and religions!
 

I wonder why some people don’t want to accept it? But I will definitely not allow them to get away with this facade of seeing every conversion act as one motivated by personal choice!

What Makes us Human?

Very often I listen to some people or commercial ads saying something which go on the lines of: “Our craziness makes us human. Being unreasonable and nonsensical makes us human.” 

I don't think craziness makes us human. On the contrary, I think being sensible makes us human. Craziness is all over the animal world. We have intellect; it makes us sensible; and that makes us human. I don’t think being unreasonable makes us human. On the contrary, I think being reasonable makes us human. If we see a poor man, it is reasonable to help him; it is unreasonable and crazy to steal from his begging bowl (this scene I am taking from some movies where they steal from beggar’s bowl and we all laugh at them for this funny act).

Why would people want to do things which are unreasonable and nonsensical? Being reasonable is what is expected from learned men. Being sensible is what is expected of learned men. Any rabbit can be unreasonable. Why dogs chase their tails? Why monkeys keep jump trees without purpose? Those are unreasonable and crazy. Only humans can be reasonable and I think being “not crazy” is what makes us humans.

I think most of our positions these days can be traced to some fashion statements. Most prominent one is: "You have one life; why so serious?" The purpose of this message is to make us do impulse buying. "Being crazy is what makes you!!!" is the theme of so many movies and ads. So we think being crazy (which means not behaving like society expects us to) is cool and it makes us socially popular. Like the movie Rock Star's lead Ranveer who ignored all social norms and in the end killed his lady-love by his reckless lovemaking. Glamorizing unreasonable and crazy behaviors are just fashionable positions and I don't see much merit in these. These positions can only be laughed about, but our society can’t be sustained if everyone starts becoming as crazy and unreasonable as they want us to become.

When I say this, I am not proposing a boring mechanical approach towards all things. I am only pointing towards sensible behavior. In other words, I don’t “being boring”, or “being mechanical” are opposites of “being crazy” but the opposites are “being sensible” and “being reasonable”.

Most of the time these slogans are promoted by marketers who want to change us. They don’t want to see us as conservative customers who would apply our mind before doing anything. As I said, they want us to act on our impulse and indulge in impulse buying. In short: they want our money. Many leaders and opinion makers would also talk about “being crazy” as a cool thing to do, but they are just acting populist when they say so. In the end, society and human civilization is made by sensible and reasonable people. Crazy and unreasonable lot, be it from humans or animal world are only to be enjoyed and forgotten.

Society: Mumbai Dance Bars Should Remain Banned

So the court has said that there can’t be a ban on Mumbai’s Bar-Dancers, seeing the flesh trade as “right to take up any profession in India”.
 

One of our Profs had said that the ban was because these centers had become places of money laundering (black to white), and hence Govt had to ban it, though not mentioning this reason because of legal angles. From what our prof told us and I understood, criminals and businessmen would shower black money at these girls and the bar owners will also earn a cut (which the article tells that govt used to collect crores in taxes which they lost when they were shut down). I didn’t know 100% of the nitty gritties of how these were money laundering centers, but I got what I said above…
 

Reading some articles which have come up after this court order, strongest supporters of immoral trade are making following points:
 

1) When bar girls were stopped from their dirty trade, many of them had to commit suicide.

2) When bar girls were stopped from their dirty trade, many of them joined prostitution.
 

I think the girls who committed suicide after bars were closed, mainly did because they had debts which they could not repay unless they made this kind of money through dancing there. Such professions are not sustainable anyway when they grow old, so someone should study how many of them anyway commit suicide when they age, and how many of them anyway go to join prostitution, the things which are being blamed on this ban on dance bars.
 

Many of bar dancers were already into prostitution but it is not a black and white situation where police could know for sure who was doing prosti.. and who was not. Most of them join prostitution when they grow old, because they become used to earning like this and also because a large number of their customers are from the underworld, who push them into it. We can recall chandini bar – a movie made on this subject….
 

Some try to make it a point that all oppisition to dance bars are opposition to “dancing” as an “art. I am not saying that dancing per se is immoral. But this profession of dirty dancing for money is immoral. There is no pride in this profession. Ask any such woman to say in front of the world that she does dirty dancing in a wine bar, in front of her kids and husband. The fact is that most of these girls, especially younger ones, were doing it without telling their families. This is what makes it immoral. My definition essentially is – the fact that these girls are ashamed of their profession tells that it is immoral. Reasons are obvious.
 

I am not questioning court. Court will see only legal aspect and it may not be illegal, I will accept it. Court says constitution gives everyone right of profession. Even we can say selling kidneys and blood should not be immoral or illegal using same logic. Or selling one’s kids to others should not be illegal using same logic. Debate is not about legality per se. It is about what is general good for society.
 

Also, it is not true that our constitution gives all freedom to do whatever one likes as profession. That legal right is only for people above 18? Because when children work, it is called child labor and they are banned from working. So even law or Constitution does not allow blind application of such “freedom”. Similarly, there are ethical aspects which law makers won’t understand. If they understand they will make a rule to restrict it (just like they ban child labor). These women don’t dance for fun; they do it because they want money for supporting themselves or their family. It is failure of govt if they can’t offer them a respectful profession. Banning it will simply disallow them one easy option to make quick money in this manner for which they themselves are ashamed of.
 

We should not generalize dancing in a bar and compare it with other forms of entertainment; or from dancers from the past; dancing as a means of spiritual experience. This profession is anti of anything good with dancing. Dancing in fact is circumstantial, otherwise male dancers could also be employed. Will people throw bundles of notes on male dancers in dance bars? Most of their customers are criminals and from underworld. This profession disallow them a chance into good and respectable professions.
 

Ask these girls how many of them would want their daughters to become dancers in dance-bars? Such questions help us in better understanding the issue, than generalizing it. We don’t know their life, their hardships, their struggles. If this evil line of business is not available for them, whatever else they will do legally would be more sustainable and rewarding in the long run for them. Let them become housemaids/or make papad achar and sell on the roads. What is wrong in such professions which involve manual work? At least they are not ashamed of what they are. Our baai’s daughter is also a baai and at times they come to our society happily chatting among themselves. Their profession is not evil.
 

That is the problem with this world: we see something wrong happening, we shall criticize it. But if someone will stop that wrong thing from happening, we shall criticize that person also. Ask any of your friends if he or she would like her daughter to go do dancing in these bars. Try all your convincing powers to make them agree. Will anyone agree? Why? Because all of your friends are mad or something?
 

In my opinion, it is just too insensitive for people like us (who are not bar dancers) to support such bars and dancing to run. We are being too insensitive for the plight of those girls who are victim of such trades.
 

Constitution is for people. People are not for constitution. If we say we have no escape from what was once written in the constitution, it is called dictatorship and tyranny in a way. This is why they have made enough provisions in the constitution to make way for changes. The govt/parliament is accountable to people; this is why they are given this power to make laws while courts are not given this power. It seems you have a fixed notion that morality can’t exist (because some guys from arabian desert have different morals which they can also assert to exist if we agreed that morality existed); all things in this world are only personal opinion and views (because some groups have conflicting views and everything is debatable); and nothing can ever be banned (just because some people will ask for banning good things also). So where do we go? We should not confuse freedom from anarchy. As I said this trade is immoral and hence banning it is not wrong. Calling it immoral is not my opinion – as anyone “would yous end your daughter there?” and count how many call it “not immoral” then.
 

I think since these were banned and all stakeholders have come to terms with their non-existence, the court should not start it all over. It is immoral and unethical trade and should not be allowed.

Thoughts: How come soul mates are found so nearby?

Someone asked why is it that soul mates often are found so near to us? Why not one’s soul mate would be living in some African village; and thereby we would never meet them? Also, how is it that in case of second marriages, people find another so called soul mate? Is it that soul mate system is so efficient?
 

From what I have read in books by authors writing about soul mates; we are “destined” to meet our that soul in this life and this is why we would find our soul mate(s) very near to us. In case of second marriage also, it was destined to be that way; means there was a purpose why the second love resided where one did, which was nearby. So this part is fine.
 

Also, there may be more than one soul mates, from the multiple past lives. Some from the previous life, some from 2-3 birth before. It may be destiny which one we shall meet in this life and there would be some purpose.
 

But I think this concept has been hyped for commercial gains by writers and also has been used too often to be true all the time.

Time magazine

For some time every weekend I bring home an issue of Time Magazine borrowed from office library and return it on Monday. The coverage of international politics and economy is really in-depth and wonderful. The articles and columns are frank, fair and rich in content. The magazine evaluates pros and cons of all events (it discussed Boston bombers extensively); also lots of touching subjects, like America's best sniper and Iraq war veteran who wrote a best-seller "American Sniper" was shot dead by a mentally ill Marine whom he was trying to help rehabilitate. Also, good coverage of Middle East, China, Korea & Japan so far. A transcending experience.

How Belief in Rebirths makes an Ethical Society

Let us read what a piece of research published in Psychological Science titled Vividness of the Future Self Predicts Delinquency says:
 

Undergraduates who had gazed at their 40-year-old selves in virtual “mirrors” were 74% less likely to cheat for extra cash on a subsequent trivia test, says a team led by Jean-Louis van Gelder of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement and Hal E. Hershfield of NYU. This and another experiment suggest that one reason people make self-defeating choices such as engaging in unethical behavior is that their ability to imagine their future selves is limited. They’re less inclined to indulge in illegal acts if they can see vivid images of themselves such as the computer simulations presented by the researchers.
 

From the above research and observation it is clear that if a person thinks of one’s long term, one would do less of wrongdoing; and more clear one sees it stronger would be the determination not to do something wrong. Hence, we can say with confidence that those who would believe that they will be reborn on earth and their Karma would decide their fate in the next life also, would be less motivated to do anything wrong. This is why people in India are generally honest and have very strong sense of discrimination between right and wrong. Also, we can understand the occasional wrong or unethical deeds by people here with the fact that for thousand years foreign faiths have ruled over India, the faiths of Islam and Christianity both not believing in rebirths. So modern crime and occasional digression of parts of society can be seen as result of going away from the foundations of Indian culture which has always been rooted in Karma. Most religions and sects which came out of Hinduism, like Jainism or Buddhism, have Karma an essential part of their belief.

Dhoni

What does AbRam Mean? Shah Rukh Khan’s son’s name?

When Shah Rukh Khan got his first (so far) surrogate baby boy, he named him AbRam. Note that “R” is a capital here, as against the common convention. I wondered like many people, what does “AbRam” mean?
 

On one forum I could read a person claiming that it should have been “Abraham” which is Hebrew origin. But if he wanted to be it Abraham which is a proper word, he could name him so. Why choose AbRam appearing as specifically different name than Abraham?
 

Another portal tells the real reason. You can read it to understand:
 

His older children Aryan, 16 and Suhana, 13 were given Indian names and everyone wondered what SRK would name his son. While he is a Muslim, his wife Gauri is a Hindu, so he has chosen a name that has both Hindu and Muslim reverberations. AbRam is a Hebrew name that means ‘Father of Many’. The name also encompasses one of the foremost Hindu deities Ram and he has highlighted this by spelling the R with a capital. Looks like SRK has come up with quite an innovative name. We congratulate the Khans and wish AbRam all health and happiness.