Difficult Dreams

 Have you noticed a unique video trend? Well, even if you cursorily browse through the YouTube, you get to note/know such trends. One such trend is bad-mouthing the realities of the lived American life. You would find loooong videos that reveal the reality of the American pay cheque.

Often, due to the conversion rates, the American salaries appear huge. Even if one stays in tax h(e)avens such as Florida, even then the other multiple taxes, the huge EMI's, the insurance payments, and the general very high cost, forget standard, of living drill a huge hole in the pocket. Although their people back in swadesh think that they are rolling in money, they have pathetic savings. The only exception is a DINK couple. 

Well, the American economy is in doldrums. The inflation rate is very high there. So it is a question why legal/illegal immigrants flock there. I suppose, it could be the compulsory  basic minimum payment practice there. Anyways, jobs are fewer there, and people are paid pittance even in the I/T. 

Of all the emigrants, the most interesting in my opinion are the students. To get an American post-graduate certification, you have to shell out circa fifty lakhs. Unfortunately, moreover, most students (and even job aspirants) who go there  these days are not of the 60's/70's variety, that is, the IIT topper types. In India itself, they would be mediocre students. Yet they choose to go there against such huge investment. Even an educational loan, too, needs some assurance which would be the family property!

Would they get, forget good, jobs there? One of our close acquaintances whose daughter is a Ph.D from John Hopkins, and she was a rank holder here, always tells stories of how her daughter's jobs are fit for mere minimal survival. If such students, who went there with high hopes, come back, they would be misfits here, too. 

Well, the sad saga reminds me of my M.A. students whose hold over English is minimal. They come from poor or middle class rural families. Given the empty PG degree, they do not want to go back to fields. Most educational institutions demand lakhs and lakhs for a permanent position. What future do they have? 

Equally pathetic is the story of those preparing for the MPSC/UPSC. If an alternative back-up plan is not ready, after some six attempts, they are nowhere!  

Hence the need, I suppose, to dream, but with open eyes! What say?

Pratima@ "A dream is just a nightmare with lipstick," says Toni Morrison.

The Doordarshan Days

 When one is teaching a foreign language, one knows that students typically face two major difficulties, learning grammar and acquiring vocabulary. One of the tricks I teach my students is associating the foreign language word with either English or Marathi. 

Well, German words are anyways a little hard on the learners, what with their jumbo size and the despite-possible-rules-difficult-to-guess triple gendered articles. The trick mentioned above is hence very useful. Let us look at the words, "Fernseher" and "fernsehen".  Most all students find it easy to remember them as fern/दूर sehen/seher/दर्शन. 

With every new batch hence, one remembers the "Doordarshan" yet again. Not that it is easy to forget it. It ruled the roost till the late 80's, early 90's. It was the only channel till mid 80's. Most programmes then used to be indeed quality programmes. The Sunday morning "Chitrahaar", for example, was a throwback to the mellifluous songs from the golden era of Hindi film music, the songs from the 50's and 60's. Its popularity was as immense as the Amin Sayani programme on Radio Ceylon.

Even the serials were wonderful. The comedy serials did not obsess with cross-dressing. Nor were the jokes either stupid or vulgar. They used to great comments on daily lived lives and the small little problems therein. Remember "Yeh Jo hai zindagi"? Practically every comedy artist then was  part and parcel of this lovely serial with lovable characters you could easily identify with, fun situations enacted with ideal comic timing.

There used to be very many literature based serials such as "Tamas"." Ek Kahani" would depend on famous American/British/foreign language stories adapted to Indian contexts. In fact, for the "Eenadu" media group, I had prepared a huge list of such stories, their themes, basic storylines and how to adapt them to 'our' world.

And the ubiquitous serials? Well, there used to be Mahabharat and Ramayana. Even the daily soaps did not show the vicious kind of politicking within the family and the household that mostly forms the staple  diet of the silly serials today. 

May be, the technology was not as fine tuned as it is today. Yet the content and the artistry were far far better. There was, moreover, a certain innocence, and hence charm, sans any manipulation. Why, even the advertisements were fun, and their jingles were catchy. 

Now all that is door-darshan indeed! Yet this vista of the past is not long lost. It continues to allure our souls ever! The black-n-white vision then continues even now to be more colourful than any pallet of any artist!

Pratima@ The good ole times when the 'idiot box' was neither idiotic nor eccentric!

P.S. :Oh, yes, my eldest nephew, Amar, used to love the Doordarshan tune. Till he was almost three, the moment the t.v. was switched on, from wherever he was, he would hasten-n-run to listen to it. Till date, I remember the joy and the wonder on his happy handsome face as he listened to the tune with rapt attention. That memory used to tug at my heart whenever I heard the tune far away in Hyderabad.

Hope for-n-of Human(e) Rights

 In our Hamas-harassed and Israel-ideated year that is still h(a)unted by the Ukraine issue looming large on the Russian horizon, what hope for human rights, many would ask. Well, my submission is that human rights are like genuine people. When the going gets tough, these tough get going, right? So it is with the human rights. Hence these inalienable and natural rights define the very idea of being human(e).

I suppose, human rights are like concentric circles that are in a way self-sufficient, and yet they choose to intersect to form a new enriching 'design' of being human(e). What are these principles? They are autonomy, dignity, equality, fairness and respect, almost in an ascending order, so to say. In other words, human rights are the rights of both, the individual and the collective.

As an individual, my own autonomy and dignity must be respected both by me and the others if I want to, and hope to, believe in equality, fairness and respect, right? Respect for others, I would say, is rooted in respect for one's own self. A person who does respect herself, and her basic decent right to be(come), would be passive-aggressive, and would not respect others either, right? 

In fact, even in daily lived life, one must learn to be kind to oneself as well. When one is kind to herself, she can respect others. If necessary, to stand up for oneself, one should be ready to distance oneself from people and situations hell-bent on demeaning and belittling one. 

Yes, I do believe that like charity, hope for-n-of Human Rights, too, begins at home. When your fight with yourself is thus won, you can understand the wor(l)d's better! Hence to make our bitter era better, let us be better than the best within ourselves, and for ourselves.  Thus would live long the human(e) rights, right?

Pratima@The Enlightenment Thinkers, Thomas Paine, William Godwin have long defined our human(e) rights. Time we start living them. Only then can the world be a family, right?

Noble Nobel Prize!?!

When we were small, Aai-Papa always used to tell me about Marie Curie who won two Nobel Prizes. Ever since then, I used to think with a lot of reverence about this tribute to excellence at the global level. Indeed it is hugely inspirational. 

However, when one reads up a lot, one understands multiple aspects of the prize. To begin with, one gets to know the life of Alfred Nobel who bequeathed the prize money. He was himself a brilliant man. He had many inventions and scientific achievements to his credit. THE one invention associated with him, however, is that of dynamite. 

 

Apparently, though this anecdotal account cannot be confirmed authentically, when his brother expired, it was mistakenly believed that he had died. There were a number of obituaries dedicated to him due to the misunderstanding. Most were highly critical. In fact, a French reporter apparently called him "the merchant of murders" alias "merchant of death."

Apparently, hence, he wanted to leave behind a positive legacy even when he himself never intended the dynamite for destructive purposes. Hence he instituted these prizes, it seems. In other words, the prizes were more a reparation money according to this version which seems to take some sheen off the prizes.

Yet another issue is the politics involved apparently in awarding them. Hence the sins of omission are many. At times, moreover, why a particular individual  was awarded the prize is absolutely a mystery wrapped in a riddle.

One such example in the field of literature is the 2016 prize to Bob Dylan. True, his songs are popular. Yes, they are associated with civil rights and anti-war movements. They did contribute to counter-culture. Yet by no strech of imagination are they literature. At times, ad copies are as good or bad as the Dylan ditties! To call them literature is indeed travesty of creativity.

Yet that is the way of the world. Often all that glitters is thought to be gold. That does not diminish the preciousness of gold. Equally true it is of the Nobel prize, too, (as well as of the Acceptance Speeches) as it celebrates quality year after year.

Pratima@ "Truth is not always beauty" opined Nadine Godimer, herself a Nobel Prize winner, who said, "The search for it is." And, eternally!

 

 

Corruption

 It is supposedly anti-corruption day today. I am using that 'supposedly' quite carefully. Well, in this blog today, I want to define corruption. So!

What is corruption? Undoubtedly, it refers to monetary malpractices. In India, we all know very many examples of this sense of the term, as the famous assertion by the erstwhile P.M. Rajiv Gandhi regarding the dregs of a rupee reaching the end beneficiary would establish beyond doubt this type of corruption.

Surely with the DBT technology, such kind of corruption could be checked. Even the notorious ' chai pani bhiskut' 'adjustment' with the traffic police is now a little difficult, what with road side cameras filming your traffic faux pas, and issuing challans against which you face a court hearing and the fine.

As salaries as well as bills are mostly, though not all, managed by computers, tax evasion of any sort is comparatively difficult currently. Does that mean we are all back in to Raja Harischandra's kingdom in the Satya Yuga? No way! You all know the (in)famous "jugad" mode in India which is often used to deceive the system, even the technology.

Well, then what exactly is corruption? I think it is a particular mental make-up which looks for easy solutions of all sorts. Actually, it is an attempt to deceive the others, the world. In reality, however, it is tainting your own soul, staining your own image in your own eyes. That is the real corruption in my opinion.

Is there a second chance if/when such an eventuality takes place? Indeed, yes, there IS. 'Admit your  mistake to your own self, never repeat it' would be the process, right? If I may quote an example, Gandhiji's "experiments with truths" would provide  the best example of such a mode of self-purification, I suppose.

Well, I would sum up by saying that corruption vanishes in to thin air as long as there is transparency in our dealings, in our behaviour, but most importantly, in our own souls, and most ethically!

Pratima@"Integrity, transparency and the fight against corruption have to be part of the culture. They have to be taught as fundamental values.” So says Angel Gurría, OECD secretary general.

Generosity

 Is not generosity a great virtue? Indeed, yes! Indeed it is. Being generous makes us a better person, I think. We become kinder, nobler, puerer through generosity. Why? Generosity means that we have to be less self-centred, we have to be more other-oriented as well.

Yet that generosity is the best when 'your left hand knows not what you right hand gave'. In other words, generosity should not be for publicity. It should not be to boast about it to others because such bragging behaviour, too, is self-obsessed.

Equally important it is to be generous with, to offer, to extend warmly a helping hand to someone who realises its value. If people consider you and your generosity as necessary only when they need it, and forget you once the difficult moment is over, most possibly, they think of you as a simplistic fool who can be easily cheated/conned. 

Even to such crooks, give. Give them your forgetting of their smallness. I suppose, even to the worst person who continues to harass you in multiple ways, give the gift of your completely, totally ignoring his/her crookedness.

I do think that the best gift could be the gift of time. Everything else can come back. But the seconds and our close ones, lost once, never come back the second time.  When we invest time for someone else, we are literally giving a part of our life which can never be reclaimed.

Yet just as generosity is not for a show-off, it is also not empty, dry, pitiless CSR, right? Neither should generosity be only future-focussed. 'Real generosity to future,' says Albert Camus, 'lies in giving all to the present.'

Well, whatever be the motive, generosity and kindness never harm, neither the giver nor the receiver. So, give, be kind, be generous right now, today. For who knows what would happen tomorrow? So give your best to every nano-second in/of your life!

Pratima@"None has ever become poor by giving," writes Anne Frank.

Appalling Oligarchy

 Oligarchy is a phenomenon that spreads its tentacles in every field, at least metaphorically. Oligarchy literally means the power of the few. Believe me, this self-sustaining, self-satisfied and self-perpetuating mode of dominance is NOT restricted only to financial and/or political cliques.

This rule of/by/for the few is in every field. The worst of these power-centers is, of course, the intellectual arena. Remember G.B.Shaw talking of the oligarchy of the intellectual(s)? In contemporary India, there is this bitter battle by n against the "urban naxals". 

Utmost self-serving are such grandees.  They speak and write in the most democratic tone. Their actual behaviour is utmost oligarchic though. They see to it that only their own family-n-friends, whether capable/creative or not, must get plum posts. Their children alone must join the best schools/colleges.

They will cry hoarse about the negativities of competition. Their own praxis, however, would be most exclusionary. Their 'gang'/'mafia' types alone, whether capable or culpable, must flourish. No end to back-scratching, string-pulling then/thus! Nor are they ready even to hear, forget 'listen' to,  the alternative points of view.

Post the Internet, and now the AI, (r)evolution, a new oligarchy has emerged. As it is, the big algorithms are already buying-n-building our very beings. In addition, the newer softwares by the day bamboozle us literally beyond belief. 

Actually, in the practical usage of any given software, there is nothing creative or intellectual. Once we get the flowchart, remember-n-revise the few steps, which takes tops three hours, we can manage anything, and a little diffidently initially,  but most confidently very, very soon.

Yet those in the know use such gobbldy-gook and with such serious mien that they make it appear almost like the divine fiat! Let me give you my own example. For the first two attempts, setting up a Google classroom or creating a Google form was tough for me.

 Thereafter setting up/conducting the "g" to zoom meets, creating/importing/exporting Excel sheets/Google enabled tests are a child's play for me. There is NOTHING creative, intellectual, brilliant therein. Never understand why slightly more proficient users,  everywhere and always, think no end of themselves!!! Appalling oligarchy indeed!

Pratima@ Says Alice Walker, "those in power must spend a lot of their time laughing at us". Absolutely acceded, especially when it comes to technocratic oligarchy! Well, technology is just a tool.Why gloat over the fact that, when practised, you can use it a little better?!?