My Wor(l)d Walks with Strangers

The book is gone.

Lost or left behind… 

Somewhere, in someone’s hold.

Running fingers across verses 

that once trembled my soul.

Will they read them as I wrote or will they read them as told(?)

There was one poem written without ink

Whoever finds that will never know 

That it holds what I couldn’t hold within.

So, if you see my words wandering here and there

on torn leaves or rehearsed lines, 

know this...

They once belonged to a man

who loved so hard, he forgot to lock the door.

The Reason To Say RiP

There are three things one must know before understanding why we say, ‘Rest in Peace’.

1. The word ‘Psyche’ comes from Greek to mean ‘Soul’. When the Greeks couldn’t understand what the ‘life-giving’ essence was lying within the body, they blamed it on the soul – something that cannot be seen, the unknown to fathom. The Psychologists and Neuro Scientists, who emerged in the early 20^th century, realized that the reason for our thoughts and behaviour, lies in the functioning of the brain and they moved the psyche to a specific spot within our cranium to represent the functioning of the brain

2. Greek mythology begins with the statement, ‘In the beginning, there was Chaos…’ Interestingly, Chaos was married to Nyx or Night (Darkness) which might find a striking similarity on the figurative running parallel in the Christian world where the reference to Chaos is found in the Bible in the very beginning in Genesis 1:1-2 TLV: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was chaos and waste, darkness was on the surface of the deep…

What does Chaos actually mean? In English, (literally), it means 'a state of confusion'. Once again like ‘psyche’, the word ‘chaos’ had a different meaning to begin with when the Greeks used it. 'Chaos' to the Greeks meant ‘Nothing’. Man, (let the error rest upon him as the other gender, during those days, were expected to be devoid of thought), perhaps couldn't digest this simple idea of having 'nothing' and began bringing in his own interpretation of the word. 'If there was nothing, how confusing must that be?' he must have thought and sooner or later the word 'chaos' without looking at the etymology, started to mean and was used to refer to anything that was 'in a state of confusion'.

3. Now to Peace... 'peace' is an Anglo-French word that means 'in harmony'; the absence of hostility, in  tranquillity; the absence of disturbance or agitation. 

Our soul or the psyche comes to rest only when the instrument it uses to get everything it wants when it is active - the 'soma' or the 'body' - comes to rest. Real rest; absolute rest; from which it can wake no more - after that eternal drama the body goes through to satisfy every whim and fancy of the psyche to please its senses - that finally ends with death. 

Our epitaphs and tombstones are etched with messages that serve as reminders to those living than those dead and lying beneath. Simply put, their soma finally rests; the psyche rests. The body and soul rests. The chaos in which it rests, is not a confusing dark and mysterious pit where the body and whatever controlled it are laid to rest - in fact, it is nothing - which may be too hard for man to still accept and he may still find it endearing to be confusing. It is liberation; a liberation for the body from the soul and vice versa. For anyone who is struggling to live, to amass every other unnecessity of life, driven by the mind, the psyche, to feed the senses it can reach through the body as the medium; along with the volatility and futility of emotions, the rising and falling of intelligence, greed and over dependence on the cognition to claim the better over the other within and every other fellow being outside, this is a warning written on stone as s/he walks by - ''Rest in Peace'' - in darkness, as nothing, in chaos and at peace.            

What Did You Say

Case 1:
A few years back in 2008, during a cricket match between India and Australia, a balle-balle spinner 'is supposed to have' referred to Symonds, an Australian cricketer as a 'monkey'. Incidentally, Symonds is a Caribbean by birth who was adopted by Australian parents; which seems to give him all the required reasons to feel bad by this name-calling. This incident was discussed widely as a racist-spur and as a lowly act by the turbanator.
When I read that, I couldn't help laughing at the possibility of misunderstanding what was being said and a diversion that worked well for everyone at that point of time.

• First of all, an Indian cricketer who knew so much to twit(?!) Seriously???
• Second, the possibility of not being heard correctly during a multilingual meet in an international arena and
• Third, a more possible word that was used that perhaps was best left misunderstood in this situation that rhymed the same as 'monkey.'

Considering the fact that the turbanator (as he was fondly referred to), was a boy from a middle class family from rural India with an educational background not exceeding school-level who played galle-cricket, the word that must have popped out during the moment of frustration, as suggested by the local dailies (and promptly removed later), must have been the common verbal abuse used in the Indian context-'makhi' and not monkey as cleverly reported later.
Surely Bajji must have thought that a word against the mother must be more offending than the racial slur inflicted - a point to be considered from an Indian perspective. While perhaps Symonds, from another perspective, would have been better entertained had he gotten a chance to understand the actual meaning of the word used than the altered word later suggested for all that he must have undergone as a kid. However...

Case 2:

This is what a 'Fakir' a.k.a 'holy man' from India looks like:

This is what Gandhi looks like: 

Any resemblance between the one above and the one below cannot be counted as coincidental unless the person perceiving so, is either a deliberate fool or completely blind. 

The point in focus is when Sir. Winston Churchill referred to Gandhi as a 'half naked Fakir'. 'Half naked'-by the measure of the khadhi cloth waggling on his body, agreed. Referring to him as a "Fakir"?! makes me reach the three point question once again:

• First of all, a Brit who knew so much about Fakirs(?!)
• Second, the possibility of not being heard correctly during a multilingual meet in an international arena and
• Third, a more possible word that was used that was felt best left misunderstood in that situation that rhymed the same as 'fakir' that perhaps would be synonymous with the Biblical, 'Go forth and multiply' statement - if you know what I mean.

These words come from the same guy who in 1937, told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

The same guy who during his role as minister for war and air in 1919 on being criticised for advocating the use of chemical weapons - primarily against Kurds and Afghans said, "I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas; I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes".

This is the same guy who said that Indians had to be blamed for the Bengal famine and quoted that "Indians breed like rabbits".

Churchill told the cabinet on another occasion. "We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died." This about Gandhi.  And do I still believe that he would be good enough to refer to Gandhi as the 'fakir' when he could have jolly well called him with another word sounding similar in terms of rhyme and rhythm?! 

Interestingly, Gandhi is said to have regarded Churchill's expression as a compliment. He felt unworthy of being called "a fakir and that (too) naked - a more difficult task." He then implored Churchill: "Trust and use me for the sake of your people and mine and through them those of the world."  

If only he had understood or read between the lines, I wondered... or what if perhaps he did... 

What a diplomatic escape and a political opportunist he must have been either way...

A Rose By Any Other Name

These days, somehow, the idea of classification, stratification, categorization, reservation-no matter what you prefer calling it, at the end of it, the idea of discrimination-surrounds me.

Aparna recently was on a visit to Korea to present a paper in an(other) "international" conference. Upon her return when I asked whether the idea of living in another country fascinated her, she said that she would like to visit not settle. She felt that the hospitality of people lasts for not too long and lasts up until the natives begin to feel that there is 'some other person' in their territory-talk about guests and meat stinking after three days! What interested me was not about the natives yet about a young western girl (performing the duties of a secretary) who had been assigned to take care of the logistics during the conference. The white girl ensured that the fifth floor, from where the view was the best, was carefully allotted to the whites (only whites), keeping the next floor for the Asians (the browns) and the lower floor for the Africans (the blacks). Except the whites, the rest were restlessly uncomfortable with this logic of separation and everyone's discomfort was choice-fully ignored; and you know why. God! I thought... it must have looked like stripes on the United Colors of Benetton though I didn't think out loud and chose to reserve my comments.

Personally, recently I had a humbling experience learning that the word 'discrimination' is quite offensive and too difficult a 'word' for people to digest if one uses it to communicate a more offensive, difficult and deliberate 'action' of the 'other.' I was soon to realize that, you would be advised-with utmost sincerity by the 'other'-to use more 'diplomatic' words to portray the violence without offending the violent. This diplomatic use of words assures that perpetrators of violence and injustice, remain unoffended and unaffected and receive the required sanction to carry on with what they do sans hurting their ego, conscience and sentiments; meanwhile abolishing everyone who would take a chance with words and offend them or perhaps prompt their conscience and attempt to stop them from doing what they otherwise do with comfort. Safe and sound in their serene shangrila of immorality, assured uncouthed impunity by thrusting the idea of diplomacy on others. While claiming to live in a civilized world, the cowardly few, carry on with their most uncivilized actions with no one to offend, question or stop their cowardly action with nevertheless-words-or perhaps the lack of it. It seems that the want to live in a "civilized" world (whatever that means) applies to only them and no one else...

Just imagine a situation where you are driving on a dark, curvy road at night and you just forgot to dim the car's headlight for an approaching vehicle. Do you think the guy who is driving towards you is going to take it easy, digest your mistake and cheer the idea of being diplomatic and polite?! Of course not! Before the vehicle zips by, your entire family's history, geography, dignity and honor would have completely collapsed with the choicest use of well rehearsed words, leaving you with time for a thoughtful reflection for a while within the comforts of your car and the audience of the ones travelling with you. What emerges out of this (so called) 'filthy, vulgar, impolite and undiplomatic' use of words is that the next guy who will be driving past you, is assured a dimming of headlight as a response sans a reminder or a need for request. An automatic and classical conditioning to respond to a stimulus. Thanks to the unreasonable, undiplomatic and indecent bugger(!) my action becomes more reasonable, diplomatic and decent... isn't it?

Diplomatic communication, I think is a trick on us. While we try to scramble, juggle and trampoline our brain into choosing a 'better' word, like we do in a game of scrabble, those smart cookies who hide their sins under the blanket of diplomacy, play the game with no one to stop them and escape in the cover of diplomacy and claim for civilization. What else will one call that racist, discriminating, secretary from the west-reliving in a prehistoric world with a retarded, apartheid-mindset-who threw people on different floors based upon their colour-anything but... 

'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but
the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar,
and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I
will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest
the least syllable of thy addition.'?!* 


Note: ...if anyone has a problem with the use of words, kindly take it to Sir William Shakespeare. *lines extracted from King Lear by William Shakespeare for my lack of 'diplomatic' words to refer to the otherwise wonderful Secretary.

Like A Boss

As far as I am concerned, foul words do come way too easily for me; yet, the Bard, beats me square with these lines like a Boss:

“A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but
the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar,
and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I
will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest
the least syllable of thy addition.” 

Said William Shakespeare in King Lear; Not I. No wonder this bugger is a literary genius.