21c asks us to dance firmly...

We just need to put more of these in our common spaces.. and speak them out as well.
as Krishnamurti said 'as we speak we will learn'.

In fact that has been my learning and growing and tumbling.. and stumbling..

the metaphor of stumbling is interesting..
we stumble upon things.. they have appeal and they challenge us
we don't know what to do!
we cant just repeat...
But neither can it be as if we haven't heard it at all!

so what does one do? what can we do?
resonate and invoke in our midst.. several times?
play with it?
speak the words and thus commit to it in a way...?

But the irreverence of this is so profound..
Please use, echo and state... till it becomes difficult for any of us to consider our views as holy
and so profound as not to be questioned...!!

We are able to question others.. and also (somewhat reluctantly) allow questioning of our views...

But since all is hazy and not completely clear we (as individuals) are unable to 'put our weight behind' things.. and stand our ground ... and be willing to move...

In fact we should just ask ourselves in conversation and discussions -
Where do you stand?
Why?
Do you wish to reconsider?

and then ...now hold on...

what is your answer to...1,2,3.. questions?

Here is another position. what is your answer to this?
for yourself?
for the collective, our school, family, all schools, all families?

etc etc.. robust standing and movement...

21c asks us to dance firmly...

The heady wine of pragmatism

शहरों शहरों गलियों जिस का चरचा है
That which is discussed in all towns, all streets
वोह अफसाना तेरा भी है मेरा भी
That is the story, yours and mine
मैखाने की बात न कर वा _इज मुझ से
Dont talk to me of taverns..
आना जाना तेरा भी है मेरा भी
We all go there, you too, and I too...

Mirza Ghalib

There is a wine,
rich and full flavoured
of a deep colour and full bodied
inviting, drawing one ahead
an ancient wine,
far older than 3000 years
brewed slowly in civilizational cellars
the heady wine of pragmatism...

It is fed by parents to young children
injected into the veins of students by teachers and institutions
offered as the rite of passage
by fathers to young men,
drunk daily and drunk deep!

The heady wine of pragmatism...
settles all arguments within oneself
'this is the way it has always been,
you do nothing that others haven't done before you,
if not you, another will take your place,
dont be silly, dont be a fool,
dont lose this opportunity... life is short
and you have far to go..
do drink, there is nothing wrong...
it has always been so...

The rite of passage is agonizing!
How come people say one thing under the sun
and another by night?

Slowly refined sensibility, years of education
overpowered effortlessly, brushed aside!
the scruples and restraints of reason fade away
when the nose scents opportunity, gold or time saved...

What happens to all the 'right' things taught,
slowly, painfully over a decade of school and more?
Wait your turn, stand in queue!
You have rights, the same as another!
Be honest, dont cheat, copy!
What you are is more important than what you do!
Suddenly... 'this is real life, the marketplace,
Everything has a price...'
Wait your turn, but if you are smart you can jump it!
Sure there are rules - but they are costly
And, there are always exceptions, and they cost little!
This is not cheating - just 'something',
a small thing
an unmarked envelope, or a few notes given without counting
or speed money,
if you dont like that, there is another way
a gift given, at diwali, new year or child's birthday.
administrative expenses, or hotel expenses
and ..... everyone gives these...

And should a young one ask you,
What is this, father, mother, teacher?
What have you taught then, what do you teach now?
What will the child hear,
from the wells of an ashamed silence?
"Yes, my child, this is so!
The price we all pay for the little things...
Yes, a shameful truth, we must confess.
"We too drink the wine of pragmatism,
often,
helplessly!

The cask is ever full,
and in the crowded marketplace
nothing moves,
nothing, without the wine of pragmatism!"
"Drink deep, it will ease your way!
Drink deep it will ease your pain!
Drink a little daily and it will soon seal your lips

No more empty words! No more truth,
No speaking your mind, or standing your ground...
You will soon find a new wellspring
"At least I dont pretend!
"At least I accept,
that this is life!"
What wonderful wine this!
How sweet, how real, how pragmatic!

Words, meanings and body language...

There is always a strange tussle in human life, completely beneath the surface, or if you please between the head and the heart. In any situation the head speaks the language of reason, we assume. And the heart, the more irrational language of the impressionistic non verbal. And people aware of this or otherwise, choose one. A bit like backing a horse at a race!
Is this situation unavoidable? Will we always hear two voices in two ears?
This is so, one of the givens of human life. We either hear these voices from ourselves. They probably represent the various people we have internalized. Or we hear the people around us voicing various perceptions.
People often say, the rational and sensible way out is to go for the facts and these touchstones will resolve the problems. Others say that there is no resolution.
If one adds the dimension of body language and its influence on us, the situation becomes even more tricky. It is said that interviews are finished in time that the candidate takes to walk from the door to he chair. Impressions are formed and these are rarely modified in the minds of the people who interview. The carriage, clothes, physical features complete their statements and are heard directly by the eyes, ears and the deeper layers of our psyche. This is where decisions are made.
There is a nagging question. Yes, decisions are made thus. But are we infallible? Are there things we notice and are there those we don't? Is our assessment and weighing not a product of our conditioning? And how is this better, more sensible than an other's?
Is body language all we have. Are the words we hear and speak impotent? Therefore do words carry little meaning and even less effect?
Could there be a way out of this funnel? Can we be something other than helpless victims of our own backgrounds? Is there any wisdom in use of words?
A question! However limited, can words be taken seriously? This is a difficult question and one may be tempted to dismiss it. But here goes...
Words have meanings, however vague or specific. And our background adds colour and flavour to them. Would there be any sense in picking words for 'engagement'? What could this mean?
For instance, if one hears an emotionally laden word in a conversation what could one do? "I am disgusted with the President of this company!" All one's emotional responses fire. "Danger, oh what is coming now? How do I not get road rolled?" etc. Are there any clues, approaches?
One could respond by speaking of one's feelings. Anxiety, wariness, fear etc. "What is real" grounds the communication. But what beyond stating of feeling.
Would there be value in saying, "I can see you are upset and irritated. But I don't get any clear sense, What do you mean by 'disgust' in this context? If you were to use some other words, to help me get a better sense, what would you say?"
Is there value in not assuming that one understands? Even if this is just a 'strategy' does it offer a glimmer of hope for bypassing our deep, settled, unaware responses?
Our actions count more than the perceptions. Therefore what we do with what we experience counts more than our understanding and perceptions. Taking the words seriously allows space to raise questions. It may be important to elaborate the zone of questions: Questions are often used as tools of battle - trying to score a point, or to unsettle another. But if that is not one's aim or purpose then questions can be used to navigate the landscape of human communication of meanings, feelings and intentions in an enquiring, unfolding journey. For example questions can be used for
1. clarifying meanings of words and context. (Eg: What do you mean by the word settlement?)
2. to understand if what the listener understands is what the speaker said. (Eg: Do I understand you as saying that formal education is unimportant.)
3. to understand if the basis assumptions one is getting are the one's the speaker has. (Eg: Are you assuming that mountain folk are more honest than plains people.)
4. To catch the feelings behind the expressions. (Eg: Are you expressing you preference for ice cream over fruits?)

Hopefully such an approach will free one of some of the limitations of human communication and permit us to live together holding our judgements and conclusions in check.

Jesus ran into George Bush – July 2004

There are times other than the ones we inhabit together meeting, speaking to each other. In another kind of time people can meet each other across centuries. Our lives are statements and these statements can encounter others, before and after. Jesus and George Bush were bound to meet and this conversation had to happen. While this chat could have been had any time during the Bush presidency, July 2004 is a special time. Jesus probably had doubts which only George could clarify.
J: I understand you have been a practising Christian and a champion of family values.
GB: Absolutely. I am delighted to have the honour of running into you. The world is suffering because of so much evil and my religion based on your teachings has helped me immensely in knowing what to do.
J: I am happy you feel this way. But I am puzzled – what do you think one should do if one is hit by another.
GB: One would be stupid to be caught with one’s pants down. Till the year 2000 people would say one must be alert and take defensive action. But I have taken that one step forward. I say be alert and take offensive action.
J: You mean hit the enemy before he can hit you.
GB: Yes.
J: But how would you know the enemy before he hits you?
GB: You need to be smart to spot your enemies.
J: Can we say, if we take a stroll through History, that Hitler, Genghis Khan, Alexander were conquerors and did not wait for an enemy to emerge. But you are quite different from them and would not fight for gain and plunder. But you would not let another attack you and therefore you would attack them.
GB: Absolutely! I have worked only the well being of the world and tried to protect it from despots and have a righteous rule. By the grace of the almighty US has been given a supremely powerful position and by the grace of the same God I have been elected President of this nation.
J: I understand you completely. There is a small niggling doubt in my mind. Are you a Christian?
GB: Yes of course, I am.
J: Do you subscribe my teachings or is it to something else?
GB: Of course I subscribe to your teachings!
J: I remember having said 2 things to my followers. In those days it was OK to be a follower. “If somebody strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to them.” What do you say about this teaching?
GB: My life is consistent with your teachings O Lord. My doctrine of preemptive strike is a corollary to your teachings. You said, “If someone hits you, turn the other cheek.” My corollary is “Don’t wait stupidly for another to hit you, hit him first. Then he will have to turn the other cheek to prove he is a good Christian or be exposed as an imposter, an infidel!”
I have been stupid at some exceptional times. Take Afganistan. Osama slammed those planes into the WTC. And a set of event happened by which American troops invaded Afganistan. I wept for the poor citizens of Afganistan and agree that was not the best solution. But I have learnt my lessons from your teachings. Now look at Iraq! We got them before they could hit us! And we will go on living your teachings!
J: I think you have studied my teachings really well and gone to greater depths than any other soul has done on earth. But may I ask another question? I also said, “Treat thy neighbour as thyself.” What have you done to live this?
GB: That has been one of the most important cornerstones of my life. Neighbourhood is a place next to your home. I have gone beyond the concept to embrace other nations as well. I have tried hard to see that my neighbours have not had any complaints against me. I have sent them all the goods that America has produced, I have offered jobs in their country by ensuring that American companies set up factories in their country. I have made sure they had dollars by making sure they all traded oil in dollars.
America is a vast country and everyone who considered himself as my neighbour has been well treated.
There have been great moral dilemmas sometimes. I have found enemies waiting to harm America and they were neighbours. What was I to do? Shower them with dollars, jobs and goods from USA or hit them hard before they hit us? I have had to do both as a good Christian. That was not too difficult. If somebody resisted my friendly overtures and wanted to be too independent, I have, out of neighbourly feelings, changed governments, caused riots, assassinations etc. After all if people do not know what is good for them they need help! You will see it will all turn out well.
J: I can see your sincerity and well meaning moves. Tell me how do you know if your neighbour is an enemy or not. Does someone who does not want to buy oil in dollars become automatically an enemy?
GB: I did not know you were so well up on world affairs. It is quite amazing! This is a complex matter. Le t me explain – If Iraq or other countries start trading oil in Euros, they would weaken the American economy. Out of munificence we have been printing dollars and distributing them around the world. Countries as far away from us as Australia and Japan have been using these in large numbers to buy all their needs. If the oil trade shifted to euros, US would have a huge deficit. We would have a recession. Therefore a move such as this is a warlike action. Thus premptive strike was warranted. So I have learnt and created a corollary to your second teaching as well. “If another threatens to be unneigbourly, hit him before he can hit you.” It all boils down to the first teaching actually. Turn the other cheek…
J: I am completely overwhelmed by your depth. No one in history has so far figured out that these two teachings are the same. You will be remembered forever as the first person to have reasoned your way amazingly into this deep and pragmatic understanding. I have one last question. How would you know when someone means you harm? People have talked about phobias etc. Can a person ever really know what the other intends? You whole philosophy depends on this crucial question and I would like to be enlightened.
GB: Jesus, you are an amazing guy! This question has foxed many of my colleagues in the Pentagon. They have asked me often, “George, how do you know when to hit the button? We always are in two minds and have doubts. How come you are so certain and have no doubts on these crucial questions? Do you have some divine insight?”
J: I can see clearly that this must have haunted many people and tormented them enormously. But you seem to sleep well and are well rested – I can see from your face that you harbour no doubts.
GB: I know the time for action like a cowboy knows when to stoke a fire, and when to let out a whoopee. I stroll the lawns of the White house. I listen to my advisers and the picture becomes clear soon. Everyone has understood this. They can’t fool me. So they tell me the truth. And I have friends like Tony who give me the best advice about all that is happening around the world. If Tony said something and another person said something who would I trust! Of course Tony! Simple as that. And everyone will know later that it was Tony who gave me wrong information. There is another principle I live by, in addition to the two given by you. “Believe Tony and act, before others start saying different things and confuse matters.” This way Tony is to blame for well intentioned mistakes and I only need to rest on Christian principles
Take Iraq, Tony, with a touch of good neigbourliness, told me that Iraq could hit us in 45 minutes. Now that seems to have been some small wrong estimation. It appears Iraq could not have hit us even if they wanted to. I do not doubt Tony’s intentions. But he helped me act. Iraq was planning to trade oil to Euros. That would not have been neighbourly!.
J: Why Tony of all people? How do you pick a Tony?
GB: Who will know better than Tony how to be a munificent global presence? England has had so much experience. Africa, Asia, Middle East! One has only to choose an expert and you will get the best advice. I am lucky to have a friend like Tony. The others Dick and Colin and Rice are all important they need to sing the chorus. But Tony is the prize friend in need and indeed. I need him to sleep well and wake up fresh.
J: Well I will run along before I fall at your feet. I do not want to embarrass you with my compliments. That would not be good neigbourliness.
GB: Can we have a picture together?
J: I am camera shy. Can we skip it?

Muttering to himself….
Well I never…..That was close Jesus. That is the closest you have come to striking the cheek of another. You almost became a George Bush!

July 23, 2004

in the embrace of time....

rain falls
in drops and in sheets
over land and sea and
verdant forest

rain falls and flows
in rivulets, streams and rivers
to the sea
in colours of the land
khaki, red and grey

plants grow, grasses grow
to ripen and wither
to bear fruit and flowers
to grow to huge size

when the winds blow the dust rises
fine and not so fine
to settle too in nooks and on surfaces
invisible at first, soon scattered for all to see

whole civilizations have gone under dust
what is a monument here
or a piece of metal there
we know of burial rituals
returning dust to dust

what is dust ?
but the embrace of time
so difficult to accept when one can dust and sweep
so natural and right when the flapping ends..

are we nothing more than puppets
waiting to be swallowed in the embrace of time?
by the dusty veil that slowly obscures
all that has been from the eyes of the future..

soothing and inviting
and soil it becomes
all becomes soil
in the embrace of time

400 million Agricultural refugees...

Three days ago i read a piece. Prime Minister spoke one of my favourite lines ... an idea whose time has come. (In school we ask often, is it a good idea or an idea whose time has come?)

But he spoke about SEZs, the special economic zones being created all over the country to help large projects by pass the democratic machinery, the process of careful consideration. Also to help the process a new act has been put into operation.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the formation of a new rehabilitation policy for farmers displaced due to land acquisitions. This means the Govt, state and central can ask the farmer to leave, in the name of a large corporation.. ie. corporate interest is equal to national interest... Till now the Govt could only ask someone to vacate in national interest.. but.. now..

There have been large zamindars in India and when they wanted to acquire smaller lands, they asked the owner, cajoled him, threatened him etc. But now the state can actually just take the land as per law.

When a tea stall owner refused to move his small business, the owner of a huge business house in Calcutta, had him murdered.... if he had but waited 2 years, the Govt would have had the man evicted in the interest of the nation and its big projects...

This would be backward enough in a country where the pavements are shrinking just as we speak about globalization, if it were merely misguided enthusiasm. But it turns out that this ... idea whose time has come... has been carefully studied by people ....

"A former vice-president of the World Bank and a former chairman of Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a body that governs the 16 international agricultural research centers, Dr Ismail Serageldin, had forewarned a number of years ago. At a conference organised by the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai a few years back, he quoted the World Bank to say that the number of people estimated to migrate from rural to urban India by the year 2015 is expected to be equal to twice the combined population of UK, France and Germany.

The combined population of UK, France and Germany is 200 million. The World Bank had therefore estimated that some 400 million people would be willingly or unwillingly moving from the rural to urban centres by 2015. Subsequent studies have shown that massive distress migration will result in the years to come. For instance, 70 per cent of Tamil Nadu, 65 per cent of Punjab, and nearly 55 per cent of Uttar Pradesh is expected to migrate to urban centres by the year 2020." 22nd June 07 - Devinder Sharma writes.

Is this not shocking? That we can stand by and accept this large scale pushing and pulling? Is it not a travesty of justice to say that the individual is second to the corporation? While it is being advocated that

One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.
- Edward Abbey

"Over the years with the complexity introduced by processes of the industrial revolution the work of groups of individuals has undergone change. The change is so vast that the similarity between individual accountability and that of a group is almost non existent. Fueled by the economy of sale doctrine and the excitement of large scale manufacture of goods and the burgeoning of new specializations and new professions the world has change rapidly. Guilds have given place to corporations. Very large organizations have grown with the background of complex international laws and a global trade system. These are as similar to small business as a sparrow is to a dinosaur. In terms of accountability there are dangerous lacunae that have got established as the way life is, as the way business is to be carried out.
One of the important aspects of a corporation is that it is almost impossible to localize responsibility. Take for instance the concealment of information and misinformation by the cigarette companies; the companies have been fined close to 4 billion dollars by the US administration for their long term misdemeanours. Now who is responsible, or who are responsible seems a difficult question. Is it the head of the organization, or the legal department which decides what information to offer the Government? It is quickly apparent that it is almost impossible to pin responsibility for willful acts of unethical conduct, for acts which damage human health and keep in place unhealthy practice. Are the shareholders responsible? Or are they merely the distributed risk bearers? It is obvious that hey have little information about corporate niceties and the jostling, concealment and irresponsibility. Corporate functioning appears to have no need for any morality or ethics beyond profit making. History of industries is replete with examples. The auto manufacturers closed down railways in the US and concealed data regarding implications of large scale automobile use. Nuclear agencies have consistently underplayed the problems and have been fooling the public about the risks. Chemical companies that marshal vast resources own no responsibility for the havoc caused to the earth and living creatures. The Bhopal tragedy, visited on the landscape and people, is a stark example of the corporate irresponsibility. Oil companies, beyond cleaning up once in a while are certainly nor held responsible for the poisoning of the oceans. Smaller corporations, or companies dump waste knowingly or unknowingly into waste land or sea or rivers. In Chennai we had an episode of industrial waste containing cyanide dumped near a water body. All kinds of waste is dumped, off the coast of Africa, travelling large distances in hired ships. Pharmaceutical companies blatantly sell drugs banned in the First world to lesser mortals from the Third world."

Considering the history of groups, it appears significant to ask if there should to be critical checks in the law which provides for the distinctions between individuals and groups. Read Corporations. Jerry Mander suggests that all technology must be treated as guilty unless proven innocent. The onus of proof is on the purveyor of technology and not on the hapless recipients. It is worth considering if a group of any kind needs to be treated under law with such a gaze. In the global village the vested interests of mercenary groups of human beings needs to be understood with scepticism." (G 2000 Wake up India)

But we seem to be headed in the opposite direction.. far from protecting the individual, we are placing him at the mercy of the corporations. Further we seem to be placing corporations in a location. it is said in the SEZs the law will not operate for labour. If this is true, then the law, India law will stop outside the wall of the SEZ. Are we then creating mini nations? Ruled by the industry and corporations..

Are we to forget that the land and its resources belong to the people? And that we are a democracy? Or are we redefining democracy as SEZocracy.. ... sell the land in little bits to corporations.. after all the board room is another democracy. Repalce the parliament with boardrooms.. Coca Cola, Nestle, IBM, Infosys, Tata, Benz, Sony, .. etc can run their companies from their corporate boardroms and the nations shall be mere infrastructure...

is that the direction we are headed?.. Have we forgotten SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL? EF Schumacher. Or have we lost hope... and sold out to the World Bank???

yesterday had a history lesson.. a most unlikely lesson and a most unexpected, unplanned style...

yesterday 11 jul at castle hill..

My host Tamas Matinovich and another Tamas Dede, (you say this as Tamash..) were sitting in the cafe, from 1829 on castle hill and filling me and radhaji on some hungarian history. it seems the Bishop of Austria, in the end of 16th century said he would make the Hungarians into German, into catholics and into beggars.. .

Such strong words... that they echo even now... the sting remains in every Hungarian, that someone should say this.. 

And the Hapsburg emperors when they came tilted the cross on the crown of Hungary. The crown is not just a crown but a person. And it had power, the power of the Hungarians.. The people have power of the past. And Austria tried to destroy the past of Hungary.

Tamas 1 and Tamas 2 spoke one sentence each, unplanned, and intoned the history of Hunagary, apologising for telling us why this was so important to them... it was so moving and sad.