Not good enough

Edmund Burke said- "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that the good do nothing."

I think this pithy dictum should be emblazoned on every flag, on the currency of every free country. But I do not even see it on t-shirts! It is a sad statement on how we think.

Have you noticed how the most self-righteous people are those who do nothing good? I do not mean that they commit crimes, or even that they get in someone's way. They just do nothing! The justification for their inaction is that they are not being bad.

However, simply not being bad does not make a person good. It is one of those unchanging laws of nature. To be good, one has to do good. Period. Sitting smugly on the sidelines of life, and patting ourselves on the back because we are not adding to the evil in the unfolding drama is just not right. More pertinently, our very lack of involvement is engendering the very injustices we repudiate.

I was watching a programme on Science channel and I was fascinated by what they said about conditions on other solar planets. If we were on a planet with no atmosphere, it would be as if we were breathing in poison. There not being any breathable air has exactly the same effect as there being poisonous air. We do not have to defile the air; just removing the oxygen is enough to kill. When there is no pressure in the air, our blood would boil as if it was being heated. A very high temperature can do that certainly, but it is the same if we just remove the pressure that is required for survival! Just a simple dearth of the required beneficial things is more deleterious than we can comprehend.

One cannot set up a community of nice people with nice building and lovely parks and expect the status quo to be maintained forever. All entities, physical or biological, must obey the laws of physics. To keep things in place, constant input of work is required. So also in the more crucial world of emotions. You need to keep feeding positive energy for anything to remain wholesome. Brain, soul, imagination, intellect- every human component needs to be nourished to bloom in its most marvelous manifestation. And the essential pabulum is basic good, honest virtue.

If we are not moving ahead, we are definitely not progressing. But stagnation is not only 'staying put', it itself is a regression. Just as knowledge feeds on itself to grow, so does good. Stopping learning is like walking backward. And not actively making the effort to help, to assuage, to comfort, hinders a furthering of civilization. And if civilization is not being furthered, it deteriorates. Entire civilizations have disappeared because powerful rulers have rested on their laurels.The physical body dies without nutritious food. The spirit dies without hope and love. The mind rots without constant use and learning. Society will collapse if it is not continually furnished with selfless acts of kindness and charity. All of us- the good and kind, the open minded and responsible, all we need to do to let the vile and corrupt take control of our world is, well, just nothing.

Fulfillment

One of my very dear friends put up a quote on her Facebook about a woman's fulfillment being dependent between a man and a career.

It got me thinking about fulfillment. So what would constitute contentment? A person is spirit and body together. For any form of satisfaction of the human psyche the body demands its nourishment, but it is the pabulum for the soul that is crucial.

Mental stimulation is fundamental for meaningful existence, whether you are fond of intellectual pursuits or not. It maybe gossip or fashion at its very banal, or philosophy when you prefer it to be more intense. It may even be the cartoon you like to watch and laugh at. Or it may be the stars and the universe you like to study. In any articulation, the mind needs to speak; even more so for a woman's mind.

You may be the CEO of a very successful company and have an adoring husband who looks like George Clooney, but if none of your psychological faculties are being engaged, your life is empty.

Also of equal importance is emotional satisfaction. And it does not stop with the man in your life. The plethora of emotions a person has need to be exhibited and expressed - laughter, empathy, grief, joy- and not in one simple, standard form, but in varying degrees, encompassing an arc across the human consciousness. One relationship cannot satisfy this range. So we need friends and family, co-workers and neighbours.

I would not want my life to be defined in any way by anything external to me- not a career, not a man. My life is definitely, infinitely, more. My sense of being has a little to do with the people in my life, and little to do with my work- but only a little. I am identified by how I act, what I hold dear, and what I believe. My family is a big chunk of who I am, my writing is a big part me, my mediocre career has its portion too; but it is certainly not all that there is. I find it gratifying that my life is so much more than any one (or two) things. The resulting total of everything is a unique amalgam that is much more than the sum of the parts itself.

It may be the world around us that makes us. But it is after all, the world within us that defines us.

Action is not for Reaction

Its been a while since I let my brain ramble. I had to let it concentrate on getting my breath in and out. Its fascinating how the physiological self has such a tremendous drive for survival even if if the emotional self is apathetic about it. Or is it so because of the indifference of the conscious self? But that is a topic for another day.

I was wondering how pre-knowledge of the result would effect the causal action(s). Would people do differently if they actually KNEW the end result of their actions? I am not talking of "I would have sold the house in time and made money"; or "I would not have not spoken to that creep." Simplistically, it is easy to not start the car at all if you knew that you were going to back into a tree. It is also quite immaterial . You are, after all, expected to look in the rear-view before you put the car in reverse.

Let us think about things we do not usually cogitate about. Would you say the the things you spewed out in anger if you knew what effect it was having on the other person? You might not even have any anger left if you knew how guilty or hurt the person is. Or how scared. Would you speak up or shout back if you knew that bottling up is leading up to the coronary you will have in a few years? If you knew the result of internalizing, would you lash out? Verbally or otherwise?

Would Saddam Hussein have continued with his horrendous activities if he knew it would lead him to hiding in a hole, and finally an ignominious hanging? Somehow I doubt that he would have changed. He might have been more oppressive, more power-hungry, more bellicose to avoid that fate.

I do not believe kids who say 'It was an accident' when they swing their arms and hit someone smack in the face. That is just an excuse they have learnt from parents. An accident is something you have no control of, like falling on someone when you lose your balance. If you have the tendency to swing arms in a room you already know the consequences. It would be an accident if you lived alone in an oasis and never had people around you before.

The point is that the concept of 'if I knew I would have done differently' is not plausible. The child who never studied, would never have - even if you showed his alternate future to him on blu-ray DVD! You would have taken that job even if you knew beforehand that the boss is a rude megalomaniac because there are heaps of other considerations you made; and because you never know with other bosses. Like Hamlet says, "Tis better to bear the ills we have than to fly to others we know not of." Conscience does not only make cowards of us all, it makes us accepting of things we do not want to change. Even if Hamlet knew the ills that he would accost I doubt he would leave those he was already familiar with!

People do things because of what they are, and what they believe. Their actions are not predicated on outcomes. The driving force for the criminal to kill is his ingrained violence and belligerence, not the notion of having a world without the victim! The gentleman opens the door for a lady not because he wants to hear a 'thank-you' but because that is what he always does.

Human beings are wired to do things that make them comfortable. Their actions bespeak their attitudes and values. I believe that every act by a person is statement of his being and ego at the time. It has very little to do with what he wants to happen, even though that is the premise everyone acknowledges. We do nothing for what might be, we do only because we are.

Overrated Education

I believe education is overrated.

There are very few of us who have studied what we should have, or pursued a line of learning that we really liked. Sometimes we do things because its 'in'. Sometimes we pursue a study program because the end result is a job with a fat paycheck. Sometimes we join simply because we just have to do something, so we pick at random some courses that will give us the ability to tick mark 'completed 4 -year college' in application and survey forms. We become doctors, and teachers, and real estate agents. And sadly, a lot of us just are not meant to be what we studied to be.

How many of us go to study for the joy of learning something? Or to advance in a field that actually has caught our imagination? It is strange that people tend to ask young adults, "What do you want to be?" Education should define not the 'thing' you become, but the person you will grow into. People should ask, 'So who do you want to be?" Learning should interpret the who of us, not the what. Education unfortunately seems to mess that up totally. Why else would a budding scientist have to learn a foreign language? Why would a budding writer have to pass calculus? To justify a professor's salary?

I will never understand why the degree is so important for recognizing that a person is capable of responsible work. I know people personally who have double degrees under their belt and do not know when to stop talking; who assume that India and Pakistan are indistinguishable (and that particular bit of ignorance really riles me!!). Their years of attending classes has not taught them to be responsible with things - their own or those entrusted to them, it has not taught them to practice discipline - in finances, or speech.

So what has education taught them? And why should the piece of paper they hold be of any value at all if they cannot hold up to its promise? Of what use is a degree certifying that you have attended Psychology 500 or Socials 400 if you have not developed the civic courtesy to be sensitive to the needs of those around you? Or the plain intellect to respond to it once it is pointed out to you? And of what use its the Masters in Literature if you cannot write a coherent paragraph five years after graduation?

My workplace is filled with people who have higher degrees than I hold. And it is one place which gives me a terrible superiority complex by the end of the day! Most of my colleagues know nothing, they have learnt nothing except to walk around with Dunkin Donuts coffee telling everyone how tired they are.

There are always a few people everywhere who seem to belong to the job they are doing. We all know wonderful teachers, great doctors, talented actors. Let us not credit that solely to their education! It is a lucky chance or the rare understanding of themselves that placed them in the line of education and work that they are suited for. Excellence, however, is not a product of education. It is the result of personal aptitude, or perserverance, or sheer talent. Greatness, like goodness, always begins from within. Circumstances have more to do with it flourishing than education. Gandhi never studied non-violence. Charles Dickens did not study literature. I would add that Darwin did not study biology but I personally think he is an idiot anyway. Mendel, the father of genetics, had not a clue about the term 'genes', let alone a degree certifying that he did. If Newton was in a classroom instead of under a tree, we would have never known about gravity. Einstein would not have thought of the Theory of Relativity if he was caught up with a homework essay on a subject like Women's Rights.

I guess what I am trying to say that degrees are not something one needs to base their self-respect on. One of the most able women I have known was born is the very early 1900s. She could not even hold a pencil, but she had a depth of wisdom that is hard to believe. She held her family together through many major family crises. She ran a farm, actually prospered, and left her children enough wealth to last a few generations. But the most invaluable asset she bequeathed to them is the respect that she garnered form society for her family. Not only by the power of wealth, but by the relationships she developed. And she certainly took no courses in emotional intelligence. Daniel Goleman may have written the badly written bestseller on the subject, but people have been practicing what he put on paper since time immemorial (Yes, he made money by delineating something that almost every sensible person already knows!).

What we learn should add to the person we already are and develop the potential that is in us. It should not be something that is an offshoot to our personality. Adding offshoots not only detracts from ourselves, it distorts us. Unfortunately, that is what education today seems all about.

Marriage: A Work in Progress

One of the bedrock institutions of society is marriage. It lays a foundation for that essential unit of society - family. Families grow, not only by procreation, but also by bonds between two groups of people that come together because of the union.

Marriage, however, is not an end in itself. Most young people believe the work is done once the knot is tied and the wedding guests have departed. The work, as most married couple know - begins after the ceremony - and continues all through life! A beautiful wedding is wonderful, but it pales in comparison to the wondrous beauty of a dynamic, strong marriage where people grow together as individuals, as a couple, and as a family. By its very nature marriage is labile. People change as they grow older physically, emotionally, and spiritually. What are the chances of you still loving or even tolerating each other as you grow and change? Every experience, and every person one meets, leaves an impression that becomes a part of one's personality. The very same experiences a couple goes through may have entirely different effect on each of them. The test of the marriage lies in adjusting with your partner 's changing attitudes and habits. Lets face it- love has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of maturity and commitment. It is also matter of how much respect is there in the marriage - respect for the partner, for self , and for the personal space each individual needs.

Sometimes, especially in eastern cultures, a marriage is maintained just because it has to be. The word in hindi for the relationship is 'bandhan', loosely meaning 'bondage' or a 'tie that binds'. And anything that binds, hurts. And a relationship, any relationship, that fosters pain does not last. But the bonds that a marriage cultivates usually grow softer, yet stronger with the years, evolving with the growing maturity of those involved. A successful couple weathers upheavals of life maybe not by surmounting them, but by simply surviving them.

So what should one look for in a life partner? Looks change immeasurably - for better or worse, likes and dislikes are modified by experiences. Wealth can be ephemeral and maybe the shallowest of the criteria. We see people with entirely different religions leading a happy life together. And we have seen so many good-looking people married very happily to their complete opposite in the looks department. On the other hand, there are instances of stable and well-adjusted couples falling apart after years of staying faithfully together.

It is widely accepted that the surest bet to predict a harmonious marriage is to look for its core values. And that is why people tend to marry within the same cultural setup. Its much easier to find a match for your core values within similar societal settings. But that is not always the case, and core values also tend evolve as life progresses.

I believe each successful marriage develops a core value of its own. A core value is something more than just a shared vision, or a joint objective for the future. It is greater than the sum total of their individualities. And the stronger this core value is, the steadier the marriage. It is something you can identify the couple with, together or individually. A core value is not necessarily a moral code, though it could well be. It could also be politics, it could be religion, it could be a predilection to social work or to partying, it even be a common ambition. It is never a conscious effort; it is something that develops along with the couple as they adjust and accept each other as individuals. A core value sets the tone not only for the couple as they face life, it sets the tone of the family they establish. And the cumulative core values of the many families in the community are what build the values of the society they constitute.

As long as there is this core value or a set of values that the couple adhere to, and see each other adhering to, the partnership works. Everything else they face is secondary to their functional unit, be it joys, sorrows, ups or downs. As long as the core value of the marriage is intact, there is trust, respect and companionship. And that is what marriage is all about. Love is just the icing on the cake!

Spare the child, use the rod!

"Spare the rod, spoil the child". It is one of the few truisms that we have made the mistake of discarding. Spare me the scorn you might direct at me-but I do believe in that old adage.

I had written in an earlier article that parents are accountable for badly behaved children. They equally also deserve credit for well-behaved ones. Please understand that we need to distinguish between a terrified, withdrawn child and a polite child. Abuse of any degree is a horrendous, inexcusable crime, especially against children; and it is even more egregious when committed by the child's parents. But when you let a child bully other children, or stamp his feet in public , or yell out invectives, letting him get away with such behaviour is abuse. Letting your children watch TV all day weekend long with a bag of chips while you sleep is abuse (yes, I know of someone who does exactly this) How do I define abuse? Of course, criminally cruel actions, or inaction, are definitely abuse. But the worst, and sadly the most ignored, abuse a child can endure is neglect. Not getting a child to finish homework is abuse; disregarding a child's fear of sleeping alone is abuse too. Extending this line of thinking, ignoring a child's tantrum, or indulging it, is abuse too. A sharp quick slap on the back just as he or she starts yelling in public is parental prerogative. Nay, it is a responsibility. And frankly, it is a duty of aunts and elder siblings if the parent is too self-involved to notice the child's behaviour. I do not mean one neds to deliver a stinging slap. You do not have to hurt the child. A quick, sharp slap on the shin is enough to tell the child that he or she has crossed limits.

Children who have been brought up with proper discipline turn out be better-adjusted adults. And discipline often requires more than the lame 'time-outs' that are so prevalent in modern society. Everyone has to face life the way it is handed to them. A child needs to learn to accept rejection, to understand that they may be underdogs at some point in life; and life is certainly not fair. The emotional tools they need have to be developed in childhood-and if a smack once in while helps them, so be it. They learn to control impulses. They learn to deal with conflicting emotions. They learn to accept that not everything in life will go their way. Teaching them that they cannot always have their way helps them deal with issues that are bound to come up in life.

So what do we as parents and adults in a child's life need to do?

I believe children have been entrusted to us. It is a tremendous responsibility. We answer not only to the little individuals we help rear, but also to the society that they will be a part of. I am disgusted with people who produce children only to have the pleasure of having a baby to cuddle or to 'experience' pregnancy. How can one trivialize such a major decision in life? Caring for a child does not merely mean sacrificing time, sleep, and myriad other little things that may have been a regular part of life until then. One needs to sacrifice a lot of impulse living- and learn to give priority to the many, many, needs of a little one for a long, long time.

Yes, it is easier to give the kid a lollipop so I can continue shopping in peace, but it certainly is not good for him to believe he can whine his way to get one. Yes, it may seem heartless to smack the 3- year old when he continues to throw everything off the table, but that he is what he needs to know. Every one has to learn to live by rules of civility and if the consequence has to be learnt with a firm slap on the back of the palm, do it!

We have coddled our children to the point where they cannot control their own impulses. Over-indulgence of children is rampant in today's generation, and it does not bode well for the next. What kind of a society will it be when people are unable to deal with disappointment or cannot have the instant gratification they have been used to? How can they grow as people if all they have learnt is to take care of their needs, at whatever cost they come?And it is not love that makes us do it. It is plain selfishness. It is so much easier letting children run helter-skelter and pretend to be a soft-hearted, indulgent parent (and look very dumb!). I know its sounds harsh, but only animals live by instinct. And even most of them have very strict rules on how far their babies stray!

There is a reason Humanity has developed society. Successful societies are what define the progress of civilization. Let us be aware that we are answerable to future societies that we are raising today. Hitting a future member of that society for snatching a friend's toy for the third time maybe the most important legacy we leave!

Equitable Equality

I am sure the people who brought us affirmative action were thinking for the good of all us. There is no doubt that they had the best of intentions. I would even agree that affirmative action has really helped.

But enough now. It is a different world today, thank God. Affirmative action was essentially to ensure justice, to vouchsafe everyone the chance, and yes, maybe even that little push, to succeed.

"The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination." This is how Wikipedia.com describes Affirmative Action. An attempt to promote equal opportunity. Operative term - 'EQUAL'.

And now its time to be fair again. Everyone is equal, and everyone needs to be treated that way. Let us all start off on the same footing. You should not get the job because of your ethnicity, but because you are the perfect candidate. How can it be any kind of encouragement to know that you got to be where you are because of some quirk of fate? That you are unfairly reaping the rewards for the past pains of those in your community?

Imagine a situation where two positions are open at a level. And it happens that people of two different races are appointed. It is going to be very difficult for them to consider the other an equal if even one of them thinks he or she got the position (even in part) because of the color of their skin. It is not fair to either to them to be placed in that position.

In India we have the curse of 'Reservation'. A certain percentage of all government jobs, and admissions to government colleges, are reserved for members of backward classes (yes, that is exactly what they are officially called! A classic example of adding insult to injury). Initially established after Independence for 10 years, it has become a political tool and has been renewed every time it has come for review. The Mandal Commission in 1979 was set up to assess the situation of the socially and educationally backward. The commission used the 1930 census figures for a sub-caste, known as the 'Other Backward Classes' and classified 1,257 communities as backward! The OBC population is now at 52% !!! You have to be really unlucky not to be classified into a quota. And if you do crack that entrance exam fully - just pray some OBC does not decide to throw in an application as well.

No one in India is an Untouchable anymore. Why are we still holding onto the concept by discriminating between classes of ages ago? The caste system has been rightly eradicated. Why do we continue with the inequity by officially naming them 'Scheduled Castes and Tribes'. How can that be right? If Gandhi was alive today he would have it stricken off right away.

Mira Kumar recently became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha of India. I am happy she got the position on the basis of what she as accomplished in her political career and not just because she was born into a 'classified' family. She deserves the respect she will so readily get now - from every class of people.

Isn't that what we should aim for - a level playing field for all?

What we need is incentives for people who have made it - or are trying to. Free education for the poor. Special scholarships or grants and awards for the sections of society that need the affirmative action or the reservations. But we should not be handing them something they have not earned. I cannot think of a worse way to humiliate a whole section of population!

On a practical level reservation/affirmative action does not even facilitate growth of that particular community. I believe it does just the opposite. It becomes a way to keep them down even more - since they know they can get by by doing almost nothing. In India, a scheduled caste candidate can fail at an exam and still get the seat in a medical school. So not only have you taught a child never to work to pass any exam ever again, you have probably ruined the hopes of so many others who have struggled and received an A, yet will not get that seat. And of course the risk to patients who will be going to a doctor who could not even pass his entrance! How can it ever be right, in any way?

Programs that are designed to differentiate on any other criteria except merit can only be deleterious to the health of society. They add more wrongs to replace the old injustices. Negating merit is not going to engender reconciliation or growth.

It is a fact that no community is less than or better than the other. Why do we keep endorsing the opposite view by continuing to reserve quotas? Should not all of us repudiate any suggestion of difference between one man from another?

A lot of us need help and encouragement, as individuals and as a community. But it serves no one to set a special set of goodies aside for any particular person. It is not just, and it is certainly not encouragement.

Man or Beast?

Zoos are the epitome of man's cruelty and arrogance.

What gives us the right to imprison creatures that we do not understand, and do not care about except to subjugate? We enclose little frogs in glass cases because they fascinate us, we capture big cats to control them, we cage birds because we cannot fly behind them to observe them. We keep specimens away from their own kind, in artificial habitats , with enforced diets, so that our children will be educated, or entertained. And then we have the audacity to pat ourselves on the back for providing food and shelter. The gall! The vanity! And this is us - the species which has allowed children to starve to death is more areas of the world than our conscience should bear.

I cannot see a worse crime against a living creature than the creation of the zoological parks of the world. Say the giraffes were the upper species in another dimension. What if they tore us from our homes and had us immured in a glass home in the prairies? Would we enjoy the tapping on the glass while we had a meal? We cannot even tolerate telemarketers at mealtime!!

We all agree life is more than just breathing and eating. So why do we not grant other species of the planet the courtesy of letting them have the life we dream for ourselves? It is unassailable certitude that we are NOT doing them a favor by keeping them fed in a 7 by 7 enclosure. The fact that we have increased the number of an endangered species by breeding them in captivity is not a claim of success. It is statement on how selfish man is. First we take away everything that the species has to live for - its home, its food, and most importantly, its freedom. Then we pat ourselves our back when they manage to survive our prodding and our prying, and our 'learning'. Can you imagine being one of the few 'protected' humans with a superior species?

Each animal is special and individual -not just a representation of the whole. We point out a cheetah so happily as if seeing one, even in such grotesquely distorted circumstances, is having seeing all there is to see of all cheetahs! As if our perverted delight makes it all OK to have the animal removed from its family. In Kenya, they accept the brutal killing of a 'few lions' because the population is bouncing back. Well by that logic all human murders are quite alright, maybe necessary, considering the ridiculous way we breed!

I am sorry Steve Erwin is dead - but frankly, I find it very difficult understand how we can hero worship someone who spent his time forcing open (or shut, as the case may be) some poor crocodile's mouth, or jump in their homes for some nice camera shots. I have swum with those gorgeous rays; long before they were in the news as potential killers. It is an experience I will treasure all my life. What I came out with was a new respect for creatures that are much more graceful than us, and more gracious than we can ever be. You cannot be with them and then want to nudge, provoke, or bother them. Like so many other earth's creatures they share their habitat with us very benignly. Why would you want to break though their personal space? There must be reason God gave even those gentle beings a sharp barb.

What we call the 'wild' creatures live in their own respective worlds. They have not tried to capture, kill , outbreed, or understand us. Let us at least mirror their civility and generosity.

Cut-throat Parents

Back to my favorite topic - kids and parents.

I guess there are as many aspects to this discussion as there are parents!

So, now the children are growing up. Time for them to think about what they are going to do with their lives. Going to college is on the cards. That is an accomplishment for both parents and children. In such a promiscuous, demanding society riddled with confused notions of all cultures, if our kids come out of high school sane , and with the ability to apply for further studies, and an interest in their own futures, the battle is won. Sometimes the battle scars of school pressures are deep, yet some of us who are lucky barely have a scratch. Being of the latter, I may not be the one to discourse on how to handle situations, but here I go again!

My pet peeve - parents of other children! Seriously, why do parents deem it their right to ask vacuous, annoying questions just because their children are pressured or insecure. Like - what is your daughter planning to become? My usual answer is, "I hope it is whatever she wants to be". When the questions are too pointed and probing, I say, "A happy, caring individual". But no one seems to get it. When I told my aunt in India that my daughter is pursuing a degree in Cell Biology and Neuroscience (as of now), and she is not planning to go to medical school (as of now), she asked me what her Ph.D thesis would likely be! I am not certain she has decided on her Master's yet!!

I have written earlier blogs about it, and I shall recapitulate the same thoughts. Just because the whole world is learning ballet it is not necessary for your child to learn ballet too, and certainly not that additional something else, 'to stand out of the competition'. Our children stand out as the individuals they are. What we need to help them with is understanding themselves and making them successful at being the best they are, and being at peace with who they are.

A friend of my husband has a son ready to go on to college next year. For the past 2 years she has been asking me everything about my daughter's schedule that she could ask without being considered a stalker. Which classes she took and why? Why she was happy with taking the SAT test only once? Her son is nothing like my daughter. Why does she assume that their likes, or goals would be similar?

I am swinging between disdain and risibility with such folks. It must be so stressful trying to keep up with every child within their child's age range. They keep track of what, where, and why they do whatever it is they do. It must be ridiculously funny if all they do is just try to catch up with each other, and terribly sad if all they achieve is that they confuse their kids in the process. That son of the friend? He is compelled to be so good at everything that he does not even know what he actually likes!! I find it heartbreaking that a child can be of 18 years and not be cognizant of what he likes, or dislikes!! So his choice of career is going to be based on which field will be the highest-paying by the time he graduates college. It is an entirely new field of research for the parents now! In all fairness, they probably think I am a delinquent, irresponsible parent if I measure as success the times my daughter throws her head back and laughs with us. (Yes, with not at!!)

And, of course there are the Ivy leagues. That is also a question I have to fend all the time. "Why did you not apply to colleges with big names, miles away, where she could have easily got in?" Biting back the apt and obvious reciprocal of "How does it matter to you?", I have to explain that the operative words are - miles away. My daughter enjoys the comforts of home while she pursues her education, and we obviously love having her around too. I am sure the Big Names have something to warrant the exorbitant fees they charge to admit starry-eyed, bright youngsters. But I think learning is not dependent on where you go, it is subject to how you apply yourself. Clinton was an Ivy leaguer, but then so was Bush! Its the same range of intelligence as any other school in the world!

As I said in the beginning, I have had it easy. I have been blessed in not having had to get into power-struggles or cultural tugs-of-war with my offspring. I have not had to demand, direct, or force. She has worked her work through her school years gloriously, and has grown to be a young woman with a level head and generous heart. I am thrilled to bits! But that may not be what you would like to see in your child. Maybe you really want that full scholarship to Harvard, and you want to leave nothing to chance. Well, my very best wishes. But do stop asking me why I do not think like you. Stop asking how and why, or why not! It really does not matter. Your child is not like mine. More pertinently, your child may not even want to be like her!

The questions these cut-throat parents ask of other children - what they like, what they are working towards- are things they need to know of their own children. I would say to them, stop asking other kids and listen to your own. Take it from me, you will not need to look into other children's lives. Your own offspring are much more interesting and rewarding.

Live and let live

Why the brouhaha about homosexuality?

A friend of mine shocked me the other day by saying she would not mind a criminal moving into her neighborhood, but would move out of her house if a homosexual couple came next door.

I often wonder why people make a bigger deal about a person having a deviant form of sexuality than they do of real vileness. If we have to take a stand, why not against rapist and pedophiles? I am shocked at how vociferous our society is against gay men and women, and displays only fleeting outrage at racists or serial killers. Murderous impulses are reprehensible, being rude is bad, treating people differently because of their color or beliefs is a sin. Being gay? Its their business. And what two people decide to do between themselves should not be a third person's concern. Let us not make judgements we are not asked to make. My religion does not allow homosexuality, but it also does not permit me to decide what someone else does with their lives.

Before we take up arms against an individual's choice of a sexual partner, however strange or objectionable it may seem to us, we have to think about where we are headed with this. If we give ourselves the authority to force our convictions on those who may not agree, what will be next? Are we going to regulate what we read, or what we believe? Freedom is not issue-specific. Either you are free to choose or you are not. It is not subject to our likes and dislikes. If some people choose to behave in a way that goes against our grain, they are well within their rights - as long as they are not hurting anyone, its absolutely alright. Curtailing their freedom, denying them the choice of who to be, is deleterious to the very concept of liberty.

People tell me if we accept homosexuality today, we will eventually be asked to accept all 'other perversions'. There is only one perversion - and that is forcing someone against their will. So if a gay man assaults another , he commits an opprobrious crime, as is the assault by a straight man. But if two men want to get together, it is not a perversion - even if I cannot understand it. Labeling it perversion is a personal choice, and should be kept at that. We cannot enforce our interpretation on someone else's rationale or predilections. Its a matter of personal choice.

The basic rule for civilization is universally applicable - if it not a detriment for you, or does not affect you in a negative way, its not your right o complain about it.

Most religions clearly do declare homosexuality a sin against God. So is cheating, and adultery, and murder. Do we get so riled up about someone who lies? We do not; it almost becomes a matter of course for us, an unpleasant part of life. People will lie, and cheat, and unfortunately even kill. Why does this rationalizing not extend to homosexuality if religiosity is what is driving those who harangue against it? I, personally, do believe homosexuality to be a sin, yet I surely have no problems with being friends with people of a different sexual orientation. But I would hate to be be friends with a cheat or a compulsive liar.

So, they want to get married. Let them. I believe in the sanctity of marriage too. And I believe it is sacred enough to NOT be affected by the wedding oaths that people of the same sex might take. The sacredness of any relationship depends on the two people involved in it. What sanctity are we talking about if a husband and wife cheat on, or rob, each other? I will never understand what is so disturbing if two men or two women want to make a commitment to each other. They certainly are not asking you to commit to either of them! So what is your problem?

The test of a mature society is not on how it moulds everyone to fit its rules and laws, but on how many different ideologies it encompasses within its framework. People are not angels, we will sin. So why not let homosexuals be? They are not hurting anyone. They do not try to convince us their way is better. Who are we to force them to say theirs is worse?

I am not sure if I should be angry with the obvious bias or sympathetic to the evident lack of coherent thinking. What is it with these so-called pundits and Obama-bashing?

So Obama bent a little bit to shake King Abdullah's hand. That is the proper etiquette to use to greet a Saudi king. Just as it is proper etiquette not to extend your hand to the Queen of England before she does. Just because most of us do not have any knowledge beyond what goes in our own towns (if that!), it does not mean our President should function at our level of emotional intelligence. Would you prefer a George Bush with the horrid smirk when he met anyone, and yet then went out of his way to protect the Bin laden family?

Cultures differ all over the world, and it takes open mindedness to work well with all of them. In all Asian countries making eye contact is disrespectful, in the US its a sign of weakness. In England you leave a little tea in your cup to show you have had enough, in most European countries you drink to the last drop to show you have enjoyed it. Thank God we NOW have a President who is mature enough to understand customs that are foreign to us, and wise enough to use them to his advantage.

America cannot assert its democratic principles if it cannot respect other nations, democratic or not. If we believe that equality is for all people we have to believe in the legitimacy of other peoples' norms and culture. Giving respect will only beget respect. It is the destructive arrogance that was encouraged by the previous regime, unfortunately, that blinds us to to this eternal truth.


President Obama is already setting us back on track to the moral high ground we have held for ages, till we were afflicted with the Bush-Cheney administration. We have to understand how the rest of the world began to hate us. That kind of fearful hate is like a tinder box in today's unstable world. One has to just read news from all over the world to appreciate how the slightly apologetic tone Obama used ameliorated that feeling. It takes a lot of confidence and bigheartedness to admit you were wrong. It takes downright nobility to make amends for mistakes someone else has made! And Obama is nothing if not noble.

Like every country and every community, we also have our fair share of retards - we have the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck. After all the proof that it does not work, if someone can still justify torture of any human being, nay, any living creature, there has to be something seriously wrong in the processing ability of their brains. Anyone who has seen a few seconds of the water boarding 'demonstration tape' shown often on news channels and even then believes it to be legal, and ethical, and also efficient has to be - for lack of a clearer way to put it- a brainless git. Imagine an opponent holding you down blindfolded, pouring water down your nose and throat. Would you not say and do anything to avoid that? And would not vengence be the first natural reaction?

And if result is what we were looking for, at whatever cost - where the hell is Bin Laden?

We have lost so much of ourselves, have caused so much pain to so many- for what? Now we carry the baggage of their ill-will, their pain, and our own scarlet letter U, for the Unjust.

And if Obama is trying to wipe that mark off, let him. If anyone can, he can.

Crime must lead to Punishment

It infuriates me that people harangue more about immigrants who do not fit into our society, than criminals who clearly do not fit into any community. Lets see, umm.... someone who cannot speak the correct language vs. someone who will not stop carrying, and using, an illegal gun. We all know which is more alarming, yet we have people up in arms against immigrants and not a whisper of censure against how soft our system is with regard nefarious activity.

As for me, I am all for the death penalty. The man who played Russian roulette with 6 women may get 2-4 years. Is this supposed to be deterrent? A convicted child molester is let off on bail after 'doing his time' and he rapes and buries alive a little girl in Florida. They say he did his time, and earned his right to his freedom. Did someone think of the little girl's right to her life and safety? Or the right of justice for his previous victims? If you take a life, you give yours. Period. What is more fair? Rectitude of Justice demands it.

There is reason the world is assorted into societies and communities. People need that connection with each other, they need to interact. They need to laugh, cry, and grow together. With any group of people there has to be, by definition, a myriad of emotions, ideas, goals and phobias that effect all in one way or the another. And that is why it is imperative that we have rules for society. Moral and ethical rules, legalized principles and codes and yes, even traffic rules.

Everyone is bound by the rules - and the breaking of these rules must consequate in a punishment. There is no peace without order, there is no order without law, and there is no law without rules. And if we do not enforce the rules with consequences, there is no freedom for anyone. Like everything else in the world every action has a reaction. Every deed has its repercussion. Every effort has its result.

Once a rule is set, there should be no excusing its execution.We have a judiciary, we have the leeway for mitigating circumstances, we have reasonable excuses. But once it is clear that someone has broken a rule, willfully, or repeatedly, punishment has to be meted out. Maybe we could overlook embezzlement, even a burglary-but violence?? How can anyone excuse the snuffing of another life?

Why is there this trend in new age society to that it needs to rationalize the actions of lunatics? A man shoots 4 police officers and someone says he had a broken home so he had to take out his anger on someone else. Hurting someone else, let alone murder of people who have taken it up as a calling to protect and serve is unacceptable. A pedophile asks for sympathy because he was abused as a child. Oh for God's sake!! Please do not even say it. It does not take away form the horror of the crime the man commits. Personal history is not applicable in any way to the bestiality of the criminal act. No one has a perfect home life. Dominating mother, too many kids, financial problems, lazy fathers. That may excuse a few quirks, a few temper tantrums, a few depressive cycles. But there is no justification for vicious crimes. None, nada. Fate doles out a share of grief to all, albeit not equally. If one person cannot handle it, it should not become everyone's problem. I will not condone violence, even if it issues from a clinically medically insane person. There can be no vindication. Period.

What are we going to excuse next? Terrorism? After all if we go by the same demented reasoning, terrorists have had a horrid life,; they too are angry because of their circumstances. If we excuse psychopaths because of some chemical imbalance that prevents them form feeling guilt, then what will stop us from condoning a bombing because the suicide bomber was in fugue/grief/vengeful state because his family was bulldozed? Yes, the bulldozing was indefensible, but so is the bombing.

All of us have free will, and we are all blessed with some modicum of sense and reasoning at the very least. We all also HAVE to have a moral sense, whether it is religious or not. If a member of the species behaves differently than what is demanded for a safe society, they need to be exterminated. I swear I will scream next time they rationalize a rapist's actions because his mommy beat him. Maybe mommy should have throttled the life out of him. She probably saw something to beat him about. Seriously, there is no way you can explain away a perversion. Not to me. Why would you put a serial rapist in bars to be fed, clothed and cared for on our tax money? And maybe even released on some legal loophole later to commit another horrendous crime! I do not care if his mother beat him to pulp and he is 'damaged'. Castrate him or execute him. And yes, charge the mother as accessory, if she did drive him over the edge. But do not excuse his actions. Most child molesters are very normal people in regular life. They go to work, open doors for old ladies, wish you Happy Birthday if they know you( horror). Can you then say that their brains are wired abnormally, that they need to be exonerated? I have heard people say that it is society's responsibility to find a medical 'cure' and rehabilitate them. The rate of recidivism of all violent crimes is almost 100 percent. Does that not tell us something? If being caught, handcuffed, humiliated, and locked up did not change them, what will? I know no amount of psychotherapy will. If it is uncorrectable brain wiring, fry it and get done with it! If its plain malevolence, put the perpetrator through the justice system-and then get rid of him.

We should not be treating those very people with kid gloves who would rip our very hands off.

PLEASE GO TO THIS WEBSITE

http://www.peta.org/feat/ChineseFurFarms/index.asp

(warning-video is disturbing!)

Indistinct Distinction

Why is the system here so keen on making sure every person is special?? In the movie, 'The Incredibles' the mother tells her son, Dash, that everyone is special. Interestingly, the movie traces the story of heroes with superpowers who are not like everyone.

In classrooms across the country well-meaning, misguided teachers will not tell little children that they are wrong. A teacher is supposed to say "that is an interesting way to look at it", or at worst, "oh that is not entirely correct". When are you going to tell the child he is wrong? If he says that Little Red Riding Hood went to her grandmother's house to pay Scrabble - it is wrong! It is not in the story. Ask the student to write another story about Red Riding Hood and Scrabble. Do not play around with his brain saying he is right when he is not. I make it point to say, "No, that is incorrect" when I have to. I swear that children beam much more when they do finally get it right. I point out those kids who have done their work really well, but I am never going to go crazy trying to find something to say about every work that is placed in front of me. It is important for us to learn that treating everyone fairly is VERY different from treating everyone equally. I prefer being fair.

When it comes to work, by children or adults, treating everyone equally is not equitable. How can we condone this injustice to the really special individual? What motivation is left for anyone to try anything? The really extraordinary child will not be motivated to show his talents because it gets the same reaction as everyone else's mediocre accomplishments. The average kid is not going to be motivated to work harder and reach for the stars because he is content with where he is! This desperate, injudicious desire to evaluate everyone with the same yardstick-and blanket everyone with the same determination- is one reason why American children are unable to compete with the Asian children. In India, you have to prove yourself. You are not special just because your parents think you are. In China you have to prove it even to your parents! We all know where those kids reach.

President Obama is concerned - as he should be - about Americans being left behind, as they are now, because our education system needs to be overhauled. Yes it does!! Finally a leader sees the truth! It is essential to understand that education does not start and stop with schools. Like Hillary Clinton's book says 'It takes a village'. So also it will take a whole societal change for the next generation to wake up to its full potential. When guests visit with children we are supposed to grant the same freedoms to the out-of-control spoilt brats that we do to well-behaved kids. Parents send their kids to parties because all kids go. Why not see if your child has the maturity to handle the trip to that NYC club? Its the same ridiculous concept-treat all children equally. Does that not go right against the undeniable truth that no two children are the same?

I could never stand the sight of Michael Phelps. Mainly because his swimming trunks are offensively low on his hips. But what really ticked me off was his reaction on winning the record-breaking gold medal. He pumped his fist in the air and there was a disgustingly wild look in his eyes. But I also see where that arrogant aggression may have come from. Of course he is special (yes, even with that sartorial debacle of a swimsuit), but I am convinced all his coaches/teachers would not not have given him the acknowledgment he needed. Or gave him as much as they gave to lesser swimmers. Obviously he needed to shove his victory into the faces of the millions watching him. Any surprises he turned to drugs? I am not a psychologist - but someone with that kind of learning really needs to address this (Faisal?? Remember the theory has my patent!!;))

It is unacceptable that we play down the specialness of the gifted. But the attempt to make everyone feel exceptional is worse. Mrs. Incredible, like so many American teachers and parents, has it all wrong. EVERYONE IS NOT SPECIAL. And by pretending that they are, we are doing a terrible disservice to to those who actually are, and an even more terrible deception to those who are not. How can it be right? Does it make anyone feel, or be, better? Certainly not me. Tell a child the unvarnished fact - the honest truth about what he is - maybe he is a little slow in reading, maybe he cannot run. He has to learn limitations if only to deal them. Or maybe to overcome them. But do not say that he lost the race because the shoes were too tight. Or the killer phrase "It does not matter who won, you ran your best". Any idiot who has run a race knows it matters who won. Teach the child to appreciate a winner and be gracious about losing. It makes the winner feel good - and he deserves it. It makes the slower ones feel good, and they need it too.

I know there is always some talent that is unique to each one, some niche in which a person can excel. But one can never find it if we gloss over everyone with the same brush. You did something fantastic if you struggled through geometry and got it right, even if with a C. But that does not mean you are equal to the kid who breezes through with an A. Maybe the A geometry kid cannot write to save his life; well he is not special there, so do not tell him he is "good" in English class when he isn't. The volunteers in social work organizations deserve a lot of respect-but do not treat them on the same level as Mother Theresa. And just because I enjoy writing does not mean I deserve the Nobel prize for Literature. That is for someone actually special.

So please stop lying. Stop confusing kids. Stop telling them life is a bed of roses that will be laid out for them. How will we ever teach them the value of moral rectitude if we cover faults that are obvious. Dash's answer to his mother's forced and facile statement sums it all up ."Everyone's special, Dash," she says to him.To which he grumbles, "Which is another way of saying nobody is." Precisely!

Be fit, or fit in?

Why is it so important for people to look like someone else's idea of themselves? Why do we break ourselves to fit into a mould that does not belong to us?

We buy colours that are in fashion, whether we like them or not. We buy cars that go with an image created by some overpaid advertising company. We eat foods that the latest article says is the right thing to eat. We are proud that we have shunned the fetters of earlier societies, that today we have the liberty to choose to be as we will. We are free to wear, buy, and be what we want, right? Unfortunately, along with gaining the independence we prize, we seem to have the lost the ability to think and choose. Freedom of choice makes no sense if your choices are so tightly bound by the dikats of prevailing taste.

The Renaissance era paintings show full-figured women, sometimes with bulges along the waists. People say it was the 'fashion' then. I do not believe the artists were trying to delineate the trends (do artists ever?) The emphasis of pulchritude was in the poses, in the softness of expression. The allure of the portraits lies in the portrayal of comfort women had with their own bodies. Today, Barbie has made us about as plastic as herself. The impossible dimensions of the doll have become the ideal demented women to aim for - and even more insane men to expect!

The worst casualty of fashion has always been our bodies. From terrible physical trauma(running 10 miles five times a week) to sheer deprivation (pure liquid diets), we put ourselves through so much to fit into what some magazine has decided to be the look of the decade. As usual, my caveat again - if you really like to make the survival instinct of running a daily regimen - go right ahead. Enjoy the high that comes with it, but do not do it to look for something in the mirror. I love to swim. I enjoy the feel of water, and the buoyancy it gives me. I delight in the way it eases my breathing into a smooth rhythm. A few years ago, I decided I would watch the pounds fall off me too. And while I watched my weight and swam to lose those calories, I stopped enjoying my swims. It became a chore, a race with myself. I snapped myself back. I have not stepped on a weighing scale for ages now (except at the doctor's office, where I make it a point not to look at it). I do not know how much I weigh and I am very happy with how much ever it is.

One of the joys of life - eating - has been reduced to what is good for you and what it not. I have had to kick myself more times than I care to enumerate - before I could get myself out of 'this has antioxidants' rote before eating chocolates. I am not eating Swiss truffles for the antioxidants. I am eating it because I love them and because they taste great. I swear they taste better when I relish them for what they are.

Yes, we need to eat healthy, we need to eat well. It is good to add something salubrious to your daily victuals. But when we eat we should savor the food. Our diets are to nourish our bodies and to delight our palates, not medicate ourselves. Add the salad to your diet, but enjoy those fries too - at least while you still can. The physical body is going to deteriorate - whether you like it or not - whether you postpone it for another decade - there will come a time when it will disintegrate. Enjoy the candy while you have your natural teeth. And yes, brush and floss too.

Even though it is women who are more susceptible to the changing fashions of what 'you - must -be -like', men have had their share of distress. One has to be tall, and have a full head of hair (or none at all). One has to have a certain number of well-defined abdominal muscles to be considered 'fit'. Though 'fit' and 'cool' are so often interchangeable today that it becomes difficult to see what one is actually aiming for.

My husband is fixated on his belt. He moves back to tightening it and he thinks he has conquered the world. He tells me this with a shine in his eyes he has never had when I look my best! It is good to loose the extra weight that is deleterious to your well-being, but do not lose equilibrium in the process. Keep sight of what is important in life too.

As long as the body looks good, it hardly matters what is inside that head. And it hardly matters why you do what you do - as long as it gets you the right car. I was shocked when I realised that a certain type of person is expected to drive a particular kind of car. I can understand the love for a car - or to even buy a car for its value on the 'cool' meter. But to have one because 'it is what we look good in' or because it apparently says something about you is downright ridiculous. The only thing it says my dears, is that you do not have an iota of sense, or self-respect. My choice of car is dictated by what I need and what I can afford. Period. I wish I had the money to buy a helicopter. But I hope I would have enough sense not to buy it even then. I guess I can afford a Mercedes - but I am so happy with my Camry - I see no reason to buy another brand. So my second car is - yes - a newer Camry! I was told our family is the 'Lexus' kind. Apparently college-going kids should have two-seaters or convertibles. Why? And everyone should have at least a Blackberry. Again, why? My husband's Blackberry Storm only makes his work day interminable. But I can see he needs it. I do not. And the 11th grader certainly does not, however fancy he thinks it makes him.

One friend of mine went straight from 'close' to 'avoidable' when she did not buy what she herself called a 'perfect car at the right price' because it was silver and silver was so 'yesterday'. Good God! It is a COLOUR! How shallow can one get? She is a nice lady, in may ways a better person that I can ever be, but superficiality is something I have never been able to deal with. The infuriating part was that she left a chance a help out a friend with he commission he would have made on that great deal he was getting her (in these times!). Coincidentally this is the same friend who spoke of nothing but the state of her diet EVERY TIME we met! It is tiresome to hear a litany of foods one had ingested which one, apparently, should not have.

So, my very dear readers, look within yourself and look for what you want ,what you need-and go for it. Do not make yourself as two-dimensional as those lovely and meaningless magazine pictures! George D. Prenctice put it very succinctly when he said ' What we call health, if purchased by perpetual anxiety about diet, isn't much better than tedious disease'.

A sonnet

The sun rises, glowing anew
Into the day I drag my feet
With my heart so bruised and blue
I cannot another challenge meet.

Each breath I take weighs on me
Like something I have that I deserve not
In my life for all to see
Is a world by dying dreams wrought.
And yet I smile and walk and talk
Struggling on in a wild belief
Waiting for Opportunity's that one knock
Tiny hope always alleviating crushing grief.
For this I know and this I will state-
Life will not pass by those who wait.


(for more poems- visit- http://www.poetry.com/dotnet/P1898003/999/6/display.aspx )

To be or not to be?

People tell me that naturalization is a change of passport. Period. That citizenship is a piece of paper that outlines your privileges. That it is a glorified travel document. And that having one of the United States of America is a wonderful, prestigious asset. They say a passport and a piece of paper does not make you someone else.

So now I can apply for US citizenship. I can now get the sought-after citizenship. But I cannot comprehend the ease with which people switch their countries. For if that is all it is for someone - then maybe they should not have that paper at all. If being a part of bigger entity or having a specific identity holds no emotional meaning - maybe one should not have any. From anywhere. For me it is not as simple as changing the colour of your passport. For me it is a changing of who I am because it changes where my primary responsibilities and allegiance lie. It changes the 'they' and 'us ' for me. It is not a decision I can make facilely.

My nephew was born in the US and it is easy for him. When he says 'I wonder who we will elect?' I think he is talking of the Indian elections, till he clarifies that he is talking of the US ones. I say "Why don't they get it that George Bush is an idiot?", ( I am talking about Americans) and he replies, "I am sure we understand that now"(he is talking about Americans too!) Yes, its not an easy conversation for an onlooker!

Yes, we donated and campaigned for Obama. I am a die-hard Democrat. But that is because it is my country while I live in it - and I owe it my loyalty, along with the taxes. But if I promote myself from the Green card status to US citizen - I am making a major commitment. Am I ready?

In my class, the 6 and 7-year olds are mostly from immigrant families. When they say "I am Pakistani/Egyptian/Bosnian", I always and firmly correct them - "No, you are American" (they were all born here). My American colleagues find it funny that I am so particular about it. But it means something; something important - and the kids should understand it. EVERYONE should. I am glad my nephew has got it straight.

But it is not so straightforward for me. Where do I belong? I think American, I know that. Freedom - of beliefs, thoughts and words, pursuit of happiness, equality of men - these are an inalienable part of my moral compass. However, my psyche is Indian. I smile at strangers, I offer 'chai and biscuits' to everyone who comes to my house, including the plumber (granted that sometimes its soda and cookies instead). I am offended when people talk to me through doorways without inviting me in. I do not consider it a party unless everyone is dressed to the teeth. I call elders Uncle and Aunty and expect the same title from my friends' children.

This is the country that gave George Bush two terms because as long as someone else was getting bombed it seemed ok to them - until it backfired. But it is also the country that elected Barack Obama. This is the country where for most people, the world begins and ends at the two US coasts, but which ranks highest in charitable giving by individuals.

And now its time to make a decision. I love this country enough to have called it my own - but do I love it enough to repudiate my ownership of the country I was born in? Is that even possible? There is an saying in Indian that we are made of the mud of the country we are born in. Well, there is no changing the fact that I am, and will be always Indian. I cannot, will not, and do not want to change that. So will I be disloyal to India if I become a citizen of the United States of America? Worse - will I be disloyal to both countries by changing my citizenship? Yes, it probably makes life easier. But what exactly defines ease? Can I do without the luxuries and undeniable comforts of a wonderful developed nation? But then can I do without the warmth of my own people, the dust and smells I was born into?

Here in the US, you have clean, fancy doctor's offices where appointments are easy to make - but then the doctors are not a part of your family like in India - and personally, I would say, not as competent. The ubiquitous and essential credit cards make everything affordable - but then insurance for everything is like an eternal noose around your neck.

I have loved living in the country where circadian things like paying bills and addressing regular issues like insurance or registration renewals can be done without hassles. It has been wonderful to be able to get things done without bribery or rudeness. Its nice to be certain that there will be running water at home and someone at the end of the line if you call 911.

But you cannot walk into a friend's house for an informal chat. If you fall sick no neighbour is going to drop by with a cooked meal. Everyone is civil but not friendly. People smile and say hello, but if you ask one extra question they label you 'weird' and back away. In India, you can make everlasting friendships with total strangers during a short train trip.

Changing my citizenship tells everyone - and me - that I have accepted that one style of life is better than the other. And I do not know If I ready for that. Am I ready to live the rest of my life here? How can I relinquish the fealties I was brought up with? How can you forsake the culture that taught you to be who you are? Is it really so easy to tergiversate - even with such an important part of who you are? So is it really fair to yourself to get a stamp of something other than that which defines you?

I cannot deny all that I am - I am proud of being Hindustani. I would not change it for the world. I cannot change it even if I wanted to. My thoughts, ideas, attitudes, traditions are too ingrained - and I have no plans of scouring them out. So is it disloyal to change my passport?

Hey, parent! Leave that kid alone!

I was at the pediatrician's office the other day. And while I was waiting in the reception area I was treated to a new drama of new-age parenting. It was all I could do not to cry, gag and laugh at the same time.

A cute little kid came in with the mother and grandmother. And then started a continual, continuous, stream of chatter AT the child. I always thought that whatever a child's age, you had to talk to him, not at him. Well this was the most at, and down, -talking I have ever heard. "Jack, look at the umbrella", and before poor Jack could look, let alone process that there was an umbrella in the middle of the room, the next piece information was thrown at him. "It is green". And before little Jack's retina probably even recognised a possible new shade of green instruction number....I don't know.... maybe, 896th for the day... "Jack will put his hat on the frog". Poor kid was still trying to actually look at the umbrella, so obviously he took a little time. And then the grandmother put the hat on the umbrella for him. (I was feeling rushed just listening to them. It must have been downright discombobulating for the kid!) Then there was "Where is Jack's hat?" And I am not sure Jack even knew his grandmother had placed his hat on the umbrella. By this time I was very sorry for Jack. He clearly seemed a little more interested in the bright patterned carpet but, no, the mother and grandmother would have none of it. Clearly the green umbrella had more educational value than what Jack wanted to explore. When they had deconstructed the umbrella to the death, the tracks changed. "Jack look at the truck outside. Mommy will open the blind for you" (yes, third person speech. Talk of confused grammar!). "Did you see that?" grandmother chipped in. "Mother opened the blinds so Jack can see the truck. Isn't that a big truck?" From what I could guess of the future, the best case scenario - cute little Jack will have ADD, at worst - he will hate women for the rest of his life! It was quite harrowing really. The poor kid will never have time to make a decision, or pick his own choices - or be left alone to think on his own. The child will await directions all his life, and the mother will be a basket case herself soon. No wonder women need a 'break' from their children. If they make it such pointless drudgery, motherhood would be a strain for a day.

Please understand that in no way am I being contemptuous of the genuineness of the affection and the care that the kids were receiving. I am sorry it sounds that way, and that is because it was so very strange to me. The mother was really trying to do whatever she had been told was the right thing to do. It was a lot of work, required total commitment to the kids and unflagging attention their surroundings. It was a great effort - but it was wrong! Telling a child constantly what to look at, and worse, why he should, is not right. Period.

But today's parents do not want children; they want trophies. And if God has blessed them with a normal child they will teach it, bend it, break it, to rebuild a child that would fit some preconceived, warped ideal they have. And so it goes on, in varying degrees, through life. Summer holidays are busier for kids today than school terms. If they are not learning 10 new things for their 'overall development' they are taking extra classes to get a head start on math for next year. What happened to enjoying your summer holidays? Getting up late, walking down for ice cream, biking in the park, making new friends? Sadly, parents have begun to think that 'ballet class', and 'Accelerated Math' sound better in adult conversation! They also believe that teaching little Jane and Joe the many kinds of music or art or martial arts will help them find something they like. Unfortunately the only thing the kids are learning in this harried process is that nothing is important because everything can be done in small measure - over a few years or even a few weeks. They are only learning what I would call non-commitment. How many girls are really talented, or even really interested, in ballet? And I guess we all know that many parents are! And how many who learn ballet can possibly also like tennis and karate and piano. All at the same time in life? Is it possible to like so many things equally? This is where parents need to back off. Kids today are required to do everything, supposedly to 'find' their right fit. But it is only parents trying to make up missed time. I realised somewhere in my 30s that I really wanted to learn to tap-dance,and I almost made my daughter learn it. Fortunately, she always has had a mind of her own and told me to go enjoy it myself. She would rather sing - and she did. She still does, and beautifully well. But I could see how easy it is for a parent to foist their wishes on the child.

We have to understand that a child is a little human being. He or she comes with a genetic makeup, and with an inborn intelligence to learn, watch, and develop. What a child needs is nurturing, not directing. Because telling a child what to do is not going to increase his mental acuity, it will stunt it permanently. I teach first grade, and the kids who are the fastest to learn are the ones who, to the best of my knowledge, have been doing things at their own pace.

Solitude is essential for the mind. Not loneliness of course, but some amount of time to ourselves. We need it as adults, and even more so as children. To read, or watch the snow, or play with the rays of sunshine filtering through the curtains. It is an inalienable part of childhood. That time to take in the world in our own individual way is imperative for normal growth.

A few days ago, one of my first-graders broke down during snack-time. She said she is too tired because she has after-school activities everyday. That day, Wednesday was the only day she went home from school, and for that one week, that one Wednesday, her mom had decided to leave her in after-care painting. How could it be possible that the girl was 'enjoying' the extracurricular classes, if one extra day broke her? Even if the child loves art, it cannot be more important than sufficient time at home with family. If you really want to make sacrifices for the betterment of your children, take time out to snuggle with them. Your child, my dear parents, is NOT an extension of yourself. Your child is not a receptacle of your failed dreams. Your child is not your answer to the injustices of the world. He is his own person - and wonderful and complete in his own way. Cherish that - and be thankful. Enjoy your child's childhood - and let the child enjoy it too!

Heroes

Who is a hero for me? I admire a lot of people. I admire the stay-at-home mom giving her time to raise well-mannered, well-adjusted children. I admire the doctors struggling with dismal facilities and rampant diseases in areas the world prefers to ignore. I admire the fruitseller in India who pushes his cart in the hot sun all day so that his children will not have to. I admire the little boy who runs up to return to coin purse you dropped, even though he desperately needed the little money in it himself. But I cannot and will not understand why on earth we go so wild about the physical prowess of sports stars.
I am going out on a limb here. I know this will attract the wrath of those millions of fans of sports around the world. I cannot fathom how basketball players become 'heroes' just because they play a game well. A few days ago a sportsperson got a 3-year 54 million dollar contract. Apparently, his talent lies in hitting a ball very well with a wooden bat. Damned lucky is all I have to say. And let’s hope that strength in those arms is not artificially induced. So let's be a little careful on who we call a 'hero'.Then there is the person who automatically recieves a step-up in public esteem because of something that happens to them. Please tell me -what is special about someone battling a disease? Its sad, tough, and all my prayers and very best wishes to them, but it does not make them a hero. And there lies my probelm with the fans of Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong cycles exceedingly well. He is also fighting a deadly disease - and winning. Hats off to him. Good job -and yes, it is inspiring too. But that does not make him a hero. He is doing things for himself. His is a wonderful, heartening fight for survival - like hundreds of others everyday all over the world; and so many others not as hopeful. If survival is the criterion then we have millions of heroes, and those are of a stature much superior than Armstrong - like the the little boy in Africa carrying his sister on his back, trying to find a place where he can get food and water for them both.
So some big stars give millions to their charitable trusts and their favorite aid agencies. I do not mean to belittle their kindness at all, but frankly, if you had that much money would you not give some of it away too? It must be a relief to get rid of a little bit actually. So do not annoy me by going ga-ga over how charitable Angelina Jolie is. I do realize that having millions to spare does not necessitate a large heart - and not every rich person wants to contribute to society. If giving is the criterion then again we have thousands of unsung heroes. And its not Oprah Winfrey, it is someone like the old lady taking the time to walk to the church where she volunteers to serve food to the poor.Real charity is when you have to budget for sending that planned cheque to the soup kitchen. And real heroism is sending that cheque out by cutting corners elsewhere.
Each one of us has a story of struggle. And the fact that we are still around, and with relatively normal faculties, means we have won in some measure at least. Yes, we have a hero in each of us. Each of us has done our bit to help, to improve things around us, maybe even reach a bit beyond ourselves. And we did not expect any payback. So forgive me if it annoys me when people go wide-eyed delirious everytime Bill Gates does a major philanthropic gesture. And forgive me again when I get frustrated when a hockey player gets a ridiculously high salary for his ability to move on ice (and this comes from a Devils fan!). Or rather, don't even bother - because I am not sorry for my annoyance. Its is justified- 54 million times over!

A man's mind can be filled with anything if his stomach is empty.

Hunger is a very destructive weapon.

Rusi Karanjia (the late editor of a popular Indian magazine) once stated, 'Hunger is a very corrosive acid'. He wrote of it melting a man's brain and eating his flesh. But hunger is much more potent, and more insidious. It involves more than just the person who suffers from it. Hunger is a sore on the society that breeds it. Deprivation of victuals has a terribly debilitating effect on a man's soul and mind . It leaves him vulnerable to anything that will alleviate the agony of starvation. He will be a slave to anyone who makes him feel less alone, less harrowed. Hunger kills the soul before it kills the body.

That is why terrorism breeds in countries where people have less to look forward to in their lives. When one does not know if there will be a meal the next day, and no one to turn to -anything that guarantees an umbrella of security and belonging becomes irresistible. Trading their souls to the devil must not seem like a loss if the soul feels pretty much dead already.For the children in Congo, to fall in line and obey orders to kill was, possibly, not a difficult choice when the orders came from the men who were feeding and clothing them (Needless to say, the psychological damage those children suffered in the process may be irreversible - but that is another tragic story altogether).

I find it very difficult to see nobility in setting up schools where children are given slates and pencils when their stomachs are rumbling and their feet are bare on icy ground. To read is certainly important, but to eat is far more so. The mind's needs cannot be supported without first satisfying the ache in the stomach. Thats a scientific, biological fact. So the delight a hungry girl feels because of a new pencil is probably only a reflection of the gratification the giver feels doing the misguided right thing.

It is certainly more pressing to respond to the needs of the body first, the fierce need for survival. The mind cannot think for itself if the rest of the system is in starvation mode. If living is priority number one for the biological system, all high-minded pursuits are put on hold. Yes, the wonders of opening a mind to learning and thinking cannot be exaggerated, but let us take things in order. Get the mind and body in good physical condition before we start on the 'spread knowledge' spiel.

The thoughts you put in the consciousness of a child with a famished belly may not be his own at all.

A 93-year-old freezes to death in his own house - with neighbours around him, in a country where freedom flourishes and civic facilities are among the best in the world. So what went wrong?

Society has made everyone so wary of the 'other'. Children are taught not to trust strangers. What on earth is a 'stranger'? EVERYONE is a stranger till you get to know them. Or do proponents of the 'stranger danger' theory believe that you must know all people genetically, or at least from birth?? It is this idea that makes us suspicious of everyone new. And that leads to our being so distrustful of other cultures that differences become insurmountable. One look at a person with a different kind of an apparel and we block them into a 'weird stranger' category. It was always very disturbing to me that when we can see how the world is a cornucopia of such a myriad cultures and peoples with Internet access and the media's amazing reach, we still reel with shock when we see someone dressed differently. But now I see - it has been built into us by parents and teachers telling us to stay away from the stranger. I believe keeping a child safe is the adult's responsibility. Scaring a child to watch out for himself , however well-meaning that may be (though I doubt that too!) makes him a paranoid adult eventually.

And where does that imbibed fear and mistrust leave us finally? We believe we have made a cocoon of safety but what we have is only isolation. By cutting of others and making our circle of comfort smaller we have pushed ourselves into a little pit where we cannot even see beyond ourselves.

It is a well known fact that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it also takes a village to care for those who need it. It must not be official. It has to be personal.

When I used to volunteer for the Meals-on-Wheels, I was directed to only deliver the meals and do nothing else. It was a terrible feeling to act so apathetic. One could see the recipients needed so much more than just a cooked meal. Sometimes just a little conversation. Sometimes a window that they needed opened, or the mail dropped. (Yes, I did it.)

I grew up in a culture where children in the neighbourhood played together and celebrated birthdays and festivals at each other's homes. We would know everyone who lived on our streets - whether their kids were friends or not - and dropped by to say hello all the time. I never felt safer anytime than in that unfettered childhood I had. It is a simple logic that has stood the test of time - real dangers and real stalkers do not have a chance to hurt if everyone is always connected and interacting.

We need to go back to those times of openness and caring. When one trusted that the world was mostly good, and the world responded by being that way. There may have been drawbacks but I am sure that they would be outweighed by the essence of society thus created. It would be a society where children grow up happy and carefree, and people do not die alone and helpless.

Opinion: Owning birds - whose rights should we be discussing?

Opinion: Owning birds - whose rights should we be discussing?

Posted using ShareThis

Universal Morality

The latest research on our mind absolutely fascinates me. According to an article in the Futurist, "The Mechanics of Good and Evil", morality is a cognitive process. The article states that everyone has an in-built moral grammar. One would expect morality to be learned from parents and society as we grow and learn. One would also expect it to be dependent on cultural background. But research shows that large part of our moral makeup, called moral grammar, is already present at birth!! It is only tweaked and perfected as we experience life. And everyone judges everything by their own grammatical rules. Every moral code is entirely individual and, - this is intriguing - unintelligible to someone with a different setup. My set of personal principles will seem like a silly hash of unrefined ideas to anyone who does not have a similar line of thinking. That is absolutely amazing! Actually, it makes me understand why I find the hijab so ridiculous - and the people who cover find my opinion so, well.... shocking, to put it mildly. For those predisposed to whatever it is that makes themselves, and others, uncomfortable, it is untenable how I can be a proper Muslim without having my head covered by something else other than hair (You can read right away how unreasonable I find this line of thinking because it does not match MY moral grammar).

I think it also explains why memory differs from person to person. People remember things differently because their moral wiring probably processes it differently.It also explains why some people are indifferent, and some so involved, to events around the world that are not a part of our immediate landscape. It is our personal grammar, moral or otherwise, that defines how we look at things. It determines how we react to situations.And that just makes it all the more imperative that we do NOT judge others by what we think is right.

I think it just means that all things are right as long as it hurts no one else. And conversely, if you hurt someone - by words or actions- it is WRONG , however right it seems in your personal grammar. That is basic morality. And being so basic, it is noble and unassailable. As long as your actions do not affect someone adversely, no one has the right to tell you NOT to do it. So, my asking someone not to wear a hijab is as oppressive as someone asking me to put it on!

Obviously hitting someone is absolutely wrong - WHATEVER your motivation - justified or not -because the justification comes from YOUR grammar. Universal morality would dictate that you cannot hurt someone else. PERIOD. You find a way to right the wrong you feel without infringing on the other's personal space. It may be offensive to me if someone in front of you folds their legs onto their chair,but he is not breaking the universal morality decree. My pique is because of my personal grammar - and I will have to let it go.

It is not difficult to see how specific and unique personal moral grammar is. It also emphasizes how encompassing and elemental universal morality should be. That makes it easy to know when you need to react, because universal morality is simply doing the right thing for others. It is simply a 'do not hurt' principle. And that should never be negotiable. Whether it fits in your moral code or (horror of horrors) not - this morality is incumbent on every person on the planet. You can walk swinging your arms all through the hallway, as long as no one is going to get hit.

And if we just get it right - the world will be a better place.