Honnasiri's Catch

Sabarimala burns, metaphorically of course, as nation and court decides. While we fight over it, we need to talk about the deeper issue of how we treat God and his business, and how we should.  God is everyone's favourite strawman, and Superman too—both at the same time. The faithful and the faithless hold him in high stead. Those who don't believe in him don't dismiss but criticize him equally for not being super enough. He's the guy we either shoot at or pray to when we can't explain the world (or anything else) to ourselves. He's everything and all in one for everyone at all times, regardless of whether he claims to be so. We think he automatically becomes public property and slack is the least he gets from us. Surprisingly, it's an extremely good cover up that works. We can embrace our imperfection while thrashing his. What makes this idea possible is the fact that he is faceless and quiet the whole time. His absence and silence gives us

What's synonymous across people and cultures is that everyone always honours their tradition i.e. how they grew up. It's, after all, first response. The mistake in doing that is when it goes unchecked to become big norm. See, all our traditions may not be good, healthy or positive. Some cultures and values are steeped in things that humanity and society need not bring itself to, the first things we need to clean up if we ever start. Majority traditional Indian culture isn't an exception. It has evolved into a very serious problem: a leftover one. And our response: we happen to handle it just like we handle our garbage in real life i.e. conveniently ignore it. Find the closest obscure spot on a main road and shamelessly dump it there, as it rots and stinks in front of us as we normalise ourselves to it.  It becomes the potbelly we drum on and never care to healthily address. Since we all push it under the carpet, we now have a problem. There's a 

The Supreme Court judgement that allows movie customers in Maharashtra to take their own food in theatres is having two completely differently ended reactions. One lauds it because now paying for food that's a hop, skip and jump away doesn't cost you more than your movie ticket (which is expensive enough nowadays). The other bemoans it because it takes away from a legitimate business model and employability, by allowing food in. From the wider view, both action and response are overstretched. The complaint was because of the high rates of food sold inside the multiplex and ban on taking food inside, which is a simplistic reduction (but it makes sense). The decision to disallow outside food is defendable from a business point of view but it is just plain stupid to madly overprice it. The other more important observation is that this budiness model banked on the hooked consumer, and it had worked brilliantly till now. All it would have taken to be stopped is for the consumer to

Gratitude is a good thing. We're taught it in school, and at home, if we had a decent upbringing. We've been taught that a lot of people don't have a lot of things, and we should be happy and thankful that we do. A lot of times, it's just a courtesy that we express. But, there is a case, too, when gratitude can be sorely misplaced: when it is "expected" for your country. Let's analyze that for a bit through a few initial statements and mention exceptions/where they could be untrue. Statement 1:  Gratefulness is expressed for something that's given to us that is not ours.  Would be untrue when: Expressed and felt just out of courtesy (therefore rhetorical) or as a general thankfulness towards the privilege of something we are fortunate enough to have or own.  Statement 2: A country is not something that is given to us. Would be untrue when:   A refugee has settled in, or someone from one country who resides in another country has legally become

Modern India swears on its Constitution, taking its history in tow. A history which had been marred by what can be termed "non-assimilative" abuse by non-native cultures along with their religions, most of which came with rulers and oppressors, who did exactly that through them. State sponsored conversion, law measures like jizya and allowance of certain things that were not allowed and accepted in Hinduism include some of their methods that took the India of the time away from its original way of living. This, being done through centuries, left behind Indians who made that them (the new culture) their way of life without stepping on others'. They're root-Indian every way, except for a small portion that may include some or all of the clothes they wear, food they eat or values they allow (among other things). English speaking but live on rasam. Western fashion but will only accept marriage with their parent's blessings... there are a gazillion of seemingly cont

In this up and coming, upwardly mobile, modern, 21st century world, 'more' is the keyword. I needn't reiterate. What that has translated into is easy, simple, less... basically more for us. Any way that we can walk in, squeeze something of its worth, claim dream/goal victory and move to the next thing. It's like a drug. You can never be satisfied. When you can only see so much juice potential in something, and it clearly doesn't meet the present self-upgraded definition of 'more', you squeeze something else - and leave the juice in that ilk to rot because it has lost its value. Even a waste disposal system for all of that is of no use to you. Why concern yourself with it? There's just one problem - there is only so much you can squeeze. If that doesn't service your snort pipe 'more' enough, you're gonna be stuck, and the bad news is that you are going to be stuck. Positive thinking makes you think you can make your own world. Dream it

Let's talk about the NRC. First, a primer. The National Register of Citizens is a list of people in Assam who are Indians citizens, leaving out those who are not, from those who are residing, or are from, the state. It is of political relevance because Assam has seen illegal immigrants from Bangladesh change the Hindu-Muslim ratio in the state. The further you probe into the history of the issue, you'll see there are many more details that will make you understand what's true, false, right and wrong about it. This article's topic just one side of the issue.  The focus of this piece is on a deeper issue: on the raw nerve it touches so callously - citizenship, otherwise called home. Most of us were never formally introduced to home, in all its forms: people, building, place and/or community . We just grew up knowing one, except for the unfortunate among us. We became it and it became us. We contribute to it like it contributed to us. We also nurture, v

Having a rich culture is a boon, and a rare one. There are fewer countries, each time you count them, that seek to preserve theirs in all its glory. A deeper look into most of these cultures can convert this boon into a bane that parades right under our noses. This comparison can be simplistically defined as a western / western whitewash vs. a century / millennia-old preservation. It can also be classified science / reason/ logic heavy vs. a collection of arbitrary habits that add colour to the variety of ways people live. They made sense in a setting that has been preserved from a long time ago, that sometimes can just be cute and antiquated today, and it may or may not be realistically holding out as a sensible lifestyle against the tide of change. If the latter is your thing, what you are is blindfolded. You are, thereby, blind to everything except those things that define your cultural 'fold'. Just not your eyes, but your mind too. The blindfold over your mind keeps it wor

Career hazards are a part of every job. A lot of times, they make it worth the risk. If you manage to cross over, it's certainly worth it, and it makes trying (without succeeding) worth the effort. Politics, too, is a career. With the shuffle of people back and forth once they get into inner circles, it certainly isn't a vocation they just end up finding themselves lucky to do. It has prep and reward involved—all which any politician should feel guilty about as long they are doing their jobs. And like every organisation and industry, there is competition, and not just the healthy type. Since the chances of them having a honourable merit-based in-organisation hierarchy in politics is low in India, there is  confrontation, which has now become the standard. It's like all politicians are trying their best to be champions in limbo (the game), outdoing one another when one sets a brand new low for inter-political and personal respect for colleagues and peers as humans—defamat

The world's going digital. Smart phones, AI, IT... practically everything is made easy, possible at the click of something, or at the very thought of it. It's all come down to 1's and 0's—as binary as binary can get. Sadly, this can turn into an bloody infestation where binaries don't belong, like politics. With its root beginnings themselves dubious enough, this is an added insult. This binary thinking makes us magnets who have to stick to only one side based on our polarity (which we apparently can't change). It's all involuntary, you see. It's always left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, or capitalists vs. everybody else. Neither of two groups (whichever they be) recognise any ground in between. It's like a great abyss of death. Independent inquiry always makes you from the other side, depending on who's accusing you. You either play for the home team or the other team. One is wrong, the other right; one evil, the other p

(Topic: Politics) Read ( 1 ) Read ( 2 ) Read ( 3 ) As political ethics develop, the lines can be blurry almost all the time. A few of the rules, though, don't really change. They define the do's and don'ts of the core. Some are: One/a group can choose to believe what is not factually true for himself/themselves. That is allowed. It is not cardinal sin. The factual consequences are theirs to bear. Thought doesn't hurt and is not detrimental by itself. If one/a group wants to hold on any thought they like, they are free to. They may only be restricted once they adversely inflict it on another person in action. No individual's views automatically bear upon any other person. Offence is a personal matter, defined by intent to offend.  Ridiculing and mocking another's thinking doesn't help. It happens often with people who have different viewpoints that are, by a more prevalent standard, advanced but not prevalent for everyone. In or

(Topic: Politics) Read ( 1 ) Read ( 2 ) While the democratic core is vibrant and exploding, it isn't the case of thinking magically becoming law. It's here that ideas form and are influenced, discussed and hopefully tested. Ideas that work on the ground aren't unicorn-like. They are sometimes dumbed down from larger concepts but it's better to have a bigger ideal to start with. They can always be made better over time. Most universally accepted views of how things ought to be are always balanced on one side. They serve one master and make the rest servants. Pick one and it will be easy to see. A good system serves everyone equally. Some argue, equally at their needs first. Others argue that that's too basic and it should be more competitive so that humans are naturally incentivized to do better, than be complacent. All these and many, many other ideas and sub-ideas are floating till one of them proves to be a better fit for a solution. All of this conver

(Topic: Politics) Read (1) Well, politics is everywhere. When it comes into its own arena, and deals with power and governance, it takes on a new level. Till then people are just doing it on the side for ego kicks and side benefits. Once crossed over to the big leagues, the only thing different is a much, much wider playing field with the same motivation to win The science remains as is. There are some stark differences though. When otherwise practiced, there was never a referee, and there was no accountability. It is self-managed system. Sensible people rested their egos at a reasonable midpoint and accepted that there are going to be some crazy folk you can go ahead and ignore. At the next level, there is self-regulation and accountability, with the same freedom to crazy folk. It takes shape in a growing, robust swirling core of ideas fed by citizens' voices, with everything they think about where the country should be and how to get there. This is the sacred space tha

There's presently a lot of nataka in Karnataka. Long story short, BJP's short of full majority, Congress-JD(S) have joined together and cross the halfway mark, and there are 3 other independents who align one way or the other. The Governor, in his non-popular-by-some wisdom, has allowed the BJP to form government, with 15 days to pass a floor test. So, there's a swearing in of a Chief Minister with no government or cabinet, who practically doesn't have visible MLAs to get on his side except ones he can poach. All of this while we sit here in shock or amusement watching our beloved politicians take for this great rollercoaster ride. With the hope of making things better, there are voices for and against the present situation with various arguments why it is right, wrong, ethical or immoral. But there's one voice that's the most hypocritical of all: yours (if you're registered on an electoral roll somewhere in Karnataka and you didn't vote unless it w

It's election time in Karnataka on the 12th of May. It's been raining political tourists, grand speeches, grander accusations and tons of mudslinging. The atmosphere can be vitiating to a simple, sincere, honest voter's spirit (which there aren't many of these days). You usually find the ones who are annoyingly over-bearing or innocently pre-decided. They either shove their opinions down your throat or are inane about any discussion about who the best candidate is, apart from their committed usual party.  For those who are conscientious voters, it is a struggle during every election. The options they have in candidates don't help them either. It's never a complete picture with any one. What one lacks in wisdom another makes up for in opportunism. Lots of questions pop up in their minds. They don't want to waste a vote, nor do they want to compain later. When balancing these options, it helps to understand what your vote could stand for.  There are cert

(Topic: Politics) Society isn't free. There's always a catch. While you don't pay to get in, you pay as you indulge (cue most of social media). Your entry's marked with a baby fingerprint, and by that you've consented to all terms and conditions that came along with it. Every one. Now don't go asking where this record is, but it's somewhere. By the time you've figured this out, you're locked in and you can't get out, but it isn't as bad as it sounds. What we've consented to is far from the life were living today. That's because no one's read the terms and conditions, ever. We were thrust in clueless and we just made do. "Let's stop life till we understand it", said no human ever. All of the structures we function within were all made on the go. And when we figure that out, they've usually overstayed their usefulness. The only reason they're still here is because, for some reason, the older generation ma

The Backstory Politics exists always at two levels: personal and corporate. It's either the combined similar personal views that build a corporate view, or a corporate view that influences a personal view that feeds the strength of a corporate one. Both these processes run parallelly. Though not in proportional consistency, it's never only the one and not the other. What's important about this idea is that it's the personal politics that drives anything remotely political. It's always personal to corporate, or corporate to personal to corporate.  Both politics differ in essence. One is concerted, organised, comes from a place of good self-awareness of what you stand for and an idea of what it is you're supposed to/should do about it. The other is the opposite. It is none of those, and something that fits like hand in glove in a way that you don't know even know that the glove is on. Like you get up in the morning believing in something for no apparent reas