Tumhare liye

 सुनो, जान! 

तुम झूठ मत बोला करो - 

एक तो तुम प्यारे नहीं लगते 

और दूसरा 

तुम पकड़े जाते हो। 

Book Review: Umr 45 Batlayi Gayi thi उम्र पैंतालीस बतलाई गई थी

 

कहानी या कविता, लेखक/कवि के बच्चे जैसी होती है। किसी के बच्चे की आलोचना करना अच्छा नहीं लगता। अधिकाधिक हम यह कह देते हैं कि हमारे type की किताब नहीं थी। 

कभी यूं भी होता है कि किसी लेखक के नकारात्मक विचार हमारे विचारों से मेल नहीं खाते परंतु हम उन्हें उस लेखक का यथार्थ समझ सकते हैं। 

यह पुस्तक समीक्षा उन दोनों वर्गों में नहीं आती। 

******** 

कहानी के कुछ अनिवार्य तत्व होते हैं - एक नायक, एक खलनायक, कुछ घटनाएँ, अंत में, सभी सिरों को जोड़ता हुआ एक समाधान। 

इस पुस्तक की कहानियों में केवल खलनायक हैं। लोग या तो बुरे हैं या बेचारे। 

चलिए ठीक, नायक, खलनायक न सही। तो कहानी में रह जाती है - घटनाक्रम की रोचकता, भाषा की सुंदरता... 

घटनाक्रम कभी जाम में फांसी गाड़ी की गति से बढ़ता है, कभी लूनी नदी की तरह घुमावदार, किन्तु अंत में रेगिस्तान में ही विलीन होता है - किसी गंतव्य तक नहीं पहुंचता। यह कहा जा सकता है कि रेगिस्तान ही लूनी का गंतव्य है। यह तर्क की दृष्टि से ठीक है, पाठक के अनुभव के लिए सर्वथा निरर्थक। 

रही भाषा की रोचकता, वह यहाँ नहीं है। यदि कुछ रूपक आदि हैं भी तो पुराने। 

इन कहानियों में पढ़ने जैसा कुछ भी नहीं है। न भाषा, न पात्र, न घटनाक्रम। है तो केवल सबके लिए उगले जाने वाला विष। 

*************** 

कुछ रचनाएँ बच्चे नहीं होतीं, ना ही किसी का अनुभव/यथार्थ होती हैं। वे बस विष के बीज होती हैं। ये कहानियाँ उस तीसरी श्रेणी की हैं। 

आंकलन / Evaluation

बस इतना भर ही जानना है मुझे 

जो तुम्हारे किसी काम का नहीं, 

उसके तुम किस काम के हो 

जो तुम्हारा कुछ नहीं बिगाड़ सकता, 

उसका तुम क्या बिगाड़ते हो 

#आंकलन 

Thoughts on modern relationships

When I left my mother's house, it meant that my parents had no day to day interference in my marital life. It also meant that i was free to visit my parents whenever i wanted, have mom-daughter dates, sis-bro time, daughter dad activities. 

It also meant that my husband never asked me - "So, what did you discuss at home?" That was my prerogative. He also never asked about what was happening in my house. I never told him. 

Here is how it looks when u flip the script: 

His parents have zero say in how you two run your house. His parents can only come visit if BOTH of you accept that they should come. OR if both of you have a policy of anyone-can-invite-guests-over. No concept of "bete ka ghar" 

He is free to visit his parents whenever he wants. He can have mom-son chats, sibling or cousin time, and dad-son dates, shared internal jokes that only they get, to which you are not privy. You are not "joining a family". You are "creating a new family with your husband." You and your husband are both parts of two families - the birth family and the marital family. 

You do not ask him what he talks at home, you have no idea what is going on with the rest of the family. What he discusses with them is his business. 

******* 

Both of us prioritise the time we spend on our careers, and expect the relationship to flourish (or make do) with whatever time is left after our work, long hours, etc. Now, leisure/weekend belongs to both of us equally. If one chooses to go out with friends on that weekend, or sleep in, that is their right. 

What I find is that some partners tend to blame their partner for "not spending time with them" or "not investing in the relationship" if they prioritise other activities. That is not fair. Stress hits everyone differently and 48 hours of stress busting is personal time. It is not fair for one to bully the other. 

***** 

Mother in law rules 

As a boy's mother, i expect to have no relationship with his wife. I do not expect her to extend me anything more than courtesy, just as I plan to extend nothing more than that. The prerogative of initiating a deeper reln is yours, the privilege of accepting, is mine. 

They are not welcome to my assets, home, or labour at their convenience. My son is always welcome, bcs i gave birth to him. I did not give birth to his partner. i am not responsible for her. When she is in my house, she is treated as a valued guest. She will conduct herself as one conducts oneself with a house host. 

I do not want a daughter. You are not my daughter. You are my son's partner. He is the intersection between two family units, just as you are the intersection between two family units - your birth family and your husband.  

Do we meet on family occasions? Will you be invited to larger family gatherings or weddings? Will you be expected to behave in a certain way there? I am not sure. A lot depends on your comfort. If you are not comfortable doing the trad, my son can come alone. 

I do not expect you to learn or further "family traditions". You do you.  

It is every couple's right to have the wedding ceremony of their choice. So, at the wedding, my son will get a lumpsum amount from me. He can choose to do anything with it - buy wife jewelry, make a downpayment on a house, conduct a destination wedding... their call. What we will not do is spend money, time and effort to make your dream of a wedding real. You want a 3 lakh Tarun Tahiliani lehnga? By all means. You want a white and purple orchid theme for pheras? Of course!  Pay for it, arrange for it, break your head with the florist. Good luck! 

Accept the fact that his father and I are separated. You do not get to comment on that separation, just as we don't get to comment on your relationship with your husband. 

Irrespective of what Gibran says, your children ARE your children. No free babysitting. 

If you are dieting or have special food needs, pls carry your food and help yourself when we are all meeting. No pressure to eat what everyone else is eating, no snide remarks, nothing. 

You are almost guaranteed to have a better reln with your fil than with your husband or me. Please refrain from telling us what a wonderful human being he is. Trust me, we KNOW. We are backstage, you are in the audience. We're not the same. 

My son and I should ideally continue to have mom-son dates without you. At least once a month. There was a reln that lasted his whole life. Now, it must change, but it cannot disappear. 

Pls know that i WILL support my son like a rock if the reln turns abusive. And if i suspect that he is the source of abuse, I will reach out to you and talk, irrespective of our non-existent reln. 

What you wear, who you meet, how you manage your career and finances, is between the two of you. How you treat us if we ever visit, that's on you.

Just like I will not tell my son slimy things about you behind your back, you will not do "your mom" complaints behind my back. You have an issue? Talk to me. I have an issue? I will talk to you. Usually, its just communication gaps which become bigger when we go via someone.

If ANYONE in the family is mean to you, or is perceived as mean by you, pls respond to them as you would respond to someone in your own family/extended circle. You are under no obligation to maintain a relationship with them. Relationship building works both ways. If they are offended and bring it up with me, I will handle it. 

 

On the BRICS Summit and other random thoughts

 

Only one of these 2 headlines is correct. In case there was any confusion, it is the second one. The PM of India got Xi Jinping to India, and then raised to his face, the issue of weaponising rare earth minerals. 

I don't think people have quite understand the magnitude of what happened at the BRICS Summit, so let me lay it out a little bit. 

1. Xi Jinping and Putin are two global leaders who are on the target list of every terror orgn and state led assassination agencies (except, perhaps, N Korea). These leaders do not "tour". Their security is a 24*7*365 race. 

India managed to bring these and other global leaders on a single stage, managed their security, without any incident. If RAW needed a coming of age certificate, this is IT. 

2. These leaders also do not issue statements. They do not share their thoughts. Ever. They are intensely private and very action oriented. 

These leaders came to a central platform and issued a JOINT, consensual statement with India, Iran, and other countries. These countries do not always see eye to eye on the global stage. India did this under clear and present threat of US Sanctions. Getting these leaders to SPEAK, and issue a joint statement, is not something that is easily achieved. 

Putin, as usual, slayed in one sentence - BRICS is 40% of the world's GDP, G7 is 29%. Why do they call themselves "great". 

3. The issue is not the use of the term G7 or % of GDP being the only metric for a country's economy. The issue is - the world has been benefitting purely from spotlight for a long time. When you remove the greasepaint, the substance beneath the paint has to be good. And more people are asking - Is it?

Is as much as the spotlight is on BRICS and who is in the room, it is also, imho, on the people who were NOT in that room. 

Completely off-topic:

As a random person, this week, my thoughts took me to a very different tangent - many great economies have been undone by democracy, but none as much as the UK. Yet, in ancient India, democracy was the norm. The janapadas were the first known political system. As the size and complexity grew, they had to move to monarchies and central control with ONE person. There were checks and balances - the Rajguru whose curse scared even the king, the group of ministers who exuded the same pressure that Gandhi exuded on the British. 

What, then, is the future of democracies like India and the US? These are great countries. And democracy is easily the best political system for the people. So, why do these two not lead to synergy? In Switzerland, by contrast, direct democracy has led to a country that is efficient, well-regulated, and extremely rich. What did Switzerland do so right that the rest of the world can learn from? How can we make democracy relevant, and also powerful? 

We are not the same

You read the AI generated summary of a research paper and then share it, expound on it, and use it to base an argument. 

I read the first 5 paragraphs of the paper and realise that: 

A.  The Sample is inadequate (2676 people representing 1.4 bn)

B. The sample is also incredibly skewed (one population group comprising 75% of population while paper claiming to represent the entire universal set of study) 

C. The stratification employed is irrelevant. 

We are not the same. 

PS: 

1. If you use a paper to base an entire argument, at least read the damn paper. When I call you out on it, don't say - eyes hurt, can't read more at the moment.  

2. Do NOT come to me with AI generated content. We can ALL tell AI content from the first 2 paragraphs. If i wanted to know what AI thinks, I would ask the AI. 

तुम्हारे बारे में

तुम्हारे बारे में पूछते होंगे 

वो सब लोग जिन से हंस कर मिला करती थीं तुम। 

वो कुछ लोग 

जो तुमसे मिल कर हंस दिया करते थे 

वो तुम्हारे बारे में 

अब पूछ नहीं सकते। 

Katran: Breakup ke baad

 कहाँ गई थीं?

कुछ सामान खरीदना था, तो आशीष साथ में चल पड़ा था।

हम्म। अच्छा, तो मैं चलता हूँ।

अरे? अचानक?

चाय पिलाने के लिए रवि, समान खरीदवाने के लिए आशीष, बातें सुनने के लिए राहुल। मेरे हर रोल में कोई न कोई नाम भर गया है। अब मेरी क्या जगह है यहाँ?

तुम्हारा एक ही रोल था हमेशा से – तुम। और उस रोल को कोई नहीं भर पाएगा।  

The Poverty Mindset (On Poverty - II)

This is the second part. The first part of the post is here. 

So, in doing some fieldwork, I have noticed a few things that ARE common to families that either remain in poverty, or enter poverty from a more affluent class. 

The Victim Mindset and...

This is the TOP common denominator. EVERYONE who remains in poverty has expressed deep anguish at being wronged - the agent of wrongdoing varies - the state, the community, the world, the family. But they are ALL victims. They have been wronged by the world. 

BUT not everyone who has a victim mindset remains poor. There is one more factor which has to be added to the mix - they truly believe that the wrong must be recompensed before they can do anything. I call this the victimhood paralysis - they find that they are unable/unwilling to act until the wrong done to them has been "corrected" or they have been somehow compensated. 

Entitlement

The second common factor is - they feel entitled to abuse - public infrastructure, other people. I stop people who are spitting and ask them - Why did you spit here? 

Some of them express surface level remorse. Only a few stop to really think. Most of them look at me like i am an alien. To them, defacing public property is the most natural thing to do. Their answer is the same as Hillary's answer to "Why climb a mountain?" - Because it is there!

And then I notice that in my most underprivileged contacts, the same mindset extends to people. They do not feel bad about abusing their network for short term gain, then wonder why they have "no friends" and why "no one supports them" 

Maybe there are more factors. But this is what I know so far. Every time I meet someone underprivileged, I ask "Why is this family poor?" (Because poverty is not an individual phenomenon. One is not poor alone. The lowest unit of poverty is the family. If one person gets out of poverty, they may get out alone. But if one person in the family becomes poor, the whole immediate family definitely follows suit.)