At the restaurant

वोह: आप तो full लग रहे हो
में: हाँ, बहुत order कर लिया आज
(I was struggling with a masala dosa after having dahibatata puri, 2 pieces of vada, bonda & masala chai)
वोह: जो बचे है - उसे pack कर लूं?
में: नहीं, ठीक है, में ख़तम कर लूँगा
वोह: India में कहाँ से है आप?
में: बंगलोर
वोह: यहाँ कोई business चलाते हो?
में: नहीं, एक insurance company में काम करता हूँ
वोह: किस तरह कि insurance? गाड़ियों की या ... 
में: life insurance 
वोह: कौनसी life insurance? पूरे life कि? 

मेरे बोलने से पहले ही 

वोह: अगर में एक पॉलिसी ले लूं तो कितना भरना पड़ता है? 
में: वोह तो different factors पर depend होता है, जैसे की आपके उम्र, lifestyle, policy की कीमत ... 
वोह: आप भी insurance लिया है? 
में: हाँ 
वोह: देखो जी, में तो पाकिस्तानी हूँ, मुस्लमान हूँ. आप तो हिन्दू होंगे? 
में: हाँ, पर ... 
वोह: जो भी हो में यह मानता हूँ कि दुनिया के सारे लोगों एक जैसे है - हम सब अल्लाह या जो भी नाम से पुकारे उसके अमानत है. अमानत के मतलब जानते है आप? 
में: हाँ ... 
वोह: जब तक हम यहाँ है उस अमानत को रख कर उसके बाद अल्लाह को वापस लौटना है. वोह अमानत पे कीमत नहीं डाल सकते. हम सिर्फ उस अमानत कि देख बाल करते हैं. इसी लिए में कभी भी मेरे पैसों को bank या insurance में नहीं डाला.

मेरा दोसा ख़तम हुआ था

में: तो आप पैसों से कुछ खरीदने कि concept नहीं मानते? 
वोह: नहीं जी ... 
में: तो उसका मतलब है कि जो भी खाना मैंने अभी खाया, वोह सब मुफ्फत था? 
वोह: हाँ जी मगर यहाँ के owner तो हिन्दू है ...

The History of Westernisation

Warning: This page contains ideas and beliefs that may hurt the religious and cultural sentiments  of some people. Reader discretion is adviced. Grand parental guidance suggested.


The benefits and ill-effects of westernisation is a topic of hot debate. The advantages include technological advances, though some are not western in origin, and an easier way of life. To its disadvantage, a significant population is subject to a cultural shock and sudden change in ideals. This is not just a phenomenon of the current day. It has been observed from over 2,500 years ago.


Going by the Aryan invasion theory this is the time when Aryans from the middle east were gradually moving towards the Indus valley. The Aryans, to their credit, did not actively try to change the existing civilisation but retained their own and even absorbed some of the local culture. But it was a time when Aryans were gaining superiority. It was a time when vedas flourished.


Among the vedas, atharvanaveda has always been regarded as the dark-veda and sometimes as purely evil. This is where the cultural clash of that age is very apparent. The aryan-hinduism was being established as the superior way of life. At the same time the Dravidian culture was at its peak too. The Dravidian empire was flourishing from the modern day South India to the Harappa & Mohenjedaro. They had technological advancements, some of which surpassed the Aryans. However, the Aryans started with many advantages. Being a nomadic tribe they had learnt the importance of language and had soon developed a strong language with a rigour that the scientific advancements demanded while other cultures still had languages following other advances. The nomadic nature also led to the widespread use of the language, very similar to the spread of English in the current day.

Note that atharvanaveda was a complete scripture in itself unlike the other vedas which specialised on individual topics. Atharvanaveda was somewhat seen as experimental science that also included warfare (unlike a separate dhanurveda included under Yajurveda). This was set at the dawn of the metal ages, at a time when metallurgy and allied advances were seen as sorcery or dark practices in the western world. This also flowed down to the view of atharvanaveda. However, it must be noted that atharvanaveda did deal with warfare quite extensively including a detailed classification of poisons that could be used with weapons. The Aryan propoganda portrayed them in bad light that an evil touch is still associated with it.

Naturally, those with the knowledge of this language were at an advantage due to the large numbers. The Aryans are also not known to have formed empires, but settled in small clans. Given the growth of empires in that era, no empire saw them as a threat and let them freely mix with their own. However, the Aryans had begun to grow and unite during this period and showed lesser acceptance and tolerance towards other cultures. The Dravidians either converted to the Aryan culture or moved away. This caused some clashes that has continued to this day. However, in the absence of a proper war, the Aryans could not be described as hostile and attacked. There was healthy competition too, but the tensions were increasing.


The atharvanaveda did not have occupation based hirearchy and there were no separate class of Brahmanas, although there were priests. To this day there is no concept of upanayanam in atharvanaveda, or a reference to the gayatri mantra that is held sacred amongst the brahmanas. Most of atharvanaveda has been lost after the oral rendition tradition was broken and only two texts survive. There are countably few priests who follow atharvanaveda and are found in some old Dravidian temples.


The Dravidians now being a minority had begun to adopt Sanskrit as formal language even as the Aryans were moving from Pali to Sanskrit completely. This set common grounds to battle their wits. The united Aryans had a largely accepted religion with associated Gods and myths. The Dravidians who were not exposed to as much flux had a strong religion and beliefs but with lesser myths owing to their size and spread. The Aryans tried to establish their way of life over a minority and were almost assured of success like they'd seen in their advances so far. Until they met the legendary Dravidian emperor - Visravasa.


Visravasa was a Danava ruler who'd come to be known as the greatest emperor on earth and had unified most of what we know today as the modern India. The Aryans had used their superiority over language to out throw the dominant Dravidian dynasties in North India by simply presenting them in bad light in all their scriptures. The Dravidians who were dark skinned were always described as being dark in spririts too and were soon made synonymous with evil. Not surprisingly people associate Rakshasas as evil beings while they were once a Dravidian tribe known as protectors (Raksha sas). Increasingly the Aryan vedic texts replaced asuras with Rakshasas, Nagas* and Danavas representing their own fight with these Dravidian tribes as the fight of good against evil. The Aryans almost suceeded until the great Danava king challenged them.
*Nagas still exist today in Eastern most India.


Sumalaya was a Danava king who realised the intentions of the Aryans only too clearly. He knew he could not counter them except by mastering their methods. Instead of adopting shrewd methods like the Aryans did, he decided to overpower the Aryans by sheer brilliance. He decided that the next king of Danavas should become the supreme ruler on Earth who could master any art. To this end, he married his only daughter to a Aryan scholar. Vishravasa learnt the vedas - the three Aryan vedas and one Dravidian veda from his father. Sumalaya himself undertook to task of teaching him the various shastras involving political science, economics, ethics, music, medicine, culture etc.


It must also be noted that the Aryans and Dravidians worshiped different Gods and had different religious practices. Shiva was a distinct Dravidian all-powerful God whose contemporary in the Aryan mythology was Vishnu. The cold battle between Aryan and Dravidian people also extended to their religious beliefs.


Visravasa has mastered both Aryan and Dravidian vedas. He ruled as a Dravidian king based on the principles he was taught by Sumalaya. He quickly re-grouped all Dravidians and was known as a force to reckon with. Many Aryan kingdoms were soon conquered and subject to his rule. His empire was known to be prosperous. He was devout and believed in Shiva. His aim to make his empire culturally rich can be seen from the fact that he adopted the symbol of Veena in his flag (he was known to be adept at playing Veena). This was a major setback for the Aryans who were now threatened severely. The Aryans withdrew, in the sense that they accepted Shiva as an equal God and atharvanaveda as the fourth veda.


However, the Danavas did not last long after Visravasa. Visravasa himself set forth expanding his empire after having put a stop to the Aryan advancement. Sumalaya's death also saw Visravasa getting more reckless and did not plan his successor. But he had undoubtedly established the Dravidian superiority over the Aryans during his reign that was hard for the Aryans to reverse.


Following the death of Visravasa, the Aryans did attempt a fightback in their usual way - portraying the Dravidians as evil. However, having accepted Shiva as a God, this was now a daunty task. They didn't succeed. However, many new myths were born and in each Shiva was portrayed as a foolish and reckless God whose actions had to be set right by Vishnu. They succeeded to a large extent in popularising Vishnu.


The lynchpin that ensured that Aryans were not opposed again by the likes of Visravasa was through the epic Ramayana. Throughout Ramayana Visravasa is represented as Ravana (after his name was mutilated to visravana or visha ravana). However they denote this name as being given by Shiva himself to mean that Visravasa had a roar like thunder. However, it was probably only changed to make it sound coarse. Ravana is also portrayed as one with low morals while Visravasa's prosperity has somewhat been ignored and led to be inferred as being inherited rather than built. Ravana is still worshiped along with Shiva in some temples in South India and Sri Lanka.


However great unrest followed, and Aryans succumbed to accepting Shiva and merging cultures with the Dravidians which had become imminent by then. It is interesting to note that the next incarnation of Vishnu was dark skinned and was a ruler of Yadavas, the region (of modern day Gujarat) from where Visravasa had begun his expansion, that extended east till Cambodia.

Chapter 1 - Atri

Atri was walking up Sringeri and thought, "Monsoon is a festive season in India. It brings water to the crops and life is expected to flourish. The myths behind the festivals always celebrated the triumph of good over evil. And I'm here walking numbed in the mind at having killed an evil being. Does that make me good or evil?"


Atri was all alone. He wanted to be away from everybody, knowing he'd look for support from others and justify his deed. 'No', he thought, "it makes me good if it reduced harm to the people and evil if I were to indiscriminately continue killing". It led to more questions. "Why should the good of other people bother me? They haven't been particularly good to me. I didn't kill for anybody's sake, I did it for my own. Is that evil?"


"What the heck?", he thought, "Does it make a difference if it was good or evil? At that moment there was nothing else that could be done".
Nothing?
"Well, I could've spared him, but to what end?"
So you did it for the good of others?
"No, others didn't matter. I never thought of anybody else".
What did you feel when you struck down, wasn't it pure glee?
"Yes, I fought on instinct to save myself, but in the end I was deliberate when I took his life."
Didn't you enjoy the moment?
"I did, it was the power to do away with the worthless. I ... er, sort of felt complete in myself".
How did you regard him as worthless?
"Well to quote from Reader's Digest there are three kinds of people - those who create and destroy; those who produce and use; and the other kind is the one who drive the first two kinds crazy. He was definitely the third".
Do you intend cleaning up all those of the third kind?
"No, he crossed my path and tried to do me away".
Does that justify your act?
"Heck! I've been roaming these mountains only so that I don't justify the act and now I'm justifying to myself?"


His conscience kept quiet, allowing him a moment's thought, hoping remorse would set in. Nothing.


Are you feeling bad that you enjoyed the moment rather than despising it?
"I don't know. It doesn't feel right."
Lets do it the Socrates way, keep questioning until you reach an answer.
"Aren't you troubling me enough already?"
Like you, I too enjoy the sadistic pleasure.
"1. I'm not a sadist. 2. I didn't know conscience had feelings, I thought it was the root of all bad feelings!"
Oh my, aren't you being very clear headed for someone troubled by bad conscience?
"I know! Its the clearheadedness that's half my problem!"
Since that doesn't solve your predicament lets call Socrates.
"Go ahead".


You enjoyed it, yet you didn't feel right about it.
"Yes, and don't link the feeling of right or wrong to good or evil"
Nice to know you realise the difference. How do you feel about drinking?
"Eh?"
When you drink and get drunk, does it feel good? Does it feel right?
"An elementary difference, when I get drunk I've lost control of my actions, when I killed I was fully aware."
You're justifying drinking now! But when you start drinking you're completely aware of the possibilities.
"Yes, that's true. Sometimes I drink socially when good / bad, right / wrong doesn't bother me. But at other times I've suggested a drink to lift up my spirits (no, I'm not playing with words here). It helps for the moment but I feel like I'm wasting myself when I lose control, when I lose memory of what I do then. But when I gather that I've not misbehaved in any way while out of control, it gives me some satisfaction"
That you're of high morals?
"You sure are sadistic! But yes, something to that effect".
So you're upset that you can't call yourself as having high morals?
"I've never believed in morals. If something can be enjoyed, enjoy it. I have been socially timid to express it, but never to enjoy."
Like all the abuses you've subject yourself to?
"That was more of adventure, it had a sense of excitement to it. I truly enjoyed just a few and for just a while."
So were you excited about killing?
"No, there was no excitement, it was pure joy".
Joy of?
"I don't know"
You met this strange dying girl at the hospital yesterday, did you feel any joy meeting her?
"Yes, but that was different. I enjoyed meeting her because ... she could understand. She had a mind, a beautiful mind".
Even though she appeared to be in dumps?
"Have you ever found me a lecher?"
Sorry, that was a wrong question.


The conscience didn't know it could be questioned back. Atri seemed to have gotten independent of his conscience and the conscience had gotten worried of being discarded totally. It decided on a compromise - to make him feel better. Even though all it do was either question him or ratify his act. It couldn't possibly ratify such a grotesque act, but then ...


So you're saying you enjoyed being with her because you shared her feelings?
"No, I didn't even bother about her feelings. She had a mind that could comprehend, that could create!"
So it was like mindedness that led you to a feeling of joy?
"I guess it was also partly because I could be carefree. She could understand what I said, perfectly. And it didn't matter to her what I said. And likewise with her. It was the ability to free my mind without another thought".
Just like killing him without another thought.
"No, I thought about it and decided he should die. And I enjoyed it."
I guess there's no definite answer to your right or wrong. It may not be socially acceptable to continue doing it.
"I guess so. As long as I remain socially timid, it'll not recur again".
I wonder where the timidness disappeared right now that you're planning to meet the girl again.
"That kind of timidness is only during the first approach. What you apparently reasoned with me now, she made me realise effortlessly."
So you're going on the pretext of seeking help?
"No, I'm going on the pretext of giving help. Right now both of us need each other's help. I know it doesn't sound right, but I don't care."


Conscience: gulp!

Old man

I just took a ferry across the harbour and an old Indian sat beside me. Very curiously he looked at the cover of the novel I was reading. I showed him the cover of Angela's Ashes. He wanted to know what subject it was. I told him it was a novel, more of a biography. He seemed apalled by what I said and started saying something. I couldn't hear him clearly and pulled off my earphones. He looked even more appalled. He said yeh kya kar rahe ho, reading a novel and listening to music? You should get joy from within you, not from these.

With this hint at the start of a conversation I put my book & earphones away and asked him what he did in Hong Kong adn how long he's been here. He said he's been in HK for 41 years and that he was a jewellery merchant and also that he'd seen all of the world. He immediately jumped back to his earlier statement that all the material wealth and comforts were of no use and one needs to find joy within oneself. I pointed out that entertainment was also very important. He immediately agreed and said, "Yes entertainment is most important but it has to come from within you and not from outside". I asked him if his job gave him joy, he said he's been on the job for a long time and a lot of people bought jewels although they're of no use. He sounded like he despised them. And continued "A lot of women buy jewels to show off and lot of men buy to please their wives although nobody loves his wife". I asked him if even he didn't love his wife. He looked irritated and said "When I say nobody, it includes me" and then after a moment's afterthought he asked me if I loved my wife. I told him I'm not married. This overjoyed him and he showered me with blessings "You will get married very soon and you'll face a lot of troubles". I gave him an understanding smile. After another moment's reflection he said that he made millions and lost millions.

He asked me what I was doing in HK. I told him I work for ING insurance. He told me "All you insurance people are scary. You sell insurance saying we'll pay you this much if you lose one leg and this much if you lose both hands etc". I pointed out that much of selling insurance involved fear unlike jewellery where it was mostly glamour and little fear. He agreed that it made sense as long as it made money. He went on to describe his own work for a while and narrated an anecdote on why he was in this business. Once when a friend of his, a mine owner was asked how business was, the mine owner got very angry and replied "Look here Mr Dallas let this be the last time anybody ask me this question, I'll answer one final time: As long as there are women alive on this planet my business will be good" He did remember to mention that he never sold over price to Indians. Seeing that our 10 minute journey had come to an end he concluded by saying whatever happened the most important thing is education and good food and material wealth was to no avail.

I wished him a good bye and my heart didn't permit to tell him how much he entertained me those 10 minutes.