This is a conversation that took place between a History student and a Biology student, both pursuing their post graduate studies from the same university.
(H for history student, B for biology)
H (visibly excited): God, did you know that Akbar’s court was not such a solemn affair as one would think. There were court jesters and all for entertainment on a daily basis. In fact Akbar himself had a great sense of humour.
B (isn't interested, knows everything): yea yea, I have read all that in class 8th. After that I took science.
Pause for a few minutes.
B: You are always reading something, in the library or the hostel.So what are you reading now?
H: The humor in Akbar’s court.
B: God, you guys have it so easy in life. You just sit and read about humour and that's all you do.
H wonders - Does he even realise how difficult it is to find literature and secondary sources on humour of an emperor (not Birbal). And then write a serious paper on it. Hmmm...I think not!
H: So what are you working on?
B: Studying the mitochondria of a pig cell.
H: Yes, you are right. This indeed is very important.
The history student insists that the problem with some science students is that they don't understand sarcasm!
I have been told that I have begun writing exceptionally boring posts. So some damage control needs to be done to retain viewership (yea, right!). Now, I have sort of vowed or well, am making attempts to stay out of personal territory. That effectively means that I have very little to talk about. So in this post I will let a very learned person do the talking for me.
I will be his note taker...and here are some of those notes.!
Concepts of philosophy
There is problem with philosophy, especially political philosophy. It has the ability to turn familiar things into strange things. It doesn't provide us any new information but (only confuses us and) makes us think about the existing knowledge. It confronts a fact that we already know.
This post discusses about Murder. What sort of act could be termed as murder? Which act can be termed as criminal and which is done as a means of necessity? Does your being a spectator or participant change the way a situation can be viewed?
This post is interesting (hopefully) because here I am writing about a case study which is unique in it self. It is a 19th century British Law case : Queen v. Dudley
This dates back to the year 1884. Four people set sail on a ship called "The Mignonette", Thomas Dudley as captain, Edwin Stephens as mate, Edmund Brooks as able seaman, and a seventeen old boy, Richard Parker, as ordinary seaman. After a few weeks, they ran into bad weather and had to abandon Mignonette and saved themselves by getting into a small lifeboat. They (only Dudley) carried with themselves two tins of turnip and sextant, which they finished soon. Left with no water or food, their only hope of survival was if any ship or boat passed by that route and spotted them. On the fourth day after shipwreck, they spotted a dead turtle which was floating and ate it. Occasionally it would rain and they would manage to quench their thrust, but that as said was only...occasional. Out of thirst they started having their own urine and eventually Parker and Stevens started drinking sea water.
On the nineteenth day Dudley proposed a lottery by which one of them would be killed and eaten! However Stevens and Brooks were against that idea. By this time, Parker, the ordinary seaman who had no family back home, was quite unwell. Dudley, in consultation with Stevens then decided to kill Parker so that the three of them could survive. For the next four days, the three fed on Parker's body and drank his blood till a German ship spotted them and brought them back home. Once home, they were charged with murder/cannibalism and that actually surprised Dudley who insisted that he did whatever had to be done in that circumstance. Afterall, even in battlefields soldiers die to save others. Parker was probably going to die anyways, so why not sacrifice him for the other three. What was wrong in killing one to save three? Moreover, Parker didn't have any family back home, so his absence wouldn't be missed as much as theirs.
Now this is where a philosophical debate takes shape.
An economist or a utilitarian like Bentham would state that one must maximise collective happiness measured in terms of utility. In which case, Dudley took the right decision. The question of morality here is consequential, i.e., it depends upon the end result. But there is another school of thought, to which Kant belongs and that talks of the "categorical" form of moral reasoning. This means that morality is located in duties and rights. That there is more to morality than the end result. So, in such a situation,the difference between murder or an act which one would consider necessary is complex and not well defined.
So we see, a simple act which seems right (atleast to the logical mind), stems questions about right or wrong in our mind. Another example to this end would be -
Suppose there were four patients in a room, one of whom was severely injured in an accident and needed immediate care and attention and you were the only doctor around. The other three did not suffer as much injury but needed help too. But, if you attended to one and left the other three, then they'd die. If you attended and took care of the other three, then they would survive for sure but the one man with severe injuries would definately die. In normal circumstances, most of us would say, even if Dudley was wrong because his act was cannibalistic in nature, the doctor would be right in saving the lives of three people at the cost of one. But who is to decide that the collective utility from three lives is more than that of the life of one person? Who decides the worth...just numbers?
Dudley and the other two were released from prison after six months but their life was never the same. Dudley was haunted by the entire incident and started taking huge amounts of opium to relieve himself and later died of plague. Stephens did odd jobs and overtime became mad. Let us not get into the issue about why they were haunted by the incident when they had returned home and claimed that there was nothing wrong in their act. Instead dwell on this thought - if numbers are the measure of happiness and one would think that saving three lives is better than one, then what sort of utility/gain are we talking about here?
Now, suppose Dudley had asked for Parker's consent before killing him and suppose Parker, in his half-conscious, delusional state had given him his consent, would that be murder then? Would that be morally correct?
What is murder? An attempt to save one life by sacrificing another to achieve what we think is greater good or greater utility...can that be exempt from the definition of murder? Why would some people think that Dudley murdered the young boy but the doctor didn't do so by taking a call to not save one life?
What is morally correct? How and why does that definition change with every situation?
Philosophy, I guess confronts reality in a way that makes us question it.
p.s- Tushi you had better leave a comment now or you'd see me in your nightmare, singing "Dil Ke Armaan..."...and yes, in a very nasal voice! Or I'd be Dudley and you'd be Parker (don't worry, I won't have any nightmares about you haunting me) !!!
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Dekhna hai zor kitna baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
Aye watan, Karta nahin kyun doosraa kuch baat-cheet
Dekhta hun main jise woh chup teri mehfil mein hai
Aye shaheed-e-mulk-o-millat main tere oopar nisaar
Ab teri himmat ka charcha gair ki mehfil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Waqt aanay dey bata denge tujhe aye aasman
Hum abhi se kya batayen kya hamare dil mein hai
Kheench kar layee hai sab ko qatl hone ki ummeed
Aashiqon ka aaj jumghat koocha-e-qaatil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Hai liye hathiyaar dushman taak mein baitha udhar
Aur hum taiyyaar hain seena liye apna idhar
Khoon se khelenge holi agar vatan muskhil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Haath jin mein ho junoon katt te nahi talvaar se
Sar jo uth jaate hain voh jhukte nahi lalkaar se
Aur bhadkega jo shola-sa humaare dil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Hum to ghar se nikle hi the baandhkar sar pe kafan
Jaan hatheli par liye lo barh chale hain ye qadam
Zindagi to apni mehmaan maut ki mehfil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Yuun khadaa maqtal mein qaatil kah rahaa hai baar baar'
Kya tamannaa-e-shahaadat bhi kisee ke dil mein hai
Dil mein tuufaanon ki toli aur nason mein inqilaab
Hosh dushman ke udaa denge humein roko na aaj
Duur reh paaye jo humse dam kahaan manzil mein hai
Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai
Wo jism bhi kya jism hai jismein na ho khoon-e-junoon
Toofaanon se kya lade jo kashti-e-saahil mein hai
Chup khade hain aaj saare bhai mere khaamosh hain
Na karo to kuch kaho mazhab mera mushkil mein hai
Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
~ JawaharLal Nehru
Happy Republic Day to all.
Tomorrow will be the sixty second Republic Day for India.
It has been 63 years since we got freedom from British rule, freedom for both India and Pakistan. Independence from the 350 year old British presence in the Indian subcontinent. Independence that everyone had fought for and cherished for a long time. But with independence came division. The Indian Union was divided on the basis of religion, into a secular India(with a Hindu majority) and Pakistan which was formed keeping in mind the Indian Muslims. The moment of glory and joy was soon overtaken by moments of pain and horror. Independence however desirable and dearly fought for, was tainted with blood of millions of innocent people. The price of it was enormous and losses too huge to recover, even after decades. Memories remain...
The partition of India (Indian Union) beyond doubt is one of the greatest tragedies in the recent history of the world. India’s independence was inevitable and certain but not the partition. The unity could have been preserved if it had not been for political motives and miscalculations, personal aspirations and British policies.
Even though Muhammed Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League are chiefly blamed for the partition, the Congress (and Hindu leaders) cannot escape blame either. For instance political leaders like Savarkar (of Sangh Parivar) spoke of the two nation theory in 1923, much before Jinnah came up with it. In fact even Lala Lajpath Rai thought of a scheme under which Muslims would have the four main states of North-west frontier, Western Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal. He was clear in the theory of a Muslim and a non-Muslim India. This happened in 1924, much before the Pakistan Resolution in Lahore. Jinnah initially didn’t want a separate state, as is often described and believed. He wanted a form of federation which would be equipoise. By that he meant a territorial adjustment of votes which would give a Hindu-Muslim balance and this was to be attained by a weightage of votes or seats. But when the Viceroy suspended the idea of a federation, Jinnah for the first time started talking about a two nation independence theory but that was more of a tactical move which he thought would help him later on. According to him a common coordinating agency(1) would be required for providing adequate safeguards for minorities whereby an organic relationship was to be achieved by sharing control at the centre in terms of perfect equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Now, this is where opinions start forming and interpretations differ. While India blames Jinnah for the partition (by coming up with the idea and showing little flexibility) and hence the riots and massacre, Pakistan looks at him as the Father of their nation who has helped them provide security. The truth is both Jinnah and Nehru used popular sentiments to achieve political gains. They both had strong political aspirations. A share in central power might have threatened Nehru’s position considerably. Hence he rejected Jinnah’s proposal.
A complete bloodbath occurred in village after village2. The country went into an anarchy. In fact it isn't just the bloodbath or massacre but the independence shattered the economy too. For instance jute was grown in East Bengal and mills were in West Bengal, which shipped them abroad.People were out of jobs, homeless and hungry. And to add to that a riot
A sense of helplessness. The Calcutta -Noakhali and Lahore-Amritsar riots totally shook the newly formed nations. Had it not been for Gandhi, lord knows when the riots would have stopped. Gandhi was the only one who opposed the division vehemently and left active politics due to that. He probably envisaged this disaster, something Jinnah or Nehru couldn't have imagined.
In fact on the western front, in a Sikh camp it is documented that the male members killed the female members (beginning with younger women) of their family themselves by stifling them or putting kerosene on them after being surrounded by Muslims and realising that there was no way out. A child recalls that in the camp everywhere around him, he saw people dying or dead people and his mother saved his life by hiding him beneath his father's dead body. Communal riots seemed to take away the very sense of happiness and glory that the independence sought to achieve. Before this India had not seen such a mass participation in mass murders
One reason for the chaos is the hurried withdrawal of the British state (after the Labour party came into power) which could not afford an extended empire, especially one which was getting too rebellious.
Interestingly although Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947, the border between the two new states was not announced until 17 August. Cyril Radcliffe who had little knowledge of the Indian terrain and conditions drew it in a hurry using out-of-date maps and census material. Hence despite the fact that riots took place, British do not take the blame for it since they demarcated the boundaries much later. After the boundaries were announced , people moved out of their homes and crossed over believing that they could no longer live in peace with each other. This meant thousands of people leaving their homes and travelling barefoot, carrying almost nothing and reaching camps which were already over-filled. And it meant "ghost trains ". The wounds of 1947 ( and the riots before and later) have still not healed for some people and the two nations are still trying to cope with the history.
This post doesn't have much to do with the Republic Day but is written to look back into history...a history that two neighboring countries share. It is significant because the welfare of one country affects the other directly and hence it is in our best interest to live amicably. The past cannot be changed but the present could be made more peaceful and future more beautiful. With growing tension between countries, for whatever reasons, it becomes imperative to make a substantial effort.
As for 1947, I would think that it is time to bury the hatchet now and look at the possibility of a bright future!
~~~
#1 A subtle creation of alienation by mistrusting welfare of one population on the other. In some pockets Muslims felt a bit alienated due to the many notions and opinions the other religions had about them. This feeling was fueled by Jinnah, which ideally should have been taken care of then but no action was taken to that regard. Nothing done to reassure the common man that Muslims were an integral part of India and this was as much their country. However this was not the only instance. The first creation of this feeling of difference on basis of religion was created in 1905 when Bengal was divided into West and East - the famous "Divide and Rule" policy.
#2 A lot of historians claim that the riots were actually started by Muslims in Dec 1946 and Sikhs and Hindus in Bengal retaliated after sustaining a fair amount of casualties, when protecting their own became difficult. So the only way out was to retaliate in the same fashion. So just as lots of Hindu Bengalis were butchered in Noakhali riots, lots of Muslims were murdered in Calcutta riots
Note: Pictures have been taken from the following websites-
(3) Sugar - a little less than half the quantity of grated coconut
(4) 4/5 crushed green cardamom seeds/ cardamom powder.
Put the milk on low flame and keep stirring till it reduces to half its original quantity. After this add the freshly grated coconut in it and keep stirring continuously. Need to be cautious since the mixture has the tendency to get burnt at the bottom if not stirred continuously. Since coconut releases a lot of oil anyways, there is no need to add any ghee/butter/oil in this preparation.
After 10 minutes add sugar and keep stirring till it turns light brown. Take a bit of this cooked/fried coconut mixture in hand. If it is sticky enough and you can make balls out of it, then it is ready. If not, then the sugar hasn't dissolved yet and you need to keep stirring.
Sometimes, even after constant stirring the mixture doesn't stick and you can't make balls out of it. This happens if you have over heated or kept the mix on the oven for too long. This often happens when the sugar dries up completely. In this case add more milk to the mixture and keep stirring till the mixture becomes sticky.
Finally, make little sweet balls and eat them :-)
Note - The following can also be made using jaggery instead of sugar. Those are a little darker in colour and taste different - a lot more sweeter.
Needless to say it is definately one of the most complex and gruesome murder cases that one has read in the papers in recent times-The Arushi Murder case needs no introduction and it remains unsolved.
Due to lack of evidence, the CBI has decided to close the case. However, the parents of the victim wanted to keep the case open. And now the Law minister M.Veerappa Moily has met the CBI director and discussed the possibility of reopening the case.
Now the irony is- the parents, actually her father, Mr. Rajesh Talwar who wants the case to be opened is the prime suspect! There is no one else that could be linked to this murder. However any man with a little bit of sanity and sensibility would realise that there could be no possible motive for a father to kill his only daughter and that too, in such a gruesome manner. But someone killed her. And CBI claims that all the evidence points at Mr.Talwar and that "technically" he is the only person who could have murdered her. But then, there is no motive!
Even if one were to re-open the case, could they possibly find new suspects now? The law minister has insisted that CBI has carried out its duties and investigations well. So if the case were to re-open, could the CBI do anything which it hasn't done already? But there is crucial evidence which has been overlooked in Arushi Murder case. No, it would be wrong to say that it has been overlooked. The media has got to know about it now. But all the evidence that CBI has gathered cannot help find the killer ...and why? Because there is "no motive"!
My contention is- the likelihood that Mr.Talwar killed his own daughter in such a gruesome manner is hard to digest (though there is a saying that reality is stranger than fiction). But destroying evidence in itself is a crime. There is evidence that Mr.Talwar tried to influence initial investigation. Why would an innocent father want to influence or stand in the way of a proper investigation? An attempt to hide and cover up any facts or evidence is in itself a crime!
“Joy in looking and comprehending is nature’s most beautiful gift.” ~ Albert Einstein
Gurudongmarg Lake, North Sikkim, 2010
Since, my mild obsession with photography has only just begun, this post is about a few thoughts of a newbie.
“Photography is a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything.” ~ Aaron Siskind
I am not a well travelled person, atleast I haven’t travelled as much as I would have wanted to. I would say that I like adventure- but since there is so little of it in my real life, I try to look for it in travel plans and photographs. Photographs have the ability to capture a moment, hold it still and change life altogether.
I have been to a few nice places and my most memorable trip has been to Sikkim. Despite the fact that my second trip to that state wasn’t an out of the world experience, I did manage to go to one of the highest fresh water lakes in India (& world).
Everything in nature is beautiful, even if it is ugly or scary by our standards …there is still a lot of beauty in it. But there is a difference between “everything” in nature and “somethings” in nature. Gurudongmar Lake is one of those “somethings” !
“Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer – and often the supreme disappointment.” ~ Ansel Adams
Everybody who sees the snaps I have taken of Gurudongmar Lake says that they are beautiful. They genuinely are. And some of them automatically assume that I have become a good photographer. The thought is- anyone and I mean anyone, with even an old point and shoot camera would get beautiful shots at a place like this. You don’t need a good camera to get good pictures. You don’t need to be a photographer to get those shots. Such is the beauty of these places!!! The trick then is to be in those places :-) .
(I don’t actually mean all this – not discrediting all those who carry DSLRs…I am sure their snaps are of better quality. But “this lake”…well, I have compared my brother’s to mine and mine aren’t that bad. Even he tells me that!)
Yes, Adams is right to some extent…in a moving vehicle it is difficult to get a good shot, unless you have a good camera and are good at your work. There are places, where to capture a moment you need a lot of patience, experience and skill. But mostly, a snap of a beautiful lake or flower would appear similar when taken by any regular digital camera…not much skill there. Skill though is in the recognition and the worth of the moment.
“In nature, nothing is perfect and everything is perfect. Trees can be contorted, bent in weird ways, and they’re still beautiful.” ~ Alice Walker
Most good macro shots depend on the camera used and come out really well if your are at the right moment, at the right place. The black and white snaps are good for portraits, definately not for nature. There is nothing as ugly as taking all colour out of trees, flowers, rivers , mountains and animals. When your subjects start telling a story, at that time you know you are doing well.
Good photography requires a lot of things, none of which I presently possess. I have yet to learn the framework within which I could be creative. I have a camera which only requires me to think about modes, lighting, size, space and very basic things. I don’t have a manual mode and so can exercise little creativity. But one has to begin from the beginning…right? The only thing that I do have is – interest in learning and practicing whatever I learn. I just take photographs…rarely, am I proud of a snap that I take. But I love all of them. One would think that you would have to go to beautiful places to come out with good shots. But then the credit of those shots is pretty much nature! One needs to think, practice and be on the look out for special moments. And then, as one gets better…get a better camera too.
By that I do not mean that I believe in leftist ideology or am an active member of the left parties. By that I only mean that I have figured out a new way of remembering “bahine” and “dahine”, which is “left” and “right” when translated into English.
And I realized that the best way to remember that “bahine” is left is by remembering, “bampanthi” which means leftist (who are always in news, sometimes for ridiculous reasons).
It is strange, sometimes I forget to remember things without any effort at all, and especially the ones I think are of no particular significance. I guess it is the same with everybody- I forget telephone numbers, birthdays, any dates and sometimes people too if I think that they are dispensable in my life. I mean one doesn’t want to carry extra baggage around. I remember a girl who used to be a good friend of mine at one point of time. We used to spend a lot of time together in school and I haven’t spoken to her in years after a particular incident. Initially it was a conscious decision and now she only occurs in my mind when I think of how easy it is to forget!
“I refuse as I age to deny my years. When asked at 30, I’ll be 30. When the question comes up at 45, I’ll take 45. For what year could I subtract? The one in which my son or daughter was born? Or the year I first fell in love? How about one less favorable? Like the year I came down with pneumonia. Or one of those grief-filled years spent saying good-by to someone close? No, I think I’ll keep them all, the good years, the bad and even the not so memorable.”
~ Sheila B. Cabrera
I read this when I was 15 years old. Somehow, I remembered it through all these years. Maybe because it is true...for everybody.
Sooji ka Halwa or in Bangla Sooji r Halua - A simple and quick something for those with a sweet tooth :-)
Ingredients:
(1) Sooji or Semolina - 1 cup
(2) Sugar - 3/4 of a cup or as per taste
(3) Bay leaves - 2
(4) Ghee - 2 tsp
(5) Vegetable oil - 3 tsp
(6) Raisins -15
(7) Sliced almonds or Cashew nuts
(8) Water
The procedure
Heat oil in a pan. In general Halwa is prepared in ghee but if health doesn’t permit the use of ghee then either use vegetable oil or a mix of both. In total it should be – 4 to 5 tsp of ghee/oil/mix of two.
Add the bay leaves till crackling followed by Sooji.
Fry till light brown.
Keep stirring continuously on medium or low flame, so that the sooji is uniformly brown in colour and doesn’t get burnt.
When the color turns dark brown (as in picture), add sugar and water followed by raisins and chopped almonds/cashew.
Keep stirring continuously to avoid any lumps, till the sugar gets dissolved.
Tomar ghore bash kore kara
O mon jano na,
Tomar ghore boshot kore koy jona,
Mon jano na...
Tomar ghore boshot kore koy jona
Ek jonay chhobi aake ek mone,
O re mon
Arek jonay boshe boshe rong makhe
O abar sei chhobikhan noshto kore
Kon jona,kon jona...
Tomar ghore boshot kore koy jona
Ek jonay sur tole ek tare,
O mon, arek jonay mondirate taal tole
O abar be suro sur dhore dekho
Kon jona, kon jona...
Tomar ghore boshot kore koy jona
Rosh khaiya hoiya matal, oi dekho
Hath foshke jay ghorar lagam
Sei lagam khana dhore dekho
Kon jona, kon jona...
Tomar ghore boshot kore koy jona
