How Could Markandey Katju Be So Wrong About Gay Relationships and Gay Marriages?

[Updated below]

Markandey Katju is a man who has passed a number of path-breaking judgments during his time as a judge in Supreme Court of India. Looking at his past record, he has firmly stood on the side of human rights. Moreover, he is the chairman of Press Council of India currently. Hence I find it highly unusual that my comment was deleted from one of his recent posts on Facebook.

Post 1

Let us delve into the illogical argument of that post first.

The post was titled “Gay Relationships and Gay Marriages” and uses the thoroughly discredited, non-scientific theory of “Life Force” by George Bernard Shaw. This theory rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution and rejects the traditional God of our religions too; instead it says that there exists a life force that gives a direction to evolution (which is against Darwin’s theory by the way) towards the human ideal of Übermensch (often translated to superman in English – different from the superhero who goes by the same name). It was an idea propounded by Nietzsche, a highly celebrated philosopher of 20th century; Shaw’s contribution was that his “life force” leads to Nietzsche’s übermensch, as suggested by the title of the play “Man and Superman”.

Shaw, then goes on to say that this life force manifests itself as the will and intuition of women rather than men. The reason provided is that a woman bears a child and thus life force gives her the ability to decide who the best father for her child will be. This single child is just an intermediary human in a long series of steps ultimately leading to übermensch. In short, life force is nothing but a directionful evolution; the direction is led on by the womankind. This concept implicitly asks us to let women handle her life herself, a highly commendable idea. But ultimately, life force as an idea has been shredded to pieces by science and Darwin’s theory of directionless evolution is the one that science places its bets on.

I am sorry to say that Mr. Katju was swayed by a fabricated, beautiful concept and I am not surprised that the non-scientific idea – which gives power to women – had its influence on Katju’s humanitarian way of thinking. But he makes the mistake that people often make – of confusing wishful thinking with cold, hard facts. And which leads him to believe that life force is for real.

He says in that post:

Hence, according to Shaw, it is not men who pursue women, but women who pursue men. It is the Life Force which drives women to pursue and catch a mate, who will then look after her while she is performing nature’s serious and vital function of continuing the species. Women who remain single are prone to have psychological problems.

[…] Nowadays there is a lot of talk of gay relationships and gay marriages. To my mind it is all humbug.and nonsense. Will a gay relationship or gay marriage serve nature’s requirement of continuing the species ? No, it is only sex between a man and a woman which will give birth to a child, not sex between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman.”

(Emphasis mine)

Since we know that ‘Life Force’ as a concept is not true, his whole argument of being against homosexuality, which relied on the life force, collapses. (To be truthful, not everything Katju says in this post relies on it; a minor part of it also relies on the fiction of a Hollywood movie ‘Fatal Attraction’ which I just treat as an in-joke on Katju’s part and which, I admit, made me chuckle for a good thirty seconds.)

Katju is evidently a learned man, enough to read Shaw who was an iconic playwright of his times – yes a playwright, who writes plays, and not a scientist, who collects data and analyzes it for thoroughness. (Darwin was a scientist.) Thus, I ask Mr. Katju what he could possibly mean by the word ‘natural’. I, to my knowledge, know that every species makes its mark on its surroundings, but humans have, through sheer willpower, ability to change entire ecosystems. Therefore, ‘natural’ as a term is distinguished from ‘man-made’ i.e. a natural object exists even if humans had not come into the world. And we have seen that homosexuality is found in mammals, birds and even insects. If this is not natural, then I do not know what is. As someone rightly pointed out, homosexuality is observed in 450+ species but homophobia in only one: Homo sapiens.

This was the background with which I made the following comment on his post. You can no longer find it there because the chairman of Press Council of India deleted it (thank a friend who warned that his comment was deleted too, prompting me to save a local copy):

Marriage that we recognize today is not some conscious game of incentivising reproduction, no sir. It is just an approximation of what already existing social structure was. Thus are borne the ideas of family, marriage etc. But law frequently breaks away from societal structures too: we treat a girl to belong to a different family in Hindu society but she still retains hereditary rights under Hindu Succession Act upon property of her deceased parents. Thus, we broke away from tradition to grant women same rights as men. I fail to understand why we cannot do it now. If society has changed to accommodate same-sex couples, why can law not recognize it? Childless couples are extended medical facilities of IVF and surrogacy; why can lesbian and gay couples not do the same? Human species continues to grow, which you trumpet will diminish upon legalizing gay marriage. (It is curious, in fact, you never explicitly say you are against gay marriage, despite proclaiming in your title that this is what your piece is about; you instead hide behind pseudo-theories of a non-scientist.) In fact, homosexuality in humans has been documented even in old texts. Thus, we are forced to conclude that nature produces both homosexuals and hetrosexuals in humans and still we are able to grow exponentially. Growth in human population has not ever been affected by homosexuality till now; it is delirious to start believing that it would in future. (As you might have noticed, being homosexual does not mean a person is not able to reproduce. A gay and a lesbian can still produce a baby, don’t you worry.) Please read some elementary books of biology, psychology and logic rather than fairytales by George Bernard Shaw.

It draws parallels between society and laws based on it, which he knows more than me of course. If anything, I expected him to engage me on that point. But he found it more prudent to just delete the comment; I am still trying to know what his intention might have been. I would like to know what it was that stuck out so sorely for him in that. (I am trying to imagine a former judge of the esteemed Supreme Court of India deleting my comment over petty disagreement.)

After all, it is not a complete argument as neither his own post is. My comment is backed by solid data as well as conclusions which I can furnish for anyone interested. It was a Facebook comment, and the platform is not ideal to write a lengthy post with bullets, emphasis, quotations, sub-headings etc. like I have used in this very post. Was the lack of formatting so egregious that he decided to not only delete my comment, but also ban me from posting any other comment on his Facebook page? This when he is simultaneously defending PK the movie against sanctions by religious groups.

Post 2

It is a short post and I include it verbatim:

In my post ‘ Gay relationship and Gay Marriages ‘ I had expressed my views on the subject But I was sorry to note the reaction. There was a barrage of hostile comments, some almost abusive, some calling me mad, some calling me a homophobe, others calling me an idiot.. Am I not even entitled to express my views ? It appears that the answer is no, and if one dares to do so, a torrent of invective, abuses and curses is bound to follow. “It seems that if a man ‘ marries ‘ another man , or a woman another woman ( whatever that may mean ), it is being modern, but if a man marries a woman that is being backward and retrogressive ! “This is an interesting new definition of modernism !

Hmm. I start to see how an old man might be frustrated with a flurry of comments targeting him unnecessarily. He has forever stood for human rights so he might be confused why people are shooting him down for being a homophobe or a mad man or an idiot. I have my sympathies with him for being targeted so.

But I am also puzzled by his line: “Am I not even entitled to express my views ?” He, a former judge of India, must believe in freedom of speech as something very fundamental and during the course of his career, it must have been one of his guiding principles. He also must have had very provoking and engaging arguments on a vast variety of subjects – as controversial as Pakistan’s standing as a separate nation – but they must have always been polite and grounded in firm facts.

But the same chairman of Press Council of India decided to delete my comment which was as far away from irrationality as it could. I tackled him on facts. The last line is what might have enraged him possibly but I thought he liked wit, since he is the same man who posts the following about his former colleagues in SC:

When I was in the Supreme Court, there was a Judge there who was originally from Bihar, and another from Orissa. The former used to often say to the latter : ” Ever since we Biharis gave you Oriyas a thrashing in the battle of Kalinga you have never forgiven us “

Apparently not.

Remember that mine is not the only post that is being deleted. Hundreds of comments must have been deleted and I do not know how to trust the comment section there. It is in extreme poor taste, Mr. Katju, and fundamentally against the nature of modern social networks. If you post on Facebook, know thy neighbours. People here are not used to censorship, alas.

Post 3

By the third post, we see him returning to his familiar ground of “logic”. He says, and it is a short post again:

I never realized the ruckus my article ‘ Gay Relationshipa and Gay Marriages ‘ would create. It seems that the Gay organizations all over the world have been incensed, and have taken umbrage A correspondent of the Huffington Post, an American online agency, telephoned me and asked me whether I had any statistics in support of my statement that single women have psychological problems. I replied that I had not said that single women have psychological problems. I had said that they would be prone to have such problems. In other words, it is not certain that they would have psychological problems, there is only a likelihood. And this is because after reaching a certain age it is the natural desire of most women to have a family, which means a husband and children. Does this require proof and statistics ? Is there nothing called common sense ?

(As per the story goes, my sister made me read this post to her once more because she could not comprehend that a Supreme Court justice could say so and tried to find a loophole that I might have missed. She had a deep, hearty laugh both of the times.)

He seems to think that he can say anything if he says something is “prone” to anything. Sorry to say Mr. Katju but scientists call it correlation. My readers might not know (I cannot insinuate the learned man Katju for not knowing this) that correlation is an utterly scientific concept. If we were to find correlation between women and psychological problems, say, we can do it in a lot of ways. We can check how many women are single and how many of them are married in the registers of hospitals for psychological problems and compare them with their ratio in actual population. Or we can do the same procedure for different common psychological problems, do it for women of differing ages, nationalities etc.

Or another procedure might be that we devise an objective test that decides whether a person has a psychological problem or not. And than apply it on both single and married women, controlling all other variables, and see how they fare against each other. We can do this procedure multiple times and verify whether the results are consistent or not. We can repeat the experiment at different points of time, say every six months and see how the results change over time. We can do it at different places to see how women of different populations are affected by it.

Of course, Katju knows all this. I just very humbly ask him for his sources as did the correspondent from Huffington Post so that we all can benefit from his knowledge. Alas, he refuses point blank saying this is just “common sense”. I beg to differ. Common sense is very subjective, and different common senses’ dictate how women are treated in different countries. I did not know that Supreme Court of India put aside the Constitution of India and used common sense in its judgments.

Post 4

This is the most interesting in his series of posts. He gives a recollection of a phone call which might have looked good in a future memoir by him but does not reflect the intelligence that he possesses while articulating his position against homosexual relationships. This is his argument:

Step no. 1 Is it, or is it not, correct that there is a law of nature that while individuals may die,the species must continue ?

Actually, it is false. Darwin’s theory of selection has said time and again that nature selects only those inhabitants who are able to survive their environment. For example, dinosaurs – large and powerful – once ruled the earth but they got extinct in the ice age; it was the smallish birds and mammals who survived living in small caves and crannies. Dinosaurs couldn’t adapt to genealogical changes and died. Nature did not shed its tears; after all, ice and mountains and earthquakes are a part of nature too.

Thus, we do not need to go on to the rest of his argument. He is proved false…

That was a damn squib though. We did not even get to hear the rest of his argument! So, I humour him along and assume this is true just for entertainment’s sake.

Step no. 2 Is it,or is it not, correct that in fulfilling this law of nature the main role is that of the woman, because it is she who has to conceive the child, bear it in her body for 9 months, then give birth to it, and later rear it ( though in this last function the husband also plays a role ) ?

Nope. This is a very human-centric view of laws of nature. Laws of nature should be general enough to survive even without humans’ existence. To give a minor example, many species have external reproduction like frogs outside the body of female and many of them do not particularly care for their offspring. There also exist species where only paternal care is provided among parents.

Let us humour him again, and believe that what he meant was laws of nature concerning humans. Then, I will concede that it is largely true, since he too concedes that men have a role in caring for children.

Step no. 3 Since it is the woman.who plays the main role in continuing the species, does it not logically follow from step no. 2 that, leaving aside exceptions, every woman has a strong urge to have a child ? As regards surrogate children, this may be because the woman may have some medical problem of retaining the foetus in her womb after it is conceived. And if she cannot have a child despite medical treatment she can always adopt a child. My friend had some doubts about this third step, saying that some women do not want children, but when I pointed out that the third step logically flowed from the second, and that women who do not want to have children are rare exceptions, he had to agree.

This too is okay. Though, I would like to draw the attention to his statement saying that exceptions do exist. Women not wanting children are okay, but women wanting children but wanting to live with other women are not. He seems to differentiate even among the exceptions.

Step no. 4 To have a child, a woman has to be impregnated by a man. Surely a woman cannot impregnate another woman. Of course a woman may be artificially inseminated, but is that the normal way ? I have spoken to several women, and they agree that they would not want artificial insemination but in the natural way.

Ok, we will like to move on.

Step no. 5 It follows that gay relationships are unnatural

Q.E.D.

Wait, wait, wait… this is a judge of Supreme Court, a learned man in logic. He does not even bother to write down what made him think that the requirement of both a man and a woman being needed for procreation implied that gay relationships are unnatural. We have carefully drank every word of his without spilling even one, but we do not know how he defines being natural. I am forced to interpret that a natural thing involves procreation. So are mountains not natural?

Maybe he meant it in context of living things. But then what does he have to say about black swans: about a quarter of all pairs are of homosexual males and they form temporary threesomes with other females or steal eggs in order to gain children to raise. Furthermore, their cygnets are able to survive with better probability than heterosexual pairs. Reason might be that they are better able to defend their nests; in any case, homosexuality seems to advance their species better.

Moreover, if anything that cannot continue species is a marker of unnatural, there are infertile women who should not be able to marry according this logic. Yet they are allowed to. In fact, they are given the options of IVF and surrogacy to gain children. Just like the homosexual black swans got their children to raise. If one can make an argument out of it, it should be that the intent to raise children should be a relatively better criterion for ‘natural’ relationships.

That still rejects the heterosexual couples who do not want kids at all. They even go by a handy acronym “DINK“: double income, no kids. These childless couples not wanting children are allowed to marry. There is no affidavit or other kind of legal document that binds them to have children after they marry. In fact, having children is not a condition for a relationship at all: all you need is to be an adult and a willing opposite sex partner as of today. And that is the whole point really.

Heterosexuals, or in common parlance straight, couples are not interrogated by law whether they are able to raise children (society is another matter). But law suddenly becomes very concerned about continuation of species when it comes to homosexual couples. The fact that homosexuality is present in other species and the fact that those species are able to survive implies that homosexuality has no bearing on continuation of species. The ratios of straight to gay individuals differ but remain stable for all species. Homosexuality in humans is not more than 10% by the most optimistic of surveys. Therefore, even if only 100 humans survive in future (out of the 7+ billion today and growing) there still will be at least 90 of them who will be straight and willing to copulate with the opposite sex. Also, if by a matter of chance, all of them were homosexuals but some were gays and some were lesbians, they still would have working reproductive systems. They will still be able to continue the species. And there is a good probability that they will copulate willingly because we have seen that maternal urge is as strong in homosexuals as in heterosexuals. There can even be a law that forces each homosexual to have at least one baby if population becomes too small; desperate times will call for desperate measures but Homo sapiens will be able to survive.

We can give our thought experiments a rest though as all this planning and plotting is for moot since the all powerful Darwin’s theory is not bothered by whether legal status is accorded to homosexuals or not just as it is not bothered by mass killings of one religion. We humans still do what we feel is right in the latter case based on human empathy; are we not able to do the same in the former?

If you are not able to invoke your empathy for homosexuals, know that gay teenagers have a universally steep suicide rates compared to straight teenagers (e.g. about 30 to 40% LGBT youth have attempted suicide in their lifetime). Many force themselves to be straight but they cannot control their natural urges and there is a constant cognitive dissonance about the lives they project outside and the lives they lead underground. The fact that the sex they have is underground, there is not much choice they have regarding who they choose as sexual partner: this leads to MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) community to have a very high rate of AIDS (4.43%) compared to normal population (0.35%). These are just statistics because this post tends to appeal to our rational side. But we have emotions too and I cannot stand the suffering of a fellow human because he or she is subjected to mental torture because of something that he or she was born with. It is like torturing someone for being left-handed or having blonde hair or having black skin.

I appeal to your emotions because this is ultimately what it is all comes down to: emotions and feeling of a helpless gay man when he is being forced to commit suicide for something as natural as wanting to have sex with a willing partner. Or a girl being denied a possibility of lifelong commitment with another girl because society stamps it as unnatural. A quote by Desmond Tutu has always stayed with me and I want to share with you at the end of this mammoth post:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”


Update [30-12-2014, 0108 Hours]:-

Katju has had a change of heart recently and has unbanned everybody who commented on his posts regarding gay relationships. A dear friend has suggested me to tone the post down accordingly. But I have decided not to. Though, he has gained much of what he lost in my eyes, I cannot forget the feeling of anguish that I felt back during the time of writing this piece. And thus it remains honest to what I felt. He is behaving how an SC judge should carry himself, I am no longer bitter and Delhi is still cold. It is life as usual again.

Advertisements
Published in: on 29 Dec '14 at 9 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

I just finished playing C…

This is a test. I am using Win8 beta. So I thought I would be good to try its features. And Cut the Rope is really fun. :D

Published in: on 7 Mar '12 at 5 pm  Leave a Comment  

Finding a Jug to Pour my Heart into

Loneliness can be a deceptive thing. It can bite you when you are home alone for hours; it can kick you when you are in metro; or it can hit you suddenly when you are sitting in a big fat wedding and you realise you would rather be home alone for hours. But when it happens, it is a strange strangling feeling. Sadness makes you cry and laughter makes you sad. But you suddenly long for a company, a company which can be the perfect audience to the bizarre drama unfolding inside you.

When something like this happens it makes me see myself sitting on the periphery of a big bang party. At the centre, you can see merry people are singing and merry people are dancing. No one realises you are sitting in the corner looking at them. But you notice other people around you. Reasons maybe myriad but one thing is common to all – the darkness.

I have been denied what others take for granted – the light. But the absence of it has ignited a sympathy for have-nots. Just hope bright flashy lights don’t blind me of the unfortunate reality I have seen with my naked eyes.

Published in: on 1 Aug '11 at 1 am  Leave a Comment  

Silent Treatment, Day 1

Ever since I read the Emily Yoffe’s article, I always wanted to try an experimental vow of silence – the “maun vrat”. But just like my every other plan, this too came unplanned. I just saw Abhineet off (who, by the way, seemed to be okay, but I believe in the depths of insider stories rather than ripples of surface courtesy) and was coming back from Madhuban Chowk when I suddenly, inexplicably realised –  the moment had come.

I had always imagined it to be a surreal experience. We people are so used to broadcast ourselves that we have stopped to actually listen to people around us. They have reduced to mere springboards for our own echo. And I didn’t want any of it – I wanted be like a cool, calm, hip Buddha under the tree. So, I thought I’ll be this sponge which will absorb all the knowledge, good or bad, without my own bias filtering through.

But I guess dreams should remain dreams. Ironically and as a separate concern, I had all kinds of (actual) scary dreams even before I could witness the first sun of my “silent” week. In all of them, I was in various places, mostly with Megha and laughing with her how the idea was stupid and how I had broken my vow. Mind you, it was just 4 hours since I tied my tongue.

When I woke up to realise they were silly, funny dreams, I laughed (silently). But then to my utter horror, I realised a bigger truth, that my sub-conscious didn’t believe in me to just shut up. And I have to concede, that part of my brain knows me well enough.

It is very difficult not to talk. You may think to see is far more important but trust me when I tell you one just can’t live without a voice. Even when people don’t have audible voice – they develop a gesture based language; when they can’t be seen, they develop a written language. It is a basic need for humans to communicate. I learned it the hard way.

I was sitting with Mummy in the morning when she was talking about random things. But I couldn’t get myself interested because I was feeling no better than a piece of furniture. And I couldn’t even communicate how her talk was only infuriating rather than exciting me; she blissfully unaware of the turmoil inside me briefed me about the recent Ramdev saga and tabla. I had to finally type her a message (Rulebreak#1). She read, laughed and went on about her business. As she was going out, Surbhi called. I handed the call to Mummy and explained to her in sign language that I couldn’t talk due to Maun Vrat. She passed on the message to Surbhi on the line. When I met Surbhi downstairs, I handed her the things she needed and when finally parting, I had to gesture so that she could know Mummy was not joking. Her eyes went big in surprise and she went away laughing. I came back.

After Mummy and Papa had gone to office I was alone. For the next 7 hours, I was simply feeding myself with recent MS news and Joss. In-between I forgot my silent vow. I instructed Nancy to not irritate me (Rulebreak#2). And then Vishu came to give some prasad from their recent visit. I started chatting (!) and laughing with her, when I just hushed myself (Rulebreak#3). I gestured so she could know I couldn’t speak. I decided to be more careful.

But I had no reason to be. Until about 7 pm, I had no contact whatsoever with the outside world. But then came Mummy and I was doing well when Megha’s SOS message came to fetch her from bus stop. I  asked Mummy, amid the hurry to rush out, to give Rs 100 (Rulebreak#4). In my defense, it was better this time around. I had caught myself mid-sentence. Getting better!

When I reached bus stop Megha was not there. Wow. When a hero goes to the rescue  of a damsel-in-distress who in turn keeps him waiting, disappointment is not the only feeling possible, anger is also imminent. I was burning and imagining all kinds of retorts when after about five minutes I spotted Megha. She was beaming at me and updated me on how her exams went (she has got a surefire bach, by the way). Since she was expecting no kind of feedback she told me about many general things on the way back home. In no time, my anger ebbed away and I was genuinely interested in her ramblings (This served an important lesson to me – the first one from this experiment –  but I’ll serve the results of my experiences as a sum total at the end of the week alongwith many others over the period).

It was on the mobile recharge shop that things got interesting. I had to somehow tell Megha that I wanted a 49 Voda message card without actually telling. But I relaxed the rules for the moment and tried to play sign language with her until she made me type ‘49’ on the cell. And when he asked for my phone number, I fumbled for my cell as I couldn’t tell him my number. He showed sympathy and offered calculator to type in my number. But he remained professional like nothing odd was going on. Nice!

Well, I came home and was helping Mummy with some chores in the kitchen. When she asked me how many chapatis I wanted for dinner, I was already feeling quite guilty and reckless for my behaviour since the afternoon. Thus I simply gestured I don’t know. But she needed a clear number and (rightfully) was irate that I was selfish enough to ask for money just minutes earlier but couldn’t blurt a single letter now. When Megha came to me for my bit on this infuriating oddity of mine, I explained how I beamed a sign of two, but Mummy must have missed it (my gesture for her was a combination of a surprise and a two made by fingers; don’t underestimate the power of sign language). It was enough to cool people down, but the murky details lie with me which I have confessed here so you can see how difficult it is to play by the rules when you are the one who makes them. You just don’t know whether to relax them and when. Anything can go wrong. And thus I made them clearer – no talking, no lipsing, no texting, no communication except rudimentary gestures.

Everyone was settling in their beds by now, and I spent another 2-3 hours searching for more MS news (Xbox just got a Metro update. Yay!). And just now, I was trying to explain to Papa how Nancy found sitting on my bed doesn’t equate my explicit permission but only passive ignorance. I committed a grave mistake in the process, unfortunately (Rulebreak#5).

The pattern here is I’m more prone to my forgetfulness after prolonged periods of being alone. Have to be careful tomorrow!

Published in: on 7 Jun '11 at 2 pm  Comments (2)  

Retrospection is funny!

I always like this vague idea of keeping my audience so interested, they will be coming back for more. And only once in my life this was coming out to be true. But I am the destructor of my own fortune (the more people are close to me, greater is the probability they have told me this, at least once).

Actually I saw my post, *DiNG*. I thought it would be a summary of my life. But it was a one post wonder, wonder in the sense I do wonder – whenever I see that post I wonder what I was thinking when I wrote it. But then I finally nailed today what my initial motto was – it was just to be a open journal of sort. And ironically, it is. A blank piece of paper lying around like a step child which no one cares about, whether it cries or hoots. Just like my future. Nothing is written in stone, clay or sand. Heck, I don’t even try to write my future in water. I just can’t follow a deadline. Forget about creating one.

Another motivation for this fault-finding mission is a just concluded (an hour ago) phone call with my friend. She asked me what backtracking meant in the shortest path algo. Don’t bother with details, it’s just that tomorrow is our exam so this talk makes sense. And I asked, what? what is backtracking? When she asked what I was doing, I told her I was checking Quora. Heck, this was a golden opportunity to try out the site. She wanted an answer, a thoughtful and well meaning answer that too in a short time – exactly what Quora is pitching itself as. Not exactly, but it is what people want it to do. But she refused to explain the question to me. And simply asked me if I had already done… some chapter… (I don’t remember the name). The thing is, I had not even heard of it. She tried to tell me it was a little like calculus, and I was sincerely confused. Calculus in discrete maths (the paper I’m going to sit in tomorrow)? And I have forgot it an hour later. What’s the probability I’ll be doing it? A big fat Zero.

And that is the problem with everything in my life – full of promise but half baked (I sound like Google). Actually I have done half the syllabus, and will be doing it later in the night, just don’t ask when (my future is a blank paper, don’t be a Ghajini now). But it’s just that I don’t feel like shooting for the moon. It needs effort and Discrete Mathematics is not the thing that I want to waste my time for, however much I like sets and relations. Facebook isn’t it either, nor is it Quora for that matter. It is another distant dream, which I feel will take over the world. It takes effort but it is in nature to keep my calm and swim with the flow. Maybe it is an excuse, but the thing is, I am not exactly pursuing the strategy of following my dreams.

And that’s exactly why I started a new series of ‘Live like you’re Dying’ – where I’ll explore things I always wanted to do. And how I’ll get about doing them. Just hope it doesn’t go down the path of those DOA *DiNG*s. Because it is one thing I actually want to happen… :)

Published in: on 5 Jan '11 at 8 pm  Comments (2)  

2011: Future brings some Flashbacks of the Past

2011 has arrived. How time passes! Next month I’ll be 18 years. People get shockingly surprised when they learn I am not yet 18 coz I have a bushy face. Needs constant grooming. Moreover, the problem is I’m quite lazy. So, I practically do nothing like trimming and eventually, my stubble gives way to a creepy looking weed. And I still don’t bother. I actually get irritated when people torture me with all the remarks. And I can’t fail to exclaim when I remember there was a time when, as I child, I craved for even a single trace of hair on my face.

When I was a small toddler, I used to see my seniors. I must be in 3rd-4th class. 12th seemed so far away like it would never ever come. Like school was all I got. And here I am about to complete my first semester in college. School seems like past now where college seemed to be a foggy future back then. When I entered 5th class it seemed like it took me forever reaching that milestone. And suddenly the next 7 years were a blur. Time used to stand still in the childhood days. But now it flies. When they say people are more fast paced now, I gaze accusingly at the clock. I cannot prove it but clock does run faster now.

I have always been a little eccentric personality. When children used to play and dance, I used to think about writing a diary so that I could capture these moments for the future (it doesn’t help that I’m a pathetic dancer). There was a period in between when I used to sit on the terrace in the night, alone, watching all the stars and the clouds drifting by and the moon playing hide-n-seek between them. I used to go round and round just to get that giddy feeling in the head. I used to…

Well, that time is gone and buried. I now sit all day long in front of a glowing screen, scrolling up and down a single page hundreds of times that has been central to my social life lately. However much I try to break away from Facebook, its long and slender tentacles lull me in a dreamy sleep where each of my status garners hundreds of likes. I guess I should try something new, like regularly updating this blog, or actually start studying. Or learn a new language. I recently tangentially met a girl who knows German. Sign language is also one of my goals.

This year has already been quite eventful for me. I found my wallet (had lost it last month). I revamped my blog. Main exams are going to start day after tomorrow. My plate is full. My appetite is larger than ever. Makes for a nice battle. Let’s see what the future holds for me.

Published in: on 2 Jan '11 at 3 pm  Comments (4)  

Am I lucky enough to eat fruits of my (misdirected) labour?

I have known since eternity, I am not certainly a person who can nourish a plant and watch it grow patiently, however much I want. I basically add water, add manure, give shade and fan the seed for a day. Next day I see sprouts. Hey! I run  excitedly to people around me, who look at me back coolly, ‘What?’ I then jump up and down to make them see my new soon-to-be tree. They see disinterested (every crowd behaves eerily the same). I am a little hurt (0k… maybe a little more). Can’t they people see?! It’s a brand new tree! I make a resolve. Not to talk to those people again. They will see the seedling grow into a big, bad tree. And when I’ll be basking in the glory (and shade) of that tree, they will feel jealous they didn’t listen.

I come back to my seed. Oh no! I forgot the water. I run and get the water, the food… but wait shade is not that important. First let me update an FB status how my plant is growing. After a few days of work, I grow restless. Can’t this plant grow faster? But no, this takes time, I reason. But manure is needed now. Which particular brand should I use? And the quantity? I refer to net, experienced people…. whichever source of information I get my hands on. And it mostly is Wikipedia. Now everyone knows how evil that site is. It is a jumbled forest. No one knows why did they enter the forest in the first place. I somehow start discovering why Big Bang is rejected by some cosmologists. In the end, I am tired. And I go to bed. My tree is hungry. There is a guilt. But I’ll make up for it the next day.

Show more..

Published in: on 1 Jan '11 at 3 am  Comments (2)  

Diary of a… Diary

Wed, 17 Nov ’10
19:39

Dear Diary (that’s me!),

I was discovered when people started scribbling on caves. Historians have got it all wrong; the cavemen didn’t do those paintings for future generations. They did those paintings for their record. That’s why they were in caves so no one could see them. Duh!Since then, people share with me their deepest secrets. i loved to be the secretkeeper. But it has become a burden for me. So much so that I have to maintain my own diary so I myself don’t go insane.

Moreover, they irritate me with their so-called literature! Excellent works were done 200-300 years back. Since then writing habits have deteriorated to the point that I just have to close my eyes shut and my ears shut but their sights pierce my eyes and their voices pierce my ears; they are actually so much boring. Earlier it was more poetic and euphemistic; nowadays they just need a pen but no brain: just blabber on and on – expletives included – thinking no one will ever gonna read it. I’m reading it, you fool! Put a little more effort. Even they themselves read it again.

Show more..

Published in: on 21 Nov '10 at 11 pm  Comments (4)  

Can there be a perfect post?

I don’t remember when I wrote my last post. I got my lappie two weeks back. And since having Windows Live Writer, I always fuss about the formatting and the not the writing itself.

Well it’s not completely true. I fuss just too much on content too. There are a dozen drafts living in my dashboard since eternity. And many have died the cruel and sudden death of a whimsical delete button. After writing two paragraphs I start afresh thinking of a new idea. Even as I write this post, many things pull me away from it. I’m on and off the computer more than the net words I’ve written right now.

So I’ll explain how it all happens. Firstly, I notice I’ve not written my blog for quite some time now. I open it and just drool over  (for approximately 5 minutes) how nice looking the whole interface is and thank wordpress for it. Then I wonder if there exists any soul in the world who sees this beautiful webpage. Bang comes the dashboard and the stats in front of me. If I get a spike in recent views from 2 to jaw-dropping 3, I get excited enough to finally put FB aside and click the ‘new post’.

Show more..

Published in: on 17 Nov '10 at 12 am  Comments (1)  

*DiNG*

1- Write a program for D flip flop.

2- Write a blog entry for my recent trip to a hockey stadium. It was WoW!!

 

 

NOTE –

My hardly one or two (gasp!) readers,

These DiNGs are my way of reminding what I should be doing but I am postponing the thing to some ill-defined day in the Foggy Future. Also, I’m including these posts (there will be more to come), because what I’m not doing is as important as what I’m doing. And since this blog is created so that I can reflect upon my life, these DiNGs are super-critical for success of my mission.

Published in: on 6 Oct '10 at 1 pm  Comments (2)