The Control Experiment

I was sipping my morning chai (at noon) and gingerly punching my own thigh. A recent football injury, where an opponent's knee had smashed into the meaty front portion of my thigh  just above the knee had left me sensitive in this region.

Immediately after the incident, I was able to carry on playing. It was after I got back home that the intensity of the pain searing through my legs became apparent. The next 2 days I could hardly walk and the region was swollen. Over time though, the pain became less intense and a visit to the doctor revealed that though the injury was of a painful nature, it was local and not serious - I just had to wait it out and it would be alright.

Now, ever since the injury, I have been eager to get back to playing football or at least jogging, but the past few days have seen a different kind of confusion - am I still injured? Sometimes the pain returns, sometimes I feel I am completely healed. This morning, while punching my own thigh, I noted the slight pain where I had received the blow. At this moment a thought struck me - I am a scientist. I have to truly assess whether I am experiencing injury pain. Think about it - have you ever punched your own thigh softly to know how much it hurts with how hard a punch? So unless there is a really sharp pain for a very soft touch, it is hard to say whether it is a normal pain or an injury-pain. So there was only one way to find out. I punched my other thigh softly in the same place with as near the same intensity as I could manage and felt a similar sting. Still I couldn't discern whether it was of lesser intensity and so I repeated the exercise until I felt ridiculous - here I was, tea in hand, punching my own thighs repeatedly with different forces in different spots.

My conclusion right now is that the lingering effects of the injury are still present and it would be unwise for me to get physically active again soon. And my other conclusion is that the human body (or at least mine) is really really sensitive to even light blows. I don't know how I withstood the blow from the original football incident without fainting.

I have always been an over-enthusiastic sportsperson with not too much talent for any sport nor a very resilient body. It has made for an unfortunate combination and I am thus the veteran of several injuries. They say you live and learn. And I have lived (thankfully) and learnt. My assorted wisdom from my most serious injury (a ligament tear in the knee that kept me limping and in pain for nearly 6 months) is that we have no clue how we do things. I started walking slightly differently to avoid the pain and forgot how I used to walk. I have no idea how my knee used to feel before injury, so now I still don't know whether it feels right. I just go with it in the changed circumstances and there is no way of ever returning truly to the state of my body pre-injury. And this happens with every injury.

When one part of one leg is injured, you will avoid putting your weight on it, so another part of your hip or other knee feels more strain. Then as you slowly heal, you adjust your walking to avoid that other pain and very quickly the "feel" of your own body becomes unrecognisable. You cannot simply say "Ok, the injury is gone, let me go back to how I was doing stuff before the injury". That is simply not possible. Through some indirect, cascading way, your body has a stored memory of each thing that has happened to it. Some incidents are remembered very strongly, others are swept away with time. That one day you had to pretend to limp because you told your class teacher than you missed the previous day due to an ankle-injury. Well now you have lost a bit of your "normal" walk. In fact, there is no normal, I think. It keeps changing but we feel it is constant. I feel I am more aware of this solely because of my numerous injuries. (Once after I sprained my shoulder playing Table Tennis, a great joke I heard at my expense was that my next injury would be from playing chess!)

"A game of two halves" is a common cliche in football, where one team plays really poorly for the first half and then plays really well after the 15 minute break at half-time. In English commentator parlance, this is known as "taking the game by the scruff of the neck". But why does this happen? There are many explanations. You see, the manager yelled at them at half-time so they came back to the field with renewed determination. But also the opposition put in a lot of effort playing so well in the first half that now they're more tired. But also there was a small but crucial tactical change by the manager. And also this one player who was having a really bad game suddenly started playing at his usual level. So what is it? A change in mentality? A change in tactics? The one crucial player? There is no control experiment again. A lot of it is to do with the mind.

One last football analogy - when a team takes the lead, they automatically seem to be more focused on defending only. No matter the coach says "Play as if the score is still 0-0". There is the instinctive desire to defend more. That's why there is a football saying that "You are most vulnerable as soon as you score". It's impossible to play as if you don't know the score when you actually know the score, no matter how hard you try. The act of scoring fundamentally changes how you think and hence who you are on the football field for the rest of the game.

When I was mid-way through my 5 year undergraduate course, my grades started falling. Well, actually they didn't "start" falling. They were alright and then suddenly they fell and also stayed down for a while. I began to think how I can rectify this situation. First step to rectify this is to find out why it is happening. Excellent question!

Well, college is harder than school. But the first few semesters were a breeze. Well, first few semesters are designed to be easy. But also I've lost a bit of interest in the subject and in studying in general. Also, have my initial good grades made me little complacent? The fear factor of exams is completely absent. But it was the same even during the initial semesters, I still studied without any fear or anxiety. What made me study then? Or am I studying the same amount, but that is not enough? Or my mind is getting less sharp? Maybe the first instance of a bad score demoralised me and I'm in a vicious cycle. Ok, let us take a step back. Grades dipped in school also. How did I get out of that cycle?

Of course, at that point of time I didn't think with so much clarity. And I didn't give this so much precise thought, just random questions in the shower or while sleeping. But now I understand something else - no solution from school would ever have helped me. I had changed so much as a person. From a structured school life staying at home to the complete freedom of hostel life. From learning really random things (like how some p-block elements react differently with cold sulphuric acid and hot sulphuric acid) to having courses in Humanities on "rational enquiry" and "scientific communication". These fundamentally altered who I am, how I think and how I do things, so I couldn't fall back to what I was doing before to solve the same problems. Priorities changed, opinions changed.

But maybe I noticed this in this phase because I was thinking about how to tackle one particular challenge after a drastic change in a short period. Maybe we are always changing. Every step alters fundamentally how we walk, every thought alters fundamentally every next thought we will ever get, and before we know it, we are constantly becoming a new person while being in the illusion that our personality is very constant. It is like the ship of thesus situation. Old solutions will not work anymore. Or maybe old attempts at solutions will suddenly become fruitful. Maybe changing the formation is counter-productive at 0-0, but at 1-0, it completely changes the game. But we can never know what works precisely. Because there is no control experiment. There never will be. No football game where only exactly one thing changed at one time. The change in formation changed your attitude along with it. And the opponents' attitude. In football and in life.

And now I will return to trying to re-create and remember how I used to walk when I have never paid attention to how I used to walk. I will return to facing new challenges everyday that I am clueless about how to solve, but 5 years from now I will write a grand blog post on how to think about it and what to learn from it and throw some more gyaan at you!

That is the Whole

There's something beautiful about log-log plots. Let me explain. Let us say you have 3 numbers - 0.001, 0.1 and 10. Now you draw a line of length 10 in your favourite unit with your pencil, mark one end as 0 (the left end, unless you write in Arabic or you are a psychopath) and the other end as 10. Now I ask you to make a point at these 3 values. You've already marked one end as 10, so you put one point there. But how do you make these two points 0.001 and 0.1 without them smudging each other? They're too close.

Not necessarily. If your favourite chosen unit was kilometre, then it's easy to make these marks distinct and far apart. But let me know when you find a kilometre of paper or blackboard for this excellent demonstration. The distance between 0.001 and 0.1 is 0.099. The distance between 0.1 and 10 is 9.9. The distance between 0.001 to 10 is 9.999. The 0.099 extra is nothing from the perspective of 10, but from the perspective of 0.1 it is big and for 0.001 it is massive. For the elephant, the ant and the rat are practically the same tiny size. For the rat, the elephant is a giant and the ant is tiny. For the ant, even the rat is a giant. So what's the solution?

But 0.1 and 0.001 aren't "practically the same" are they? The first is 100 times larger than the second. And 100 times larger than 0.1 is 10, which we all agree is large. So in a way, the "separation" between 0.1 and 0.001 is tiny, but it is also really large when seen in another perspective. So what's the way forward here for our original problem - to make a pencil mark at 0.001 and 0.1?

This is where the logarithm (log for short) comes in. You draw a line of length 4. You mark one end as (-3) and one end as 1. (-3) corresponds to 0.001 and 1 corresponds to 10. Because 10 raised to the minus third power is 0.001. And 10 raised to the first power is 10 itself. What you've done here is you have made "scale" more important than the absolute separation. This somehow recognises the fact 0.1 is equally separated from 0.001 and 10. It's like Gulliver peering close to the Lilliput world and finding that is all exactly identical to his world, but just at a lower scale.

Let me ask another question (rhetorically). How many numbers are there between 0 and 10? Our first instinct would be to say 9 numbers. But these are 9 whole numbers. If we draw a line of length 10, how many numbers can we mark with our pencil? These are called "Real numbers", and there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 10. Take any number from 0 to 9, put a decimal point after it and then cook up any sequence you want of how many ever digits - that's a real number between 0 and 10, from 0.78346873647823 to 9.2 to 3.000000000001. Best of luck marking them with a pencil though.

But what does this "infinite" mean? How many numbers lie between 0 and 100? Obviously, infinite again. But surely, this infinite is different in some way. A line of length 10 has infinite numbers. Now, a line of length 100 has 10 lines of length 10, each of which has infinite numbers. So this new infinite should be 10 times more than the old infinite.

There was something that I learnt in my first year maths course that amazes me - the number of numbers (real) between 0 and 100 is the same as the number of numbers between 0 and 10. Not 10 times greater, as one would expect. This is a mathematically exact fact. Of course, it is also a very basic set theory fact, but maybe I am still so stuck-up on this because I'm a physicist.

But let's go further. What about between 0 and 1000? The same. Between 0 and 1000000000000000000000000000? Exactly the same. The same as between 0 and 0.00000000000000000000001. It doesn't matter what (positive) number you stick there, the number of numbers you will find in between them are exactly the same.

Is this related to the log thingy we discussed earlier? I think so - if not directly, then at least as a way of visualising and understanding this. You saw how we first took the interval from 0.001 to 10, worked our log magic and made it in such a way 0.001 and 10 are equidistant from 0.1. So we made the intervals from 0.001 to 0.1 exactly equal to 0.1 to 10. For any such interval, we can take combinations of logs and additions and multiplications and to make them equal. This is an implicit acceptance of the fact that between any 2 numbers, there exist the same number of numbers, so we can always scale it in such a way that the distance between them can be a number of our choosing. We did exactly this by taking a log and making the distance between 0.001 and 0.1 the same as the distance between 0.1 and 10.

Ok, so this is for finite numbers. What about if we call in the big guy, the guy who changes the rules when he walks in? Infinity. How many numbers are there between 0 and infinity? The answer is again the same. The same as the number of numbers between 0 and 1. And 0 and 0.00001. And between 0 and 1000000.

What is infinity? Infinity is that number which trumps all other numbers. You give me any number and ask me which number is greater, I can say infinity and I would be right. In fact, it was basically invented to do this job. It exists only in our heads.

Now let us go back to the numbers between 0 and 1. ALL the numbers.Can you give me a number greater than all these numbers? Yes, of course. 1.1 is greater than all numbers that are between 0 and 1. So is 1.000001. So is 100000. and so is infinity. In this regard, for the all the numbers between 0 and 1, the number 1.1 or 2 play the same role that infinity plays for the entire number line. Pick any number and infinity is greater. Pick any number between 0 and 1 and 1.1 is greater. We can extend this to say 100000000+1 is like the infinity for the numbers between 0 and 100000000. And maybe, we can extend this is ALL numbers and infinity itself. Usually, just invoking infinity changes the rules, but here it doesn't. And with my slight mathematical training, I am confident that if I sat down and read about it for a few days I could get it, but this kind of abstraction has never been my strong suit, so here I will believe the mathematicians blindly. (nothing new for a physicist to do)

Each little section of the real line, no matter what the length, in a way, contains the whole real number line. Every chunk has this property, as does, quite obviously, the whole real line, which stretches to infinity. So the next time someone at a party asks you to draw a line all the way to infinity, just draw a straight line and label the 2 ends with your favourite real numbers and tell them it's practically the same thing. You'll surely be invited to the next one.

My grandfather has studied Vedanta and I love to pick his brain whenever I get the chance. I remember him quoting a mantra during a discussion about something -

पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम्

पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते |

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय

​पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

This is the "Shanti Mantra" of the Ishavasya Upanishad. Poornam could be translated as the whole, or the complete, or everything. The gist of the translation my grandfather gave me is this (with help from the first couple of results when you google this) - 

That is the whole. This is the whole. From the whole comes the whole. Taking the whole from the whole, what remains is still whole. 

This is a view on the cosmos (or maybe Brahman, I'm not sure, I'm not even close to being an expert). And I found it really cool that the imagination of the cosmos here is very similar to the number line, which when you consider the infinity at the end of it, is also an abstraction, a figment of our collective imagination. 

This little section of the real number line is the whole real number line. That also is the whole real number line. If you take a section out of it (which is whole), the remaining section is still the whole real number line. It's a beautiful idea, that there is the entire cosmos in every small bit of matter. It reminds me of a (probably fake) conversation where someone asked Michelangelo how he made such a beautiful sculpture of David out of a shapeless chunk of rock and Michelangelo said that the David has always been in the rock, his job was merely to scrape out the rock that was covering it. Every rock is a potential David, every stone, made of stardust, contains within it as many secrets as the entire cosmos itself. And by knowing this stone perfectly, you can understand the entire cosmos. By knowing your own self completely, you can know the higher self.

But there's something deeper in this. Every bit of the real number line can be identified with the whole real number line, but it isn't identical. They have some properties which make them identical in some scale. But each number, or each collection of numbers has its own identity and properties. It is why Kanaka Dasa could compose thousands of Krithis in dedicated specifically to Kaginele Adikeshava or Basavanna could write his vachanas addressing Kudala Sangama Deva. These are really local deities, perhaps the temples and the forms of the deities here not known to people outside their district, not far outside Karnataka for sure. Yet, these learned men spoke of these deities as the masters of the universe. Not because they are one and the same as the entire cosmos, but simple because they are a part of it. It does not diminish the deity in the temple two streets away, who is also local, but also the master of the universe.

ಮನಸು ಮನಸುಗಳ ಮಾತು

ಒಮೊಮ್ಮೆ  ನನಗೆ  ಅನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ನನ್ನೊಳಗೆ ಎರಡೆರಡು ಜೀವ ಇದೆ . ಒಂದು ನಾನು. ನನ್ನ ದೇಹ, ನನ್ನ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮನಃಸಾಕ್ಷಿ . ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಕೇವಲ ಧ್ವನಿಯಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿರುವ ಒಂದು ಶುದ್ಧ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕ ಮನುಷ್ಯ. ಈ ಮನುಷ್ಯನ ಪ್ರಭಾವ ನನ್ನಮೇಲೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಏನು ಅಲ್ಲ.ಹಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿ ಇವನ ಮಾತು ನಾನು ಕೇಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇವನದು ಬರೀ  ಲೆಕ್ಕಾಚಾರ - ಭಯ, ಭೀತಿ, ನಗುವು ಅಳುವು ಯಾವದೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಕೆಲವೊಮ್ಮೆ ನನ್ನೊಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಬೇಡದೇ ಇರೊ ಅಧಿಕಪ್ರಸಂಗ ಕೂಡ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ.  ಆದರೆ ಒಟ್ಟು ಎಲ್ಲ ಸೇರಿಸಿ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಉಪದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನೂ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ಅವನಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿರುವ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾನೆ. ನನ್ನ ಮಿತ್ರ ಅಂತಾನೇ ಹೇಳಬಹುದು. 

ಇನ್ನ ಮುಂದೆ ಇವನನ್ನು ‘ತಾ’ ಎಂದು ಮತ್ತೆ ನನನ್ನು ‘ನ’ ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ - 

ತಾ : ಏನಪ್ಪ ಈ ನಡುವೆ ದೇವರು ದಿಂಡ್ರು  ಅಂತೆಲ್ಲ ನಿಂದು ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಆಗುತ್ತಾ  ಇದೆ. ನಿನ್ನೆ ಜನಮಾಷ್ಟಮಿ ಪೂಜೆಗೂ ಕೂಡ  ಹೋದೆ. ಒಬ್ಬ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಯಾಗಿ ಇದೆಲ್ಲ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಸರೀ ನಾ? 

ನ : ಏನು ಮಾಡಿದೆ ಈಗ ನಾನು? ದೇವರು ಅಂತಲ್ಲ, ಸುಮ್ಮನೆ ಹಾಗೆ ಒಂದು ಹೊಸ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನದಿಂದ ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನ ನೋಡಲು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ನಮ್ಮ ಧರ್ಮದ ತತ್ವಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ತಾ : ಆಹಾ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪವೇನೋ? ಪ್ರತಿರಾತ್ರಿ ಭಗವದ್ಗೀತೆ ಪ್ರವಚನಾ ನೇ ಕಿವಿಗೆ ಹಾಕೊಂಡು ನಿದ್ರೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ನಾ? 

ನ : ದಿನಾಗಲೂ ಒಂದು ೫-೧೦ ನಿಮಿಷ  ಅಷ್ಟೇ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಗೆ ಬಾಳುವುದು ಅಂತ ಉಪದೇಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೂ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಕ್ಕೂ  ಏನು ಸಂಬಂಧ? 

ತಾ : ಲೇ! ಅದು, ದೇವರು ಹೀಗೆ, ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗಾಯಿತು, ಲೋಕದ ಗುಣ ಹೀಗೆ ಅಂತೆಲ್ಲ ಬಾಯಿಗೆ ಬಂದಂತೆ ಹೇಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೇ? 

ನ : ಅದು ಅಲ್ಲ! ಅವರು

ತಾ : ಯಾರು?

ನ : ವೇದ ವ್ಯಾಸರು 

ತಾ : ಆಯಿತಪ್ಪ .ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಸೇರು ನೀನು.ಹೀಗೆ ವಿಷಯ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ ಉದ್ದಾರ ಆಗುತ್ತೀಯ. ಅದೋ ಅವರೋ. ನಾನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇನು? 

ನ : ಅಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಅಷ್ಟೇ. ಭಗವದ್ಗೀತೆ ಒಂದು ವಸ್ತು ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ.ಅದು ಯಾರೋ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದು.

ತಾ : ಏನೀಗ? ಸರಿ, ಅವನು ಇರೋ ಬರೋ ಮಾತಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ. ವೇದ ವ್ಯಾಸಾ ನೇ 

ನ : ನೋಡಪ್ಪ, ನಿನ್ನ ತರ್ಕ ಏನಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಒಂದು ಗುರಿ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುವುದು. ಹೀಗೆ ಸುಮ್ಮನೆ ಗುರಿ ಇಲ್ಲದ ತರ್ಕಕ್ಕೆ  ಏನು ಅರ್ಥ ಇಲ್ಲ. 

ತಾ : ಅಂದ್ರೆ?

ನ : ನಮಗೆ ಏನೋ ಒಂದು ಬೇಕು ಅಂದರೆ  ತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿ ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು ಎನ್ನುವದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚಿಂತನೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಅಥವಾ ನಾವು ಏನನ್ನೋ ಕಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಅಂದ್ರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು ನಮಗೆ ತರ್ಕ ಬೇಕು.ಎಲ್ಲಿಯ ವರೆಗೆ ನಮಗೆ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಇದೆಯೋ ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ತರ್ಕದಿಂದ ಮುಂದೆವರೆದು ನಾವು ಕಂಡಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ವಿವರಿಸಬಹುದು 

ತಾ : ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡೆ.ಅದೇ ನಾನು ಯಾವಾಗಲೂ ಹೇಳುವುದು.ನೀನು ಕೇಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ 

ನ : ನಾನು ಕೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.ಆದರೆ ನೀನು ಅರ್ಥ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಏನು? 

ತಾ : ಒಬ್ಬ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿ ಆಗುವುದೇ? ಅಥವಾ ಒಂದು ಸೊಗಸಾದ ಹುಡುಗಿಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದೇ? 

ನ : ನೋಡು ಇದೇ  ನಿನ್ನ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ .ಯಾವದೋ ಒಂದೋ ಎರಡೋ ವಿಷಯ ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಇರುತ್ತೀಯ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಏನು ಬೇಕು ಒಬ್ಬ ಮನುಷ್ಯನಿಗೆ? 

ತಾ : ನಾನು ಒಂದು ಯಂತ್ರ.ಮನುಷ್ಯರ ಭಾವನೆಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೇನು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ 

ನ : ಒಹೋ!! ನಿನ್ನಿಂದ “ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ” ಎನ್ನುವ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೇ ನನ್ನ ಪುಣ್ಯ! 

ತಾ : ಲೇ ತಲೆಹರಟೆ ಮಾಡ್ಬೇಡ.

ನ : ನೋಡಪ್ಪ ನನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಏನಿದ್ದರೂ ಸುಖವಾಗಿ ಇರುವುದು. ನನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಮನಶ್ಶಾಂತಿ

ತಾ : ಈ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆಗಳಿಂದ ಮನಶ್ಶಾಂತಿ ಸಿಗುವುದೇ ? 

ನ : ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗು ಈ ಭೂಮಿಯಮೇಲೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯಕ್ಷವಾಗಿ ಕಾಣುವಂತ ವಸ್ತುಗಳಿಂದ ಅರ್ಥ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರೇರಣೆ ಸಿಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.ಒಂದು ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಇರಲೇಬೇಕು. ನಮ್ಮ ಸಮಾಜ ನಡೆಯುವುದೇ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆಗಳಿಂದ 

ತಾ : ಏನು ಹಾಗೆಂದರೆ ? ನೀನು ಈಗ ಏನೇನೋ ಮಾತಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀ ಯ! 

ನ : ಒಂದು ಕತೆ  ನಿಜ ಕತೆ ಇರಲಿ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಇರಲಿ .ಈ ಥರ ಒಬ್ಬ ದೇವರಿದ್ದಾನೆ ಅಂತ ನಾನು ಕಣ್ಣು ಮುಚ್ಚಿಕೊಂಡು ನಂಬಿದರೆ ಅದರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಒಂತರ ನೆಮ್ಮದಿ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ. ದಿನವೆಲ್ಲ ಆಫೀಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದುಡಿದು ದಣಿದು ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಮೇಲೆ ಆ ಯಾವ್ದೋ ಒಂದು ಕತೆ ಕೇಳಿದರೆ ತುಂಬ ಶಾಂತಿ ಉಂಟುಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ .ಹಾಗೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ದೇವರಿದ್ದಾನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅವನು ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಹಾಳಾಗದಂತೆ ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾನೆ ಅಂತ ನಂಬಿದರೆ ಕೂಡ ನೆಮ್ಮದಿ ಉಂಟು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ . “Hope is hope, whether real or fake” 

ತಾ : ನನಗೆ ಇದು ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಕಷ್ಟ .ಆದರೆ ಇರಲಿ . ನನ್ನ ಚಿಂತೆ ಏನೆಂದರೆ ಈ ದೇವರ ಕತೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ನಿಲ್ಲುವುದಿಲ್ಲ .ನಿನ್ನ ದೇವರಿಗಿಂತ ನನ್ನ ದೇವರು ಉನ್ನತ ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ಅಂತ ಜಂಜಾಟ ಶುರು ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆಮೇಲೆ ನನ್ನ ದೇವರು ನಿಜ ನಿನ್ನ ದೇವರು ಸುಳ್ಳು . ನಮ್ಮ ಧರ್ಮ ಉದ್ಧಾರಕ್ಕೆ ದಾರಿ ನಿನ್ನ ಧರ್ಮ ವಿನಾಶ, ದುಷ್ಟತನಕ್ಕೆ ದಾರಿ. ಈ ಒಂದೋ ಎರಡೋ ಮಕ್ಕಳ ಕತೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರಿ ಇದೇ ಒಂದು ದೊಡ್ಡ ವಿಷಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಯುದ್ಧಕ್ಕೆ ನರಮೇಧಕ್ಕೆ ಇತಿಹಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದೇ ಅತಿ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿತ್ತು .

ನ : ಇರಬಹುದು . ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಯುದ್ಧ ಮತ್ತು ಜಗಳಗಳು ನಮ್ಮ ಮಾನವ ಸಮಾಜದ ಸ್ವಭಾವ ಹೊರೆತು ಅದು ಧರ್ಮದ ಸ್ವಭಾವವಲ್ಲ . ನಾವು ನಂಬಿರುವುದು ಎಲ್ಲ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆಗಳನ್ನೇ .ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೆನಲ್ಲ, ನಮ್ಮ ಸಮಾಜ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಗಳಿಂದಲೇ ನಡೆಯುವುದು.ಈ ಭಾರತ ದೇಶ ಅಂತ ನಿಜವಾಗಿ ಇದೆಯೇ? .ಇದು ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಅಲ್ಲವೇ ? ನಾವು ಎಲ್ಲ ಕನ್ನಡಿಗರು  ಒಂದೇ ಮೂಲದಿಂದ   ಎನ್ನುವುದೂ ಕೂಡ ಒಂದು ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ. ಎಷ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡಿಗ ರಾಜಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಯುದ್ಧ ನಡೆದಿದೆಯೋ ಹಿಂದೆ . ಈ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯವೂ ಒಂದು ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆನೇ. ಮಾನವ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಕೂಡ. 

ನಮ್ಮ ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಸಮಾನತೆ ಮೂಡಿ ಬಂದರೆ ಯಾರೂ ಕಳ್ಳತನ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಜನರ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸ್ವಾರ್ಥಗಳೂ ಆವಿಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂತ ಕೊಮ್ಯೂನಿಸ್ಟ್ ಅವರು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ . ಅದು ಒಂದು ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಕ್ಕಾಗಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ಒಂದು ಭ್ರಮೆ ಅಂತ ನೇ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು . ಇಂತಹ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾವಿರಾರು ವರುಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ಯುವರಾಜ ತೇಲಾಡುವ ಬಂಡೆಗಳ ಸೇತುವೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿ ಕಡಲು ದಾಟಿದ ಮತ್ತು ಇಂದು ಅವನನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸಿದರೆ ಅವನು ಅನುಗ್ರಹಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆ  ಎನ್ನುವದು ಕೂಡ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ತಪ್ಪು ಅಥವಾ ಸರಿ . ಏನೋ ಒಂದು ಅನುಸರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅದರ ಹಿಂದೆ ಇರೋ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಇರಲೇಬೇಕು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತೀಯಾ? ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳು  ಕೂಡ  ಏಕೆ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿ  ಇರಬೇಕು? ಅವಿಂದ  ನನಗೆ  ನೆಮ್ಮದಿ  ಬರಬೇಕು ಅಷ್ಟೇ 

ತಾ : ಅಯ್ಯೋ ರಾಮ ನೀನು ಈ ಥರ ಮಾತಾಡುವುದು ಶುರು ಹಚ್ಚಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೀಯೇನೋ? ಆದರೆ  ಈ ನಿನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆ  ಎಲ್ಲರು ನಂಬಿ  ಈ  ನಂಬಿರೋ ಗುಂಪು  ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ  ಈ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಗೋಸ್ಕರ  ಗಾಲಾಟೆ ಮತ್ತು  ಹಿಂಸೆ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಯಾರು  ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರರು ? 

ನ : ನಾವು ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳ ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ? ಒಬ್ಬ ಮನುಷ್ಯ ಏನನ್ನೋ ನಂಬುತ್ತಾನೆ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಿದರೆ ಆ ಮಾತನ್ನು ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ನ? ಮತ್ತೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕನಾಗಿ ನೀನು ಯಾಕೆ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ಓಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀ? ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಅಂತ ಏನೂ ಇಲ್ಲ .ಇದು ನನ್ನ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಅದು ನಿನ್ನ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಅಂತ ಬಾಯಿಗೆ ಬಂದಂತೆ ನಾವು ಹೇಳಬಹುದು . ನಿನ್ನ ತರ್ಕ ಏನಿದ್ದರೂ ಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳ ಜೊತೆ ಇರಬೇಕು, ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳ ಜೊತೆ ಅಲ್ಲ .ಅವನು ಏನು ನಂಬಿದ ಅಂತ ನೋಡಬೇಡ .ಅವನು ಏನು ಮಾಡಿದ ಅಂತ ನೋಡು . ಅದನ್ನ ನಾವು ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು ಹಾಗೇ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ನಂಬಿಕೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲ.

ತಾ : ಹೌದು. ಆದರೆ ಇದರ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಏನು? ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಕೂಡ ಬಾಳಬಹುದು. ದೇಶವೂ ಬೇಡ ನಾಡೂ ಬೇಡ ದೇವರೂ ಬೇಡ ಸಮಾನ ಸಮಾಜವೂ ಬೇಡ.ನಿನಗೆ ನೀನೇ ಸುಖ ತರಬಹುದು. ಅವಾಗ ಯಾವ ವಸ್ತುಗಳಿಂದ ಸುಖ ಬರುತ್ತದೆಯೋ ಅವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಹೋರಾಡು.ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಪಡೆಯುವುದು ನಾನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿರುವ ಮಟ್ಟದ ವರೆಗು. 

ನ : ಅದು ಮಾನವ ಸ್ವಭಾವ . ನಮ್ಮ ಡಿ. ಎನ್. ಎ. ಯ ಶಾಪ. ನಮಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಅವರ ಜೊತೆ ಇರುವ ಸಂಗತಿಗಳಿಂದಲೇ ಸಂತೋಷ ಸಿಗುವುದು. ಇದು ನಿನಗೂ ಗೊತ್ತು. ಮತ್ತು ಈ ಕಟ್ಟು ಕತೆಗಳಿಂದ ಇವರು ನಮ್ಮವರು ಅವರು ನಮ್ಮವರಲ್ಲ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ. “Tribal instinct” ಅಂತ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರಲ್ಲ - ಅದು.

ತಾ : ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಕಂಡಂತೆ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ಜನರು ಅವರಾಗಿಯೇ ಖುಷಿಯಾಗಿ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ . ಒಂಟಿತನದಲ್ಲಿ ತುಂಬಾ ಜನಕ್ಕೆ ಸುಖವಿದೆ

ನ : ಅದು ನಿಜ . ಆದರೆ ಈ ಥರ ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನರು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ ? ಅವರು ಏನೋ ಪುಣ್ಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಅವರಾಗಿಯೇ ಸುಖವಾಗಿ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ . ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಆ ಥರ ಗಟ್ಟಿ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಇಲ್ಲ . ಅಷ್ಟು ಸ್ಥಿರ ಮನಸ್ಸೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಬಾಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದಲ್ಲಾ ಒಂದು ಗೊಂದಲ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ . ಅಂತ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವಾಗ್ನಾವೇ ಸುಖವಾಗಿರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವೇ? ಅವಾಗ ನಮ್ಮ ಮನಸು ಇಂತ ಒಂದು ತಂಡ ಹುಡುಕುತ್ತದೆ , ಇವರು ನಮ್ಮವರು ಅಂತ ಹೇಳುವುದಕ್ಕೆ .

ಬೇರೆ ಅವರಿಂದ ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವ್ದೋ ಒಂದು ತತ್ವ ಅಥವಾ ಭಾವನೆ ಇಂದ ಬಾಳಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಅರ್ಥ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಹುಡುಕುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಮನಸು ಅದಾಗೆ ತೊಡಕುತ್ತದೆ . ದಿನಾ ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ ಎದ್ದು ಲವಲವಿಕೆ ಇಂದ ಇರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಪ್ರೇರಣೆ ಅಥವಾ ಒಂದು ಗುರಿ ಅಂತ ಇರಲೇಬೇಕು. ಇದು ಹೊರಗಿನಿಂದಲೇ ಬರುವುದು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ . ಅದೇ ಹುಡುಕಾಟ  ವಿಸ್ತಾರವಾಗಿ ಈ ಥರ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮೂಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆ 

ನಾವು  ನಮ್ಮನಾವೆ ಅತಿ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕರು ಅಂತ ತಿಳಿದರು ನಾವು ಆಳವಾಗಿ ಯೋಚಿಸಿದರೆ ನಾವು ಅಷ್ಟು ಏನು ತಾರ್ಕಿಕರು ಅಲ್ಲ ಅಂತ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. “ತರ್ಕ ಉನ್ನತ, ಆದರೆ ಮಾನವ ಮನಸಿನ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕ ಬಲ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಸೀಮಿತ” ಅಂತ ಒಂದು ಕಡೆ ತುಂಬಾ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿರುವ ಸಾಲು ಓದಿದ್ದೆ ನಾನು 

ತ : ಹ್ಮ್! ನಿನ್ನ ಮಾತಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲೋ ಒಂದು ತಪ್ಪಿದೆ ಆದರೆ ಏನು ಅಂತ ಕೂಡಲೇ ಹೇಳುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಯೋಚಿಸಿ ನನ್ನ ಉತ್ತರ ನೀಡುತ್ತೀನಿ

ನ : ಆಗಲಿ! ಇಲ್ಲೇ ಇರುತ್ತೀನಿ. ನನಗೂ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿಯೇ ಜೀವನ ನಡೆಯಿಸಬೇಕು ಅಂತ ಇಷ್ಟ. ಆದರೆ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಆದಷ್ಟು ತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯಿಸುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಏನು ಅರ್ಥ ಇಲ್ಲ ಅನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಜಗತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ಒಂದು ವಿಷಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ  ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಹೋದರೆ  ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಥ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಅರೆ ತಾರ್ಕಿಕ (Half-logical) ಅಂತ ಏನು ಇಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ತರ್ಕದಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಕೆಲಸ ಆಗಬೇಕೋ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸೋಣ. ನಮ್ಮ ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಶೋಧನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ. ಮಿಕ್ಕಿದ್ದು ದೇವರ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡೋ ಅಥವಾ ನಾಣ್ಯ ಮೇಲೆಸೆದು ಯಾವ ಕಡೆ ಬೀಳುತ್ತೋ ಅದರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಜೀವನ ನಡೆಯೀಸೋಣ 

ತ : ಈ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಇನ್ನು ಮುಗಿದಿಲ್ಲ! ಒಂದು ದಿನ ನೀನು ನನ್ನ ಎಲ್ಲ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳುತ್ತೀಯ! 

ನ : ನೋಡೋಣ ಸ್ವಾಮಿ 

A Sense of History - Part 1*

Over the past one or two years, one topic has captured my imagination - so much so that almost all articles and books I'm reading recently are about this. History. More specifically Indian history.

I wish I could give a nice story about how it all started off - one day I was reading something when something intrigued me. From there I started reading so many Wikipedia articles and my interest was piqued further and it has become a burning passion ever since. No, that is not how it happened. In fact, I am not sure when it happened. The fascination with history just slowly crept into my mind and has firmly set up shop there. However, if I ever write my autobiography, I would certainly write some fake story about sitting in a quiet library somewhere and stumbling upon some book about history that changed my life.

I think this is exactly what history is - it isn't a collection of facts. It is a story woven around facts, not always true. "Indian history" itself is something fake for a simple reason - there was no India, hence there can be no Indian history. So when we say Chanakya was an Indian, we're telling ourselves a story of who we are. And this story is decided by a huge number of factors - facts of history, territory, religion, culture and current politics. Was Mohammad of Ghori Indian? Certainly not. Was he Pakistani? Well, they name their missiles after him and they claim to be inheritors of his legacy, so perhaps. Just as we claim to be inheritors of Chandragupta Maurya. Here it isn't about land. But what about Akbar? Both countries say he was theirs and theirs alone.  Controversial, to say the least. Depends on who has most Lok Sabha seats, I guess! :D

The "story" isn't an impediment even though we want to be rational beings and only live with facts. Take Newton's Law of Gravitation for example. If we were to live with the facts only, we would just have massive charts of planetary movements. Instead, we can replace this with a one-line story. "The masses attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." Is this a true story? To a degree only. That's where Einstein comes in.

History however is subjective, planetary movements are objective and can be measured. They can be simulated - can you run a simulation of an Empire? You can only fantasise about "what if?" in history. What if Vijayanagara wasn't sacked and the army of the Karnataka empire had won at Talikota in 1565? This question is very very different from "What if the sun was 1.5 times its mass?"

I'm rambling here though. Moving to Rome in Italy obviously only increased my fascination with history. The Piazza Venezia in Rome is perhaps the most stunning place I've ever been to. Grandeur all around, the Colloseum at the end of the road just out of sight. And a few thoughts struck me. This Colloseum was built in the B.C. era. There was a bustling marketplace and the home of Roman emperors nearby. These buildings were plundered, sacked, rebuilt, destroyed by earthquakes, built again. Still the Colloseum stands proud. But so do so many other grand buildings nearby. It isn't just a story of continuous habitation. It is about people in power somehow being drawn to this small radius and trying to leave their own mark on history here. Trying to build something large, maybe something that will last as long as the Colloseum. Why is that?

I think people understand they're part of something bigger, something wider. Today Tamil Nadu and Karnataka fight over water and other issues, but we Kannadigas have slang words to describe Tamilians in not so generous terms. A recent visit to some temple towns in Karnataka shed some light on this - the Cholas/Pallavas and Chalukyas were also enemies. Armies broke each other's palaces and temples. Kannada inscriptions were ordered in the Pallava capital as a mark of humiliation and defeat and vice-versa. Even the situation in Kashmir I think can be viewed with this lens - it is at an intersection of the Islamic/Arab/Persian/Turkic, the "Indian" and the "Chinese" spheres of influence historically**. These spheres have waxed and waned with time as well. We might be cocooned into nation-states, but even hard borders don't prevent the flow of history. An open border like the one between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu doesn't simply erase it overnight either. It is perhaps embedded deep within human nature. Tribalism. (I met a lady who told me that during the heights of the Kaveri dispute, the name of the incumbent Chief Minister of Karnataka became a slang word for someone who is troublesome/ a nuisance. Maybe 1000 years from now when there is no India and no Industrial/digital civilisation of today, still Tamilians will be calling Kannadigas a funny name with no idea that this guy was a Chief Minister or that there existed the state of Karnataka).

Another thought that entered my mind was the illusion of permanence. Somehow people think they will be around forever. The world order they live in has a permanence different from that which existed before. Otherwise, why would anyone invest in building things so grand, so intricate. Maybe an efficient administrative system is way better at standing the test of time than the sturdiest buildings. Did any Emperor ever seriously believe that Rome could be invaded, sacked and plundered? It happened though. Several times through history. Did any Raya of Vijaynagara ever seriously believe his formidable capital city, with Tungabhadra flowing on one side and rugged hillocks with heavy fortifications on the other sides, would ever be breached. He was sure his palace would last 1000s of years. Instead it was razed to the ground and plundered. The second-most populous city in the world at that time became a city of ruins in the matter of weeks.

History as Events
Looking back, we might be terrified of what life was historically. Constant turbulence. Wars. Massacres, genocides. Uncertainty about life at every point of time. But this is a bias. When we read about history, we only read about "events". Otherwise it would get very boring, because the average person lived perhaps an average life, in several fundamental ways not too different from us, the children of the industrial and digital ages. The book I'm currently reading about the Vijayanagara kingdom talks endlessly of war and plunder and loot and massacre. But a step back shows that this was a small stretch of disputed land at the northern frontiers between Krishna and Tungabhadra. And massacres happened perhaps at one or two villages which were unfortunate enough to have enemy armies passing through, maybe once in a generation.

Slavery exists today. Genocides continue. War exists in so many parts of the world. But in general we have peace. I'm sure it was the same back there as well. When we look back on our current times, we will only read about major "events". Terrorist attacks, conflicts. So we will feel it is a time of great turmoil when really most of us are living dull, rather safe lives.

Morality
The last point I want to touch on is morality. We baulk at the morality of prior times and consider the morality to be less evolved or not as refined. Well, actually we condemn so much art and culture of the present day as immoral and hence "regressive". I completely disagree with this. The morals of a time vary with people and region. And they vary with time. If we think of a slave master from a 100 years back, we think of a very evil person. This is a projection of current-day morality on the past. If people from a 1000 years back and a 1000 years ahead, heck even 50 years back and 50 years ahead, were allowed to observe and judge a common person's actions today, they would certainly conclude that we are living in immoral times, even ordinary, well-meaning, law-abiding politically correct folk.

In general I think people make the same mistake with morality that many non-biologists (and some biologists) make with evolution - that the current is the "end-product" and the past was inferior. Homo Sapiens aren't superior or inferior to Neanderthals and Chimpanzees. Maybe when the anti-biotic resistant super-bug plague wipes out the population of highly sanitary human beings, we will see that we are far inferior to crocodiles, who shared the planet with dinosaurs and are sharing it with human beings today.

When we think of the life in Ancient Greece as we know of it today, it was full of sexual frolick and experimentation. This kind of a lifestyle is viewed as moral by some and immoral by others. But perhaps if there was New York Times then, it would view it as highly abhorrent and immoral while it would say it is completely left to individual freedom today. It is stupidity to not learn about the past, the stories, the legends, the happenings because of all the immorality and the sexism, the racism, the violence present in it. A person who calls Rama sexist is as stupid as a person who would put his wife through an Agni-Pariksha after a period of separation. And must we stop reading Jane Austen and Mark Twain?

* I have called it Part 1 because I plan to write a few more posts about history. Notice however, that I haven't said it is Part 1 in a 'N' part series. N can be 1 here as well, depending on how busy I am with research

** I don't want to be unnecessarily controversial, so let me also say I appreciate the nuances. There is no single Indian or Chinese or Islamic sphere of influence. Even these are layered, vary with time and region. And they haven't always been at each others necks. And they have so many internal squabbles also. They have heavily interacted and co-existed as well, while also been trying to outdo each other.

Secularism and Mysuru Dasara: Random Thoughts

One day, sitting in my uncle's house, I watched a very unique event. The Chief Minister of Karnataka Mr. Siddaramiah was doing a puja of the murthi of Chamundeshwari Devi of Mysuru. As he offered flowers to the murthi carried by Arjuna, the towering lead elephant of the procession for Mysuru Dasara, a chain of questions and thoughts started in my mind.

You would ask me why it is a unique event - the Chief Minister of Karnataka has been doing this for Dasara every year for decades and the tradition itself can be traced back to the Mysuru Kingdom and even the Karnataka empire, what is today known popularly as the Vijaynagara empire. Siddaramiah is an avowed atheist who is strongly against rituals and superstitious practices. His government passed what is popularly known as the "anti-superstition Bill" and he pointedly refused to invoke God's name while taking his oath in the Karnataka Assembly, preferring instead to swear on "truth". He once said he would be open to eating beef - an issue which mainstream Hinduism has consistently frowned upon and outright condemned for centuries.

Now, this person offering flowers to Devi Chamundeshwari is clearly not a Hindu devotee of the devi. So why is he doing it? Is Mysuru Dasara a secular event? An event does not become secular because people of all faiths participate in it. People of all religions often go to Ganesh Chaturthi or Durga Puja pandals. This doesn't make the celebration of Ganesh Chaturthi a secular event - it is a Hindu event, or an event of people who have Bhakti for Ganesha. The people attending perhaps aren't necessarily subscribers to the idea of God and the existence of Ganesha but merely attend because they live nearby or belong to the same community. Even then, there is some etiquette to be followed - no one, for example, may approach while wearing slippers. All the puja, the practises, the iconography is clearly of the Hindu God Ganesha.

Offering flowers to Devi Chamundeshwari is an avowedly Hindu practice - or at least avowedly a practice of Bhakts of Devi Chamundeshwari. Why is an atheist offering flowers to her? Well, because he is the head of the Karnataka government and it has been the tradition of decades, actually a few centuries, that the ruler of this region performs this puja. Before, it was the Mysuru Maharaja, then the baton was passed to the secular governments of Karnataka (formerly Mysore) state.

Does this mean the Mysuru Dasara has ceased to be a religious event? It would be absurd to suggest that showering of flowers on a deity is divorced from Hindu practices or forms of worship. It would be absurd to suggest that Chamundehwari Devi has been "secularised". She doesn't belong to any community, everyone is free to pray to her, but how can a state of the Union of India, whose constitution believes in "scientific temper"  and who pledges to stay equidistant from all religions and not facilitate the practice of any religion adopt this clearly religious practice and event as a "state festival"?

The state of Karnataka considers itself the inheritor of the legacy of the great kingdoms of this particular region. However, there is a distinction it draws. The piece of land does not define the history of Karnataka. It is the the Kannada language that defines Karnataka. So, even though the Cholas and the Marathas, Tamil and Marathi kingdoms respectively, ruled large parts of present-day Karnataka for a long time, their linguistic or cultural legacy is not something the state of Karnataka has inherited officially. The Vijaynagara empire widely patronised literature and poetry in Kannada, and hence we proudly say that we are inheritors of their grand heritage. Starting from the Gangas, the Satavahanas, Hoysalas, Chalukyas, Vijaynagara, Mysuru kingdoms and several others, these were all kingdoms who supported Kannada and gave us great monuments, feats of architecture and recently dams and industry. Their patronage led to some of the greatest Kannada literature ever written and also aided the Bhakti movement.

So when the Karnataka state believes it must carry forward the legacy of the Mysuru Maharajas, can it be selective in only choosing to inherit the language without the religion, the customs without the Bhakti? The Mysuru Maharajas were never secular - they were clear that they followed Hinduism even if they were tolerant and inclusive of all faiths. They conducted the Dasara celebrations as a purely religious event. How does the secular Karnataka government go about inheriting this? Must the religious meaning of this traditional event be completely stripped for the sake of the Karnataka government to celebrate this festival? Or can the Karnataka government momentarily defy the Constitution of India for 10 days a year as it organises a grand religious event? If the Mysuru King owned temples as they were patrons of the temple and had a family tradition where each family member dedicated his/her life to the service of this devi, can the secular Karnataka government inherit only the material wealth of the temple without being a patron of this temple, without enforcing that all in the Karnataka government must act in humble service of the Devi?

A word that often comes to the rescue here is "cultural". I believe this is a vacuous word - a word that means religious but can be used by secular folk to say that they're steering clear of religion since they're talking about this whole other thing called "culture". There is absolutely nothing irreligious about Chamundeshwari Devi. Whether you bow your head to her because your family forces you to or you believe she will give you her divine blessing, bowing before her is a religious act, no matter what high-level logic you are weighing in your mind while doing it. No matter what religious community you belong to. And here was Mr. Siddaramiah, a militant atheist one would say, doing it as a representative of the Karnataka government of the secular Union of India. He prayed for good rains and good prosperity in the state, he says.

A parallel might be drawn to the Kumbh Mela. I am not sure about the exact details of how the Kumbh Mela works, but if I understand it correctly, the mela itself is just a congregation and the individual aartis on the ghats are performed by individual temples. The government merely provides amenities such a accommodation, sanitation, etc. Perhaps the UP government does this viewing it as a tourism opportunity or as a necessity to prevent the spread of disease and maintain cleanliness. After all, you cannot simply ban people from congregating peacefully at one place. Either way, I am not here to defend expenditure on the Kumbh Mela. If the secular government of UP facilitates the religious aspects of the Kumbh, then I am opposed to this expenditure of public money.

I have no answer to this question and my concerns with this are two-fold.

As a citizen of India, I wish that the tax money paid by my parents and people I know, and the money that I will soon pay when I am earning in India, should be spent in accordance with the constitution. No matter the blessings what Devi Chamundeshwari may shower on the Karnataka government, this is a religious event and the Karnataka government has no business celebrating it and spending money on it. Why should my money go into the hands of a person with a faith that throwing flowers on a statue made of stone will somehow benefit them? What if I believe in a stone with a different shape? Or believe in no God?

As a Hindu and a Kannadiga who is proud of the legacy of the Mysuru Maharaja and the Vijaynagara Empire, I do not understand who a secular government is to interfere in a religious practice of my community and my Devi. That a person who is avowedly non-Hindu is given a chance to offer Puja from the pedestal where once a Maharaja who was a devotee and patron of Chamundehwari did it is an affront to my religion. It doesn't matter if the Chief Minister is HD Kumaraswamy, who is such a big devotee that he visits more temples after elections than before elections - he is representing a non-religious state that washes its hands off my religion - no bother, this staying away from religion is good - just allow my own community to celebrate it and organise it on our own.

Karnataka is a Hindu Rashtra in blatant disregard of the Indian constitution? Mysuru Dasara is a secular event in blatant disregard of its history? I am opposed to either being true, but one of them has to be true!

Thaayi Chamundeswari, neene heLbekamma! (Mother Chamundeswari, you only have to tell, mother!)

Why Bran is so sad

One of my favourite formats of content on the internet is short clips of people saying one thing one day and then exactly the opposite a short time later. The best that I can recollect is Arnab Goswami absolutely laying into Yogi Adityanath for some of his comments and then criticising Narendra Modi as well while he's at it followed by a clip of him interviewing Yogi Adityanath where calling him "mild" would be an understatement and he praises Yogi for the same comments that he had castigated earlier. This is the video I'm talking about.

This is also hilarious when you look at two tweets or facebook posts where the person lauds something in one and criticises it in the other. Or someone tweets that they are very against people who do something, then later do that very same thing. 

It would be even more hilarious if it wasn't a serious problem. Along with fake news, this kind of hypocrisy among people we trust for our information and politicians who rule us is worrying. Not only do they lie, they also change tunes seemingly at will. And why has this come to the fore now? Why have people started spreading more lies and changing their tunes more frequently recently. 

My humble submission and pet theory is that they haven't. I think politicians and media-persons are as unscrupulous and hypocritical as ever, it's just that with social media, it is far easier to spot as well as far easier to spread information across so many channels. It's like the Chinese whispering game - you hear one bit of information at one end and the information the last person receives is something only mildly related, most often completely random. 

But more than this, I would quote Arsene Wenger here. "It’s difficult sometimes when you are paid to talk, to talk, to talk and only say things that are true and intelligent." When someone's job is to talk a lot, give speeches, moderate panels every single night, they very very quickly run out of intelligent things to say. The hundreds and thousands of contradictions and hypocrisies in their mind and action come to the fore - and I'm sure this would be true for every single one of us. Even us good conscientious citizens, if we gave vent to every single thought, would be seen as terrible hypocrites. And maybe this is why some very questionable characters have huge mass followings - I think human beings are by nature very comfortable with hypocrisy. If we weren't, we would never be comfortable with anybody on this planet. All public figures, to my mind, are by definition questionable characters.

Social media exacerbates the situation is two ways. It makes it so much easier to point these hypocrisies out, because there is a record of every video, every statement, every speech, every tweet that someone has made. And secondly, everyone who loves to talk and say a lot is given a voice to talk all the time. This information deluge leaves us exhausted and often extremely sad or pessimistic.

I have lived happily all my life in Bengaluru. But when I was young, reading the newspaper was really scary. And after a burglary at my house, I started paying special attention to the crime section. Every day there were a couple of murders, a person shooting someone else, chain-snatchings, etc. etc. Now I understand that Bengaluru is a really peaceful city. More than a crore people live there, you would expect way more crime, chaos and disorder. If this was a few hundred years back, maybe a desperate fight for food, water and resources would cause riots and mob violence everyday if those many people lived in such a small space. So I now appreciate that the city of Bengaluru is overall, a peaceful, not terribly unsafe place. At least for the vast majority of the city for the vast majority of people.

And this is why I sympathise with Brandon Stark. (Mild spoilers from Game of Thrones coming) He is always expressionless, brooding, sad and sombre. Here is a guy who knows practically everything that has ever happened. All the major and so many minor events of history. Here is a guy who at any time can tune into anything happening anywhere and just find out. This guy is living in the biggest possible information deluge. Of course he would be terribly sad all the time.

And how different is this from us. Any semi-major event happening anywhere on earth, we can always find someone making a Facebook live about it. We can find someone tweeting about it. It is a miracle we are all not like Bran. Because at some level, we don't like to believe all those on media.

As one of my favourite contemporary writers Manu Joseph said - "The elite, by their very nature, are few in number but exert a disproportionate influence on voters by controlling activism and influencing journalism through which they then transmit gloom and fear. Their greatest political success is in creating the notion that we are going through times that are dark, angry and insane, which are intrinsic qualities of social activists but not the nature of our age or the world at all. The world is mostly banal and hopeful, until it switches on the media."

I like being banal and hopeful. 

The Perfect Painting

The book which left the greatest impact on me was "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It's a hard book to read and make sense of. On my first read, I understood about 20% of it and on my second try, I got confused about the 20% while still being quite clueless about the 80%.

I will not discuss the book directly, because I don't remember the exact chronology of events. I just remember some ideas and thoughts that stuck with me amidst all that confusion and just stayed with me, gestating in my mind. There was one line that stuck with me throughout, that for me epitomised everything that I think I understood, correctly or wrongly, about the book.

"How do you make a perfect painting? By becoming a perfect person and then painting naturally." This line seems inane and ludicrous at the same time. We've seen plenty of perfect paintings by imperfect people. We've seen perfect music by imperfect people. In fact, the whole trope of the troubled genius seems to be a refutation of this idea. Perhaps these people are outliers. Perhaps everything discussed in the book is fanciful nonsense. This isn't an academic forum so I'm just going to go ahead and repeat what I've learnt from the book, something that I believe to be true.

Now, about this perfect painting - what is the metaphor trying to say. For some reason, our mind jumps to someone making a perfect painting and thinking about whether this person is necessarily a perfect person. What is a perfect painting? There are no perfect paintings - this is just that - a metaphor.

So let us flip it around - let us say you're a person who wants to make a painting that is close to perfection. Or for those of you who have a problem with the subjective nature of a perfect painting, let us take an example that can be measured and that I also relate to far more. Let us I want to execute a perfect run, where the perfect run is being able to run 21 km in 2 hours and then not be bedridden for the next several weeks. Right now I can't paint very well, nor can I run very well. I have to practice running. The question is though, should I only practice running. Robert Pirsig (the author of the book) disagrees. He says, you must improve your entire life. All aspects.

I like to think of our personality, or our selves as a tighly-wrung web, each string representing some one particular aspect of ourselves, be it physical or mental or spiritual or whatever. Pulling on any string will move every other string. Of course, some strings are close to each other, some are far away and will feel only a light pull. There are some surprising connections that you can never uncover no matter how hard you examine the web. One string might look very tangled with another but actually are weakly connected, while another far away that looks completely unrelated might be closely linked.

The point the author makes repeatedly is that everything you do affects who you are, and this becomes you and dictates what you do next. We tend to think of things in isolation. It is easy to see why a good night's sleep and a healthy breakfast will help you in that jog, but it isn't obvious for the painting. I think many people will disagree. But I think it's true.

I think the book doesn't try to make it a direct effect. Of course, on a healthy diet, on a good sleep, one can think better, work better, move better and pretty much do every thing better. But can a person get better at painting by becoming a better person? No, but the converse is the point being made here and the lesson to be learnt - you cannot become a better painter without becoming a better person.

Sounds absurd, but this brings me back to running and another book I read about it which I've discussed on this blog before. A leading running guru who coached several ultra-marathoners firmly believed (and did his own little pet experiments) that becoming a better runner is closely linked to becoming more empathetic. Recent research has shown very very close connections between psychological well-being and the health of your digestive system - so much so that some doctors believe that those complaining of chronic stomach and gut related problems being referred to psychologists will become routine practice soon.

Recently, I had a great rhythm going with my running - one shorter, quicker run, one longer, slower run and one long cycle ride per week, and everything was great. Work was getting done, I was eating better, I was actually cooking more instead of feeling lazy. Then one sleep-deprived, work-filled night ruined every thing. Not only did my stamina miraculously disappear for the next few days (understandable), I got back into some bad habits I'd been avoiding - nothing too serious, just a habit of binge re-watching a TV show that I'd decided to stop doing. It doesn't make direct sense that a break in routine should affect my will-power, especially given that the sleepless night had been a couple of days previously and I was technically caught up on my sleep.

I remember watching a talk by a guy, some kind of special force dude from UK or USA, who was captured and kept in a kind of well for some 11 months. It was a deep hole in the ground which he had no way of climbing. It was just wide enough for him to sleep and he was given some form of food every day, obviously not of the best quality. He explained what helped him survive - he never allowed himself to lapse into disorder. He mentally "arranged" the hole into different regions, one corner for sleeping, one corner for answering nature's calls, another place for sitting idle. He exercised in a particular corner of the hole everyday at a particular time and kept track of the date. All this while having no contact with anyone he knew and the sun beating down upon him every day as long as sunlight fell directly at the bottom of the hole.

This is an extreme example. In the same situation, I am sure that for me, it would be a slow descent into craziness, disorientation, etc. But this man avoided it, because he kept pulling on every string of the web. And if one thing gave way, if one day he said screw this and just slumped and slept where he exercised, then it was far from game over, but it was the first step of the descent and it would have undone a lot of hard work.

None of us are so perfect. Perhaps the nature of this man's special service training, whatever it was, gave him the right temperament to have this kind of steely determination. And I'm not saying that there is zero room for error. I think that this web of who we are is something we need to pull on and to balance continuously. A talent or a skill or a habit cannot suddenly bloom in a vacuum. You cannot suddenly just become a great painter while still not being regular with your meals or nice to your friends.

I think this picture of the personality, or of a persona, that this book gave me cuts both ways. It can be overwhelming to constantly think about. Oh no, if I don't eat properly now, will I be able to give that talk properly three days from now. Constant vigilance can very quickly become constant anxiety.

But there is a circularity to it. When everything seems to be going terribly, haphazardly, maybe all you need to do is pull on one string, and everything will fall in place. If you have a terrible sleep-cycle, if you're not eating properly, you're not working well, you're procrastinating, all you need is that one good jog. Not the perfect run. Even a terrible run is closer to a perfect run than no run. And this tug pulls the whole web forward. You're tired and you sleep well, so you have a better day at work. So you feel better and you're sweeter to the people around you.

When nothing is going right, a little tug anywhere can solve the problem everywhere. And when everything is going right, a little carelessness anywhere can ruin everything. It's just a more holistic way of looking at things. And for some reason, perhaps due to modernity, due to culture, due to human nature, whatever, we don't naturally look at things this way. At least I didn't, until I read this book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which is "neither about Zen nor about Motorcycle Maintenance".

War

Kunti's door crashed open and nearly got unhinged. Draupadi stormed in through the open door and disturbed Kunti's sweet reverie. "You can't just barge in like this, Draups! What if I was changing? It's not yet Kali Yuga for you to just walk in without knocking!" she reprimanded her daughter-in-law. Draupadi was clearly upset about something.

"What the hell did you just tweet!" she demanded. "Five villages for five sons? Peace is the only cause worth fighting for?" she scoffed! "What are you, a romantic now? And why the hell did you tag Krishna in your tweet? He's going to ignore and all his followers are going to troll you now! You deserve it". The questions came in a constant stream.

"Sit down, Draups, calm down", Kunti reasoned. "No I shall not calm down. And stop calling me by that ridiculous nickname, I told you to stop it 3 days into vanvaas. You've started it again!"

Silence.

"So, will you explain your tweet?" Draupadi demanded again.

"I don't know what is there to explain. Don't you want peace?"

"Yes, I want peace. Peace of bloody mind, which I will get when I see Bheema drinking Dushasana's blood. I will get it when I wash my hair in his blood and I see the limp bodies of Drona, Kripa, Bhishma, Karna and Duryodhana burnt. And here you're suggesting 5 villages while those tyrants rule! Who gave you that idea? It was Yudhishtira wasn't it? I've had enough of his Dharmic virtue signalling these days!" She began to cry in earnest. "I thought Arjuna at least loved me deeply, but he's reading too much philosophy these days as well. Constantly whines about how much he respects Drona and Bhishma as his gurus. Paaah! Gurus who sat and did nothing while his wife was molested. What's the point of being the best warrior in the world if you die without ever shooting a bullet in your life? I bet he's already dreaming about living in his little village as Duryodhana's slave while the whole world admires Karna no? Only poor Bheema is as angry as me, but he listens to Yudhishtira like an idiot. No one cares about my humiliation." Her tears overwhelmed her words and she could speak no more. She dissolved into tears, but only for a few seconds. She was a warrior herself - she gathered all her resolve and continued.

"What hurt me the most was, all day I was creating new accounts, making new bots on twitter, new pages on facebook. I was presenting our side as a grand rebellion against the entrenched rulers, a rule over the people versus a rule with the people. It was getting great engagement - people even changed their handle names in support of the "Kuru government in exile". How cool is that! All that hard-work undone by one tweet from you!"

Kunti allowed Draupadi to vent. She was rather alarmed by this outburst from her fiery daughter-in-law. She was relieved that Draupadi had missed the most important bit of news, but now she would have to tell her herself. She wanted Draupadi to calm down before breaking the news to her. "Anything more? Let's talk it out" she said kindly.

"There's nothing to talk about. You're a traitor. Yudhishtira and Arjuna are big-headed idiots who think they're too smart. My only hope is Krishna. He saved me from Dushasana, he will save me from having to live in a random village for the rest of my life. He will know what to do". Kunti grimaced inside. "Ummm, Draupadi. I think you may have missed out on a bit of news." she said slowly.

"What news?" Draupadi demanded.

"So that tweet, it wasn't just a random idea of mine. It's our official truce offer and Krishna has gone as our messenger to Duryodhana's court. I was just putting it out there."

Draupadi's reaction was exactly what Kunti feared. It was a mixture of anger, a feeling of betrayal and utter helplessness. Stunned silence followed as Draupadi digested what she had just heard. The anger in her voice was no longer fiery, it had turned to ice. "Who. Suggested. This. Idea?" she hissed, enunciating every word clearly. Kunti's face fell, for she knew the answer would disappoint Draupadi. "Krishna gave Yudhishtira this idea. Yudhishtira was strongly in support of it, Arjuna said it's a good idea. Bheema got annoyed, but he consented as well. Nakula and Sahadeva, well, you know them. They were in their own world saying their own things, but in the end they agreed as well."

Draupadi had only thing on her mind. The whole world would think she was hysterical, but she was already planning well ahead on what could be done. She could demand from her father to call her brother and the entire Panchala army. Her online support would mean she could even get convince some motivated mercenaries and youngsters to join her camp. And of course, Bheema. She knew he was itching for a war with Duryodhana! They could slowly raise support and funds for an army. She muttered a goodbye to Kunti and got up.

"Draupadi wait!", Kunti called. "I understand how upset you are but think about the costs of war. Think about all the lives that will be saved, all the children who will grow up with both parents. We can avert so much destruction. The price paid for a life lost in incalculable. War must be averted at every cost whenever possible".

Draupadi stopped dead and turned around to face Kunti. A strange calm came over her. Every thought flowed in her mind with a sharp clarity. "Let us be clear about one thing, Amma. There never was peace. Those people have been at war with your sons for decades. Just because there aren't two armies assembled at a battlefield firing at each other, just because there is no shankhnaad echoing across the meadows, it does not mean there is no war. We have offered them the chance to reform their ways a million times. And a million times they have slapped away our hands that were extended in friendship. For how long must we endure humiliation and pain because we are of the same blood, because we were once one people? And for once, let everything not be about your sons. What about the one you accepted in your home as your daughter, me? I could have stayed back in Indraprastha under the protection of Bhishma or Drona or Kripa and lived like a queen. I chose to walk with your sons in my bare feet across jungle, grassland and desert. I have eaten berries for days, slept with an empty stomach for nights on end. War and kingdom were the games played by men, I have always been a mere pawn following them. But when the time came to assert power over the other, I was suddenly called to play. No one disrobed Bheema, no one dragged Sahadeva by his hair in front of a packed hall. All your sons vowed revenge on Duryodhana, but now they are like meek goats as soon as the possibility of comfort is offered to them. My suffering means nothing. When a discussion takes place and Krishna is called to be sent as our messenger, I am not informed, I am not called or consulted. From the first day, this has been a war, a war I didn't choose yet a war in which I suffer the most. So today, for the first time, I will at least have my say, if not my way." She stormed off towards the door, but paused before leaving the room. She had been weighing the cruelest words in her mind and decided to utter them.

"Oh one more thing, Amma. You lost Karna when you heartlessly flung him into the river, he will never rejoin you. He will fight against his brothers even if he knows the truth about who he is. So support your sons who grew up playing on your lap, drinking milk from your breast, not he who you condemned to the life of a vagabond, a life of misery and death at the hands of his own brother. He will not come back to you, quit pining already." Draupadi left without turning around to see the effect her words had. Moments ago, Kunti was gleefully imagining a life of peace, with 6 sons, 5 of them happily in their beautiful villages under the protection of their cousin, the sixth a king in his own right, serving her as well. Now she was a broken woman. She prayed for Krishna's well-being and success in his mission while also hoping Draupadi didn't truly mean her parting words.

Draupadi walked straight for Bhima's quarters when she bumped into Krishna returning from his mission. Krishna looked stoic, but the edge of his lips were curved upward in a slight smile. Draupadi walked on, pretending she didn't see him. Krishna understood exactly how she felt. With feigned resignation he sighed loudly, "Well, there will be a war after-all, Draupadi." Draupadi turned around and faced Krishna in shock before remembering Krishna's betrayal. But Krishna continued speaking, now playfully with sarcastic exaggeration. "Who imagined Duryodhana would be arrogant enough to turn down the offer of five villages, huh?" he demanded from no one in particular. "You know what he said? He said he wouldn't give the land equal to the prick of a needle."

His voice now turned playfully poignant and sad. "Well, when Yudishtira hears that even this most humble offer has been rejected, and so rudely, even he will agree that there has to be war. What a pity." Draupadi nearly burst out giggling. "Oh Krishna, you evil genius!" she exclaimed. She rushed to tell Bheema. Krishna did know what to do!

Prahalada, Hiranyakashipu, Narasimha

This is my favourite story from the Puranas, retold in my own words, with my own embellishments (or as a purist would call it, inaccuracies) on the basis of the various versions of this story I have heard/read. I think I like this story most because of how simple it is and how straight-forward the various emotions involved are - Hiranyakashipu's anger, exasperation at his son, Prahalada's serene detachment to everything but Vishnu and Narasimha's righteous anger at the extremely learned but arrogant man who is troubling his Bhakta. 

I will be using several Sanskrit/Kannada words which I believe are generally understood in most Indian languages (like "Bhakta"). Sorry if you don't understand them

Hiranyakashipu was more than enraged - he had reached that stage of decisiveness after anger. When you've accepted that the thing which is angering you won't go away, so you've taken a final decision and intend to follow it through to the end. He forcibly dragged tiny Prahalada into his palace.

All his attempts to educate Prahalada, to coax him, cajole him, force him, to renounce Vishnu and accept Hiranyakashipu as the supreme power in the Brahmaanda, had failed. With no remorse he'd ordered his own son's death - Prahalada was no fit heir to the daitya lineage. But to no avail. Prahalada had survived all the attempts. The venom of the deadliest snakes in all the worlds was powerless against this boy. The mightiest, most rogue elephants bowed meekly before him. Every time he was thrown off the steepest cliff, he hurtled towards certain death, only for his fall to be mysteriously cushioned just as he struck the ground. The sharpest weapons turned to cloth upon contact with his skin. With every attempt, the radiant 5 year old boy emerged unscathed, Narayana's name constantly on his smiling lips, indifferent to the world around him.

Hiranyakashipu towered over the little boy, glaring with red eyes. It was time for the king himself to take care of the execution. He raised his mace. "Aren't you scared of me?", he demanded from his son. "I have defeated all and sundry, I rule the entire universe. I have taken Indra's throne. Even devathas run scared from me! All my enemies are dead or in hiding forever!" Prahalada looked at him calmly, as if in a trance. "But have you defeated the six enemies of your mind, kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada and matsara, (lust, anger, greed, attachment/delusion, pride, jealousy) who reside within you?", he enquired politely.

Hiranyakashipu advanced. The cold decisiveness in him was again being replaced by rage. A small boy, his own son, could not be brave enough to speak so calmly to him, the ruler of the universe! Surely he was being propped up by some one else. Some enemy of his. "From where do get the arrogance, the pride and the bravery to confront me this way?" he raged! Again, Prahalada replied softly. "Not only me, but all of us, derive our strength from Shri Hari, Narayana. Vishnu. Even a blade of grass cannot move without his blessing." 

Hiranyakashipu's mortal enemy, he who had taken the avatar of a boar to kill his brother Hiranyaksha! The man Hiranyakashipu had sworn to kill to avenge his brother. And here his son was calling him supreme! "If you derive your strength from him, show me where he is. Show me where he is and we shall see who is stronger!" he roared. "He is everywhere," said Prahalada unblinkingly. 

Hiranyakashipu's anger finally exploded. "Oh, he is everywhere, is he?" he asked rhetorically, advancing menacingly towards Prahalada. He grabbed a large clay pot lying nearby and gestured towards Prahalada. "Is he in this pot then?", he demanded, smashing the pot violently against the floor. "Where is he!". He advanced closer to Prahalada, his mace within striking range. "He must be in this pillar then! Is he in this pillar?", he bellowed. "He is everywhere, he is in the pillar," said Prahalada, unmoved. Hiranyakashipu smashed his mace against the pillar, shattering it and sending a cloud of dust in the air. 

He raised his mace over Prahalada, ready to swing it at his head, when a terrible sound filled the hall of the palace. The building, nay, the entire universe shook with a cry so loud, Brahma, Indra and all the other devthas came out of their lokas, shaken and surprised. Hiranyakashipu turned around as a silhouette became visible in the dust. From the shattered pillar emerged a figure, taller than Hiranyakashipu, na mrugam, na manusham. Neither man nor beast. 

His legs and torso were that of a man, while his face and arms were that of a lion. The worlds shook as he took at step towards Hiranyakashipu. His eyes glistened like two full moons in the clear night sky. His long tongue stuck out of his mouth like goddess Kaali. His lion-claws were drawn and held high in the air, ready to pounce on Hiranyakashipu. 

Vishnu had come, as half-man, half-lion, Narasimha, for his Bhakta Prahalada. Prahalada said "He is in the pillar". The great Rishis had said every time, with unwavering faith, that Narayana is indeed everywhere. He showed it all to be true, appearing when his Bhaktas needed him the most, to end the tyrannous rule of the asura-king Hiranyakashipu and re-establish Dharma in the worlds. 

In the battle that followed, Narasimha is initially frustrated by Hiranyakashipu. Additionally, Hiranyakashipu is protected by Brahma's boons. Narasimha eventually overpowers Hiranyakashipu and carries him to the threshold of the palace door exactly as the last rays of the sun are visible in the horizon, places him on his lap and tears his gut open with his claws. All the conditions of Brahma's boon were met. These were his boons. 

He cannot be killed by anyone created by Brahma - Narasimha is Vishnu himself, who is Anaadhi, without beginning. Also, his Narasimha form came to be in the pillar, not by Brahma

He can neither be killed by man nor beast - Narasimha is half man, half beast. 

He can neither be killed at day or at night - Narasimha killed him at twilight

He can neither be killed on the earth or in the sky - Narasimha places him on his thigh to kill him

He can neither be killed by the living or the dead - Narasimha's claws, like our nails, are living in a way, and dead in a way

He can neither be killed indoors or outdoors - Narasimha killed him on the threshold of the door

Thus vanquishing Hiranyakashipu and laying the path for Dharma Sthaapana again, Narasimha, wearing the intestines of Hiranyakashipu like a victory garland, with blood splattered all over him and still burning with fury, turns to finally greet the smiling five year old boy whose unwavering faith had brought him down to earth. 

I think in the age of buzzfeed, we want to know what are the "take-aways" from this story. We wish to know what are the "Three things we learnt from Narasimha's cameo appearance today". I think this story has no morals. Sure, have faith in god, maybe. But if someone charged at you with a weapon, I would very strongly advice you to run as fast as your feet can carry you towards a crowded place, not await a saviour to burst out from a pillar. I think it's just a nice story, a feel-good story with a happy ending, simple agendas on the minds of the actors. It's almost a template for thousands of movie scenes, where the good guy is about to have his head smashed by the evil guy when the hero enters and saves him. That is it. We watch various versions of this basic story so many times over. We read it so many times over. And so I can listen to this story again and again. It's an uncomplicated story you tell a child to coax him into sleeping, safe in the knowledge that the sound from under his bed is not Hiranyakashipu ready to kill him, but Narasimha lying in wait to ambush Hiranyakashipu should he show up. And as an adult, it reminds you of the time when you would believe in Narasimha. As an adult, when you are acutely aware of the futility of faith in the world, you still hang on to it. 

Artificial Intelligence

The beautiful thing about the internet for me is the presence and easy availability of forums (fora?) with people discussing one particular thing or hobby. If, for example, you are a cricket fanatic, then you don't need to look too far in India. You can literally stop every passerby and debate whether India trounced Australia in Australia because this Indian team is so good, because the current Australian team is weakened and demoralised or a bit of both? Is this India's strongest fast-bowling attack ever? Is it India's strongest bowling line-up overall ever?

What if there exists a huge community across the world who watches one show or plays one game, but they're rarely in physical contact? That's where the internet comes in. And this has most had an impact on me through chess. Yes, it's not quite an esoteric pursuit and once you start talking about it, you will realise that there are a really huge number of committed amateur chess players in the world who are watching analysis of classic chess games, trying tactics puzzles and best of all, playing each other! But they're rarely in the same room or at the same table.

On the chess.com app, there are 15 different time schemes for the games. All you need to do is log on to this app, select your favourite time scheme and within 3 seconds, you are matched with another person who also is looking for a game with the same time scheme whose chess.com rating is similar to yours. Perhaps, you say, all the chess enthusiasts of this world (with no lives otherwise) are on this one app, so it's a concentration not truly reflective of the actual, meagre popularity of chess in the world. Actually, it is but one of about a handful of extremely popular chess apps. 

Chess  is one of those in-between things. You don't see too much of it in real life or in your "screen life", but if you go looking for it, it is hard to miss it. Perhaps playing chess is as popular as supporting Arsenal or Barcelona, but nowhere near as popular as football as a whole. 

To describe my relationship with chess would be impossible without using the word "addicted". And I realise that to be really into something, you don't necessarily have to be really good at doing it (one look at me on a football field would destroy this illusion once and for all). Yes, if a beginner played chess against me, they would probably get routed, but any player with a modicum of seriousness about their game would either stretch my game or, more likely, beat me with relative ease. 

There is one aspect of this game that I love which just keeps bringing me back to it. Chess is a highly constrained game where, relative to the total possible moves that can possibly be made (the maximum possibility is where every piece can move to every square), the number of moves a piece can actually make is miniscule. A pawn can move to a maximum of 3 squares at once, a knight to 8 and even the mighty queen, when ideally situated, can strike a mere 27 squares out of 64. And such an ideal situation only happens at the very end of games with few pieces remaining on the board. 

In spite of this, the number of possible moves is mind-mindbogglingly large and colossal. The first 10 moves, according to a calculation, has some 10 to the power of 29 possibilities within the rules of chess. That's a 100 billion billion billion possibilities. (and seemingly all of them end in me being checkmated)

So would a chess player's mind have to grasp all of this? Every single move? Thankfully not. These are only possibilities. The moves that make sense are far fewer. A significant number of these possibilities certainly involve stupid moves that a child would know is wrong. 

In reality, there are certain well-known and not so well-known principles in chess which help beginners to rapidly improve their games. The best-known principle is that the player who controls the central squares generally has a better chance of winning. So from these 100 billion billion billion (HBBB) possibilities, perhaps the vast majority lead to one player losing a lot of material or not making progress towards the centre of the board. In all professional games, the players actually memorise and prepare, with help from older games, chess theory and off-late, supercomputers, to understand which openings yield the greatest advantage, position-wise and material-wise.

So from a HBBB, in reality, we are dealing with a few hundred well studied, sensible and practical openings. Very often, players don't even think about the first 5-6 moves, as the best move for every variation is studied in great detail and this forms the background "homework" for any great chess player. There are whole books dedicated to particular variations of particular openings and what kind of patterns can emerge from this, the weaknesses and strengths of different move sequences. To be very honest, when I first learnt this, I was rather disappointed. I thought chess is a game based only on pure imagination and logic, but actually a huge part of it is rote study.

But here's the amazing bit that I love - this number I've been throwing at you - HBBB. It is just so huge, that even with all the opening theory and preparation and supercomputer guidance during practice, down there, on the board, every single game is unique! Every game starts with the players knowing exactly what the opponent will do 2 moves in, 3 moves in. Player A knows that Player B knows, Players B knows that Player A knows that Player B knows. It is all planned out. Yet, at some point, because players have a finite memory, because players can't always guess what the opponent likes, what he/she has prepared, at some point it diverges from every single game known to mankind.

Quite similar, sure. Many similarities exist between 2 ongoing games that vary by just one move. But this one extra move is a wildcard. It opens up god knows how many billion more possibilities. And from then on, the players are on their own. It is just their minds against each other. Their preferences, their biases, their imagination and their luck.

So you must be wondering - does this guy have a point? And why is he rambling about chess in a blog post with a title like "Artificial Intelligence"? I think I have a point, but in a while. So bear with me.

The question that bugs me is this. We have two players whose "wits" are pitted against each other. Let us assume they're thrown into a unique game where black and white have an equal position to the extent to which that is possible so that their match preparation and opening theory knowledge don't prove very useful (though there is an equal amount of literature dedicated to mid-game theory as well, but let's imagine these players are just using their "intelligence"). Who would win? Would the smarter player always win? What constitutes smartness here?

A strongly logical person would be an intuitive guess. Perhaps the guy with a photographic memory stands a great chance, since he can hold the images of the board several moves in advance and can work with less effort on this mental chessboard. Maybe the more imaginative person, the guy who thinks out of the box, prodding to see if that seeming blunder of giving the queen in exchange for a bishop can actually open up a match-winning sequence of moves, will win out as he confuses his opponent every time.

Luckily, we don't have to rely completely on our instinct to give us the answer to this question. We don't have to rely completely on people to give us a part of this answer. Today, all the top-ranked chess players in the world are computers. The cold, hard logic of a machine always wins. Well, not always cold.

There are essentially two kinds of chess-playing computers (usually supercomputers), or chess engines. Let us call them Rama and Sita (since you know, there is RAM in every computer).

The way Rama works is, he considers the current board position and then takes every single possible move. For every single move, he assesses the position and gives it a score, depending on the new position. Then, he looks at every possible reply to each of these moves and gives each of them a score. Depending on time-restrictions and the computing power, Rama decides to stop assessing the possibilities a certain number of moves in advance. Maybe he just looks one move ahead and evaluates the positions. Or goes far ahead. Given just how rapidly the number of possibilities proliferate (10 moves is HBBB possibilities at the beginning), there is a physical limit on how many moves ahead Rama will be able to assess every single option. The best chess engines can assess up to a depth of 30 moves ahead! This is a testament to the sheer computing power it has at its disposal.

But the main question is - how does Rama assess each position? How does he know one is better than the other? Rama has a creator (Brahma, duh). The evaluation of a position is hard-coded into Rama. Somebody tells Rama at the beginning, this piece is worth so many points, that piece is worth so many. A pawn past the central square is worth more than an ordinary pawn. A king safely tucked in behind a pawn barrier is good. Additionally, Rama doesn't bother calculating the moves initially. He just looks up a manual on openings which are excellently studied by his sentient cousins, the human beings.

Now you must be jumping! This is misleading - because when you're playing Rama, you're not really playing Rama. You're playing some really good chess player hired by Rama's creator (probably IBM) to give him an evaluation scheme. This great player certainly has his biases. He may be more uncomfortable defending against rooks, so he rates rooks highly. He has his favourite opening, so even Rama plays this opening more often than an actual position assessment would suggest playing it.

Enter Sita. She is stupid, but at least she is her own person. And she learns rapidly. Sita only knows the rules of chess, nothing else. She isn't great at looking too many moves into the future either. But she has one fundamental advantage - she is flexible.

Sita has a ritual before playing anyone else. She sits by herself and moves for both white and black. She merely knows how the pieces are allowed to move, she has no idea that taking a piece to the centre is good. No one whispered in her ear that a passed pawn is especially dangerous even though a pawn is by itself a rather weak piece.

Slowly, yet steadily, she begins to notice patterns in the games she is playing against herself. She starts to see that some positions are advantageous for her and she starts to make her own evaluation schemes. Initially, her evaluation is really rudimentary - I mean who takes so long to understand that the queen is the strongest piece! But then she gets better. And even better. Now she has grasped everything about chess that every human being has ever known and a whole bunch of other positional evaluations. Yes, Sita's intelligence is "Artificial". No one has ever taught her anything, except how to learn. Yet she knows more than anyone else and every single time, she learns more as well.

So who wins in a chess game between Rama and Sita? It depends. Which model? What kind of computing power? What kind of evaluation schemes? Screw that, you say. Just give me the strongest Rama and the strongest Sita made. Now who wins? This has been done, and the answer is definitive. Sita. Hands down. Even though Rama can see 30 moves ahead and Sita doesn't bother trying so hard. Even though Rama assesses a few million positions per second while Sita assesses some 80 thousand only. Rama plays hard, Sita plays smart. Rama has intelligence, Sita has intuition with only a smattering of intelligence. Sita has imagination.

It's even better if you think about it this way. Take your phone. Now invite the best chess players and programmers to make a Rama type chess engine out of this. Will this engine beat you? Yes (unless some chess grandmaster has stumbled upon my blog). Will it beat the current world chess champion? It depends on which phone you have. Let us say you have a rather primitive phone and the world champion is in fact stronger. No matter how many times they play each other, the human will win. (Most current smartphones are actually stronger than the DeepBlue computer that beat the human world chess champion for the first time ever in 1997)

But with your phone, you now make a Sita type chess engine. Will she beat the human? Given enough time, yes. At some point, she will be the world chess champion.

Are human chess players Rama or Sita? That's a hard one. Sita makes billions of moves every minute while playing on her own. A human can make maybe hundred. Sita records every game she plays. A human has a finite memory and doesn't necessarily choose the most important thing to remember. Rama is taught what positions are better and what positions are worse. Humans study this as well. Humans have intuition, Rama doesn't. Sita has something that seems a lot like it. Sita learns on her own, Rama learns nothing, humans learn from each other. But Sita too learns when she plays humans. Humans can write poetry, paint, build and tell stories. Rama can't. Nor can Sita - at least she hasn't yet learnt how to.