The Problem of Raj

Now that the dust is settling over the issue of `north indians' in Mumbai, the central character in this issue Raj Thackrey has become known to more people that he was before.
The point I want to emphasize is that all of the media channels whether in print, electronic or otherwise have at most presented the half side of the story.

Most of them begin from the `provocative statements' made by Raj, without mentioning the background with which they were made in. I am in no way supporting anybody, but then presenting a dialog as a monologue is is cheating on the people. What happened was unfortunate, but the way media portrays it is so bad, that as if the entire law and order situation in Mumbai has go bad. But this was not the case I was out on all the days in which the incidents took place, apart from the areas mentioned life was as usual in the other areas.

But the replaying of a 1 minute film of 1 incident 100 times does not mean that 100 incidents happened. This is what most of the people don't understand, when a video clip is shown repeatedly they this is happening continuously, just enhancing the worries and tensions. Is this what media wants? To take the public in a rage; if the incidents were reported in a proper manner the mania around them, and characterization of Raj as a monster would not have happened. Media is behaving as irresponsibly as it can in this case. And the kind of `intellectualism' that is being done is doing no good to the problem itself.

Let us take a look at the problem itself, which has caused this trouble. People from the `undeveloped' parts of India come to Mumbai and other metros in search for the livelihood. This is most clearly seen in case of Mumbai, which also happens to be the financial hub of the country. So it is `natural' for people to come here in large numbers. But why is this so? Since people in home states do not have enough employment opportunities they come here. So who is at fault here? Are the people in Mumbai at fault for the non-development of regions elsewhere? So my question is who is at fault?

Comments made by Raj has made a lot of people in lot of sections uncomfortable. Why is this so? His comments have exposed a lot things, about the `other' states. If people call these events as failure of constitution in Mumbai, then what about other states. Going along these lines it seems that the constitutional machinery has failed people of these regions time and again, by not being able to provide them with ample and decent oppurtunities for employment. Thus the very politicians who are slamming Raj left and right are the real problem makers. If they being in power for so long like Lalu Yadav and Mulayam Singh could not do anything about their own state [like they wanted to ] what moral right do they have to call the situation in Mumbai a constitutional failure?

People who know this are the ones who are most uncomfortable...

Kala Ghoda ...

Yesterday in the evening went to Kala Ghoda - The art festival - in the art district of Mumbai..

Did not have much cash to buy any thing....

But any way went there...

The atmosphere was charged, people all around dressed in the trends of the season...
All the cream of Mumbai had descended on here...

There were some drawing portraits of others, some art forms so weird that you cannot make sense out of it...

Truth about life...

What is the reality in life? You don't know, I wonder who does. But the fact remains that nobody dies virgin, everyone gets fucked up in their lives. Be it a saint or a sinner everyone is fucked up. But most of the people who are content with their lives do not even realize this, they think they are above this rule, in reality they are ones who are the most screwed.

So be it, what I find problematic and recently I have found the sort of perfect word for this is pseudogiri, people are living a pseudo life, they are sticking to ideals which are in no way real or have anything close to reality. When we want to discuss things about a particular practice the fundamentals are never questioned, they remain the untouchables. They cannot be thought of questioned about, they cannot be argued against. They are there, so they are and yo have to live with them...

Are you alive and kicking?

The message read ``Hope ur alive and kicking. Havent been seeing u around. Tc''

What is this supposed to mean? I don't know. I think I will ask the sender of the this message what it is supposed to mean? But whom is the message for? If it is for him, it is too late. For he died a few days back; somebody killed him in cold blood. Why the Tc [I hope it means take care...] for, when there are other mental retards to take care of [apologies to the real retards]?

Anyways I am sick of this...

Trying to be responsible to people who are not for you... Who only want so part of you which is beneficial for them... They do not accept the package deal, so I have decided to do the same... But I got a bit more far.... I reject the deal completely....

This will save me from a lot of trouble, though it may cause some trouble to others...

But why should be I bothered? Why do I have to take responsibility where I have none?

Maybe people should learn...

Maybe I should learn; not to trust them at all ...

Bonding with Things?

What do mean when somebody says they don't understand? Everybody understands. What people fail to understand is the `other'. By the `other' I mean thinking about thinking i.e. meta thinking. We fail to understand what the other people are trying to tell from `their' perspective. Whatever we see or hear the perspective is always ours. This is a sort of filter that is very difficult to let go. Most of us don't even realize this, because we are not able to think beyond this, without this. For most of us there is no other way in which we can know about things, think about people and objects...

Many people are not happy with me being bonded to the tools of technology. They ask how can you have feelings for a dead and inanimate object like your bike or computer or books? Instead of loving living things how can you love things which cannot return your feelings or appreciation?

But my experience has been different, maybe this is my bias for things which I like. But then everybody of us has some or the other bias, only difference is mine is not what the majority has...

I am like that...

I cannot do without loving things which I use, unlike people who just `use' them but don't `love' them. Maybe these people do this for humans also they just `use' them but not `love' them....

And it is these people who call me techo-freak...

What I think is these people are inherently incapable of loving anybody let alone anything...

So when they see me caring about `inanimate' things they become uncomfortable at this thought or loving things of caring about them because it is totally alien to them, to their thought process... And this is what they even don't realize, they are judging their inability to care or love about people with my bonding with things...

What it is to be normal...

What does it mean to be normal? Normalcy as seen sociologically reflects the idea that majority of public have about things. But we have to keep in mind that the things that are considered normal now, once might be considered abnormal and vice versa.

So what we have here is evolution of some idea with time. These ideas are defined by the people and the contemporary society. But how do these ideas take shape? Is it really the decision of the majority? Or it is decision of some people in the society who really matter? When these people make a judgment the rest follow...

This seems plausible. With the given social structure we have ensured that more people have to think about two square meals than reflect about life and other things. So really only a very few people in any given society at any given time think. And it is these people who decide what is normal... They are the ones who formulate guidelines for being normal or abnormal...

And the rest of public will tend to follow them without reflecting about things themselves. This is true for all the social institutions that have existed for some time. Nobody questions the ideology, they only follow.

For example let us take an issue. It is not supposed to be good to be adulterous. Why? Who decides that adultery is not good? Many societies have the strongest punishment for the crime of adultery. But why it is considered a crime at all? By whose definition adultery is crime? Since our ancestors believed that it was a crime we also tend to think so. But has anybody tried to see the justification for this other than given by the ancestors. They just know it is not good. But why if somebody asks them, then what is the answer that they give? That its just not good thats all.

Politics...

Recently I hear from Ruchi that there is an unrest in Govandi...
They say some Buddhist monk is found hanging dead and so the unrest. These people they can't get over it...

And the other lot knows how to use it...
Its all politics...
They say `mi marlya sarke karto, tu laglya sarkhe kar' and the game goes on, in the end no one wins...
These games are not meant for winning they are just there for waging, only in the dragging of such games without any end results will there be any profit for those who initiate such games. And the people who suffer are common people like you and us.

I really don't know how to get out or over this, but this particular problem is there, and I guess it going to stay in India for some time to come...