Re-contamination

I feel contaminated. That tight embrace, that laughter, that pleasure, that mischief in her eye, which I could not see yet sense; that betrayal, which I saw and yet could not look at - all unwelcome, yet all are keeping on returning to me. Why? Why the fuck are they returning? My acquaintance with this dirt is so new; I never knew it even existed to contaminate me, yet now that it has touched me, bathed me in itself, she is being so loyal. Bitch! I don't know what to do with it. Can I get rid of it? Would it ever be possible for me to forget all that? Or would it be easier to forget she is my mother of 27 years? Twenty seven years, of which 26 I had lived with both of them - mom and dad.

She seeped into her past, and the past equally eagerly gobbled her up. That night, a truck, its driver and the 50 milliliters of alcohol in his body had decided, her dad had had enough of this living business.

Since that day, mom and I were united by grief, relation by blood was merely incidental. On so many occasions I had felt that tinge of happiness. But no, I had denied it to myself on all occasions. All! How could I have allowed ... allowed myself to be happy? My dad. Yes, my dad is no more. The truck, the driver, and the alcohol were mere excuses. I was responsible for his death. And mom was.

Her dad was in Nashik, to seal one of his bigger contracts. He was to stay overnight and return in the morning - the morning that was to be the one following her birthday. But she and her mom had insisted that he return to celebrate their daughter's birthday. When he had refused, they had used their ultimate weapon that had seemed innocuous to them till then - "Dad, when will you stop running after this money? Your daughter is not important for you?" Her mom had winked at this put on act. They had had a hearty laugh when she ended the call, and that was that; they had never laughed again. Till today, that is. Her mom had breached that unwritten, unstated contract.

My mother is a whore. Yes, why am I shying away from that fact. She is a whore, so what if she is my mother. She is a whore, a depraved woman. A woman belonging to the gutters. So what if she is my mother. How the hell did she fuck my uncle? Her brother-in-law? Since when all this must have been going on? How could she do that? I should have always suspected. He's a son of a bitch! I should have anticipated this. His wife had died 2 years back, and he must have been on look out of some easy-going pussy. Bastard! How could he do that? Did he not think of his deceased brother? Had dad been alive today? Ah, dad is dead. And so... and so my mom... She became available. How is it his fault. He saw an available pussy and...

No! I can't take this. She's such a professional. Such an accomplished whore. She had made 'kheer' for the lunch! She was humming. A god-damned r-o-m-a-n-t-i-c song! As if nothing had happened. As if dad had never died! As if dad had never lived! Why did I not spit in her face? Why did I not scratch it? Why did I not punch her nose into a pulp? Whore! Yes, why did I not call her that ... in her face? What did I fear? Why did that whore have to be my mother?

She had done none of those. But had cried, cried and cried. Still, her tears had not washed away her dirt. She was contaminated. She had taken an off from her work as she was not feeling well. And when she had returned unknown to her mother and the uncle were... what she saw returning to home made her even sicker. She had to return to her clinic. Yet even here, that scene, that depravity, betrayal all - kept on returning to haunt her. They played in her mind, and on it.

Having freshly completed her dermatology diploma, she was posted in the STD (sexually transmitted diseases)-clinic of her hospital. Rest of the staff was surprised to see her back. She took it upon herself to clear the backlog of patients. But the memory of what she had seen that morning would not leave her. Her next patient was a 30 year-old elderly lady. Syphilis! She saw the white patches on her palm with reddish rash sprinkled over them. She had got bored of seeing so many syphilis patients. The 30 year-old elderly lady was accompanied by her son - not elderly, barely 15. "Secondary syphilis, it must be", she thought. Must have acquired from her unfaithful husband. Bastards!

"Kab se hai inhein yeh?" [Since when is she suffering from this?], she asked the son who was visibly at the helm of affairs.
"Do hafton se, madam." [Since two weeks, madam], he said with a gaze that betrayed pain as well as hope. Hope, that his mom would get well, be cured of her pains.

Somehow she felt touched. She could feel her mind developing an aptitude for things other than anger, viz., sympathy and a sincere urge to help.

"Tere pitaaji nahin aaye saath mein?" [Your dad did not accompany her?]
"Mere pitaaji nahin hai" [My dad is not there]. "Maan dhandha karti hai" [My mom is a prostitute]

That hit her like a barb!

These whores, they are everywhere! This bastard, he must not even know who his dad is. Oh, fuck! I can't stand this.

She sighed. She could not speak out all that. Every unformed word she was keeping inside of her was now banging against her ... from within. The pressure was building. Suddenly, she wanted to get it done with as quickly as possible.

"Is ke pehale is ko koi dawaai di thi" [Was she given any medication for this before], she could not keep the contempt out of her voice. She was not sure if she was trying extra hard to instead poison her conduct with as much contempt as possible.

He opened his wallet and started searching for the old prescription. It was taking some time, and she was getting irritated.

"Rehane de. Tum jaise log ek parcha bhi nahin sambhaal sakte." [Leave it, people like you cannot even preserve a scrap of paper]

He panicked, searching a bit more frantically.

Bastard! He must not even know who his dad is. His mom must have made it out with countless pigs. Some random fucker impregnated her, she got pregnant and raised this basta...

Just then a small black-and-white photograph fell out of his wallet. She was holding him, hugging him, kissing him on his cheek, totally unconscious of the camera. And she did not look elderly. She was a girl, then. A child-mother. Her son picked up the photograph from the floor. Just a moment back he was panicking, but the moment his gaze fell on the photograph, there was certain steadiness about him. That photograph, the shared memory of a shared life... it was the anchor to a puny boat tossing in a tumultuous ocean that he was. A light smile played on his lips, and he placed the photograph back.

How could this bastard smile?!! What right has he got to smile. His mother is a fucking whore! Is he not ashamed? Is he not contaminated?

His smile too hit her like a barb. This bastard... Her mind jolted to a halt mid-thought. I have called so many men bastards in real life, yet they were all legitimate. But, this guy, he's truly a bastard and... And, I don't know what is wrong! Why did he smile? Why does he not hate his mother? She's a fucking whore? How could that be?

In the meantime, he produced the old prescription. Relief was writ all over his face. As if producing the prescription was the most important thing to cure his mother. In a way it was. That was the best he could do. Her head was now spinning faster. She had never known ambivalence could be so hard to bear. She had got so used to judging people! 'Good', 'bad', 'ugly', 'cruel', 'nice', 'interesting', 'asshole', 'whore', bastard'... But this guy, her contempt did not just touch him! Her judgment felt flat before his smile, That guileless, proud, smile. A smile with knowledge of an anchor to smile for. A smile for a reason. A smile with no reason. A smile, simply for existing, and being proud of that existence. He lived on an entirely different plane. And so must his mother, a fucking whore. By now, she was not even sure if 'whore' and 'bastard' were any longer vehicles of contempt. Oh, they were just... they were just a mode of existing - external trappings, conveying nothing about the beauty of the soul within.

So, this guy he does not even know who his father was. His mother brought him up with utmost dedication. He kept on loving her like any child would. What the world thought of his mother was not important to him. He knew what his mother meant for him, and what he meant for her. She is everything for him. He is everything for her. They are happy! Save this minor inconvenience of syphilis. Fucking bastards!

She smiled. She had somehow fallen in love with those words now. Her mind returned to her mother. And her uncle. Replaying everything right from the time of her dad's death. In her attempt to keep herself from being happy, she had replayed everything a countless times. She had not come to terms with it. Actually, she was afraid that she might.

Uncle, a widower since two years, who had been on very good terms with dad and us, helped us out of that chaos. He too was grieved. He had run around to get so many works done. Mom and I were incapable of doing that. We never realized, how many hassles must have been there to claim insurance money, the property papers and what not. We were just busy grieving and wallowing in our self-pity. Just like mom and I, mom and he too were united in their grief. They spent lot of time together, trying to pick up the threads of their life. I had my studies, my job to keep me busy. I had other things to look forward to, to plan ahead. What did they have? They both had a vacuum to fill. They both could fill a vacuum. That's it! They fell in love! Why the hell did I get so much bothered? I jealous of mom's happiness? How could I be? What kind of pathetic child I am? Had I accepted the society's terms that someone's death means eternal grieving. That feeling happiness is a sin? Why did I so eagerly embrace the guilt, the melancholy that the society is ever willing to distribute? Oh, fuck! What was I doing? How could I think that way about my mom? Yes, so what if she wanted to feel happy? What's wrong with the sincere warmth they both are sharing? Why should I let our contractual guilt and grief come in between?

"Yeh injections hain, jo pehale diye the wahi hain. Aur do hafton tak lagaane honge. Aur, aur kahin mat jaana, mere paas hi dikhaane aana" [I'm prescribing the same injections she had been taking before and will have to be used for two more weeks. Come to show me after that, and do not go to show any other doctor], she said as she handed over the prescription. "Woh photo dikhaana" [Show me that photo (please)!]. He was somewhat taken aback, but gave it to her. She looked intently at it, and recalled days from her childhood. "Bahut pyaari photo hai." [A very lovely photo!].
"Thank you, madam!" The mother-son duo obviously, a bit surprised at her sudden turnaround, shuffled out of the room.

She reached back home. She did not know how to face her mother. A most wonderful mother for whom her filthy mind had thought the most degraded thoughts and had engendered so much hatred. She realized, they were not united by grief, but were instead grieving in unison. Grieving was as an end in itself. Because... because, she had no answer. Because perhaps, she had accepted happiness to be a vice. Guilt and grief were virtues. Ha!

She looked at her mom, who had just asked, "how is your headache, beta?". She started crying! She was a sinner. She had sinned against her mother. Would she ever be able to confess. Would she ever be able to forgive herself?

She jerked off her mother's loving hand that was on her shoulder.

"Don't touch me, mom! I'm contaminated."

Why make the poor camel pass through the eye of a needle? :(

Wow!

Click.

Less people, less noise: Religion inspired Peace!

Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)

17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Verify (click)

Missing Marble's Mystery

A box labeled - "MARBLE THE GREAT INSIDE" is examined. There was no sound on shaking it. It was opened - no marble could be seen.

......
1.

1.1. That the box exists attests to the fact that Marble created it, so there must be Marble inside as declared by the label.

1.2. Ears are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.3. Eyes are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.4. Why would someone lie about Marble? I might find it, if I search "properly". There must be Marble inside.

1.5. If I don't say Marble is great or eat chocolates now, Marble might eat me after killing me. Why take chance?

1.6. If I say, Marble is great, it might give me chocolates after killing me. Why not take chance?

1.7. Marble is Great!

...This was Marbleism.

......
2.

2.1. There is no sound on shaking the box. There is no marble inside.

2.2. I couldn't see a marble on opening the box. There is no marble inside.

2.3. It's possible to write anything on the label. If I want, I can erase and write "SPOON THE GREAT INSIDE". It doesn't mean there has to be a spoon inside.

2.4. What's written on the label is false.

2.5. I'll try to grow chocolates and eat them to my heart's content before I die.

2.6. To find anything, I use exactly the same method to as I used to find the marble.

2.7. While it is possible for a marble, or for that matter even a spoon to be inside a box, there is no marble in the box given to me.

...This was Amarbleism.

......
3.

3.1. Absence of sound on shaking the box doesn't totally rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.2. Not being able to see the Marble despite being able to see the box doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.3. People can write things on a label - they can either be true or false.

3.4. Had the label talked of a spoon inside the box, I wouldn't have taken any time to conclude that it was false. But Marble is to be accorded special status.

3.5. I'm not sure if there is Marble inside or not.

3.6. Not sure if Marble will get angry if I grow and eat chocolates while alive. :(

...This was Agnosticism.

States of Matter. State that matters - An Explanation. And a joke!

This is the explanation for my previous post which could be found here (click)

I do not believe in writing ambiguous posts, especially as part of the reason I write is to know how others and I view the same things differently. I believe, if not most, some people do have reasons for what they become/what they choose to become. And when the same things are viewed differently, it gives all the parties involved a chance to review what their belief systems are, and what are they based on. At the 'end' of the discussion, one may emerge more confident of the views held priorly, or less so. One may also feel insecure of new ideas if they threaten to upset the equilibrium of their life, which usually is very difficult to achieve, and this is probably also what contributes to the inertia we experience in reviewing and imbibing new ideas, apart of course, from the fact that whatever we currently know/think would be outcomes of numerous experiences, mistakes and rewards, which consolidate our confidence in our 'own' ideas. So with this short preface I seek to establish that on my blog, I wish to be understood precisely, and to understand the contributors equally precisely, though it will only rarely so happen that I change someone's views, or someone, mine.

The only reason I had not included this explanation was the constraint of length of 18 SMSes. Also I did not want to dilute the spontaneity of my ideas by inserting technical explanations for abstract analogies, for it is ever so rare that I come out with posts, which I feel rather than think. I had planned to clarify the analogies as a part of my replies to comments, but I realized, I needed to also come up with a detailed explanation of what I meant through each analogy.

-----

Fluid. By 'fluid' I did not mean weak or flexible. For one talks of flexibility only when there is a shape one could identify with.

By gradients of availability, I meant rushing in for things only because they are available. An avarice for things without pausing to think if we want/need them or possessing them would make us any happier.

A simplistic, but illustrative example is weddings, where so many times people take so much ice cream that they cannot finish it. Mind you, I am not talking here of etiquette, or health hazards of gluttony, or wastage of food, which are separate issues in themselves, but of a weird kind of opportunism. An opportunism that does not even serve our interest! But the sheer pleasure of enjoying something unearned, and probably undeserved (which is contentious, though), but worst of it all, undesired and unrequired! If that ice cream would be required or desired, not so much of it would be found wasted in the plates at the end of the parties!

By falling into next empty space, I was talking of the same opportunism, but manifesting itself differently. Flattery, imitation and insincere agreement. Others' needs for praise and approval are like empty spaces, and on spotting an opportunity (availability) they can be filled! They can be filled instantly and effortlessly, only because this fluid is guided by a gradient. It does not have its own ideas or opinions (no shape), or probably does not value them enough. Does not have any attachments or committed loyalties (no place), and hence has nothing to lose when it goes and occupies the next available space.

This fluid comes in contact with a vast expanse of surfaces, always leaving a trace of wetness (good impression). But it itself never knew what it stood for or against. Its attraction for things (gravitation) was its only guiding force.

The structure called self is a composite of ideals, desires, opinions, tastes, distastes, preferences, and a conscience but most important, a recognition and subsequent acknowledgment of all of these. By surrendering them to the 'demands' of opportunity and availability, this structure collapses, and that is what I had meant by to fall, in fact the collapse of an identity called 'self' is so profound that all shapes and senses of location and direction are lost, whereas as a person grows, it is expected that they accumulate more ideas, ideals, opinions, loyalties and attachments (climbing).

By evaporation, I did not mean destruction or death, but a total loss of identity of the 'self'.

Passively plastic. A passively plastic person also lets their ideas and opinions get shaped according to external forces. There is nothing wrong with allowing external ideas to shape one's opinions, in fact, without the action of external forces, not many ideas can be formed. But when one holds them only to fit into a collective/communal identity, then they lose their own ideas and aspirations. The identity of the individual is supplanted by the perceived identity of a community (mold). The driving force here is the willful assumption of a preformed, assembly-line-manufactured identity, even at the cost of losing one's 'real' native identity, without a sense of remorse.

How is this deformation allowed, or rather sought?

Probably because the original shape was not loved enough? It did not receive assent from coexistence with a number larger than zero, that is, owing to being unique ('one')?

This can extend right from "a feminist needs to defend everything a female does" to "secular people have to side with the 'minorities'"; from "doctors 'should' be dressed in formals" to "'hip' people 'need' to wear low-waist jeans"; from "you need to agree with everyone if you are broadminded" to "learn to say 'whatevah' if you are above the rest of petty people, and close to attaining 'nirvana' to firmly establish you do not care about their existence or their opinions"

Reactively plastic. This simply implies trying to be different from others. It does not matter if what I end up is different even from my 'real' self. The only priority is a need to stand out. To be a 'trend-setter', fully forgetting that trend would also be followed only by opportunists and those seeking the shelter of a collective, without ever respecting the very same shelter.

Rigid. This is what I need to personally guard myself against the most. I know what I want. I know what I like. But I also know, the world is not going to act according to my wishes. I will not the get the kind of education system I want. I will not get as friends, people as honest as I would want. I will not work at places whose ethics would be in alignment with mine.

Because all these systems are too rigid to yield. Whether they are more correct, or I, is a different matter. What matters is that their walls and my contours are incongruent.

And if I barge into these systems brazenly, unprepared, it will be me that would be hurt. Both physically and emotionally. Gradually, I will start giving up. What were originally my aspirations would no more remain so. What I used to find pleasurable, would turn into pain.

As an example, I find it extremely immoral to simply memorize some fact and write/mark that as an answer in exams, without understanding its cause or significance. It, according to me is nothing short of copying. What is the difference? How is not knowing and copying wrong, but not knowing and pretending to know, right?

But I need to survive. I cannot change the exam system according to my wishes. In its confines, memorizing, without understanding is alright, or maybe, also admirable.

That brings me to elasticity. Elasticity is not absolute deformability, which is actually plasticity, but an ability to return to its original shape. A rubber band is elastic not because it can be stretched, but because it can recoil back. So possibly, elasticity lies somewhere between two extremes of plasticity and rigidity.

Deformability would entail that I will need to compromise on occasions. To fit in, to survive, to make life fulfilling. But same time listening to my conscience, to let it pinch, to not silence it, which will remind me that I had betrayed the 'self'--my ideals, original aspirations, which I had loved. All this because the circumstances (edges and corners) had forced me to change. But also to remember that choice of fitting in and compromising were both mine, and mine alone.

Important is to not drown my conscience in "It's okay!". To remember to not compromise the next time out of force of habit, or simply knowing that a simpler route exists.

So yes, elasticity is indeed deformable rigidity, and thus by default a moderate property between the two.

Self-love. This is the trickiest to define. To love the self, first, it is important to recognize the 'self'. Self is the innermost desires, doubts, the knowledge of what I like, what I hate, what I want to do. And if possible, also 'why'? But this assessment needs to be most honest. Most of what constitutes 'self', calls for some action or reaction, be it, lazing late till afternoon on a holiday or 'fighting the system'. To understand that it is alright for those actions to be directed by the desires, but within such a framework that very same actions will not bring 'me' shame in my own eyes.

Ultimately all actions have to serve the upkeep of self-image. If I love my 'self', I will make a most honest assessment of it. If not, I will try to shield it from my own scrutiny, or to distort it. The moment I try to distort it, I know, there is something that I do not like. Either I try to change it, or accept it as my limitation/deficiency.

Loving the self does not amount to serve primal-most self-interest to the exclusion of anything that entails sacrifice for the good of someone else, which if seems 'right', and not doing so, 'wrong', then it is indeed congruent with my desire to somewhere make a change outside of 'me'.

This might seem too mechanical way of living--the loving-the-self-part, but actually it still is the most spontaneous expression of the 'self', just that it passes from under a screen of introspection. :)

-----

A sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner eyes neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing before him in mock respect, but genuine awe, and thinks: WTF?

Neatly dressed, frightened, semi-prepared students of final year MBBS exam, standing in mock respect, but genuine awe, eye a sinister, sadistic, half-asleep-from-previous-night's-binge-examiner, and think: WTF!

Examiner's WTF? = Who to flunk? | Student's WTF! = WTF!

States of Matter. State that matters--1

Do not be so fluid. So fluid that you fall into the next empty space. No shape. No place. Existence defined only by gradients of availability. Never able to climb; only fall. You will spread yourself wide. You will spread yourself thin. And before you know it, you will evaporate into nothingness.

Do not be so passively plastic. So plastic that you always fit in and forget your own shape. Always wanting the rigid confines to define the contours of your being. You will fit in. You will not remain you.

Do not be so reactively plastic. Yes, plastic again. So plastic that you change shape the moment you see a mould. Only to not fit in. Letting the confines define the contours of your being--this time staying out. Before you know it, you will become the next unshapely thing. You might become the next mould. Only fluids and plastics will occupy you. You will forget your shape.

Do not be so rigid. So rigid that you want the confines to yield, to replicate the contours of your being. You might wish, but you will not succeed. Before you know it, the edges and corners will scrape off chunks of your own being. You will lose them forever. You will not remain you. If you wait for that perfect mould--the one made for you, it will never be made. You will always remain outside. Outside is only for lodging. Outside, you will not live.

Be elastic. Mostly fitting in. Sometimes comfortably. Sometimes uncomfortably. Fitting in, yet feeling where it hurts. Knowing where the edges poke the contours of your being. Remembering what shape you were the last time. Springing back into your shape, each time you come out. Choose the best mould, but it will not fit perfectly. It will hurt. Be prepared for that. If a mould is too convoluted, too constricting, remember, it is best to lodge outside. For inside, painful poking will overwhelm your senses. You might remain you. Life will not remain life.

That elasticity is self-love. Love yourself, and life will become the simplest it could. You will remain you. Life will remain life.

---
1. This is simply a summary of a lesson on how to live that I have learned. What you have learned could be different. If so, consensus need not be reached.

...continued (click)

Do I deserve pink chaddis?

*Chaddi is a word used interchangeably for "shorts" or "briefs/panties".

This is a post I've been planning to do since long, because it was after a long time some event had made me introspect and analyze things with utmost depth possible, and yet leave me, possibly, without answer. Also, this post is going to be very, very frank. Everyone tends to push the innermost workings of their minds under the carpet. But quite the opposite of that, I'm going to reveal it as explicitly and plainly as possible. So, in certain ways this post is going to be EXPLICIT. So, the reader's forbearance is requested. Also, I'll try my best to set the sequence of my thoughts in an algorithm-like structure. So, it'd be easier to dissect it, and discuss the same.


First, I'll have to tell something about myself to establish a proper context. As of now, I am preparing for postgraduate (PG) medical entrance exams, for which I've joined a particular coaching institute in a city different than the one indicated in my profile. I stay in a hostel, which consists mainly of other PG-aspirants just like me. We have a mess, where we have our meals, and at other times, it serves as the reading room.


Before I describe the very trivial incident, let me make it amply clear that the fact that I'm blogging about it, only implies that I've thought a lot over it. And I urge the reader to be patient, and specifically ask me where something that I try to explain remains unclear. This disclaimer is necessitated because I suspect apppreciable number of readers, if they read this post would be tempted to send me pink chaddis! But, I'm not giving my postal address! :P


There is this girl in the ladies' hostel (just next to the hostel where I stay), owned by the same owner as my hostel, who attends the same coaching institute as me, but in a different batch and schedule. My interaction with her has been nil. And she uses the same reading room and the mess. This girl, as far as I've seen, interacts only with boys from her alma mater, which is in a different city from where I've been staying. And, I hadn't taken any special notice of that fact, though it had registered in my mind. I wouldn't think much about such issues, for simple reason--they don't affect me, and moreover, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with that. Just that the event I'm about to describe made me think also about all this. As to what's her opinion about other fellow female hosteliites to be not interacting with them at all, or conversely what do other female inmates think about her.


The incident was this: I had gone to the mess to have my lunch (I don't study at that particular study room, but do so in my own hostel room), and I was at the table where the food is laid for us to help ourselves, the girl was ahead of me in a sort of short queue that was formed, and my gaze fell on her flank. And I felt such an intense revulsion that I turned away my gaze with disgust. What I saw was her exposed flank because of a triangular 'side-cut' in her shirt. The area exposed was more than 50 centimeter sqaured, with part of her innerwear's elastic band visible. Now for those wondering how did I reach the magical figure of 50 cm², just think of a square of 10 cm sides (100 cm²), and cut it half at the diagonal.


Actually, for someone with perfectly normally working hormones like me, I should've stared on. My female readers might be disgusted by this suggestion. But then, I believe, I'm going to do full justice to all the moral considerations involved in this particular event, which is prototypical of what one gets to see day-in-and-day out. All this got over in a less than a second, and nor must have I turned away my head in a violent motion to draw anyone's attention. Basically, no one around noticed what had happened.


But this got me thinking as to why did I feel disgusted, as afterall what she wears is entirely her prerogative.


I'll make a few clarifications here, right at the outset:
1. I did not gossip about it with others.
2. I did not give her a 'look'.
3. I would never think of harming her in anyway on account of what she chooses to wear.
4. If I were to ever interact with her, I'd do so with utmost courtesy that I would reserve for anyone I'd be talking to for the first time.


Of course, to clarify, her dress was in deed out of the ordinary for what other girls wear at this place, especially when coming to study or eat. Moreover, she herself had worn that dress for the first time, and to the extent I remember, she never had repeated it.


I drew this conclusion--'she wanted to expose her flank and elastic band to draw attention to herself'. Of course, I'll first try to address the concern as to why did I draw the above conclusion. I had an argument in my head in attempt to make maximum possible allowance for that girl.


Allowance 1: She must have not realized that the dress was revealing.

Answer: She has always been meticulously dressed even on other days, when she used to wear Salwar-Kameez. Most of the people when the buy their clothes, try them. This girl used to wear relatively costly dresses, and it was unlikely that she must have bought it from some street-side hawker and didn't get and an opportunity to try it. Dressing is a skill, and she had been good at it, so it's unlikely that even if in an unlikelier event that she did buy the said shirt from a roadside hawker, she wouldn't know that the dress would be at least 7 to 8 cm short of the trouser's waist.

Allowance 2: She must have dressed in a hurry.

Answer: Didn't look like that. Her dress was well-ironed. Her hair wasn't disheveled or anything, and she was taking her food quite leisurely, and also eating it equally leisurely.


Allowance 3: She must have been comfortable with that sort of dressing.

Answer: Possibly, yes. But that had got me thinking as to why we choose the kinds of dresses that we choose? We buy clothes such that they cover those parts of our bodies that we don't want others to see, especially strangers. I wear a shirt/T-shirt whenever I move out or my room, for simple reason I'd feel embarrassed to allow others to see my bare chest and back, etc. Likewise, I wear trousers that cover my groin area completely! Sorry, couldn't help it. Had to bring in the last example to clarify. So, I reached this conclusion that she did not mind revealing her flank and the elastic band of her innerwear.


Allowance 4: So what? What if she's comfortable with revealing her flank and the elastic band? That does not establish intent to reveal.

Answer: When she must have bought that particular shirt, she must have had the option of buying one that did not reveal her flanks. It must have not been very difficult to buy a shirt that would be just 8 to 10 cm lower, and jeans that would be an inch or two higher. Afterall, all other days she had been wearing clothes that were not revealing in the same way. But yes, there is indeed a subtle difference between 'not minding' revealing and 'wanting' to reveal. How do I know it was the latter and not the former? I concede, this is difficult to answer. But, I'll give an example. If at a tea stall, you order Pepsi, and the waiter comes and tells you they don't have it, and offers you to have Coke instead, if you say, "Okay, alright!", then, that's what is 'not minding', but if you ask for Pepsi in the first place, then you 'want' Pepsi, and does not amount to 'not minding' it. So, I believe, this adequately establishes the intent to expose, so to say.


Allowance 5: Okays, so what if she wanted to reveal? How does it make me conclude that she wanted to draw attention?

Answer: This is most difficult to explain, but if I've to assume that she did not want to draw attention, how do I explain someone carefully choosing clothes that precisely are going to reveal one's flanks and the elastic band? I could attribute random behavior to, maybe, a small child doing things on whim, like wanting to stand on a table and not wanting to climb down, or children of 2 to 3 years not willing to eat their food, but how do I do that for someone in their twenties? It's either random impulse or it's well planned attempt to draw attention. And considering her age, it was much likely to be the latter.


Allowance 6: Okay, so what if she chooses to wear revealing clothes? What's my problem?

Answer: Nothing! Honestly, I have no problems with what she wears. What all I thought about the issue till that point, and for a few minutes beyond did not affect me in any way!


Now, I'll point out a few things that people do. Do ask yourself if you find them disgusting or not:
1. Picking of nose in public
2. Scratching of groin (in public)
3. People making lousy noises while eating, or licking their fingers passionately while eating

Do you find all or any of the about disgusting?

Yes? What's your problem?


But they disgusted you, right? Isn't it precisely their prerogative to likewise to use their fingers, nose, mouth and other orifices the way they want to?


No, but honestly, what I saw about that girl disgusted me beyond reasons involved in above three examples.


Now I will try to explain, why.


The other three examples I gave--what do they tell us about the people concerned? That they are coarse, possibly unhygienic, inconsiderate of others' attention, and lack a sense of aesthetics.


But why did I feel more disgusted at that girl?

Because that attitude is representative of things fundamentally so wrong with any human being. Picture this:

You're talking with someone. Possibly, the person is talking something grave, and a part of you wants that person to be distracted by you if of the opposite gender, or if the same gender, to be envious of you! This is hypocrisy of highest kind. Not being truthful to oneself, as well as to one's present. Also, such a person is living their life on others' terms, wanting their approval. And approval from any random person, not specifically the people they themselves value.


I have to make many more clarifications. I'll feel the same kind of disgust if I see someone trying to show off their knowledge out of context, or status or wealth. Or those saying "yes" all the time to please others. Or considering themselves as much worthy as gauged by just about anyone. All these things have one thing common to them--lack of truthfulness to oneself, a lack of certain kind of straightforwardness. Honestly, I wouldn't have disrespect for someone plainly going and asking someone--"Do you think I'm attractive enough?" What I don't like is the subliminal influencing through any means. At a much larger scale, it's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes our politicians do things subversive to the interests of the country in name of benefit to one 'community' or the other. Also, how little or high is the chance that persons not averse to wearing revealing clothes to attract attention of just about anyone, wouldn't do so at the workplace to get promotions, or colleges to get extra marks (something I've myself noticed happening)? Is this honorable? Of course, the one giving into such distractions and extending undue favors would be deserving of same blame of indulging in immorality (click).


But, what had really agitated me was that once there was a spat between one of the coordinators of our coaching institute and the owner of the hostel regarding quality of the food served, and coincidentally, when the aforementioned girl was present their, she had been labeled as "characterless" by the hostel owner, because she had been going out alone with guys at night on walk. I was really disgusted by the owner. Afterall, he had no right to interfere with her personal life, who she moved out with, what all she did, and I too had made all the right noises as to how, the girl is a mature, grown up adult, and it was very, very mannerless of the owner to have said that. But a part of me was wondering, did I not also conclude the same thing a month back (then)? That was my hypocrisy. To have something with utmost verbal strength, but just half strength of actual conviction behind those words. And quite obviously, the girl left the hostel to live elsewhere in some days.


Some more clarifications:

1. I never felt even once that owning to her dressing, she deserved to be badmouthed, or eve teased, or molested.

2. I think a saree can be much more revealing than what she was wearing, if so intended by the one wearing.

3. I'm no fan of idea of "preservation of culture", something I might discuss in one of my coming posts. I've not even mentioned the Indian culture perspective above.

4. What all I've analyzed for the above girl applies to males, as well as to all other spheres of life.

5. I'd try my best to not be judgmental about the girl, if were to have any interaction with her. But, my above conclusions will definitely weigh heavily on me. If I find her a nice, upright person otherwise, I'd really be forced to do a rethink on my criteria for judging people. Maybe, I'd try to know her better, and understand, why would she like to wear those kind of clothes, which would make people notice only the superficial aspects of her personality, and maybe, not value her emotions, thoughts, words, deeds, or innovative ideas? But on the whole, in my life, whenever I've tried too hard to make allowances for others' acts that I would find objectionable, I've ended up on the wrong side of judgment, meaning, those people have indeed turned out to be unreliable and opportunistic.


The crux of this post is, if someone has right to wear whatever they want, or behave however they like, I have equal right to draw conclusions about them. Of course, I don't have any right to impose my beliefs on them. And such conclusions are bound to have bearing on how generous would I be with them, or how sympathetic I'd feel if they're troubled. And most important, how much would I respect them as fellow humans.

A few responses to criticism of atheism

This is a very impulsive blog, really. I was just going through the article on Wikipedia “Criticism of atheism”. There was one point that particularly struck me. I had the impulse to reply then and there (in the article, itself!), but remembered Wikipedia is only supposed to describe and not opine.

The point that got me started with this blog goes like:

“Catholic and some secular intellectuals attribute the perceived post-war decadence of Europe to the displacement of absolute values by moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera and others have argued that after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and replaced them with continuously-evolving relative moral rules. In this view, sexual activity has become separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of families and to depopulation. As a result, currently the population vacuum in Europe is filled by immigrants, often from Islamic countries, who attempt to reestablish absolute values which stand at odds with moral relativism. The most authoritative response to moral relativism from the Roman Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor, an encyclical by Pope John Paul II.”—Wikipedia.

Now, I don’t want to get into statistics and support or disprove what has been stated above, particularly with regard to atheism (relative morality) resulting in negative population growth, and subsequent immigration. Its veracity, simply on sound logical grounds, isn’t really worthy of contesting. My point is about how in an argument, like the one above, a very important idea has been missed—the idea of truth—the one of being truthful to oneself and wanting to know the truth. More clearly, can one “start” or “continue” to believe in God, merely because it makes one more moral. Can truth be chosen? And, chosen—not because of inherent merits of assertions—but on the consequences of believing or disbelieving it? No, the issue is not WHAT the truth is; the issue how the truth is “arrived” (if indeed there is such a thing as that) at? Is it not hypocrisy a person would indulge in if he/she CHOSE to believe as facts certain propositions only because they’d have certain “benefits” or “advantages”? How could a person delude and shortchange one’s consciousness in matters that are most fundamental to one’s existence—questions like where did I come from, or who created me, or what is the purpose of life; or alternatively, if you’re an atheist, how was my existence brought about, or how my existence is going to affect the state of affairs of this Universe in general? Such a chosen truth would rather be self-deception.

There are others who believe that one SHOULD continue to believe in God only so that they have a shoulder to lean on in times of difficulties, or a stingy hand to blame for all the deficiencies in their lives are being dishonest, and dishonest with THEMSELVES, which may or may not be immoral depending upon the consequences, but when such people “think” on such matters, their doing so (thinking on such personal matters) seems entirely besides the point. This can be simply termed as “autobrainwashing”.

Returning to morality: it can be loosely defined as “the sense of what (thoughts, words and acts) are right or wrong in a given circumstance.” And, I do believe that for a great deal of common men with as an end, a harmonious existence within a society, morality when enshrined in a carrot-and-stick principle like religion, works best. I don’t know if it is alright to try to make those who remain moral—only because of fear of punishment upon leading immoral life, and temptation of a “good afterlife” after a moral one—doubt the existence of or believe in the nonexistence of God. For, such people, who are plenty in number in my humble opinion, are likely to become “freewill-upstarts”—not knowing the responsibility that comes with the liberty of not being: under the constant scrutiny of an omniscient vigilante; subject to rules of a supreme judge; and, recipients of punishments or rewards meted out as verdicts. Let’s call this religious morality. But, what about those who choose to be moral only because they “feel good” about it? Morality, as has been pointed out by a few, evolved out of a necessity of leading a social life; the need to have a pattern of behavior that would be most conducive to coexisting with others despite lacking a feeling of solidarity, and since coexisting would be the best option available. This can be called social morality. Morality is most effective when viewed as a collective shrewdness—how does this sound for an incentive to lead a moral life: you don’t harm others, so that (when the same dictum if heeded by everyone), ultimately no one harms others, and as a consequence, no one harms YOU? Or alternatively, help whenever opportunity comes and circumstances permit, so that everyone would help someone else, and occasionally, YOU would be at the receiving end of someone’s helpfulness when in need. I’m no anthropologist, but, this seems to be the very likely way morality would have begun its “career”. I know to some moral puritans might be petrified by this cunning commerce of acts becoming a social norm—a “cheap” way of leading one’s life, but then it’s no different from the carrot and stick religion-hijacked-morality (I was inspired by this phrasing [and not the idea per se] by “religion has arrogated morality” in the preface of “The Fountainhead”). At least, it (the practicality in morality) brings the responsibility of morality to where it rightly belongs—in the individual. Okay, but, we all know that this “chain of custody” of goodness and badness, doesn’t work, the reason for which, is maybe the impatience in individuals. People think like, “if I help someone, and that someone, or for that matter, someone else, doesn’t help me in need, would I not be deceived. Would that not be unfairness to me?” Or of course, logically, “if I am nice with everyone, and what if someone else sabotages my interests? Again that would be unfairness, as well.” Such doubts are difficult to remove, for they are valid, actually. That’s why to play it safe, everyone should be nice! And as it is, religious morality has not been absolutely successful in curbing immoral acts (crime, as a simple example).

So, I come to a question of “how people who believe in afterlife (or consequences of one’s acts that come into effect after one’s life) come to act in an immoral way?” In simple words, how a God-fearing (and paradise-loving) man acts wrongly? Of the many, one reason for this is that religious morality (morality as demanded by one’s religious beliefs) is quite relative. What might be undoubtedly moral to you, might be immoral to someone else. Take for instance, bride and groom kissing each other in a Christian marriage ceremony. Such a thing would be unthinkable in a traditional Hindu or Muslim ceremony! My merely trying to point out how it is NOT immoral just because it does NO HARM to any one might be construed as immoral assertion, and invite such passionate rage! Also, this relativity has a lot to do with an inherent absence of a guiding principle. The only guiding principle is “because someone said so”. Okay, who that someone is, could again be quite variable. Within the same religion, there can be various sects, the leaders of which exhort different behaviors. And, there’s no guarantee that that someone doesn’t exhort a few things only out of self-interest, right? Now, if one goes back to the roots of embracing a religion, and the bundled morality that came along with it, one would realize that there is one thing that is common between the two (the act of CHOOSING to believe [in God] and morality)—a certain kind of opportunism. If one could choose to believe in God, only because it SUITED one’s purpose, one can CERTAINLY choose to be quite elective about what is right and what is wrong—DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCES.

That’s where maybe social morality scores, in being much clear as to what is right or what is wrong—it has a guiding principle—LIVE, LET live, and be happy NOW, and NOT trying to score brownie points in a game with undecided and ever-changing rules for a reward you get after the END of your life. You help me, I help you; you don’t harm me, I don’t harm you, simple! That’s social morality. Of course, there’d be situations of predicaments, but they’d be pertaining to prioritizing between a greater good and a lesser harm, etc. And, mind you, even in such cases, if religious morality gives credence to one decision or the other, it is after all, an individual opinion (imposed upon many). Take for instance, euthanasia—most of the religions state that since you don’t have the ability to give one a life, you don’t have the right to take away one. But, here one forgets the individual concerned. Granted that life is indeed a special thing, but what about whether, the one to who it belongs WANTS it in the form available? If you can’t relieve a person’s pain, don’t impose that pain by taking away the only means of relief available. If one looks carefully at the concept of religious morality, the problem with it is not that it is attached to religion or to a belief in a supremely powerful force, the problem is that, I repeat, it does not have a fundamental guiding principle. The same problems can be encountered with any body of moral principles that are decided arbitrarily, and more importantly, which are not open to time-to-time modifications depending upon the circumstances. Here, by changing with circumstances, I don’t mean opportunistic applying of morals, but they would have to be in keeping with the principles of “live, let live and be happy”. The problem comes because what is moral and what is not is decided by a select few in the society, and others imbibe that morality without questioning it, or trying to understand the guiding principles. So, such problems can also arise with RIGID systems, where certain qualities are extolled, and certain acts disallowed WITHOUT clear bases. It is knowing the basis for moral principles that is of utmost importance. Say, for instance, in a very affluent nation, if leading a simple life would be considered virtuous to an excessive extent, affluence would become redundant, and with it, innovation, and development of technology, as there would be no place for the “good life”.

One more criticism of atheism has been “There are no atheists in foxholes”, which would become clearer with the following context:

“The statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes," is used to imply that many avowed atheists really do believe in God, and that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, the belief will surface, overwhelming the less substantial affectation of atheism.” –Wikipedia.

What can be conceded as possibly a fact is that in times of extreme stress, someone can end up believing in God, but how does that give any credence to theism? A person, who turns theist in times of stress, does not believe in God because he’s convinced about it, but because he WANTS to believe. Now, as everyone would know with a bit of introspection, what one wants to believe, and what is true are not necessarily same things. By this argument, I’m not trying to state that which (atheism or theism) is more sound in epistemological (simply put, the study of knowledge) terms but only that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is at best a personal attack on all atheists, but not a valid one against the principle of atheism per se.

In what all I’ve written in this blog, I’ve not focused on arguments of whether God exists or does not, but only the (few of quite numerous) attendant issues of consequences of belief or nonbelief. The arguments of theism, deism, strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, etc, are too exhaustive, that move roundabout in great circles, and most importantly, cannot be done justice to in a monologue like a blog! Not to mean those are uninteresting ;)

By the way, very coincidentally, I encountered this somewhat pertinent article on Wikipedia about the relativity of religious morality—Euthyphro dilemma, which goes like this: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"—and who other than the (philosophically) naughty Socrates could have come up FIRST with such a dilemma!