‘Non Violence’ or ‘Not Violent--’

If somebody strike you suddenly with the question, Are you violent person? What would you likely answer? Nope (with confidence) or Noh (with little stammer) or oh yea I was But once upon a time and not anymore or etc. etc. All responses would be based on past experience of being not violent or violent. But the quest here is to explore if ‘not violent’ person suffice upholding of the principle of ‘Non-Violence’. If somebody uses ‘Non-violence’ and ‘Not-Violent’ interchangeably it may not grab the attention of many laymen like me. I am trying to segregate formidable synonyms where both appear so similar yet could be ocean wide apart. Let me try to put up my own argument and tore apart the two for both are antithesis of each other though it may sounds alike (according to me with least concern what other thinkers have said).

 Non-violence is a principle. To be in state of Non-Violence is to proclaim to be upholder of non-violence. It means to completely denounce violence, It is proved during tested times, It is to be attained or reached upon, It is a way of life covering every aspect of lives. Its perfection is hard to attain but one may considered attended its astute when domination of Non-violence over all other approach in his life. Non-violence is a principle which is abided by it and it alone unconditionally. But, it is also the victim of its own goodness, it is either museumized or idolized and hardly practice. To be in state of Non-violence is to persuade non-violence in oneself and on to fellow human being.   

My suspicion of the reason when a ‘person is not violent’ goes beyond the code of non-violence mention above. Are we not violent just because our threshold of getting violent has not been tested?  it means lack of opportunity to ignite this threshold? Are we not violent people because of the consequences violence produce? Or for the reason the violence itself is wrong and immoral? If the reason is the former one then we have expertise the art of living a deceiving life. There is no guarantee that our thought is not violent but it is just that it is not acted out which makes us a cowardice with dual face. This means we could compromise so many other aspects of our lives values, standard or moral at opportune time without any difficulty. Being in state of not violent hyper activates our imaginative visualization, at will we may kill or knock down a person thousand times without even make a slightest of angry gesture.  It is like a dormant volcano where its activation is completely unpredictable and just waiting opportunity for its outburst. Being in state of not-violent one can profess it very comfortably and even preach but instigate violence very characteristically. Their imagination and creativity could bring out cases and situation where non-violence could be held at stake, conditioned, superficial or its concept extended. Like in Muna bahi MBBS a Gandhian thrashing the villain blue and black just because Gandhi says nothing about how to treat who slap on the second chin. Many systems in our society may be not-violent yet fails scrutiny of code of Non-Violence. Ironically those systems are the one promoting and polarizing violence and on the other hand even the very reason of controlling much destructible violence that could happen. Prevention or controlling of violence violently is a classic example of the system.

So the question is, are we not violent consciously or unconsciously? It could be very dangerous if we are unconsciously not violent and don’t have the right reason for not being violent. Look at our society today. More people were killed or injured not by the one who profess violent (terrorist or goons) but by the normal citizens. State have mechanism to handle and control violence from the one who profess it but System or law has no solution to control the diverse nature of problem lease out by eruption of not-violent people. The helplessness is for the one who are bearer of the violence yet act out a live of not-violent life. It is hard to be healed as they hardly get activate and it stay in unconscious state. I am equally susceptible to this social virus. After thinking a lot I concluded I am equally helpless and so all I could do is kept myself busy instigating peace consciously for I may outgrow the little devil in me someday.

The good The Bad and The Ugly

Some are wise other otherwise,

Some are save other enslave

Some vanquish and some vanish,

Some are anguished and some Perquisite,

Some live and some are lifted,

Some are drawn and some drown,

Some are different and some are indifferent,

Some are meek other maverick,

Some are coy and other coed,

Some are mild and other malign,

Some yack and some are yoked,

Some are shown some are shoo.

Through some rhyming words the writer is trying to lament upon how people are treated, acted and perceived. All the relationship constituting the society seems dynamic and subjective. Depending on the context we acted out accordingly. Likewise, societal phenomenon is not different. Why than do we think, acted and perceived these way? The writer credited the above mystery to the unique and conjoint characters of individual being. Every individual is a composition of the characters of the good the bad and the ugly. These trio characters have thrived and survive as essence of human civilization. The quote ‘history repeats itself’ is nothing but a quote for these trio blockbusters within us. The three are in cohesion as well as in conflict with each other. The cohesion or the conflicting nature of the trinity is the very reason which makes two individuals unique and distinct.

If you try to tame yourself remember the good the bad and the ugly. They are the main actors of your life. Each of them is the foundation of our existences and writer of our destiny. They are the ones that would make your life hit or flop. None of them can be neither ignore nor over pamper. They have to co-exist mutually. So, next time when you love remember these trio, when you shout at someone remember these trio, when you greed remember these trio, when you blunder or smile remember these trio. Let your consciences be imbedded to the reality of this trio. But, if you still stand for ideal being ignore the writer.

The Golden Oscar might be always waiting for us on the other side of life.  J

Reconciliation to Ideal

As thou alibi would make me free

As thou truth would either do

Like trust will break the unbroken

Like love will even cover-up to the fullest

Oh! You call out forgiving, would it make perfect?

Oh! Justice, so demising and fading

Will change come with little of hope and inspiration?

Look for what you want but Nay in wrong abode

Surely you shall see the mystery of idealism unfold

Yet fight and overcome the existences of reality

For it is truth that one seek in reality

So shall we reject idealism for the very meaning of itself?

Doers we do, part by part

Fighters will fight battle after battle

Breaking chain and barrier

Vow that we strive to see idea’s evolving into action

For it is said “No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come”

Tirang 

Not PTR but PTR

No doubt Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) is one intrinsic element in achieving our desired objective in education system. With the mandate of RTE to fulfil the required PTR so much relieve has been brought to the entire concern stakeholder if not fully. Now the concern is would this number ratio translate automatically to desire outcome. Yes, it ought to be. If not, what is wrong? Where does this justification of right ratio exhausted? Who is responsible of this in-appropriation of resource input and output? These are some important questions that one would be tempted to asked with anguish. Again let’s not distract these inquires by the fact that various factors plays in education to bring out the so called desire outcome even to the extent of determining the ‘desire outcome’. Being specific and looking deeper there are worth exploring areas under this ratio framework. I would like to approach the factor of ratio based on the nature of Relationship.

Now, let me introduce this analogy “Not PTR but PTR” meaning “Not Pupil Teacher Ratio but Pupil Teachers Relationship”. I am not propounding for systemic change but a sincere introspection on our behavioural change. I am not trying to problematize the issue either. I am just reflecting upon it as I saw it, hear about it and read about it. In some typical government school class room scenes are such that children would be seating on the floor and teacher in a chair or either teaches them standing. Is this gap between the two just a conventional arrangement or is it a reflection of wide gap of relationship between the two. I wonder how transaction of knowledge could take place without intimacy or understanding between the facilitator and the receiver. How could a child relate to the nature of the subject, information, skills, and attitude, character, aptitude etc. without relating through the one enabling them? Can we overcome ratio problem with relational solution? Or can we overcome relational problem with appropriate ratio?

What is making it so difficult to bridge the gap between the two when the nature of human is in its purest form when we are young, so innocent and loveable? The wonders and curiosity reflected in their eyes, the construct of their physical so delicate, so gentle so natural and smile so faithful, their thoughts so unbiased and expression so raw who’s indurate heart would not fall in love with them? Whose eyes would not admire them if someone with no iota of truth in him/her? Why would we not like to break them free from fear? Give them some confidence, some inner energy and zeal in them, let them dream dreams. What efforts are missing to connect them that their academic performance is at stake?  Let’s remember to up-bring them (children) in a morally accepted way no amount of love and care would be too much or sufficient. Let’s remember the quotation ‘if I cannot learn the way you teach, can you teach me the way I can learn?’ One should be pro-active and extra committed to imprint positive change in children, if not, he/she is playing a wrong role in our society and should fell remorse about oneself.

Accumulation?

I am entangled with the craze of Accumulation. Something we are so obsessed that we no longer possessed ourselves. I mean accumulation of both tangible (material and wealth) and intangible (knowing) Illusion. We know everything will perish sooner or later before our eyes or we will perish with no holding over piles besides us or within us. Therefore, I called this illusion. If possessing and knowing fulfilled the aesthetic of life, people of many and wise could have had a peaceful sleep and happy endings. Some stoop so low, some so humble, some so witty, some so arrogant, some spend so much, some give away so much just to accumulate the Imaginary.  Imaginary I called it because it starts with imagination, process in imagination, and resulted only to imaginary state. This may contradict with the argument of reality. But, how long is our reality ‘real’ besides our life- span? Nothingness and plentiful both kept people busy and worried and concerned. If concept of Less and More do not co-exist with humanity, living here on earth must have been so different (another imaginary positioningJ). If disparity is un-exist-able like a material of high unstable state of energy which automatically fused or diffused to lower and stable state, the very texture that binds the society today could have collapsed immediately with no scope of recovery and respite. I am caught in the middle of a Utopian society and present sorry state but to settle with this dilemma either nor do I expect one stop solution of establishing equilibrium.  

We are driven so much by external factors that we can’t locate the ghost that keeps us moving. We are doing so much that we no longer qualify of being (but we call ourselves human being). We have amassed so many names, people, ideas and artifact that the very self- have diluted in this mighty ocean of illusion and imagination (virtual world). What is life after all, if not progressive and forward moving? But, should we end up making out life and not living it?   Even when the very existence of self is disturbed, all sorts of medic, mantra, music, advice, counselor, God man and psychiatrist pop out of our screen just to drain us more afar from self to self-less-ness (read as dilution of self). The self is tagged with how much we have/can accumulate. Is accumulation the very end for our existence or is it very means to our existence? What probably we would be doing in life, if not accumulation? We are so much condition that creativity is no longer creative, freedom is no longer free, justice is no longer just, and humanity is no longer humane. So, where is the ghost that has condition us so much if not within us? How far are ‘we’ concept beautiful when it has ripped to pieces the beauty of self?                  

Here, I do not argue on economic terms nor ethical or rational term for I knew too less (‘less’ is what I don’t desire to used). I may flatly fall in logical argument and may have no place in the so call intellectual debate. Good, for these are neither the means nor the ends of my thoughts. I claim neither accumulation nor knowing through this writing. I neither condition nor provoke your thoughts. The very vagueness of the purpose of this writing is but reflection of me. I just hope my skepticism of current state does not project me as an exception from effect of accumulation and we-ism for I don’t proclaim that. Forget not what Edward Abbey say’s “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” 

Movie Review

Ship of Theseus      

     A story of three unique distinct characters with no connection except their meeting point is that each of them receive each organ from the same donor.  A blind Egyptian photographer, a Jain monk who is an animal activist , and a successful Stockbroker. All based in Mumbai city. It’s all about conflict between personal values and mental control over physical world and physical experiences. Her (Blind photographer) intuition and sound direction from her camera works so perfect that she has to struggle the professional touch and enjoyment when she got sight from some unknown donor.  A monk who believes in the equality of all existences, consequences of any action, ready to die for his idea, fights for animal rights torture in experimental laboratory finally succumb to the infliction from his lever diseases and undergoes medical treatment and transplantation. In quest of success a broker never dare what is values except economic values but made a drastic change and gave a good fight to bring justice for a poor slum dweller whose kidney was stolen.

My take away from the movie:

   Any creative ways of learning have a personal touch on the learner, it is difficult to replace the joy of learning in a particular way once she enjoy the originality or the aesthetic of it. It also project the difficulty of de-learning and adult learning. The movie emphasis on how intuition can be effectively used for artistic purpose when dwelt in-deep.

    In current society where survival and Human values and believes are at stake there is a paradigm shift of defining ideas which guide our life and action. We are in age where our action may have no direct implication of exploiting others existences but indirectly effect so much on the survival of other species. There is hardly any choice we could make. It is either we exist by disposing something else or we cease to prevail. All we could choose is make a cruel disposition or slow dead which only appear more logical.

    We are in the age of “commoditized”. Our services , our capacities, our potential and our organ has a market value attach to it. It could not be wrong to say that our intrinsic values, believes and ideas have a saleable value attach to it. Pessimistic voice inside me says that the term “Invaluable” is likely to be wipe of sooner or later from the phase of this generation.

   The optimistic child in me says that no matter what, no matter the adversities, no matter consequences, no matter the illusion and confusion we are expose to there is a strong inner voice in every one of us defining what is Right and Good.   

The Irony of gender issue-1

― Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre

“I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will.” 

The Definition:

The term ‘Gender’ is a big misnomer. It is conveniently used by amateur to put forth their lay ideas. Many expertise romance the issue with no strings attached. But, few practice what they preach. So, no one dare called her/him Genderist J like Feminist do. Gender by its definition means ‘state of being man or women’. If we further wanted to deal on it there is another term called Grammatical GenderJ. The term Gender has evolved since it’s originated from Old French gender (modern genre), based on Latin genus 'birth, family, nation'. The earliest meanings were 'kind, sort, genus' and 'type or class of noun. The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense ‘the state of being male or female’ has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid-20th century. Although the words gender and sex both have the sense ‘the state of being male or female’, they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones. Gender thus not refer to different sex’s but is not defined without referring to it. So, if you meet lay ideas (one with sallow knowledge) would likely tell you more of what gender is not about rather than what it is all about. Thus, surprise not, when you are trap in this missing link (Misnomer).

The Opposite Force

The concept of Gender only dates back to 20^th century whereas our tradition (including irrational social norms and practice) has dwelt with us since civilization. Our irrational practices, expectation and discrimination have come down to us with the full packages of tradition, cultural, religion and expectation under the protection of strong institution, rules, charismatic personality and pious followers. In times severe mass cultural revitalization took place to reinforce it.  This irrationality has been so much internalized and accepted by most section of the society. Social orders and conduct are religiously organized since century’s base on this irrationality. Introducing the concept of Gender means replacing the old believes system with the new elements of justice, freedom and empowerment. So, at some point the two contradicts with each other. The question is which driving force of the two concepts is mightier   would have its way. So, preaching gender is not sufficient nor keeping it at ideation level. A strong wave of change would be needed, more than discussion, more than international declaration, more than legalization would be needed. Then what?   

 Conspiration in Idolization

Many female has excelled in various fields fighting against all odds. They are normal women, everyday women facing all discrimination. Need not mention of Sunita Williams, Mary Kom, Mother Teresa, Sarojini Naidu, P.T Usha. Etc…..

I wonder how many have drawn inspiration from all these legends (?). What society does with their achievement is not less than a Conspiration. Their names and achievement were made bigger than live picture. They were made to believe they were genius more than their odds they have overcome. Female were made to believe those as exceptional case. They were idolized with (maybe) good will. But the problem in idolizing starts when we admire her, look up to her, adore her and revere her and create a special status for her. We just diminish to follow her and draw lesser inspiration from her, more respect and lesser competition to the bar they have created. So, upholding a female achiever can still be a disadvantage. Let Gender has its giant leap very soon I pray.