Day: Diwali Day. Time: 11 am.
Status: Normal, Relaxed, Happy.
Enjoying the holiday with the TV remote in one hand and mithaai in the other. Enjoying being lazy.
12 hours later - 11 pm.
Status: Angry, Frustrated, Almost Deaf.
Yes, it's Diwali (the festival of lights) and every Indian expects this night to be full of fireworks, sparkle, glitter and lots of dhoom-dhadaaka.
I too love the festive spirit and have always enjoyed celebrating every festival. However, I just don't understand what merit there is in converting almost every locality of India into an alternative for Pokhran.
I mean, I just don't get it.
Why do we have to equate Diwali festivities and enjoyment with having a blast so literally? Can't we be happy keeping all this to a minimum? I have no intention of imposing my ideas on do's and don'ts of celebrating Diwali, but just a request to ask ourselves, what is it the we are celebrating, how we are celebrating it, and isn't there a more meaningful way to go about this day?
I also realise an entire day of Diwali without fireworks, ladis, phuljhadis, pataakhas (not referring to anyone from the female species here), and charkhadis, etc. is like watching Virender Sehwag bat through an entire day without hitting a six or even a boundary.
I'm just wishing we could avoid the heavy-duty bombing we conduct, that not only bombards the ear plugs of everyone, but also scares and concerns the elderly and the infants.
And if that too is unavoidable (unavoidable? as if a doctor has recommended a person that if you don't send 100 bombs into the stratosphere, we might have to put you on life support), is it irrational to keep these to a minimum?
But the more fundamental question is this:
I just want to know why, in the first place, we have to celebrate this way?
What is it that we are celebrating?
Do we, ever, even think as to what this day means - what to learn from this day, and how would it be best to celebrate the day?
Is it not better to understand and remember this day by revisiting Lord Rama's story and teachings, thanking Him for the good things we have, reaffirming our belief in His Grace, having a small and simple puja with everyone at home and doing a good deed for the needy?
More than celebrating Lord Rama's arrival to Ayodhya, this day has become symbolic for gambling in the name of Goddess Lakshmi or incessant bombarding of crackers and bombs in the name of Lord Rama's arrival.
If this is the way we celebrate our devotion to them, I wonder if the obscene, incessant and insouciant way of the way we celebrate Lord Rama's life might itself be reason enough for Lord Rama to take another avatar to tell us to shut up the absurd, insensitive and the nonsensical, that too in His name, and extirpate this evil too!
Be honest here, would Lord Rama and Goddess Lakshmi want us to remember them the way we go about our lives and 'celebrations' on this day?
No, I'm no buddha khoosad/khadoos (neither physically nor mentally) who wants to impose restrictions on an individual's way of life - it's your life after all dude, and it's only you who has the right to live it the way you want to.
But I have a belief that atleast most (if not all) of us would not mind curbing some part of our enjoyment and celebrations, if that helps others to also co-exist peacefully, amicably and happily.
If nothing else, think about how wonderful it would be to spare the elderly their disgust, helplessness, anger, fear and disenchatment with having to live through the night non-stop, hearing a bomb go off in the vicinity of their house every 10 seconds (if it's a ladi, it's also continuously for 10 seconds). Or, the constant trepidation, confusion and unease a child has even when he is in the cradle or even after being put to/trying to be put to sleep.
All of us can provide these simple joys to so many people, at what cost? - by just ensuring we don't go berserk with our bombings, that's all - give it a thought!
Will doing so make our Diwalis less enjoyable or more - not only enjoyable but also more satisfying, caring and meaningful?
Belated Wishes for a Happy Diwali - But Please, Have Anything But A Blast!!!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
To the broken glass items from that cutlery set
This post is dedicated to a cutlery set I observed, without which I couldn't have managed to write all this.. (..crap!)
I was just overseeing a cutlery set being placed, when I was struck by something. Well, that something which struck me, happened to be one of the glass items of the cutlery set.
In just a moment of negligence, not only was the glass broken, but even the beauty and symmetry of the entire set had also been lost, with the set now being rendered incomplete. Not to mention the fact that unless removed quickly and carefully, the glass pieces scattered all around posed a real danger to anyone treading on their path.
It was then, that another thing struck me - this time, a thought.
I thought of the following, which has now given way to this blog post:
While it's good to be transparent like a glass, I was just wondering how being a sensitive person is akin to being (like) another glass item.
Like glass, a sensitive person is also fragile and extremely susceptible to being 'broken' by the slightest of manhandlings or oversights.
We can easily find glasses/glass items in abundance. Similarly, one cannot classify the ultra-emotional, extremely sensitive kind of people in the category of dinosaurs or endangered species.
But if you think closely, it is not really a quality to be very emotional. In fact, if the 'very' part is to an extent that it affects your behaviour adversely and makes you a seething, over-the-top, mountain-of-molehill-attitude character, you are better off not being emotional at all.
What use are emotions if they do not help us be a better person?
What use are emotions if they become our masters and dictate us to feel so grumpy, so hurt, so annoyed that we ruin our relations? What use are they, if, instead of mending our relations, they strain them further?
I say all this because I consider myself among the sensitive lot and would anytime prefer to be sensible than being so sensitive that I change for the worse. Eventually, being too sensitive not only hurts us, but also the others who love us and who generally end up bearing the brunt of our outpourings (or even the lack of them!).
Let's all not be like a glass / cutlery set - always fragile and always getting labeled as handle-with-care - just like a glass, a sensitive person's nature is also prone to not only getting hurt easily, but also towards giving all around him endless and needless headache in being extra-careful all the time due to the fragile emotional strength of the person.
And again, even after careful handling, even one mistake is not 'forgiven', and just like glass, an over-sensitive person not only gets 'broken', but also presents a very real possibility of hurting others around with injury even after being broken.
It's wonderful to be emotional but surely not at the cost of hurting others' emotions. Let's be sensible and not sensitive.
Oh no na, too bad - if only that set had not broken, you wouldn't have had to go through all this crap!
But hey, don't get too worked up or 'emotional' about it. Uff, witty me, hai na?! :-)
I was just overseeing a cutlery set being placed, when I was struck by something. Well, that something which struck me, happened to be one of the glass items of the cutlery set.
In just a moment of negligence, not only was the glass broken, but even the beauty and symmetry of the entire set had also been lost, with the set now being rendered incomplete. Not to mention the fact that unless removed quickly and carefully, the glass pieces scattered all around posed a real danger to anyone treading on their path.
It was then, that another thing struck me - this time, a thought.
I thought of the following, which has now given way to this blog post:
While it's good to be transparent like a glass, I was just wondering how being a sensitive person is akin to being (like) another glass item.
Like glass, a sensitive person is also fragile and extremely susceptible to being 'broken' by the slightest of manhandlings or oversights.
We can easily find glasses/glass items in abundance. Similarly, one cannot classify the ultra-emotional, extremely sensitive kind of people in the category of dinosaurs or endangered species.
But if you think closely, it is not really a quality to be very emotional. In fact, if the 'very' part is to an extent that it affects your behaviour adversely and makes you a seething, over-the-top, mountain-of-molehill-attitude character, you are better off not being emotional at all.
What use are emotions if they do not help us be a better person?
What use are emotions if they become our masters and dictate us to feel so grumpy, so hurt, so annoyed that we ruin our relations? What use are they, if, instead of mending our relations, they strain them further?
I say all this because I consider myself among the sensitive lot and would anytime prefer to be sensible than being so sensitive that I change for the worse. Eventually, being too sensitive not only hurts us, but also the others who love us and who generally end up bearing the brunt of our outpourings (or even the lack of them!).
Let's all not be like a glass / cutlery set - always fragile and always getting labeled as handle-with-care - just like a glass, a sensitive person's nature is also prone to not only getting hurt easily, but also towards giving all around him endless and needless headache in being extra-careful all the time due to the fragile emotional strength of the person.
And again, even after careful handling, even one mistake is not 'forgiven', and just like glass, an over-sensitive person not only gets 'broken', but also presents a very real possibility of hurting others around with injury even after being broken.
It's wonderful to be emotional but surely not at the cost of hurting others' emotions. Let's be sensible and not sensitive.
Oh no na, too bad - if only that set had not broken, you wouldn't have had to go through all this crap!
But hey, don't get too worked up or 'emotional' about it. Uff, witty me, hai na?! :-)
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Well done, Kiwis!!
Ok, so the Kiwi bird might not be able to fly but the Kiwi cricket team's march to the finals of the Champions Trophy is no flight of fancy!
Yes, they have made it to this year's CT finals, beating Pakistan in a superb chase at the Wanderers!
If I'm not wrong, NZ - the perennial underdogs/dark horses - had reached 8 semifinals of major tournaments but when it come to winning those semis, they could win and qualify for only 1 final. (Incidentally, the one final they reached was of the Champions Trophy only - inaugual edition held in Kenya, circa 2000 and they even won the final and the trophy by beating Sourav Ganguly's newly formed Team India - it was also the debut series/tournament of a certain Yuvraj Singh).
Well, make that count of semis-to-final conversion as 2 now!
And to do so by beating Pakistan, that too in foreign territory, when the Pakis were at full strength and using their strength (bowling) to stop NZ from winning the match.
I guess I might not be a mature, just-appreciate-the-cricket fan, and I still subscribe to the Pak-loses-to-anybody = India wins equation, which is obviously incorrect and unfair. But I have to admit that no matter how objective I try to be, I just cannot stop feeling happy on seeing Pakistan lose.
If there's anything that is comparable to the happiness of India winning, it is to either see Australia lose against anybody (to see a David win against these cricketing Goliaths), or to see Pakistan lose (c'mon, do I even have to tell why?!).
Oh, wait a sec, what abt Aus Vs Pak - I'd rather see Aus win!
What cathartic enjoyment it was to see the Kiwis chase down a moderate but pretty defendable 233 that the Pakis had set.
All the more commendable, given that the NZ batting line-up doesn't really boast of superstars and even with the resources at their disposal, they were playing without the injured Ryder and Styris.
Supeb stuff from Ian Butler and Vettori with the bowling, followed by an awesome finish with the bat by Grant Elliott and yes, you guessed it - Daniel Vettori again!
The best part about the chase was the manner in which they went about chasing the target without losing their wits. For all those who berate Dravid for his snail paced efforts, Elliott's innings was much the same (75* off 103 balls) in strike rate as Dravid's against Pakistan the other night (76 off 103 balls). Yes, the target for India was 70 runs more (304 as against 234) but the point is that India were always ahead of the required run rate. It was the wickets that were the key and that's basically the point that showed up here too.
As I said, this NZ batting line-up didn't even have many big hitters, with the exception of McCullum and Taylor (and they too, couldn't really ensure a win for NZ before getting out). Their batting always looked thin on paper - surely thinner than India's.
But look how they managed their chase, didn't throw their wickets away even when the required rate was contincuously creeping up. They played out all the bowlers who bowled well on the day - Afridi, Ajmal, and Aamer - all of them bowled well but due to Elliott and Vettori's sensible batting, these guys weren't swelling with pride when it came to bagging wickets.
I haven't yet mentioned how astutely NZ took the Batting Powerplay when the required run rate was 7.37 with 8 overs still to go, or how Elliott made the most of a life given by Younis Khan who dropped a sitter, or how the Pakistani bowlers' incurable oversteppings gave not only free-hits-as-freebies but also added to their frustration.
All in all, it was a great game and well played, NZ!
You did it for the Indian cricket fan, what his own team couldn't do this time - thanks very much for that!!
Here's wishing you the very best for the finals but whatever happens hereafter - win or lose, you've become THE team that I liked the most in this tournament - just because of your performance tonight!
Yes, they have made it to this year's CT finals, beating Pakistan in a superb chase at the Wanderers!
If I'm not wrong, NZ - the perennial underdogs/dark horses - had reached 8 semifinals of major tournaments but when it come to winning those semis, they could win and qualify for only 1 final. (Incidentally, the one final they reached was of the Champions Trophy only - inaugual edition held in Kenya, circa 2000 and they even won the final and the trophy by beating Sourav Ganguly's newly formed Team India - it was also the debut series/tournament of a certain Yuvraj Singh).
Well, make that count of semis-to-final conversion as 2 now!
And to do so by beating Pakistan, that too in foreign territory, when the Pakis were at full strength and using their strength (bowling) to stop NZ from winning the match.
I guess I might not be a mature, just-appreciate-the-cricket fan, and I still subscribe to the Pak-loses-to-anybody = India wins equation, which is obviously incorrect and unfair. But I have to admit that no matter how objective I try to be, I just cannot stop feeling happy on seeing Pakistan lose.
If there's anything that is comparable to the happiness of India winning, it is to either see Australia lose against anybody (to see a David win against these cricketing Goliaths), or to see Pakistan lose (c'mon, do I even have to tell why?!).
Oh, wait a sec, what abt Aus Vs Pak - I'd rather see Aus win!
What cathartic enjoyment it was to see the Kiwis chase down a moderate but pretty defendable 233 that the Pakis had set.
All the more commendable, given that the NZ batting line-up doesn't really boast of superstars and even with the resources at their disposal, they were playing without the injured Ryder and Styris.
Supeb stuff from Ian Butler and Vettori with the bowling, followed by an awesome finish with the bat by Grant Elliott and yes, you guessed it - Daniel Vettori again!
The best part about the chase was the manner in which they went about chasing the target without losing their wits. For all those who berate Dravid for his snail paced efforts, Elliott's innings was much the same (75* off 103 balls) in strike rate as Dravid's against Pakistan the other night (76 off 103 balls). Yes, the target for India was 70 runs more (304 as against 234) but the point is that India were always ahead of the required run rate. It was the wickets that were the key and that's basically the point that showed up here too.
As I said, this NZ batting line-up didn't even have many big hitters, with the exception of McCullum and Taylor (and they too, couldn't really ensure a win for NZ before getting out). Their batting always looked thin on paper - surely thinner than India's.
But look how they managed their chase, didn't throw their wickets away even when the required rate was contincuously creeping up. They played out all the bowlers who bowled well on the day - Afridi, Ajmal, and Aamer - all of them bowled well but due to Elliott and Vettori's sensible batting, these guys weren't swelling with pride when it came to bagging wickets.
I haven't yet mentioned how astutely NZ took the Batting Powerplay when the required run rate was 7.37 with 8 overs still to go, or how Elliott made the most of a life given by Younis Khan who dropped a sitter, or how the Pakistani bowlers' incurable oversteppings gave not only free-hits-as-freebies but also added to their frustration.
All in all, it was a great game and well played, NZ!
You did it for the Indian cricket fan, what his own team couldn't do this time - thanks very much for that!!
Here's wishing you the very best for the finals but whatever happens hereafter - win or lose, you've become THE team that I liked the most in this tournament - just because of your performance tonight!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)