Khanum jaan(Shaukat Kaifi, or 'Shabana Azmi ki mumma', as Lila Jha once called her) is the 'Madam' of one of the finest brothels in Lucknow. Assisting her is middle aged Husseini (Dina Pathak). What follows is one of those 'all in a day's work' kind of conversation between them where they discuss how depraved the times have become.
खानम जान: अब उस दिन का ही ज़िकर लो! सुल्तान बेगम ने अपने मीयाँ को एक लौंडी से बात करते देख लिया। सुना है उसे सीकचीयों से दाग दाग कर मार डाला।
हुसैनी: हाय, हाय, हाय! क़यामत के दिन मुँह काला होगा एसी बीवियों का।
And then it dawns upon you - once you're done laughing - how slimy a creature prejudice can be. As Shakal from Shaan would say 'बड़ा अजीब जानवर है ये'। अजीब indeed! Because very seldom does this जानवर make an entrance through the designated doorways of indoctrination. More often than not, it will simply slide in through the crevices created by company, environment, and of course, personal gain.
Here's hoping for an 'independence' from prejudice.

Lots of trending news about the achievements of ancient Indians. We have the great surgery, the Pythagoras theorm, and now, inter-planetary air travel.

It’s understandable - the all round mockery which these claims to greatness are attracting. It’s understandable because such claims, even when made in earnest, invariably contain traces of the syllogism “The ancient Indians were great. We’ve descended from the ancients. Hence, we’re great (or have in us the potential for greatness).” And God forbid that the syllogism be present in quantities greater than a trace! The whole thing then becomes evocative of Satyajit Ray’s ‘Shatranj ke Khiladi’. More specifically, the agonisingly comic scene where Sanjeev Kumar, hanging to the coattails of his allegedly  illustrious ancestors, remarks with a flourish “…unka kuchh khoon toh humari ruggon mein bhi daud raha hoga….”
But alas, there are facets to ‘humara khoon’ that we fail to fully appreciate. Facets more profound than air travel; facets which concern themselves with our very understanding of the universe; facets which quantum physics is still scraping the surface of.

Take for example the EPR(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paper on quantum entanglement. In ‘entangled’ subatomic particles travelling in opposite directions, ‘spin’ of a particle acquires a value only when it is measured. Then simultaneously (faster than the speed of light), irrespective of distance of separation, the other entangled particle takes up an appropriate reciprocal value. And thus blends into unison the trinity of the observed, the observer, and the observation. Advaita anyone?
​
Or take the more recent experiment where a sub-atomic particle was stripped from its inherent physical property. A beam of neutrons was so split that one beam was neutrons and the other beam their magnetic moment. A quantum Cheshire cat, if you will. It’s a new state-of-affairs where physical properties can be separated from their ‘carriers’; a state-of-affairs that force-alters our concepts of perception and consciousness. By illustrating that ‘quality’ and ‘physical property’ are not an inherent attribute of matter, the experiment hints at an underlying and all pervading substance of which everything is an attribute. It’s a substance of which both mind and matter are properties; a substance which manifests as both subject and object. Advaita again! And the Mundaka Upanishad. 

It’s of course possible to argue that juxtaposing the findings of Quantum physics with Vedanta is a case of reverse engineering. But we would do well to remember that be it Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger or Einstein; the big daddies of quantum physics never shied from making public their Vedanta connection. It’s no secret that the ideas which gave birth to quantum physics were in fact incubated in a grounding of Vedanta.

And therefore, to the question pertaining to surgeries and air-travel, perhaps the most befitting reply is the one that was given by Niels Bohr to an aspiring physicist. ‘Your theory is crazy young man,’ Bohr had said, ‘but it’s not crazy enough to be true.’

​Erasmus tells of a Spartan practice which required young boys to be kept underfed. It was assumed that they would fill themselves up on stolen food. This was war training to increase their hardiness and foraging skills. Interestingly, the Spartans considered it extremely shameful for someone to be caught stealing. And hence, what we in effect had was a system that tacitly allowed (and expected!) misdemeanours, but insisted on being outraged whenever that misdemeanour became public.
So, do they still seem all that unique and original? The Indian public’s terms of engagement with their public-office bearers.

Stumbled upon this piece of ‘art’ by artist Damien Hirst. It’s a dead shark in a formaldehyde tank. In 2004, this was sold for an undisclosed amount to Steven Cohen(estimates peg the figure northward of $10 million.)
I’m reminded of Woody Allen’s remark from Annie Hall.
“A relationship, I think, is like a shark. It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark.”
तो समझने की बात ये है Woody बाबू, कि not only can a dead shark be priceless, it can also be astonishingly well preserved.
Here’s to dead sharks.

​You’ve heard of mixed metaphors(if you haven’t, look them up immediately; don’t hold your horses till the cows come home).
Well on similar lines, here are some mixed दोहाs:
पोथी पढ़ी पढ़ी जग मुआ, पंडित भया ना कोय।
माली सींचे सौ घड़ा, ॠतु आए फल होय।।
(Economies tend to be driven by demand cycles, not by the opinions of experts)
माटी कहे कुम्हार से, तू क्या रोंदे मोय।
रहिमन फाटे दूध को, मथे न माखन होय।।
(When you’re in a hole, stop digging.)
निंदक नियरे राखिए, ऑंगन कुटी छवाय।
बिना जीव की हाय से, लोह भस्म हो जाय।।
(Criticism is useful. But not for the faint-hearted)
Enough politics. Moving on.....
ऐसी वाणी बोलिए, मन का आपा खोय |
दो पाटन के बीच में, साबुत बचा ना कोए ||
(Beware. Sweet-talk kills)
बढत-बढत संपत्ति-सलिल, मन-सरोज बढि जाय।
बोया पेड़ बबूल का, आम कहाँ से खाय।
(As wealth increases, the mind may grow too. But the fruit it yields is in accordance with the means used for wealth acquisition.)
Okay, this time, really moving on.....
बरस्या बादल प्रेम का, भींजि गया अब अंग।
चन्दन विष व्यापे नहीं, लिपटे रहत भुजंग।।

​Poetry. Deemed as worthless by utilitarians; and exalted, by romantics, as the very essence of all that which makes us human. Dylan Thomas says that the world is never the same once a good poem has been added to it.
Then, as a tribute to poetry this Poetry day, it may be worthwhile to compare the prose and poetic expressions of the same idea. Quite deliberately, the chosen ‘idea’ is one that pertains to the debate at hand. Also, I pick a gent no less than the great Tagore for the prose section (lest the accusation of inadequate representation gain hold). The poetry is by Allama Iqbal.
Prose:
‘A mind all logic is like a knife all blade, it makes the hand bleed that uses it.’
Poetry:
‘अच्छा है दिल के साथ रहे पासबान-ए-अक़्ल,
लेकिन कभी कभी इसे तन्हा भी छोड़ दे।’
QED, shall we say?
(पासबान-ए-अक़्ल: अक़्ल का पहरेदार)

​
“The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?” said Pablo Casals. Sumptuous words, especially in times when the winds will have you believe that ‘nationalism’ is a four letter word. But Mr Casals fails to acknowledge a basic fact; love for one’s country is not always a matter of voluntary choice.
I invoke Iqbal to help the point across:
ग़ुरबत में हों अगर हम
रहता है दिल वतन में
समझो वहीं हमें भी
है दिल जहाँ हमारा
सारे जहाँ से अच्छा
हिन्दोस्तान हमारा
Though ग़ुरबत also means poverty, the connotation here pertains to the tribulation of a person away from his native land.
Now ग़ुरबत doesn’t always need a strong impetus (like a racial slur) for it to be set into motion. It may as easily be activated by subtle tethers such as rootedness or belonging. For example, mere perception of the way you are perceived (by the natives of your adopted land) can set ग़ुरबत going.
And then there are ग़ुरबत’s main instigators: Habit and conditioning. You may be gleefully cruising through the English countryside of green meadows and bright blue skies when, all of a sudden, ग़ुरबत will come calling in the guise of a ridiculous yearning; the yearning for a roadside dhaba that specialises in stuffed parathas( served with an unhygienic achar) and thickly concocted chai.
The point, then, isn’t whether Hindostan is indeed ‘सारे जहाँ से अच्छा.’ The point is that Hindostan ‘हमारा’ है। So by corollary, Hindostan के हम हैं। And that is a fact which cannot be wished away.

​Sadhguru makes a tweet about Shivratri not being a religious festival. He calls it an astronomical phase of the planet that facilitates a natural upsurge of energy.
Whereas Sadhguru may be absolutely right with his explanation, this practice of decoding religious rituals in terms of ‘science’ is not something I personally subscribe to.
Science, after all, is a mere repository of structured knowledge. It’s by no means a complete repository. And then there’s also the question of capacity. बोले तो, not only is there such software which hasn’t yet reached our repository, there’s also the kind which simply won’t run on the hardware we’ve been endowed with.
In short, ‘science’ has its limitations. I hence don’t consider it adequate enough to be used as a touchstone for sanctifying age old practices. If you have the faith, stick to your rituals. If you don’t, stop turning to Heisenberg and Shrodinger for validation.

​The critically acclaimed ‘Disobedience’ premiered on cable last evening. ‘You are free to choose,’ boom two important characters; one at the very beginning and the other at the very end.
Incidentally, it’s Gita Jayanti today. I’m drawn to a shloka from the concluding chapter (chapter 18, text 63). Says Krishna to Arjuna:
इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्गुह्यतरं मया |
विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु ||
Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then, do what you wish to do.
यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु!
Krishna endorses free will but also lays down the stipulations under which it may be exercised, namely, right knowledge and deliberation.
Then, where either of the prerequisites is lacking, it may be prudent to stick to convention, or to the law of the land; for ‘Disobedience’ of either can have far reaching ramification. We saw so in the layered and complex movie. And we’ll see so in the panning out of nationwide events from the past few weeks.

​The Times of India editorial page carries as many as three write-ups that are critical of the Ayodhya verdict.
Opines Omair Ahmad, “The whole judgement validated the idea that violence based on faith can offer you a legitimate locus standi on property you want to claim.”
Ahmad’s grievance with violence is restricted to one party alone. He forgets the wee bit of violence that was wreaked some 450 years ago when Big B & gang went marauding over the Gangetic plains and undertook their little architectural venture in Ayodhya.
Next comes Shobha De. She intends to denigrate the very process of jurisdiction when she wonders aloud “What if there would have been a woman on that Constitution Bench which delivered the historic Ayodhya verdict?” Madam of course doesn’t enumerate the specific qualities which a lady judge brings to the table (or bench) and a male judge doesn’t. Erudition in law, integrity, objectivity; these are the basic qualities we expect in a judge. And I like to think that none of them are sex specific.
And finally, we have Aakar Patel. Mr Patel is “..unable to figure out the logic and the jurisprudence that links the findings of the court and its conclusions.” He has a point. But what he fails to acknowledge is that the case wasn’t one that could’ve been strictly circumscribed within unequivocal tenets of constitutional law. ANY ‘conclusion’ that the judges would have arrived at would have been similarly dislocated from the ‘findings.’
And yet, despite all the nitpicking, no critic mentions the most relevant bit of legal juggling that was perpetrated. Shifting away from the High Court’s stance, the apex court declared the disputed area to be one single chunk. Thereupon, whatever transpired in one part could be taken to have transpired in the whole of it.
Anyway, all that is behind us now. In philosophy and other subjective realms, it is rare that complex problems get solved to the satisfaction of all. They are usually ‘dissolved’ and left at that. What ultimately matters now is that a cantankerous thorn has been dislodged from the flesh of Indian polity. It’s time all of us moved on.