Explore this blog by clicking on the labels listed along the right-hand sidebar. There are lots of interesting stuff which you won't find on the home page. Also listen to my stories on YouTube. Just type in Suvro Sir or Goppoguchchho.
Seriously curious about me? Click on ' What sort of person am I?'

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

More on the lonely mind

I wrote the following 'story' when I was 20. I wonder what those who are around 20 now would think about it!

Intermission
If you sit up late at night with a full belly trying to usher in a drowsy stupor which your mind is still too wakeful to let advance much further, you can half-heartedly struggle to fall asleep – and with a hectic day behind and another busy one before you, you might quite possibly succeed. Sans those prerequisites, however, with a mind that has nothing palpable to occupy itself with and is reluctant to find one, that half-heartedness would be as good as a positive disinclination to slumberous pursuits. You have, then, long hours of waking in store for you: hours that will prove as tedious as they are enthralling, as infernally fast as damnably slow, while from within your heavy eyes, a reasoning mind tottering on the brink of an exotically aesthetic subconscious tries to harmonise observation and philosophisation with a foreign slowness.

Provided you are not a particularly early-to-bed buff but have made falling asleep with just about a couple of hours for the day to close its account a comfortably regular habit, you’ll find that the fabled midnight isn’t all that far away – in fact, it’ll probably be the first time you look at your watch when you find the hands super-imposed: your thoughts were still wandering, you were still undecided, not yet settled down, so to speak. You are not sure I am not a false philosopher, a bungling amateur as it were, if I must bring the base, earthy reality of chronometry into this ?...No fear, my dear fellow; you can take it from me that an irregular if repeated contemplation of the hour-marker as you course along in the enveloping darkness is, if anything, a subtle accessory to forming a placid chain of thought – maintaining an unambiguous contact with the reality of the passing present, if you please.

Enveloping darkness, I said.Turn off the lights, throw open your windows, stretch back in a deliciously uncomfortable position on your chair, put up your feet on the table and succumb, if you may, to the charms of tobacco and the blushful wares of Bacchus. Let go of the last vestiges of conscious rationalisation, let the forgotten being deep within your soul escape from its bondage and look at what you think is the ‘real’ you.And listen.

A crystal-clear indigo sky lit by the remorseless, implacable glare of celestial arc lamps disconcerts me with its immense pettiness by the apparent similarity to some grotesque man-made machine: though admittedly, there have been such nights which conjured up in the imagination the identity of a divine cloak studded with immortal fire – and thereby brought me the closest I’ve come to sincerity of religion.Quite on the contrary ….but somehow, vaguely, disturbingly similar, have been nights when the moon struggled with torn bits of cloud to compete with the human lighting of the streets, which seemed to transform the ethereality of Time almost into something you could touch. And so you take it all in: the sky as you find it, the breeze whispering through acquiescent reeds; the ceaseless chirp of crickets you’d notice only by its absence; truck tyres burning on the distant highway; dogs barking, frightened by the ominous monotony, rising and dying away… a drunk scraping along, the night watchman trying to keep himself awake, someone snoring in the next room…. And your steady breathing, your own heart unconcernedly, steadily, wretchedly beating away. Insects whir and buzz, something rustles in the courtyard; a firefly flits around the room, drowning your whole entity in the unfathomable deadly magic of an unearthly green point.

Perhaps enchantment is cliché, but the physical fact is as it has always been: there’s no more fight left in you, your Being has fallen; languor – bodily as much as psychological – is total; you’re rendered willfully helpless on the imperceptible motion of the wheel of Eternity. You can almost hear the dew caressing the sensual Night as she curls up, contentedly, like a kitten. Just as the stark naked hopeless aimlessness of existence in a vast void roars in your ears you also feel your mind trying to clasp the slippery evanescence of a Great Justification. And then, also, in the wee small hours of the morning, when a cool, fresh breath of air kisses your fevered brow, when you have nothing more to reflect upon, nothing to condemn, nothing to declaim or regret, when you have no more prayers to say, no more smiling faces to recall and no more tears to shed, you feel lonelier, smaller, more alien than ever before. But there is no complaint, no bitterness, no self-pity; as with tousled hair and red-rimmed eyes you strain to catch the first glimpse of the eternally renewed miracle of light and life, you’re expecting more of everything than you’ve ever dreamt of doing, somehow assured that you will not be disappointed.

The brow of the horizon greys with a frown as the sun rudely, flippantly shatters its reverie, even as an embarrassed blush spreads with the self-admission that that very same reverie had become acutely – it had seemed for a moment inescapably – uncomfortable. Be that as it may, the world has had aeons of practice and goes about the business of general awakening with some shade of sensibility. But you, whose total experience spans an insignificant handful of years, whose flimsy materialistic armour has been mockingly puffed aside by this one dreadful night of disparaging revelations, look sluggishly out at a yawning gulf of Sisyphean futility waiting for you: you have no more foolish dreams left to fall back upon, or, paradoxically perhaps, no time for them. You aren’t going to turn up with a healthy appetite for breakfast or a general aura of bon vivant about you, that’s a dead cert, but then, it’s your fault that you didn’t take a dose of sleeping pills last night in the first place.

Oh well, you tell yourself, hang it all and get down to the sweet, comfortable, regular business of life. Fine. Only, as you travel in whatever manner you choose along the disgustingly familiar track to your everyday destination a very incongruous thought strikes you; it seems you have seen through the motivation behind the apparently wanton excesses of popular festival. You laugh out hoarsely, startling the automaton behind the steering wheel.

The day won’t be a particularly fruitful one on any count. You will lose a client, make a wrong diagnosis or be taken to task by or by your professor. And that again will seem strange by its failure to leave any mark on your ‘normal’ self. Colleagues will find your conversation lifeless, just as you find theirs banal. You come awake just about lunchtime, precisely as you discover other heads beginning to nod! Which, by the way, doesn’t help much to remove your listless apathy.

You make artful excuses to get off sooner than usual, go out of your way to engage in physical exertion or social intercourse with abortive gusto, and finally end up alone in your room with a book in your lap and your eyes on the ceiling. Having visually exhausted your immediate surroundings of possible objects of intellectual occupation within the better part of an hour, you look out to see a sickly pallor of smog descending upon the city, unkempt smokestacks marking the point where the celestial orb took inglorious leave. Great black flights of winged creatures head determinedly homewards. Night comes swiftly, silently in a vain attempt to take man’s luminous contrivances by surprise. You sigh, throw down the book, start cursing, decide against it and go out.

This evening they’ll be surprised by your gay, charming, sudden vivacity; you alone know that you are making amends for the Creator’s lack of imagination. You have won a private battle, let me tell you if you didn’t wildly hit out at the last miserable guest who came up for an ebullient handshake. Or again, perhaps you lost the last chance of salvation.

As you hear the clock wearily striking again somewhere, it hits you. That hollow feeling in your stomach, the stale, bitter taste of bile clutching at your throat …and as you wildly look about for what, at this moment, you desire most of all, the gnome with glinting, lecherous eyes is walking down the endless tunnel through your mind, his hobnailed boots thudding hollowly; his hunched, wrinkled figure casts no shadow. And then you go to dinner…

You forgot the chemist’s this evening.

Suvro Chatterjee
UG 2nd year (1983).

Friday, March 16, 2007

Net junkies?

‘Get a life’ said a very old friend who was briefly in my orkut community ‘The Good Life!’, and drew everybody’s attention to the recent news item that one of the IITs has imposed a curfew on netsurfing time, the authorities having felt that students are rapidly becoming net-junkies and losing out on their social life – and, I suppose, on study time and health as well – which, if true, would of course be a very serious matter. I should like to examine the issue in detail and in a calm, open-eyed, rational manner: in this country we have a habit of jumping to conclusions and taking hasty action which too often boomerangs on us, or fails us badly.

Firstly – as I have heard from my dad’s generation, seen from my own college days, and my own old boys and girls in college today keep telling me – much of that happy ‘social life’ in college has always been a myth or a chimera for most young people. Most of them find (or keep) very few true friends in college: most of them remain unhappy members of what a wise man has dubbed ‘the lonely crowd’, afraid of peer pressure to conform, desperately trying to be ‘in’, often against their own tastes and wishes, and becoming warped in the process, getting drawn into all kinds of seriously-bad habits which take a very heavy toll a few years down the line, and wasting an enormous amount of time in the process. What is called ‘a life’, or ‘enjoyment’ or ‘fun’ or whatever is just that – waste of many valuable years in bad living. Just as bad as what we elders often do at our parties, gorging and drinking away and leering at one another’s wives and daughters, rarely having five straight minutes of informed and intelligent conversation!

If the above is accepted to be by and large true, I shall proceed to make my second point: consider the typical college-goer who doesn’t play outdoor games much, does not have special circles of friends with common interests (like watching movies, making music, or going trekking) and cannot or won’t socialize at the canteen or nearby pub. For him or her, the Net is a godsend! Now the Net can be abused like anything else – you can waste all your time watching porn or forwarding silly jokes or playing juvenile games or scribbling crap scrap – and those who are by nature inclined to such abuse will always find a way of doing it, whether the college bosses facilitate things or not. I have the more refined and serious-minded youngsters in mind, especially those who, being by nature quiet and shy and finicky about things like bad language and noise and rude jokes, cannot socialize very well face to face. The privacy and relative impersonality of a net chat room (you don’t have to see the person you are chatting with, and he or she cannot directly yell at you, and you can log out or cut out anyone you don’t like without hassles…), especially if one is using a computer in one’s own room, offers lots of nice and clever youngsters to ‘get a life’ the only way they can. It must NOT be assumed that they are losing out on life: indeed, looking at the animated discussion board at my orkut community, it seems to be quite the contrary situation! And I know for a fact that many of these boys and girls are simultaneously pursuing other good hobbies and doing well at their studies too. Nobody needs to become a net-junkie any more than he needs to become a glutton or a drunk or a TV-addict: let’s not blame the net instead of ourselves for our failings!

Think about it, and get back to me. I hope my friend's son reads this too. Meanwhile, happy surfing, everybody – just don’t overdo it. Our religion says sarvam atyantam garhitam: all excess is bad!

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Here's a teaser!

Some folks have advised me to keep my posts short - then readers will respond more easily (I know, of course, that that's not true, seeing that hardly anybody has yet responded to those of my posts which are very short!), and that I should write something about love. So I'll combine both suggestions with a short teaser about love here, quoting the poet:

"Love at first sight, some say,
Misnaming the helplessness of twinn'd souls
'gainst the huge tug of procreation!"
Let's see how many responses this one fetches, and of what quality, within 48 hours!

Friday, March 09, 2007

Fafaia, by Rupert Brooke

I have loved this poem since I was a boy. Reading it might perhaps help all my interlocutors here and at my orkut site/community to realise a little better the haunting loneliness that I keep trying to soothe - as all men and women would try, once they acknowledged it and came to terms with it, instead of forever trying to hide or run away from it - by befriending as many fellow human beings I can before my little time on this earth is over (and what does it matter whether that happens tonight or forty years hence: it will be all too soon anyway!)


Stars that seem so close and bright,

Watched by lovers through the night,

Swim in emptiness, men say,

Many a mile and year away.


And yonder star that burns so white,

May have died to dust and night,

Ten, or maybe, fifteen year,

Before it shines upon my dear.


Oh! often among men below,

Heart cries out to heart, I know,

And one is dust a many years,

Child, before the other hears.


Heart from heart is all as far,

Fafaia, as star from star.


Rupert Brooke, Saanapu, November 1913

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

An appeal...

I am getting tired of seeing that though many people do visit my blog, no one, apparently, can think of anything to say about anything in it. Don't you see - I have no other way of knowing whether I'm wasting my time here or not! Do please write in with your views/comments/criticisms/requests. If you think all this stuff is boring/useless, I'd be glad if you told me so; I can at least take this blog off the Net (six such comments would do the trick)! If you are facing any technical trouble with posting comments, do let me know about that, too, with an email at suvro.chatterjee@gmail.com

The worship of the wealthy

The following was written in 1915. Since then, the whole titanic socialist experiment, which spanned the better part of the 20th century, has failed spectacularly, at unspeakable cost to humanity (by the way, Chesterton was no socialist, and he hated Soviet-style communists). Capitalism of a particularly rapacious, shameless and thoughtless variety is currently triumphant again. And it doesn't augur well either for society or for the natural environment! How does this essay sound in 2007?

The Worship of the wealthy by G. K. Chesterton

There has crept, I notice, into our literature and journalism a new way of flattering the wealthy and the great. In more straightforward times flattery itself was more straight-forward; falsehood itself was more true. A poor man wishing to please a rich man simply said that he was the wisest, bravest, tallest, strongest, most benevolent and most beautiful of mankind; and as even the rich man probably knew that he wasn't that, the thing did the less harm. When courtiers sang the praises of a King they attributed to him things that were entirely improbable, as that he resembled the sun at noonday, that they had to shade their eyes when he entered the room, that his people could not breathe without him, or that he had with his single sword conquered Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. The safety of this method was its artificiality; between the King and his public image there was really no relation. But the moderns have invented a much subtler and more poisonous kind of eulogy. The modern method is to take the prince or rich man, to give a credible picture of his type of personality, as that he is business-like, or a sportsman, or fond of art, or convivial, or reserved; and then enormously exaggerate the value and importance of these natural qualities. Those who praise Mr. Carnegie do not say that he is as wise as Solomon and as brave as Mars; I wish they did. It would be the next most honest thing to giving their real reason for praising him, which is simply that he has money. The journalists who write about Mr. Pierpont Morgan do not say that he is as beautiful as Apollo; I wish they did. What they do is to take the rich man's superficial life and manner, clothes, hobbies, love of cats, dislike of doctors, or what not; and then with the assistance of this realism make the man out to be a prophet and a saviour of his kind, whereas he is merely a private and stupid man who happens to like cats or to dislike doctors. The old flatterer took for granted that the King was an ordinary man, and set to work to make him out extraordinary. The newer and cleverer flatterer takes for granted that he is extraordinary, and that therefore even ordinary things about him will be of interest.

I have noticed one very amusing way in which this is done. I notice the method applied to about six of the wealthiest men in England in a book of interviews published by an able and well-known journalist. The flatterer contrives to combine strict truth of fact with a vast atmosphere of awe and mystery by the simple operation of dealing almost entirely in negatives. Suppose you are writing a sympathetic study of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. Perhaps there is not much to say about what he does think, or like, or admire; but you can suggest whole vistas of his taste and philosophy by talking a great deal about what he does not think, or like, or admire. You say of him--"But little attracted to the most recent schools of German philosophy, he stands almost as resolutely aloof from the tendencies of transcendental Pantheism as from the narrower ecstasies of Neo-Catholicism." Or suppose I am called upon to praise the charwoman who has just come into my house, and who certainly deserves it much more. I say--"It would be a mistake to class Mrs. Higgs among the followers of Loisy; her position is in many ways different; nor is she wholly to be identified with the concrete Hebraism of Harnack." It is a splendid method, as it gives the flatterer an opportunity of talking about something else besides the subject of the flattery, and it gives the subject of the flattery a rich, if somewhat bewildered, mental glow, as of one who has somehow gone through agonies of philosophical choice of which he was previously unaware. It is a splendid method; but I wish it were applied sometimes to charwomen rather than only to millionaires.

There is another way of flattering important people which has become very common, I notice, among writers in the newspapers and elsewhere. It consists in applying to them the phrases "simple," or "quiet," or "modest," without any sort of meaning or relation to the person to whom they are applied. To be simple is the best thing in the world; to be modest is the next best thing. I am not so sure about being quiet. I am rather inclined to think that really modest people make a great deal of noise. It is quite self-evident that really simple people make a great deal of noise. But simplicity and modesty, at least, are very rare and royal human virtues, not to be lightly talked about. Few human beings, and at rare intervals, have really risen into being modest; not one man in ten or in twenty has by long wars become simple, as an actual old soldier does by long wars become simple. These virtues are not things to fling about as mere flattery; many prophets and righteous men have desired to see these things and have not seen them. But in the description of the births, lives, and deaths of very luxurious men they are used incessantly and quite without thought. If a journalist has to describe a great politician or financier (the things are substantially the same) entering a room or walking down a thoroughfare, he always says, "Mr. Midas was quietly dressed in a black frock coat, a white waistcoat, and light grey trousers, with a plain green tie and simple flower in his button-hole." As if any one would expect him to have a crimson frock coat or spangled trousers. As if any one would expect him to have a burning Catherine wheel in his button-hole.

But this process, which is absurd enough when applied to the ordinary and external lives of worldly people, becomes perfectly intolerable when it is applied, as it always is applied, to the one episode which is serious even in the lives of politicians. I mean their death. When we have been sufficiently bored with the account of the simple costume of the millionaire, which is generally about as complicated as any that he could assume without being simply thought mad; when we have been told about the modest home of the millionaire, a home which is generally much too immodest to be called a home at all; when we have followed him through all these unmeaning eulogies, we are always asked last of all to admire his quiet funeral. I do not know what else people think a funeral should be except quiet. Yet again and again, over the grave of every one of those sad rich men, for whom one should surely feel, first and last, a speechless pity--over the grave of Beit, over the grave of Whiteley--this sickening nonsense about modesty and simplicity has been poured out. I well remember that when Beit was buried, the papers said that the mourning-coaches contained everybody of importance, that the floral tributes were sumptuous, splendid, intoxicating; but, for all that, it was a simple and quiet funeral. What, in the name of Acheron, did they expect it to be? Did they think there would be human sacrifice--the immolation of Oriental slaves upon the tomb? Did they think that long rows of Oriental dancing-girls would sway hither and thither in an ecstasy of lament? Did they look for the funeral games of Patroclus? I fear they had no such splendid and pagan meaning. I fear they were only using the words "quiet" and "modest" as words to fill up a page--a mere piece of the automatic hypocrisy which does become too common among those who have to write rapidly and often. The word "modest" will soon become like the word "honourable," which is said to be employed by the Japanese before any word that occurs in a polite sentence, as "Put honourable umbrella in honourable umbrella-stand;" or "condescend to clean honourable boots." We shall read in the future that the modest King went out in his modest crown, clad from head to foot in modest gold and attended with his ten thousand modest earls, their swords modestly drawn. No! if we have to pay for splendour let us praise it as splendour, not as simplicity. When next I meet a rich man I intend to walk up to him in the street and address him with Oriental hyperbole. He will probably run away.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Here’s a good read…

A gentleman named Vipin Bucksey contributed the following priceless story to Khushwant’s Singh’s weekly column in The Telegraph, 3rd March 2007. Since the views expressed here about what is wrong with this country accord so perfectly with mine, and are conveyed through excellent black humour, I am reproducing the story here: I hope neither Bucksey nor Singh would mind.

The ant and the grasshopper

Old Version: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food and shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

Modern Version: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant’s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well-fed while others are cold and starving. NDTV, BBC and CNN show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The world is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be that the poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Arundhati Roy stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house. Medha Patkar goes on a fast along with other grasshoppers, demanding that grasshoppers be relocated to warmer climates during winter. Amnesty International and Kofi Annan (UN chief at the time of writing) criticize the Indian government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the grasshopper. The internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the grasshopper (many promising Heaven and Everlasting Peace for prompt support, against the wrath of God for non-compliance). Opposition MPs stage a walkout. Left parties call for ‘Bharat bandh’ in West Bengal and Kerala, demanding a judicial enquiry. The CPM in Kerala immediately passes a law preventing ants from working hard in the heat so as to bring about equality of poverty among ants and grasshoppers. Lalu Prasad allocates one free coach to grasshoppers on all Indian Railways trains, aptly named the Grasshopper Rath. Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the Prevention of Terrorism against Grasshoppers Act (POTAGA), with effect from the beginning of winter. Arjun Singh makes special reservation for grasshoppers in educational institutions and in government services.
The ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and has nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes. His house is confiscated by the government and handed over to the grasshopper in a grand, nationally televised ceremony. Arundhati Roy calls it a ‘triumph of justice’; the CPM calls it the ‘revolutionary resurgence of the downtrodden’. Kofi Annan invites the grasshopper to address the UN general assembly.
Many years later: The ant has migrated to the US and set up a multibillion-dollar company in Silicon Valley. Hundreds of grasshoppers still die of starvation in India despite reservation. As a result of losing a lot of hardworking ants and feeding the grasshoppers, India is still a developing country.
*************

My comments: I applaud this story despite having a very low opinion of the average capitalist, despite being a Gandhian in my approach to the issue of poverty, despite John Grisham’s The Street Lawyer being one of my most favourite books. My views tally very closely with Tolstoy’s (who gave away a gigantic fortune to his newly-freed serfs and lived a life as simple and hard as Thoreau’s) – ‘he who does not work shall not eat’, remembering that a good surgeon, teacher or software developer works just as much as a rickshaw puller, domestic help or coolie (though I do believe that income differentials should not be as great as they are, and very large inheritances should be outlawed). I’d also like to add that since the honest and clever ants have generally all migrated to greener pastures, India has been left with lazy and incompetent crooks by the tens of millions: many of them are also making considerable fortunes, but most of that money stinks. Such creatures are certainly not going to make India great! Point to reflect: why do the likes of Vinod Khosla, Amartya Sen and Mani Bhowmik have not the slightest intention of coming back and setting up shop in India?

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Happy Memories

The laughter that my (older) sister and I sometimes shared with our parents. My father and mother fought or stayed surly for days and weeks on end, often for no reason at all, but when they told stories or shared jokes it was like being in heaven. 

The stories that my grandpa, my mother and my uncle told me in my childhood; everything from David Copperfield and Oliver Twist to Sherlock Holmes, Jim Corbett, tales from Hollywood classics of the 30s, James Hadley Chase and Hercule Poirot … they made up as they went along, and held me enthralled for hours together; there was an added pleasure in reading up the books and watching the movies for myself later on, often years later, and somehow, unconsciously, I imbibed both the taste and the skill, and that skill, more than anything else, is what has kept me in gravy for 25 years now.

Being in love, again and again and again…

The joy of finishing stories of my own.

Organising picnics and excursions, from in my neighbourhood as a child to my college days and as a schoolteacher.

Travelling in America.

While in America, getting photographed before a real, perfectly-preserved Spitfire that had seen service in the Battle of Britain.

Doing excellently in examinations and contests, as when ‘If winter comes’ won first prize, or I got a very high rank in the joint entrance for medical colleges, or maxed the TOEFL, or topped the university merit list, or was chosen as one of the translators for Oxford’s Tagore project...

Working as a quizmaster.

Getting paid for my work. It never ceases to amaze me, and fill me with wonder, 25 years since I got my first envelope.

Watching my savings grow, and pulling me up ever so slowly from genteel poverty.

Seeing the relief, joy and gratitude on the faces of many humble but good people to whom I have been of some slight use.

Courting my wife to be.

Seeing my daughter being born, and the first decade of her growing up.

Seeing my writing in print – everywhere, from Basumati, The Statesman and The Telegraph, Misha, Proma, Reader’s Digest, the St.Xavier’s silver-jubilee souvenir, message boards on the Net…

Hearing many old boys and girls acknowledge their awe, their affection and their thankfulness.

Writing To My Daughter.

Being told that Father Gilson died with my letter underneath his pillow.

Getting my own computer, and hooking on to the Internet… the delight of being able to write instantaneously to people around the globe, and find and download every kind of information imaginable – often for free!

Discovering that great writers are still being born as I grow middle-aged, and the realization that they still find devoted readers in large numbers all around the world. 
( Nov. 17, 2005)

What sort of person am I?

The hardest thing to write is a description of oneself that is honest, perceptive, reasonably comprehensive, but neither too self-deprecatory nor flattering to one’s own ego. And yet trying to write it can be an important and salutary exercise, so every thinking man should attempt it at some point in his career, certainly no later than in middle-age. I shall try to write it from the point of an unbiased but informed and broadly sympathetic observer. The description will naturally be in the third person, and naturally stay unfinished. I might want to add to it from time to time for as long as I live – one hopes to keep understanding oneself better and better, isn’t it?

1. He is a most peculiar combination of numerous opposed qualities, most of which are almost equally powerful: this is sometimes responsible for giving him a degree of mental poise which is to be seen in few men who know a little of the world, but far more usually keeps him highly-strung, because he is always having to make painful choices in his mind.To take just a few instances – he is an inveterate romantic dreamer, and yet fanatically calculative about earning and saving and things like that; he can be very gentle and also ferociously angry; he deeply admires statesmen and entrepreneurs as much as poets and philosophers; he has been a voracious reader all his life but despises bookworms; he is remarkably brave in some matters (such as ignoring the weight of public opinion in ordering his private affairs) and quite timid in others (such as exposing his wife and child to the threats and irritations of day-to-day outdoor life, though his intellect tells him he ought to let them go for their own good, and he generally listens to it); very democratic ideas coexist, and sometimes quarrel inside his mind with unabashed elitism; very conservative opinions on some questions cohabit with an extraordinary degree of liberalism on others; he is intensely patriotic in a very old-fashioned sentimental way, yet he often publicly decries the ways of his countrymen in the harshest language, and would like to feel that the world is his family. In a lot of things (such as keeping rooms tidy, being punctual for appointments and spelling carefully), he is a perfectionist both by instinct and by conviction, and yet he can love many people who are neither careful about such things nor much bothered about it. Taken together, they make him appear to be a very complicated character in the eyes of many (his own mother, for one), or even a hypocrite, though others who have known him very closely (such as his wife) regard him as essentially – almost childishly – simple and honest. He cannot fully explain the conundrum himself.

2. If there’s anything that he is really proud of, it is his knowledge – not specialised knowledge, such as has become so very widely available these days, but enormously diverse kinds of information always available at the tips of his fingers, which he can relate and weave together effortlessly and without prior preparation to tell stories and explain things in a gripping style to anybody who cares to listen without ego-hassles. He is proud because it has taken him a lifetime of singleminded reading, thinking and remembering to achieve it, and he is conscious of how rare a quality it is. It is the one talent that has been feeding him lifelong as a teacher who has taught all sorts of people between 14 and 40, and all sorts of subjects from Economics to English and French and history and law and psychology and sociology and management techniques and environmental studies; it is something that has won him many admirers, not a few of whom regard him with awe, and it is also the one thing – combined with the unfortunate facts that he hates illogic and idle chatter and cannot suffer snooty fools gladly – that has also made numerous people avoid him and dislike him, often very strongly. He makes them feel very inferior, often deliberately, and makes his enjoyment of their discomfiture evident. This must be counterbalanced with the fact that he has endless sympathy and patience with people who are open-minded, and eager to learn, and do not claim respect or a right to lecture on the basis of age or office or some other variety of unearned status. Unlike most teachers in this country, he has never felt a need to talk down to a pupil, however young, confused and uninformed, and while he dislikes most middle-class and middle-aged people, he finds it easy to make friends with the very young, and the less privileged/less pretentious of his fellow-men.

3. Other than the one above quality, he does not regard himself as a particularly talented person (he certainly has no gift for chess or puzzles or art, for instance, and did well in mathematics up to the college level by sheer perseverance, not by virtue of brains). Rather, it is a matter of some sorrow to him that too few people notice or acknowledge what a hard, patient and meticulous worker he has always been – mostly on the cerebral level, of course, though he isn’t averse to physical labour either, so long as it is necessary for his purpose and his health can bear it. In fact, this is one area where he is very old-fashioned in his beliefs: he has never been much helped by luck, and most of the good things in his life have been won by slow and laborious effort, and he has seen lots of talented people making a mess of their lives simply because they lacked goals, clear-cut principles and perseverance (his own father being the example that hurts him most to think about). He is both proud and thankful about this, and wishes that more of his students would take it to heart, instead of hoping that luck or special talents would always work in their favour.

4. Hearing him talk in certain circles might give you the impression that he is sociable to the point of being garrulous, and he might have made a successful public man – but the truth is that he has always been horribly shy of being hurt (by neglect, if not rudeness and humiliation), and that has made him very touchy and grumpy, so that lots of strangers who manage to rub him the wrong way at first meeting go away with the impression that he is cold or abrasive, and for the same reason he never enjoyed a public profession (such as journalism) despite its many obvious rewards, and never imagined that he could shine in any public profession, though many things about the arts of politics and big business have always fascinated him. Unless people give a clear indication that they want to listen to him, he would rather not talk at all; where he is not likely to be noticed or heard, or where people are merely passing the time of day or ‘socializing’ in the most obviously stiff and pretentious manner (such as at the typical party or wedding) he would rather not be present at all. This angularity, this revulsion for ‘normal’ behaviour has given him a very unsocial reputation among his contemporaries – notwithstanding the fact that he has far more visitors than a score of his neighbours put together!

5. His interest in people – especially young people, who are still changing – is unusually wide, and he can empathize with a very wide variety too: this has been corroborated again and again by ex-students, male and female, very bright and slow-witted, talented in the arts and the sciences, very conservative and avant-garde, rich and poor, who have taken pleasure and comfort in knowing him, and who have so little in common with one another that they have wondered aloud why and how he can pay so much attention to those who are so very unlike themselves! Nothing draws him to people more strongly than the feeling – often subconsciously given – that they need him, if only as a good listener.

6. He is as passionate about good reading as he is to share his books with all those who would read, even though it hurts him very deeply when they damage and steal his favourite books now and then, and he has not met another man in his life who retains this double-quality even after so many years of hurting. This is one of those virtues which he believes would greatly improve the world if more people had it.

7. He has always had a morbid fascination with the ugly things in life – the deliberate viciousness and unthinking cruelty of man to man, and the savage unconcern for everybody else’s dignity and welfare that lurks just beneath the skins of most of us, which can be released and organized with devastating effect everywhere, and again and again, and leads to everything from inhuman ‘ragging’ in colleges to concentration camps and atrocious torture to break both the body and spirit, and vivid nightmares about such things coming true in his own life, in his immediate circle of loved ones, have haunted him all his life, so intense a torment that he does not wish it upon his worst enemy, and which he sometimes believes is punishment for a previous life very badly lived; the only thing that keeps him going is the fervent hope that this suffering is burning away his accumulated sins (he hasn’t done enough evil in this life to merit it!), and whatever little charity he has done without allowing his ego to swell will allow him either a peaceful extinction or a much less agonized life hereafter.

8. He has had some very strong and abiding ambitions, chief among which, the most consuming passion, is his fascination with greatness. And the sort of greatness he most strongly desires (because it is the sort that is least impossible for him to achieve, perhaps, and least harmful to the world) is to make a vast fortune through writing and preaching, and giving away most of it to work that might benefit the world in some way – for the good of children and the old, distressed women and handicapped people, small folk struggling against injustice meted out to them by big people and organizations, institutions working for the protection of the natural environment, against superstition, for the spread of civic sense and community feeling, for the encouragement of artistic and other talent among the poor, for working out a synthesis between science and religion. If he desires any kind of ‘status’ at all, it is the kind of status that can come from being acknowledged far and wide as a true teacher of mankind, as Socrates, the Buddha and Confucius were, as Dickens was, as Robert Fulghum and Richard Bach and Neale Donald Walsche are. He is well aware that not a single other member of his family, as far back as he can look, was haunted lifelong by such an ambition, so it puzzles him. He has always despised the scale of middle-class ambitions, and has often been heard to regret that all the big money (and the associated power) in the world is in the hands of the wrong people – your average president or billionaire businessman is, if not downright vicious and stupid, certainly a very unimaginative, uninformed, unsympathetic, conventional and timid person, who cannot think of doing better things with his money/power beyond amassing all kinds of toys (palaces, limousines, yachts, harems, bodyguards, vast ‘designer’ wardrobes…) at absurd prices to bask in the envy of equally foolish and trivial people, mistaking the envy for admiration and respect. The world needs people to look up to, but it will not change for the better until they have better role models than these quite ornery ‘leaders’. And he knows that if he cannot do something to fulfil his ambition, even very big money will not make him happy, for his wealth will exist only to mock his inconsequentiality.

9. He also has a fascination for beauty and delicacy and quiet pleasures, things that can be best enjoyed alone, or in the company of one or two soul-comrades. He has been quite sure ever since he was a boy that nothing would please him more than to be able to live in a large and well-appointed villa in the midst of a huge and pretty garden – in part wild woods, in part as tidy as a zen garden, several hundred acres of it – with lots of books and movies and music and fresh air and an all-weather swimming pool within his reach, and silence and birdsong and the rustling of leaves in the breeze and the patter of rain and the chirp of crickets and frolicking rabbits and dogs and squirrels, not to be disturbed by ‘civilisation’ except when he wills it, and a notice at the gate that reads ‘Don’t come in if you are between 18 and 70, unless you are a favourite ex-student who has kept in touch, or you have been invited, or you have a warrant issued by a magistrate: you are not welcome!’ And nobody is likely to be invited unless he is a truly simple, gentle and friendly soul, or else an enlightened one, defined in terms of knowledge, compassion, courage, imagination and nothing else: not fancy calling cards and costumes of any sort. So it’s quite obvious that having been born lower middle-class in a crowded, poor, noisy, superstitious and unruly country, he has been in this sense deeply frustrated all his life, and sometimes dreams that his daughter would settle comfortably somewhere in Canada, Russia, Australia or one of the most thinly-populated states in the US of America, like Washington or Arizona, where even middle-class people can afford garden-villas in the small towns, and there’s lots of unspoilt scenery all around. He believes it’s a bad world where simple peace and decency with security are so hard to come by.

10. He has always been his own harshest critic. When other people speak ill of him (by and large behind his back, which they believe is the ‘proper’ thing to do!), they mostly speak out of ignorance, or out of mere envy or spite (why should a self-employed teacher be so well-regarded by so many of his pupils, so well-off and so self-possessed?), so their opinions have little value. In general, these criticisms are of two kinds: that he is ‘not a good character’ (this is the opinion of the most ignorant, foolish, goody-goody frogs in the well, who are mentally still living in Bengali villages of the mid-19th century – where girls were married off before ten and teenage widows routinely starved and frequently raped by their relatives in ‘good’ families – so there would have been no need to pay any attention to them, were it not for the fact that he has to keep in mind that it is mostly their wards who supply his bread and butter, so he cannot shake them up too violently for fear of losing their custom, and that, alas, cramps his style considerably, though God knows he has taken very big risks…); and that he is an arrogant and aloof snob. For the latter, some degree of explanation has already been given above. He would have liked more people to try and get to know him better before they made up their minds about him – but probably it cannot be helped at this date; his image is too firmly set. It is a matter of no small wonder to him that nobody in his neighbourhood has approached him closely enough either to extort money or to make friends – not the residents’ committee, not local hoodlums, not the police or taxmen, not even representatives of the supposedly all-powerful political party that has been guiding Bengal’s destiny with an iron hand for twenty five years. Indeed, they have never found out that he would have been glad to give a little more than he does to deserving causes! The only people who seem to know are stray dogs and beggars and maidservants, who routinely make a beeline for his door round the year, giving all his neighbours a very wide berth. Also petty shopkeepers in the neighbourhood market, who all know him to be a mild-mannered soft touch!

11. He has tried very hard to make people laugh and relax and enjoy themselves, but deep inside he has always been sad with an aching, haunting sadness. From his reading of medical texts as well as his experience of men, he is now aware that part of this is ascribable to something organic/genetic: he is a depressive in his makeup. Someday there will be drugs to cure melancholia just as there are already drugs for diabetes and thyroid imbalance and cardiac arrhythmia, which have wrought miracles in so many lives. But he is also aware of several other facts in this connection: firstly, that people who live permanently on anti-depressants might gradually lose many things that were good and valuable in their personalities (such as empathy, and imagination, and the urge to fight and overcome obstacles), because mental attributes are so closely intertwined – he most certainly doesn’t want to mutate into a happy fool! – and secondly, that this melancholia is not entirely irrational/organic in nature, nor indeed a wholly bad thing. As said before, he knows perfectly well that there are some definite external reasons that work as causal, or at least aggravating factors, and some of these reasons have no cure, because they are too closely woven into the woof and warp of existence, of the nature of the cosmos as we understand it, and the kind of society he is compelled to live in. A little more understanding and sympathy and appreciation for his best instincts from those who have known him fairly closely would have made him a much happier person; so also would have a large monetary fortune, which would have freed him from doing everything that he does not like (teaching unwilling and inert pupils for the sake of a livelihood, for instance), and allowed him to indulge some of his pleasures – none of which are of the sort that harm the world. At the same time, death and oblivion and the apparent meaninglessness of life and suffering, things that have oppressed the best minds down the ages in the east and the west alike, things for which there are neither satisfactory universally-accepted explanations nor efficacious cures, unless people find enlightenment and salvation inside themselves by a supreme effort of will – as the Buddha did, the stoics tried, and Morrie Schwarz apparently succeeded in his last days – these things keep his soul aching all the time, in a way that the glories of the world cannot cure, though, like Tagore, he is aware that those glories are very many, and it is his sense of the transience of all things that allows him to enjoy many of those glories much more keenly than many of his fellow-men who sleepwalk through life, and also makes him deeply compassionate for the least of creatures. He wouldn’t like to give them up for a kind of nirvana which entails a deadening of joy and sorrow alike until his time on earth is up. He wants to live life intensely, so in a sense he is reconciled to feeling both joy and sorrow intensely all the time – his only grouch is that sometimes the sorrows seem so unfair, and so overwhelming!

12. He loves his daughter very dearly, and likes to believe that it is pure love, and not possessiveness or pride or blind biological attachment or internalised custom or a rationalization for all his unfulfilled dreams that he would like her to fulfil for him. Having enjoyed a lot of pleasures – including interacting very closely and fruitfully with hundreds of youngsters for over twenty years – he is quite sure, eight years after the event, that the moment he heard her first cry was the single most delightful event of his life, and it is as fresh in his ears today as it was then, and the awe and wonder it filled him with is still undimmed by habit and familiarity. His wife laughs all the time about how he can gape at his daughter frolicking about, or chattering away about school and friends, or drawing pictures, or even sleeping, literally for hours on end, filled with an ineffable peace, and wanting nothing more from this world other than that this joy will not be taken away from him until his last breath. He was filled with an infinity of gratitude that she was born ‘normal’, medically speaking, and prayed most fervently that she may be healthy and happy all her life – beyond that he would never ask God for anything more on her behalf, knowing far better than most parents of today how much he has asked for, and to how few it is given. He is keenly looking forward to all the thousands of hours of conversation he is going to have with her on every interesting subject under the sun, the kind of ‘feast of reason and flow of soul’ he has enjoyed a thousand times over, but only in snatches, with all his favourite old boys and girls. If he wants something definite for her, it is that she may grow up to be a wise, brave and compassionate human being, of much greater use to mankind and the earth than her father managed to be – as a dancer, actor, teacher, judge, bureaucrat, doctor, writer, politician, environmental crusader, homemaker, whatever. He does not really want anything from her, though he cannot help hoping that she might continue to love him all her life, as she does now – but in a clear-eyed fashion, knowing all his faults and limitations, and without obsession. If she quietly wipes her tears away after his funeral and tells her own child ‘He was a good human being, I’m glad to have had him for a father’, his soul will rest in peace.

13. About his attitude to work – here too there are strong and conscious contradictions. On the one hand he suspects that deep within he is a lazy person who can go to pieces if he is ever at a loose end for any length of time, so he loves routines – as long as they do not oppress his spirit by their unfairness or pointlessness: he naturally prefers to set them himself – because they keep his nose to the grind. And he has learnt equally well from introspection and from experience of other men that an idle mind is truly the devil’s workshop (half the psychiatrists and policemen in this world would be out of work if people liked to work and liked their work!), so he wants to keep working till the end of his days, even if and when he no longer needs to work for a living; for him, work has been deeply therapeutic. Being also terribly choosy about work (he knows very clearly how many different kinds of occupation which bring more or less as much money as he makes now – from a bank manager’s job to a police commissioner’s – would have driven him to suicide), he thanks God for choosing just right for him. This makes him a far happier person than most people he meets in the course of a working day – they are all deeply, quietly unhappy, and foremost among the reasons is that their work brings them no pleasure, either intellectual or monetary or spiritual, yet they are stuck with it, eight to ten hours a day, six days a week, perhaps forty nine weeks a year, for 35 years or more. But being thankful for his own lot does not prevent him from inwardly regarding all such people with either pity or contempt, because they chose badly, or rather, they never believed they had a choice at all when they were led by the nose by ‘society’ and jumped for the first opening in their youth. He is horrified to see that all these foolish people, too timid and lazy to know and follow their own minds, nevertheless keep lecturing the young to follow in their footsteps – a boy recently told him that one of his elders had said ‘A career is not what you want, it is what you get’! Cowards do not deserve either success or happiness, and if God is looking, He helps only those who help themselves. He also appreciates the value of leisure: a bit of it every day to unwind, and considerable stretches of it after several months of hard work so that he can relax and have fun, travelling, idling, chatting, reading, writing, or just plain admiring the world in all its splendour: and again, he is deely thankful that his work has brought him some opportunity for such occasional leisure to be spent at his own sweet will, and that he still retains enough of a mind (and a healthy body) to enjoy it when it comes. He would have been even more pleased if he could have done his idling in a more ‘constructive’ way – writing good fiction, for instance – but one is not given everything in one lifetime; and perhaps he never really had either the brains or the energy for that sort of thing! Besides – though he has not yet been happily reconciled to the reality – he has accepted for a fact that it is both wrong and futile to expect particular results for particular kinds of work; many people of the highest calibre have been recognised ages after their demise, and Jesus himself would probably have been struck dumb to see what the church established in his name had grown into twelve centuries after him.

14. He believes that the long-term prospects for mankind are good – provided we do not self-destruct through senseless breeding and violence (rationalized with one kind of religio-political ideology or the other) and pollution of the natural environment. In the long run – meaning several centuries, or even millennia – men are certainly going to spread far beyond the confines of earth, and even this rather marginal and insignificant solar system; they are also going to tune into, and harness, all the various and vast powers of the universe to live lives infinitely richer than we (all of us except science-fiction writers with the most vaulting imaginations) can yet imagine. He also believes, in consonance with the most farsighted of ancient seers and the most well-informed of today’s scientists, that true progress henceforth will mean by and large development of all the powers of the human mind – the most wonderful and complex piece of organized matter in the universe yet known. This will naturally involve a lot of things by the way: removal of extreme economic inequalities (because both poverty and great personal wealth are blights and drags on civilisation), universalisation of birth control and basic education, abolition of war and all kinds of gender-based deprivations, learning to live more in harmony and less in conflict with Nature, and a concerted worldwide attempt to take the essence of religion while rejecting all the particularism and the superstitious dross accumulated over aeons, and fusing it with the best and latest scientific knowledge, in order to know what the good life means, and how best we can all live it. It will mean hanging on desperately to the liberal-democratic ethos of government, because it is the only one yet invented which takes into account the enormous and essential diversity of human tastes, ideals and talents, does not completely ignore the common man, and seeks to impose the minimum possible curbs on our instinctive urges in the collective interest while encouraging a thousand flowers to bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend. It will mean subordinating national governments to some kind of overarching global authority, which will have only the interests of mankind as a whole in making policy decisions that will affect the long-term condition of all mankind, such as those regarding permissible birth rates and pollution-levels and crime control and education for global citizenship. It will also mean that we must find some better way of organizing our lives than living for the sake of acquiring and consuming produced goods and services, not because we really need them but in order that the wheels of commerce may keep turning, as if commerce of the early-21st century sort were a part of the natural order of things (the way people once upon a time thought about feudalism or monarchy by ‘divine right’), and therefore eternal and immutable.

15. On sex, love and marriage: he has been curious, open-minded and experimental since childhood; he has read a very great deal about these things too, and he has allowed his views to be moulded by personal experience. At 41, he can say to any healthy-minded adult without any sense of shame or discomfiture that he has had a lot of fun and never deliberately hurt anybody in the process, physically, mentally or socially, and believes he could have enjoyed himself much more if he did not have to battle so much of both prudery and prurience all around him. He feels that much of the evil and suffering in this world is due to stupid superstitions, inhibitions, delusions and perversities involving these matters, as well as rigid and often irrational traditions, besides apathy, and the world would be a far better place if people were more willing to think for themselves and freer to choose for themselves. But since these things also have great potential for evil, because the real things are too easily corrupted by the urges to dissemble and to possess and dominate and depend upon parasite-fashion, and lend themselves too easily to ignorant or motivated social manipulation (by parents, religious leaders, commercial advertisers and movie-makers alike, albeit in different ways), it must be a very important part of education to know how to choose wisely, taking both personal tastes into consideration and genuine social needs – because it is dangerous to put too high a premium on either. He has been very lucky in his own life, and so naturally he is all for marriage, but he will be the first to acknowledge that marriage has always been ‘a curse for many, a blessing for a few, and a washout for most’. There is an inseparable element of luck involved, and also a great deal of trying to adjust on the part of both parties in question, always. A happy couple must be able to make their own rules and create their own private space that is inviolable by mutual consent. On the other hand, a couple who after several years of sincere trying have become quite sure that they are absolutely incompatible must be socially and legally allowed to separate and remarry with the minimum of fuss and heartache, allowing for the least hurt and harm to their children if there are any, remembering that it is better for children to be adopted or even brought up in an orphanage than by really unhappy and hostile parents. Certain facts must be kept in mind by all social rule-makers in future. For instance, that the needs for sex and love and marriage and children are all real, and can all be deeply fulfilling, but they are not synonymous, nor equally important to everybody, and therefore rules must not be made to fit everyone into the same straitjacket, Procrustes-style – society is robust enough to tolerate a lot of different kinds of deviants, including homosexuals and celibates and divorcees and live-in couples outside marriage and people who fall in love across wide chasms of race, religion, language, nationality, social class or age, so long as these deviants do not seriously threaten the public peace or try to make converts through dishonest or violent means. And that it is better for parents to teach nothing about sex and love and marriage at all than to teach shame and guilt and prurience and gender-bias and ‘goody-goody’ morals which benefit nobody but only make children grow up warped, and therefore unhappy and dangerous to many others in many ways. And that the best thing that teachers and governments can do is to spread the best available scientific knowledge (biological, psychological and social) and good literature as widely as possible, besides encouraging the young to be gentle yet adventurous, exploratory yet accommodating, sensitive yet resilient, in short, to grow up into a race of vigorous philosophers. Beyond that, a hands-off attitude is the best prescription: as of today, elders know too little, love too little, and do far too much!

16. If he admires or envies anybody at all, it is those people who not only find all the fulfillment they want in their work but have been able to maintain a sunny outlook on life, and a friendly and benevolent attitude towards their fellow-men, with or without the advantages conferred by health, wealth, fame and good marriages. He has known quite a few, mostly through books but some also in flesh and blood; he believes that these are really blessed people, and has always wished that there were many more of them. In the same vein, he wishes there were far fewer people who just cannot manage to be happy with themselves and by themselves, and therefore look for happiness or at least distraction in troubling and hurting others in every way they can think of!

That, I suppose, is an adequate representation of my character for the present. I wonder what I should like to change, or add, in twenty years’ time. It is this kind of wonder that prevents life from becoming utterly boring! How truly it has been said that the most important knowledge by far is self-knowledge (you cannot even begin to know anything seriously about anybody else until you have known quite a bit about yourself), and how difficult it is to attain: I have known very few people in my entire lifetime who will ever take the trouble to write up something like this chapter about themselves. Either it will never occur to them, or they will promptly come up with a thousand excuses for not trying it, the commonest among which is ‘being busy’ – and yet they are always so eager to tell others how to think and talk and act, whether they are teachers or parents or priests or financial consultants or cabinet ministers!

(written October 2004, at age 41)

Saturday, February 03, 2007

looking for a very old friend; can somebody please help?

I have been desperately searching for many years for an old school chum by the name of Nilanjan Sen. He's a mechanical engineer from Jadavpur University, Calcutta and I think he got some sort of graduate degree in finance, currently with a finance-related IT manager in New York. Can someone PLEASE send me his email i.d.? If Nilu himself sees this, old friend, will he please send at least a line to suvro.chatterjee@gmail.com?

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

How my world has changed


There was a book titled ‘The Kids’ Whole Future Catalog’ that I bought nearly a quarter century ago. It was meant for sharp youngsters with a taste for science and science fiction, and it was filled with articles on, and artists’ impressions of, the many kinds of ways in which the world was going to change over the next thirty years or so. Crystal-ball gazing, yes, but indulged in on the basis of the best and latest scientific data available around 1980, and the extrapolations were made by supposedly intelligent and reasonable people who had been trained in this sort of thing; not illiterate sadhus and primitive astrologers. The book was inspired by no less a creative scientific genius than Buckminster Fuller, and I was drawn to it because I had become interested in the field of scientific forecasting by reading stalwarts like Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and Conan Doyle, Arthur Clarke and Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov. I was certainly in good company; no one can argue that I was being ‘had’ by con men.
Since then, I have become much older and much less starry-eyed. I have also kept a close watch on the world, and remembered much more, and that much more keenly than the average man. I can hear men and women of my own age group gushing or moaning all around me about how drastically the world has changed in our time, but I know much of that is nonsense. In fact, what I find really surprising is how much has not changed at all, or changed minimally, and how many of the confident-sounding predictions in that book have gone hopelessly wrong. Let me make a little list of the things that have come true as forecast, and things that have not.

The most obvious (and to my mind, deplorable) change that has taken place is that the human population has swelled enormously – even the USA crossed the 300-million mark in 2006 – and much of that bulge has occurred in poor and backward countries like India, making the problems of development and wildlife protection well-nigh insoluble (it is no accident that our leaders are now desperate to find land for everything they want to build, from cities to factories, for there is no vacant land left; why didn’t they take birth control much more seriously since the 1950s, for God’s sake!). Television (which made its countrywide debut in India only in 1982 with the Delhi Asiad) has now become ubiquitous. The book was wide-eyed about the potential of the PC or microcomputer, and even breathlessly suggested that millions of computers might ‘talk’ to each other soon; today the Internet is not only essential to business worldwide, but raises no eyebrows except perhaps in remote villages, even in India, and there are tiny computers everywhere, from microwave ovens to cars. Mobile telephones have spread like wildfire over just one decade, and they are increasingly more powerful and versatile yet cheaper with every passing year. India is witnessing an automobile boom – but also skyrocketing obesity-related problems – and there are still far too few good roads and too scant respect for traffic laws, so the accident graph is soaring. Definitely not a picture of unmixed blessings, all-round progress. Not so, especially when you consider that tuberculosis and malaria still kill millions every year; no safe, cheap and surefire cure for cancer has been found after half a century of strenuous research, and mankind is still almost as helpless as ever in the face of major natural disasters (the frequency and intensity of which are being definitely exacerbated by human action, such as global warming caused by emission of greenhouse gases on a monstrous scale) – hurricane Katrina wrought as much havoc in the USA in 2005 as the great tsunami of December 26, 2004 had done in Asia. In many more areas of research and organized exploration, there have been hardly any breakthroughs. Almost all of our food is still produced by farmers from the land; neither in factories nor through hydroponics on the oceans, as promised. Most of the energy we consume still comes from burning fossil fuels – in Asia and Africa, a huge proportion still comes from burning wood and cowdung! – fusion reactors and solar energy still remain chimeras, and other nonconventional sources, like wind and wave energy, or ocean thermal energy conversion, remain mere scientific curiosities, or contribute tiny amounts of useful power only. What compounds the problem is that economically accessible reserves of fossil fuels (‘dirty’ fuels) are rapidly running out. There is also a growing worldwide scarcity of clean fresh water (India’s condition is among the worst): so much so that the outgoing Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has warned that the major wars of the 21st century are going to be over control of available water. And what is most frightening is that in the ’60s and ’70s there was at least some alarm over these things even in high places, and some efforts were made to find viable solutions: today a strange apathy seems to have gripped all of us, from leaders to scientists to laymen alike, as though we all know the problems are so big and intractable that they don’t bear thinking about, so we’d be better off having fun with no thought for the morrow: mankind is doomed anyway!

While certain areas of science and technology have indeed witnessed spectacular advancement (electronics and microsurgery, for example) and some others are currently showing very great promise (to wit genetic engineering and nanotechnology), other fields have definitely stagnated. Asimov’s robot stories sound as fantastical as when they were written, half a century or more ago: we still see intelligent (and loveable or sinister) androids only in movies. Organic houses – which grow by themselves according to pre-set plans, and know how to repair themselves, one of those fantasies suggested in the book – likewise. Many more people certainly live into their nineties these days, of course, but they are certainly not on the average half as fit and active and cheerfully enjoying life as the book had predicted they would be: we still know far too little to seriously slow down the ageing process, and both society and psychologists understand the mind too little to help very old folks stave off loneliness and boredom, even when they are not starving or being abused. I believe, rather, that science has yet learnt only how to keep people alive a little longer so that they can suffer more misery! Space exploration has gone little beyond the splendid achievements of the 50s-to-70s, mainly because the non-military spinoffs have been found to be too little, too slow and too uncertain while the technology still remains too clumsy, expensive and risky. So let alone starships capable of making hyperspace jumps, there are no really large-scale and permanent space stations in near-earth orbit serving as factories, power-stations and hotels, no mines on the moon or Venus, Mercury, Mars or the asteroids, indeed no ambitious plans to send manned exploratory missions there either. And, despite the long-search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, it is curious that we still seem to be a very lonely species adrift in space, so public interest even in sci-fi space movies seems to have waned lately: nothing spectacular has happened in that area since the days of E.T. and Star Wars barring stray successes like Spielberg and Tom Cruise’s recent re-telling of the venerable War of the Worlds. The bulk of our trains and buses run on technology that is basically a century old – again, I have been hearing and seeing TV shows about hovertrains and maglev trains that run at 500-plus km/hour for more than three decades, but thus far and no farther. It’s the same in the field of aircraft: nothing essentially pathbreaking has happened since the first Boeing 747 ‘jumbo jet’ rolled out in 1969: the Airbus 380 about to enter service is just a bigger, quieter version, while the supersonic Concorde has been retired as a very costly failure after two decades of trial and has not been replaced by anything better – hyperplanes capable of transporting two thousand people at a time from New York to Sydney in two hours are not even likely to start being produced soon. The same applies to megaships, though Frederick Forsyth wrote a book about a million-tonne oil tanker almost two decades ago. The first 100-plus storey building, the Empire State in New York, was finished in 1931; we haven’t got a 200-storey building yet. And the most widely-used gun in the world, the AK 47, is of World War II vintage!

At the most basic level of physics – the ‘queen’ and trendsetter of all the sciences for three glorious centuries since Newton was born – there is likewise only stagnation and confusion, so far as I can tell from the science columns of the newspapers and the occasional relevant book that I read. At the turn of the century there were so many rapid-fire discoveries of momentous proportions – the electron, the photoelectric effect, quantum mechanics, relativity, the e = mc2 equation and what have you – that vast vistas, whole new realms of knowledge at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, seemed to have been suddenly opened up. ‘Bliss was it in that new dawn to be alive’, most of the best brains in the scientific world were drawn into the exhilarating vortex of atomic physics and astrophysics, and it seemed that perhaps the ultimate mysteries of creation and existence were about to be revealed to mankind; scientists, in Einstein’s words, were really at last going to look into the mind of God. But then things seemed to go awry. Instead of things becoming increasingly clearer and simpler and more organized, chaos abounded. The deeper scientists looked into the ‘heart of the matter’, the more complex and protean it seemed to become, like opening up Russian dolls (which themselves kept shape-shifting in most bizarre ways all the time). So these days we hear that instead of three more or less stable subatomic particles there are ‘actually’ at least 64, many of which cannot often be differentiated from one another or have any stable kind of existence; we hear that nobody is sure whether we live in an oscillating universe or a stable one or one which alternates eternally between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, or even whether there are multiple universes, budding off baby universes after the fashion of amoebae now and then and fusing into one another sometimes; we hear that scientists have been grappling in vain with the challenge of the Grand Unification Theory because gravity is proving to be unmanageable, and also (something that is certain to confound the thinking layperson) that perhaps there is no such thing as gravity after all: it is only a ‘distortion’ in the uniform field of space-time caused by the presence of very massive bodies. We hear that at the level of the very building blocks of matter we must not talk of strict causality because only probabilities are allowed by something called the uncertainty principle, and at the level of a dying or just-being-born universe there arise such things as ‘singularities’ when space and time themselves stop having any meaning, so we are no longer allowed to ask when and where! At the most esoteric level, there are groups of scientists who do not believe in particles at all, but insist that the universe is ‘actually’ composed of multidimensional ‘strings’, or ‘superstrings’ (and there are a couple of dozen superstring theories happily coexistent and quarreling, because apparently not one of them can be conclusively proved by experiment – once thought to be the sine qua non of real science! – owing to insurmountable technical difficulties). The newspapers these days keep regurgitating this kind of stuff as though they were the latest and very promising breakthroughs, but I have been reading more or less the same things since I was in high school – I have come across very little in the last five years that indicate huge progress has been made since, say, Asimov wrote his brilliant encyclopedic New Guide to Science. However counterintuitive – or, not to put too fine a point on it, plain weird – all this may seem to some of us, we are solemnly assured by the eggheads that reality is indeed like that; they have checked it all with mathematical rigour and precision. And all the time the math involved has become more and more complicated and arcane, so that over my lifetime the scientists doing ‘cutting-edge’ research have been claiming that only the initiated (meaning only they and their friends – scientists can be very disparaging and dismissive of even rival theorists, leave alone laymen, and by layman a particle physicist means even engineers and surgeons, leave alone history professors, politicians, clerks and bus drivers!) may even vaguely comprehend what they are talking about. But isn’t that just the way the church fathers insisted about their own brands of mumbo jumbo in the name of theology and religion for upwards of a thousand years? To think that science was born to fight and destroy that sort of religiosity and offer a better life to men here on earth!

Add to all this the fact that the public has understood at least two things rather clearly over the last half-century – that scientific ‘progress’ has severely harmed the natural environment that sustains us and very greatly magnified our power of mutual destruction through terrorism and war – and it’s no wonder any more that all over the world there has been of late a great ‘turning away’ from science, at least science of the ‘pure’ variety. Of course some wizards are still making vast fortunes by turning this or that application of science into enormously profitable businesses in the footsteps of Arkwright, Graham Bell, Edison, Brunel, Nobel and Eiffel – consider Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and the young founders of Google Inc – but if you take the public as a whole, all over the west science has become ‘uncool’ among the young, while India and China are ‘catching up’ only by supplying the western, or western-style industries in their own domains, with millions of ‘scientifically educated’ labourers who basically do the work of glorified drudges, even when they are well paid, to keep the wheels of conventional commerce and government turning: they have not been trained or encouraged to do any original thinking, so very little pathbreaking scientific creativity ought to be expected from them. At this rate, the Enlightenment dream of knowing everything there is to be known and applying it for the good of Man might turn out to have been a mirage indeed.

Some of the best minds in basic physics have been taking a speculative, not to say metaphysical turn in recent times. Men like Fritjof Capra, Frank Tippler, Mani Bhowmik, Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies – all of them holding science doctorates from the world’s leading universities – insist that there cannot be a meaningful science without God, and those like Roger Penrose, who wouldn’t commit themselves so far, still urge us to consider that at least the stuff of human consciousness must be somehow factored into all scientific hypothesizing to make any significant progress hereafter. On the other hand, those like Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg and Richard Dawkins, following in the footsteps of Laplace who told Napoleon he had no need for the God-hypothesis, are in defiant denial, but they seem to be locked in an intellectual cul de sac. But much worse than that has been happening over the last fifty years. There is a global sense of failure and frustration with science (and even more ominously, with reason itself), and the turning away has been made manifest in a great many undesirable ways.

Since scientists are laying claim to ever larger funds for supposedly important research from the same public whom they cannot (or do not seem willing and eager to) convince about that importance, legislators in many advanced nations have greatly slashed many projects, if not cancelled them entirely – as has been the case with artificial intelligence and ever bigger particle supercolliders. Research into more advanced weaponry, on the other hand, just like research to develop ever more tantalizing cosmetics, keeps going on at a breathtaking pace, because the same legislators (and the voters behind them) can see the obvious ‘utility’ of such things. Meanwhile, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ongoing political reorientation of China, the only dream of creating a secular, rational, civilized (meaning one that outlaws poverty, vast and hereditary power, wealth and privilege and great injustice stemming from these things) utopia on a really large scale has vanished into thin air, but the western model of godless liberal-capitalist democracy wedded to the pseudo-religion of consumerism is neither accessible to the whole human race (because the earth’s resources are not infinite, nor are the rich willing to share enough) nor palatable to all – as a result religion, including religion of the organized and aggressive variety, has begun to appeal to a great many people again everywhere. Now this wouldn’t have been a bad thing if religion had complemented science in consciously and deliberately making a better world for all of us – heaven knows mankind needs a healthy sense of purpose and direction. If religion could have made us better human beings – kinder, quieter, more tolerant, self-possessed and self-assured, less material-obsessed and greedy, more aesthetic – that would have been wonderful. Unfortunately, that is not the kind of religion that is making converts and sympathizers in droves. It is religion of a very parochial, bigoted, violent, ritual obsessed and superstitious sort – precisely the kind of religion that science had struggled so long and hard to banish from the human mind – that is making a comeback with a vengeance all over the world, whether it be within the folds of Islam or Hinduism or Christianity. The zealots want blood, and absolute, unreasoning, inhuman faith; they conjure up apocalyptic visions and promise paradise hereafter, they lust after unbridled, irresponsible power; they want to turn the clock back. And now they have far more potent weapons – not just bombs and guns and poison but the fantastic tools of mass propaganda and collective brainwashing created by science itself – in their hands to do mischief with. Often these religious ‘leaders’ and the hordes of their passionate devotees have acquired at least a smattering of ‘scientific’ education. Is it not a very sad irony that this should have happened after four centuries of the pursuit of knowledge and human welfare?

‘The best lack all conviction/ the worst are full of passionate intensity’. This was written a long time ago, but it might have been a description of the present day. A majority of young people all over the world today – well-fed and supposedly well schooled – cannot spell or do math in their heads; they find both science and Shakespeare boring, last year to them is prehistory, and nothing apparently interests and excites them other than shopping, rave parties awash in drugs, inane sports like football and cricket, the celebrity of the hour and fashionable clothes to be bought and thrown away with hysterical frenzy. Real adventure of any kind is as anathema to them as charity; they hate hard work, they eat like pigs, and truth to them is what TV ads say it is. I know the old have always complained of the dissoluteness of the young, but look, I am not yet such an old man myself, and I have seen galloping decadence with my own eyes as a teacher in the last twenty-odd years. I can at least see how the Roman emperors kept the mob happy with bread and circuses; how well the same timeworn strategy works still, and how the mob hates, despises and ignores all those who tell them to wake up and look at the truth. The book did not foresee this at all, and I cannot foresee what the consequences are likely to be: but there is ‘much that I fear may chance’. What kind of labourers will these lazy morons make, and what sort of statesmen, artists, scientists, reformers and parents will be drawn from their ranks?

Another area where there has been no progress at all is with regard to the dream of a world government, which will have only the interests – especially the long term interests – of Man at heart. The Upanishads dreamt of a world which would live by the dictum of vasudhaiva kutumvakam, the world is my family, the earth is to be held in trust for posterity. Tennyson dreamt in Locksley Hall of a world governed by the ‘Parliament of Man, the federation of the world’; Russell insisted in the middle of the 20th century that without such a thing Man had no future. The first truly international effort to articulate this dream took the form of the League of Nations, which died an early death because most of the powerful members had neither any real understanding of its need nor were willing to give it a fair trial; they were still stuck with nationalistic world-views of medieval ancestry. There followed the unspeakable horror of the Second World War, and the ghastly apprehension (at least in the minds of a few thousand articulate scientists, journalists, generals and statesmen) that a third World War might spell the doom of civilization as we know it. So the League was resurrected and given a shot in the arm in a new avatar, the United Nations, and there was in the mid-1940s some hope that this time round the Great Powers of the World would be moved by both reason and conscience to voluntarily delegate many of their hitherto ‘sovereign’ powers to this body for the greatest common good: prevention of war, rapid development of the poorest countries, encouraging trade, controlling global menaces of crime, pollution, natural-resource depletion and so on globally – which is surely both the most efficient and the most equitable way. Alas, the modicum of good sense generated by the catastrophe of two successive world wars within three decades was dissipated all too soon. When I was born, the world was frozen into a Cold War; the bulk of the resources of the ‘superpowers’ was being eaten up by the arms race and the mutual-hate propaganda race. Whatever dribbles of charity they gave to the poor nations of the world was strictly tied to their own hegemonistic ambitions; they wanted their ‘satellites’ to become either pale clones of themselves or helplessly dependent on them for everything, from advice to technology, forever, when they were not providing cannon fodder for proxy wars in furtherance of the geopolitical interests of the USA or the USSR. Very little genuine developmental work could be done for those countries which needed it most because there was so much bad blood between the superpowers that they would not cooperate. The UNO became a vast, grand, and (compared with the early hopes it had raised) nearly useless bureaucracy spinning out endless beautifully worded and ineffectual resolutions and covenants for the benefit of all those it could not really serve – hundreds of millions of sick, handicapped, poor, elderly people and minorities, including women, who were victims of extreme oppression or neglect all around the planet, not to mention the natural environment, which industrial man’s greed continued to despoil and pollute as though there would be no tomorrow.

Then, when I was nearing thirty, there was sudden cataclysmic change again. The Soviet Union collapsed and vanished, and there was America triumphant: unbridled and unabashed global capitalism seemed suddenly to become the almost unopposed order of the day. The UNO had become, when it was not kowtowing to American interests, irrelevant. The earth and all its riches was up for grabs, and the overwhelming military might as well as cultural leadership of the USA (a very weird leadership though it is, to put it mildly – a leadership of lazy and mindless opulence: the kind of ‘leadership’ that decadent Rome gave to Europe, Africa and the Middle East after the second century C.E.) was there to protect the greediest and most reckless players all around the planet. But these last fifteen odd years have been, from a historian’s point of view, a mere wink of the eye: with failure in Afghanistan, looming disaster in Iraq, China and the European Union growing stronger with every passing year, many governments as well as peoples in both rich and poor countries quietly resentful and resisting, America’s brief moment of unchallengeable authority on the world stage is already becoming a thing of the past. Economically speaking, the world in fifty years’ time is certainly going to be a multipolar world – of that all the experts seem certain. The trillion-dollar question is, will such a world survive politically without a global government to hold the reins, without a global charter of basic human rights (and duties) in force? To put it in another way, will the nations learn to reach that desideratum through relatively smooth, painless and quick negotiations, or shall we arrive at it only through many decades of war and natural disasters whose scale boggles the mind? This no one can tell. On this non-technical (and therefore much more difficult) question the book remains absolutely silent.

So on the whole the book raised far more exciting possibilities than have actually materialized; and the world to me today seems much darker than it had hoped for. This I say though I have been very, very lucky not to have suffered seriously myself over these last 25 years: individual life trajectories often vary greatly from average prognostications aimed at very large numbers. For a lot of people of my parents’ generation and mine, things have shaped up far worse – all those millions who have been rendered destitute refugees by war, revolution and environmental disaster, for instance. On the other hand, things have become better than expected for only a tiny minority of people: mostly rich males in the world’s ten most advanced nations who are still healthy and active. May that remain a warning for my daughter and all her contemporaries. If I look down the road, I will not dare to make forecasts about what the world would look like 25 years hence: experience has taught me to doubt my own wisdom. I shall certainly hope for a few good things to happen, even some unexpectedly good ones, but I shall go on worrying that too many things will take a turn for the worse, and men will wake up to danger only when it is almost too late.
((begun January 1, 2007finished January 6, 2007)