No joy, no sorrow. Wake up in the morning, go to bed at night. Go through the dreary motions of existing between. Breathe, eat to stay alive. Talk to stay sane. Work to avoid guilt. Continuous paranoia, mind stifled by fear. Inattention to everything. Indifference to everything. Looking forward to nothing. Powerless to fight, pervading air of resignation.
I love my life. I don't want to be like this.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Niketa Mehta Case : Much needed food for thought
Not many moral, ethical or legal dilemmas have caught the attention of the nation more than the Mehta case. For those who came in late (or are not readers of ToI from where I found out about it), a little background would help.
So, I come across this article on a couple requesting permission from the high court to abort a 23 week foetus when current laws state that no abortions are legally allowed beyond the 20th week of pregnancy. My first thought was, what the hell is wrong with these people, why do they want these complications? Then I read that the trouble was that the child was seen to have severe congenital defects that held the potential to make it impossible for the child to lead a healthy, "normal" life. On the contrary the child may not survive long and would probably live painfully for as long as it would live. The court did what you expect of it - it said the laws don't allow it, you can't do it. Then the Supreme Court, higher court, same result. The next thought that came to my mind was that this decision means nothing. After all, the couple can always have it aborted illegally and claim that there was a miscarriage. But there would definitely be inquiries afterwards. Now, the whole thing had played out as predictably as any of those ancient Hindi soaps. Not that I am staking any claim to be a soothsayer, I'd say most people saw this coming!
Finally there seems to be some piece of news that is stirring the country into intelligent debate (if the comments section in ToI is anything to go by, admittedly not an authoritative benchmark) rather than fits of rioting and violence. There is so much to discuss and so many opinions - bordering on all possible extremes. And the thing is that all of them are right in their own sense! First off, no one knows whether it was really a miscarriage, but its reasonable to assume that it wasn't. For the purposes of this piece, I will work on the assumption that it was an abortion portrayed as a miscarriage.
Unfortunately I have nothing beyond this point planned out, so it will be haphazard at times. This is me being delusional that someone is actually reading this :) . The moral issue is the most pressing of all. Were they justified in "murdering" an "individual" irrespective of their intentions? View 1, they are cold blooded killers, who murdered their baby whom they had chosen to give birth to, just to save themselves from the extra effort and expense of raising a "deformed" child. View 2, they are saints who have saved their child from enormous pain and suffering, despite how difficult the decision must have been for them. Personally I haven't made my choice between the two, put my pro-liberal stance should put me somewhere in the saint area. Strangely, it doesn't! I still find both sides to have compelling arguments that apply even to the far wider areas of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The case for view 1 is based on a fundamental set of doctrines that have remained unchallenged for much of human existence. The first is probability. How do the Mehtas know for sure that the child will not be normal or almost normal? After all, medical science is at the point where we can only predict with limited certainty. Maybe they just aborted a perfectly healthy child. The second is the right to choose. They argue that if man does not have the right to create life, what gives him the right to end it, an argument used ad nauseum by anti capital punishment activists. I must beg to differ here, copulation which gives rise to life is very much in our hands, children are not born randomly out of God's will. The point here is, that the choice did not rest with the foetus. The parent's chose to create it, and now it is the foetus' prerogative to choose to live. Thus, the parent's are unjustified in terminating it, ostensibly in all cases. The "right to live" argument holds a little water, but cannot turn this debate. All other arguments are variations on the two above points. I saw a lot of strong comments from people with this view, including folks quoting about their own handicapped siblings and how they would have never thought of "killing" them even if bringing them up is difficult.
But don't get swayed by that. There was also a comment from the parents of a handicapped child who said that as much as they hate it, they hope that their child will die before they do. Cruel as it may sound, they make perfect sense when they say that they do not want someone else and the child to suffer in their absence. Can you imagine what goes on through the mind of a parent who is crushed between a love for their child that wants to keep them from harm, but at the same time cannot bear to see their pain? This brings us to the arguments from people with view 2, who commend the couple for their courageous choice. Their first point is that the emotional and economic drain of taking care of someone like that would ruin the entire family. Which is probably true. Their second point is that it is better for a child who could have those many problems to not be born at all, for its own sake. If it can be spared of the pain, why not? That, to some extent, also makes sense. But where does one stop then? Taking it to the extreme, one person commented that why don't we kill all the old and handicapped then? While that may be really pushing it, lines do need to be drawn. The boundaries are hard to discern and in all likelihood do not exist. Much of the region where the said "line" is are shrouded in gray that will never clear. It will always be subject to each individual's interpretation of what is "right" and that can never be agreed upon.
The second issue that comes in is the ethical issue. What were the Mehtas thinking when they turned this into a media circus? Something so personal should never be turned into a farce. And the media has pounced on it (assumption, I bet a good one) as it always does sensationalizing it beyond all justification. Then when the "miscarriage" happens, Mr. Mehta gives a statement saying that the media exposure resulted in stress which may have caused it. Then he goes on to add that if not the law, at least God was with us. That, frankly, is a very presumptuous statement. Now that its happened (or done, whatever the case may be) why not shut up? The media went far out of bounds with the Aarushi case, they have lost all sensitivity so long ago, its even before the late Triassic. Knowing this, why does a man still keep speaking and licking the media like a dog?
The third is the legal. The less said the better, there is neither use not content for a debate here. No one can disagree that our laws are antiquated, but the levels of judicial activism in our country have been quite poor and the lawmakers are busy with more pressing matters like creating a ruckus in parliament and walking out. Also occasionally walking in with wads of cash. I don't wish to continue on this thread, it's fast becoming a rant.
As always, this debate will also end with no action being taken. We derive so much comfort from the status quo, it will take much more than this to stir our collective conscience into motion. However, it is heartening that the issue is being discussed on its merits - without coercion, violence, and not resorting to "culture" half as many times as we usually do. A few more cases such as this, and things will move. All is never lost.
So, I come across this article on a couple requesting permission from the high court to abort a 23 week foetus when current laws state that no abortions are legally allowed beyond the 20th week of pregnancy. My first thought was, what the hell is wrong with these people, why do they want these complications? Then I read that the trouble was that the child was seen to have severe congenital defects that held the potential to make it impossible for the child to lead a healthy, "normal" life. On the contrary the child may not survive long and would probably live painfully for as long as it would live. The court did what you expect of it - it said the laws don't allow it, you can't do it. Then the Supreme Court, higher court, same result. The next thought that came to my mind was that this decision means nothing. After all, the couple can always have it aborted illegally and claim that there was a miscarriage. But there would definitely be inquiries afterwards. Now, the whole thing had played out as predictably as any of those ancient Hindi soaps. Not that I am staking any claim to be a soothsayer, I'd say most people saw this coming!
Finally there seems to be some piece of news that is stirring the country into intelligent debate (if the comments section in ToI is anything to go by, admittedly not an authoritative benchmark) rather than fits of rioting and violence. There is so much to discuss and so many opinions - bordering on all possible extremes. And the thing is that all of them are right in their own sense! First off, no one knows whether it was really a miscarriage, but its reasonable to assume that it wasn't. For the purposes of this piece, I will work on the assumption that it was an abortion portrayed as a miscarriage.
Unfortunately I have nothing beyond this point planned out, so it will be haphazard at times. This is me being delusional that someone is actually reading this :) . The moral issue is the most pressing of all. Were they justified in "murdering" an "individual" irrespective of their intentions? View 1, they are cold blooded killers, who murdered their baby whom they had chosen to give birth to, just to save themselves from the extra effort and expense of raising a "deformed" child. View 2, they are saints who have saved their child from enormous pain and suffering, despite how difficult the decision must have been for them. Personally I haven't made my choice between the two, put my pro-liberal stance should put me somewhere in the saint area. Strangely, it doesn't! I still find both sides to have compelling arguments that apply even to the far wider areas of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The case for view 1 is based on a fundamental set of doctrines that have remained unchallenged for much of human existence. The first is probability. How do the Mehtas know for sure that the child will not be normal or almost normal? After all, medical science is at the point where we can only predict with limited certainty. Maybe they just aborted a perfectly healthy child. The second is the right to choose. They argue that if man does not have the right to create life, what gives him the right to end it, an argument used ad nauseum by anti capital punishment activists. I must beg to differ here, copulation which gives rise to life is very much in our hands, children are not born randomly out of God's will. The point here is, that the choice did not rest with the foetus. The parent's chose to create it, and now it is the foetus' prerogative to choose to live. Thus, the parent's are unjustified in terminating it, ostensibly in all cases. The "right to live" argument holds a little water, but cannot turn this debate. All other arguments are variations on the two above points. I saw a lot of strong comments from people with this view, including folks quoting about their own handicapped siblings and how they would have never thought of "killing" them even if bringing them up is difficult.
But don't get swayed by that. There was also a comment from the parents of a handicapped child who said that as much as they hate it, they hope that their child will die before they do. Cruel as it may sound, they make perfect sense when they say that they do not want someone else and the child to suffer in their absence. Can you imagine what goes on through the mind of a parent who is crushed between a love for their child that wants to keep them from harm, but at the same time cannot bear to see their pain? This brings us to the arguments from people with view 2, who commend the couple for their courageous choice. Their first point is that the emotional and economic drain of taking care of someone like that would ruin the entire family. Which is probably true. Their second point is that it is better for a child who could have those many problems to not be born at all, for its own sake. If it can be spared of the pain, why not? That, to some extent, also makes sense. But where does one stop then? Taking it to the extreme, one person commented that why don't we kill all the old and handicapped then? While that may be really pushing it, lines do need to be drawn. The boundaries are hard to discern and in all likelihood do not exist. Much of the region where the said "line" is are shrouded in gray that will never clear. It will always be subject to each individual's interpretation of what is "right" and that can never be agreed upon.
The second issue that comes in is the ethical issue. What were the Mehtas thinking when they turned this into a media circus? Something so personal should never be turned into a farce. And the media has pounced on it (assumption, I bet a good one) as it always does sensationalizing it beyond all justification. Then when the "miscarriage" happens, Mr. Mehta gives a statement saying that the media exposure resulted in stress which may have caused it. Then he goes on to add that if not the law, at least God was with us. That, frankly, is a very presumptuous statement. Now that its happened (or done, whatever the case may be) why not shut up? The media went far out of bounds with the Aarushi case, they have lost all sensitivity so long ago, its even before the late Triassic. Knowing this, why does a man still keep speaking and licking the media like a dog?
The third is the legal. The less said the better, there is neither use not content for a debate here. No one can disagree that our laws are antiquated, but the levels of judicial activism in our country have been quite poor and the lawmakers are busy with more pressing matters like creating a ruckus in parliament and walking out. Also occasionally walking in with wads of cash. I don't wish to continue on this thread, it's fast becoming a rant.
As always, this debate will also end with no action being taken. We derive so much comfort from the status quo, it will take much more than this to stir our collective conscience into motion. However, it is heartening that the issue is being discussed on its merits - without coercion, violence, and not resorting to "culture" half as many times as we usually do. A few more cases such as this, and things will move. All is never lost.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Unexpected Transience
At my age and position (I have no clue what that is supposed to mean), life's philosophies are more dynamic than one might expect or want them to be. This realization keeps dawning on me with some regularity nowadays. The thing is that I have not yet managed to find the philosophy which really "fits" and which "makes sense". So I just keep changing them as per my state of mind. So why do I feel like talking about this now?
Well, the reasons are two fold. A good friend of mine told me out of the blue yesterday, that my writing is really not half bad. It was a compliment, even though I may not be making it sound like one. I asked him the same thing I ask myself. Where am I going with my half baked writing "talent"? Then he pointed out that one of my illustrious seniors, who is more or less a literary genius, won a $1500 award for writing 18 limericks in Lewis Carrol's style. Now, knowing how much more well read, articulate and creative that individual is, I know I stand no chance of getting anywhere near him. But I still felt like at least putting a few words down, knowing that however badly I write, no damage is done, since my erstwhile regular readers (there were eight at the peak) are no longer such. For more about the illustrious senior, one is referred to his blog.
Now for the second. I had a midterm on Distributed Systems the other day, maybe a month odd ago. I was in a pretty bad state, because there was a humongous amount of material to cover (500+ slides and about 5 chapters from the textbook) and I had no clue how I would ever remember any of it. So, here I am sitting with the book at about 2 AM, with the exam scheduled for 9 AM. There was no way I was sleeping before 4 AM, so I was sitting there waging a battle with my seemingly inevitable fate. And as such things often do, the stress got to me and philosophy started pouring out. A sense of pain and simultaneously a counteracting, heady sense of well being that comes from being in a philosophical state of mind, from seeing the "bigger picture" and saying to yourself that this exam really doesn't matter.
So there I was, my mind racing with these all these ideas which really had the potential to change human thought the way we know it (yeah right!). I said to myself, "Screw the test, sit and write!". But my other self replied, "Don't be a stupid f***, study now, there is more than enough time to do it tomorrow".
Knowing how things work, I had woken up in the morning, given the exam which turned out to be just three generic questions for which I needn't even have studied, my sense of well being returned, and all the brilliant (??) ideas of the previous night summarily forgotten. So much for being the next Plato or Socrates.
Adversity forces you to look at answers to questions where none exist. Its a peculiar need of the human race, that for millenia we have been looking to resolve our existential conundrums. But there are a couple of things that I have been finding out in the midst of all the conflicting messages I have sent myself. One is to be good, unconditionally if possible. The qualifying clause is necessary because most times it is neither easy, nor pragmatic.
The second is to put people first. Nothing is more important in life than the people around you - family and friends, in that order. The most lonely person in the world is the one who has achieved all the success that could possibly be had, but has no one to genuinely share it with. The put people first credo comes from a speech by President Spanier of Penn State which you can find here.
Its shameful that I am personally not following a credo that I am advocating, but I am trying hard to. Somehow I see myself changing into an individual I never wanted to be - one who feels envy at the success of others instead of genuine joy, who sees other's failures as a validation of his own, who judges people without giving them a chance, and tries his best to be as dry as possible so that conversations end quickly.
And so I hereby conclude another rambling needless insight into my life and my thoughts. Some day, I keep telling myself, some day, I will think up of something interesting to write which does not feature my life's (rather drab) experiences! If you made it this far, well, you are either a little too jobless, or a little too much of a kunalophile (sic) !
Well, the reasons are two fold. A good friend of mine told me out of the blue yesterday, that my writing is really not half bad. It was a compliment, even though I may not be making it sound like one. I asked him the same thing I ask myself. Where am I going with my half baked writing "talent"? Then he pointed out that one of my illustrious seniors, who is more or less a literary genius, won a $1500 award for writing 18 limericks in Lewis Carrol's style. Now, knowing how much more well read, articulate and creative that individual is, I know I stand no chance of getting anywhere near him. But I still felt like at least putting a few words down, knowing that however badly I write, no damage is done, since my erstwhile regular readers (there were eight at the peak) are no longer such. For more about the illustrious senior, one is referred to his blog.
Now for the second. I had a midterm on Distributed Systems the other day, maybe a month odd ago. I was in a pretty bad state, because there was a humongous amount of material to cover (500+ slides and about 5 chapters from the textbook) and I had no clue how I would ever remember any of it. So, here I am sitting with the book at about 2 AM, with the exam scheduled for 9 AM. There was no way I was sleeping before 4 AM, so I was sitting there waging a battle with my seemingly inevitable fate. And as such things often do, the stress got to me and philosophy started pouring out. A sense of pain and simultaneously a counteracting, heady sense of well being that comes from being in a philosophical state of mind, from seeing the "bigger picture" and saying to yourself that this exam really doesn't matter.
So there I was, my mind racing with these all these ideas which really had the potential to change human thought the way we know it (yeah right!). I said to myself, "Screw the test, sit and write!". But my other self replied, "Don't be a stupid f***, study now, there is more than enough time to do it tomorrow".
Knowing how things work, I had woken up in the morning, given the exam which turned out to be just three generic questions for which I needn't even have studied, my sense of well being returned, and all the brilliant (??) ideas of the previous night summarily forgotten. So much for being the next Plato or Socrates.
Adversity forces you to look at answers to questions where none exist. Its a peculiar need of the human race, that for millenia we have been looking to resolve our existential conundrums. But there are a couple of things that I have been finding out in the midst of all the conflicting messages I have sent myself. One is to be good, unconditionally if possible. The qualifying clause is necessary because most times it is neither easy, nor pragmatic.
The second is to put people first. Nothing is more important in life than the people around you - family and friends, in that order. The most lonely person in the world is the one who has achieved all the success that could possibly be had, but has no one to genuinely share it with. The put people first credo comes from a speech by President Spanier of Penn State which you can find here.
Its shameful that I am personally not following a credo that I am advocating, but I am trying hard to. Somehow I see myself changing into an individual I never wanted to be - one who feels envy at the success of others instead of genuine joy, who sees other's failures as a validation of his own, who judges people without giving them a chance, and tries his best to be as dry as possible so that conversations end quickly.
And so I hereby conclude another rambling needless insight into my life and my thoughts. Some day, I keep telling myself, some day, I will think up of something interesting to write which does not feature my life's (rather drab) experiences! If you made it this far, well, you are either a little too jobless, or a little too much of a kunalophile (sic) !
Saturday, January 26, 2008
It's all a damped sinusoid...
Warning: Some unsolicited advice and a lot of cribbing ahead. Be forewarned. I've been nice enough to say this in advance even at the risk of losing my possibly solitary reader!
And so its been more than four months here. Things have changed definitely, some for the better others for the worse. Of course, in the long run, they are all going to work out. They always do.
So what is with the title of this post? Well, the engineers here are probably familiar with a damped sinusoid. For those who aren't, a damped sinusoid is something that moves above and below the axis, but as time increases, it starts staying closer to the axis, never quite touching it. That made no sense, so I'll put up a diagram here. The point here is that any experience in life starts with immense intensity- which may be positive or negative. That intensity eventually decreases till it them goes in the opposite direction. This continues till you feel become inured and feel virtually no intensity at all.
I am of course relating this with my experience here. I have never been bleary eyed about this place, but when I first came, there were just so many new experiences that there was no time to remember your family, friends, your city and country. But now things have settled into a routine and tales of the past start coming back to you. You remember your mom's cooking, your conversations with your dad, the crowds in your city, and all these sundry things. Its not that you'll cry from the memories but a lingering feeling persists.
Its so strange that after this time, I dreamed i was back home. Thrice. This week. I haven't had it for the last two days, but my dreams here have suddenly become "instant". That means that I each night I dream about the same day's events, not the week past, not even yesterday. Just today, and they are so arbitrary. I think they reflect in many ways the turmoil and uncertainty I currently feel.
Some things only Ground Zero can teach you, and now I think nearly all things are learned only the hard way. I guess looking at the short term only makes these lessons look a lot worse, but that is aforce of habit! The first reality here is: You will not like the thought of being in debt. As an individual, you are always in debt, to your parents, to society and many other individuals who shape you. But being in monetary debt is completely another matter. It suddenly changes your perspective because now your freedom has been constrained. Now you need to get your act together. Because you owe money. And you owe it in a certain period of time. And there is no way out. Things look rosy when you are sitting in India and you calculate that with an 80k job you'll have everything paid off in a couple of years. Then you work and save for another three years and then come back and all's well.
But then you find out that there are seniors, good fellows at that, who haven't been able to land a job, that the economy is entering recession and the picture flips 180. Now you're wondering what happens if you can't land a job and have to go back? Going back is fine, except that to pay everything off, you'll probably need six years now. Not looking too happy now, is it? Of course, many will point out (correctly) that I'm being a fatalist constantly conjuring up worst case scenarios, but optimism is not easy to come by.
And still you know that there are so many people behind you, people who you know will always put in their best effort to help you, come what may. These are the people who give you the confidence to go ahead and take a few risks, but then you always fear that you'll disappoint them. I don't know what my state of mind is right now, whether is is worse or better than this post makes it seem, but I have just had a lousy day. Just one of those days when there is stuff to do, and fight as you may, nothing seems to get done.
Keep your chin up brother, things will happen... :)
And so its been more than four months here. Things have changed definitely, some for the better others for the worse. Of course, in the long run, they are all going to work out. They always do.
So what is with the title of this post? Well, the engineers here are probably familiar with a damped sinusoid. For those who aren't, a damped sinusoid is something that moves above and below the axis, but as time increases, it starts staying closer to the axis, never quite touching it. That made no sense, so I'll put up a diagram here. The point here is that any experience in life starts with immense intensity- which may be positive or negative. That intensity eventually decreases till it them goes in the opposite direction. This continues till you feel become inured and feel virtually no intensity at all.
I am of course relating this with my experience here. I have never been bleary eyed about this place, but when I first came, there were just so many new experiences that there was no time to remember your family, friends, your city and country. But now things have settled into a routine and tales of the past start coming back to you. You remember your mom's cooking, your conversations with your dad, the crowds in your city, and all these sundry things. Its not that you'll cry from the memories but a lingering feeling persists.
Its so strange that after this time, I dreamed i was back home. Thrice. This week. I haven't had it for the last two days, but my dreams here have suddenly become "instant". That means that I each night I dream about the same day's events, not the week past, not even yesterday. Just today, and they are so arbitrary. I think they reflect in many ways the turmoil and uncertainty I currently feel.
Some things only Ground Zero can teach you, and now I think nearly all things are learned only the hard way. I guess looking at the short term only makes these lessons look a lot worse, but that is aforce of habit! The first reality here is: You will not like the thought of being in debt. As an individual, you are always in debt, to your parents, to society and many other individuals who shape you. But being in monetary debt is completely another matter. It suddenly changes your perspective because now your freedom has been constrained. Now you need to get your act together. Because you owe money. And you owe it in a certain period of time. And there is no way out. Things look rosy when you are sitting in India and you calculate that with an 80k job you'll have everything paid off in a couple of years. Then you work and save for another three years and then come back and all's well.
But then you find out that there are seniors, good fellows at that, who haven't been able to land a job, that the economy is entering recession and the picture flips 180. Now you're wondering what happens if you can't land a job and have to go back? Going back is fine, except that to pay everything off, you'll probably need six years now. Not looking too happy now, is it? Of course, many will point out (correctly) that I'm being a fatalist constantly conjuring up worst case scenarios, but optimism is not easy to come by.
And still you know that there are so many people behind you, people who you know will always put in their best effort to help you, come what may. These are the people who give you the confidence to go ahead and take a few risks, but then you always fear that you'll disappoint them. I don't know what my state of mind is right now, whether is is worse or better than this post makes it seem, but I have just had a lousy day. Just one of those days when there is stuff to do, and fight as you may, nothing seems to get done.
Keep your chin up brother, things will happen... :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)