It never ends!!!

You know how you look forward to the day when your current tension would end. Like the last exam.. or getting enrolled in an institution. You are so fed up of the numerous things you have to do and you hope for the day when you can sit back and say, its finished. That day never comes does it? You get to relax for like 5 minutes or less before some other aspect comes into your mind and you start the worry and the running around. The last few months I have been filling forms and arranging for hundred things and finally I thought I was done. And here I am, worrying about other hundred little things before I can finally settle in. It just never ends. There is no finally, is there?

I hate it

I hate filling up forms. The actual act of filling forms as well as the anticipation of documentation needed. And I hate arranging for things. I inevitably drive myself crazy, anticipating all sorts of questions and reasons why they would reject my request. I JUST HATE IT. Why cant I just push a button and everything set itself in place???? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

Mahabharat, Karna and Paanchali

Mahabharat has always interested me more than any other mythology or so called religious texts. Every Sunday, I would sit and watch the TV series religiously.. But then so did the rest of the country. But the only religious part in it Bhagwat Gita - i only know the bare part of it. Enough to continue the story but no knowledge learnt. Infact I didnt learn anything from Mahabharat. Or may be I did. That nobody was perfect. Everybody made mistakes. Even the winners - Pandavas and they suffered from the war and its destruction as much as the kauravas did. Perhaps thats what was fascinating. This layers and layers of stories and back-stories all showing a side of humans and alleged gods. The good, the bad and the ugly. That inspite of the fact that Pandavas won, they were not gods. The heroes were not perfect.

But reading another version of Mahabharat, I found that the traditional version leaves out so much. It explains the actions but with emphasis on its consequences rather than the complex emotions and causes behind it. How do the characters feel? Sure we read about Kauravas' jealousy and malice, Arjun's indecision at the start of the war and Yudhistar's shame at the lie he was forced to tell. But what about the undercurrents... was Drithrastra more to blame than just the mere overindulgence of his sons and turning a blind eye (pun unintended??) to their faults, how did kunti really feel, did Gandhari really blind herself for her husband or to withdraw from the world which had deceived her, and most importantly.. wat about Karna.. the son who was never recognised, the warrior who was not given the pleasure of battle when he challenged, who was insulted by everyone publicly, decieved by the God who wanted to protect his own son, befriended by a person who finally put him against his brothers. Karna had moral codes... did he hesitate at the selfishness of Duryodhan though he was overcome by the friendship extended to him when he was alone. He has been guilty mainly for being in the wrong side of the war. But then fierce loyalty has been the cause of so much in Mahabharat. Loyalty to their brother meant that the Panadava brothers watched in silence as they and their wife was gambled away and then humiliated. Loyalty to their mother meant they shared a wife as you might share a commodity. Bheeshma's loyalty to his own word meant he couldnt marry Amba and that he would have to side with the Kauravas against Pandavas whom he loved more and believed to have the just cause. Did the Pandavas acknowledge that he was a great warrior and a man who kept his word before they found out that he was their brother? These are interesting characters but they would be even more interesting if their personalities were explored more.

Another character who interests me is Paanchali - how did she feel being married to five men and rotated among them or being gambled away. But when I read 'The Palace of Illusions' - Mahabharat as told by Paanchali, I felt a little disturbed (though I got over it by the time the book finished). I dont know what it was exactly. Was it that the book explored the possibility of feelings of Paanchali towards Karna and vice versa? I dont think so. Or maybe it was that even after being married for so long, she couldnt fall in love with even one of her husbands. But then can one really blame her. Pandavas werent exactly lovable people- they were arrogant, self-righteous, momma's boys. I think I wasnt prepared for the malice, cruelty and vengeance in the thoughts and motives of Paanchali. I wasnt prepared for the friction-filled relationship between Kunti and Paanchali. Though when I think about it, considering that I like Mahabharat mainly because nobody was perfect, why should I be surprised that the women werent perfect either especially Paanchali whose impulsive actions were held to be the cause of the Great War? Or maybe I always imagined that the imperfections were due to the circumstances she had to undergo. But perhaps she was born with jealousy, anger and other human failings. Was I conditioned to believe that women of those times were virtuous and perfect daughter, wife and mother?

PS: I have always wondered why the curses came true. Why was the power to curse given to people who were short tempered and who let it flow freely without even considering why the person acted in the way that they did?

To quit or not to quit

People always say.. 'quitters are not winners'. Makes sense... If u fail the first time, try try again.. all that is fine.. but what do you do if the activity is messing up your sleep. Its lowering your self esteem and making you feel miserable.. do you continue with something like that? Its not about fighting someone else, its about fighting self!

But one cant give up everything that causes us to question ourselves, our abilities.. leads to stress and worry. if so, we would not do anything. thats where these phrases make sense. one cant quit everytime one feels afraid, sad, hurt. You have to fight through your fear. I have had many fears - public speaking and responsibility ( in nature of organisation). I cant say i have overcome either completely but i am working on it. And i know if i shy away from everything that involves either of the two, i am going to miss out on stuff.

But what about things you feel you are not good at, that you have if not failed completely, managed not to do a great job. i am not a kid anymore. even though i am still discovering who i am, i cant expect that practice will make me perfect in everything. there are limitations i have to accept. So should i quit? i am not quitting in the middle. i completed the task i was given or almost completed ( i am gonna see it through). but there is another session for it. thats where i am wondering whether to quit. rather, i have already quit. but i am wondering whether i am being a coward or just making a choice, accepting my limitations. i dont want to feel incompetent as i had sometimes felt. Maybe everyone does. maybe everyone should at one time. But no more. i quit. it was an experience i dont want to repeat but one i dont want to be erased either. i am glad i did it. i am glad i dont have to do it again!

yak yak!!

people talk.. it seems everyone is my life has stories to tell, episodes to recount, miseries to share, emotions to describe and my job is to listen to them. and it seems to have gone to a level where i have started thinking i have nothing to say. that if by some miracle, people shut up, i would not be able to fill the void.. or is it that i just think that my life, compared to their 360 degree rollercoaster, is like a slow moving caterpiller. so i go on listening silently and actually encouraging them to speak... and i am getting irritated. i want to escape this and then people come with such complicated life stories, forcing me to yield..

you know you are hitting bottom, when you start to dread a friend's call because you are afraid of getting sucked into their life and losing yours. or maybe when your brain doesnt know what to think except your response in the monologic conversation with others.

is it so unnatural to feel this? is it really selfish to want to think about yourself more.. and if it is selfish, is that really a bad thing? i dont know what i want.. simply attention or some talking time or just the feeling that my life is worth a conversation.

Independence

I am sure the word has deeper meaning than what i am gonna talk about but self-absorption governs my brain. Independence of the kind i enjoyed recently has made a deep impression. The ability to do what you want and when you want, not being obligated to anybody else for your day. But its not so much about what i actually did. Infact apart from one thing, i dont think anybody would have any problems.. but its more of the fact that nobody could have a problem. it was my ability to do and others inability to question. No, i was not deserted on an island somewhere. But i was in a world completely new and people unfamiliar. My only connection to me (as i was or supposed to be) was a cousin ( and her husband) who thankfully were quite cool, though the cousin did have bouts of elder sister. and then there were people i met there. And they were all new acquaintances. so though you might consider it too much of imposition to ask them to do anything, it works both ways. They cant make you do what you dont want or what you are in no mood to do.. no, they cant even make you talk. If i feel like conversation, i talk or else wander alone. No one has any claims on your time. No one has an opinion on your life or the way you spent your time and even if they do, it doesnt have the demand of consideration. What i wanted to do was not just the priority, it was the only thing on the list. The world of strangers was perfect, especially when you dont feel their judgmental eyes following you. Courtesy to my hosts was all that was demanded of me, apart from some phonecalls from parents. And i am not so selfish or self absorbed as not to be able to fulfill that demand.

Maybe this happiness wouldnt have lasted if i had stayed more than what i did... but for now, i think of it nostalgically or maybe futuristically of time i may have it again.

A choice in history

In a book ( agatha christie, if u will) one of the characters ask another " so you would be ok with no monuments ( they were in Egypt, i believe) if you could know people were well fed", the condescension obvious. That makes me think. would you be ok with giving up all the historical monuments of the world in return for the better lives of people of that time. For example, would you rather not have the pyramids and ensure that people who must have died or seriously injured were safer. ( i dont know the facts but just imagining the task makes me sure there would have been enormous casualties) Closer home, would you give up the Taj Mahal if that meant that few centuries ago, thousands would not have lost their eyes or limbs. thats the question!! ofcourse one could argue that if there had been no Taj, we wouldnt know what we are missing, so it wont matter. but now that you have known and seen it, would you? there are many ways of looking at this.. historian's way, architect's way, tourism promoter way.. and then regular person's way. It can be a hard decision, it can be simple. Imagine a current situation.. would you risk people's lives, limbs so that you could build a structure which may possibly be one of the magnificent creations? If your answer is yes, the words to define you wouldnt be hard to find... i'll stick to cruel. If your answer is no, shouldnt this answer be the same for past? Ok, so you say you are ready to give up the Pyramids and Taj ( using them as samples) but can you say it without regret, without a thought to what you would lose?


Torture, risk, loss may make the decision simpler. But what if instead of the fantastic structures, you had the assurance that few centuries ago people were well fed, not stricken with extreme poverty. That instead of spending atrocious amounts of money to build ego-massaging things, money was spent on food, shelter, clothing, health care...Would you still give them up? But then again, economics tells you, that public expenditure can do more to reduce poverty than free-handouts. Ofcourse it would be better to spend it on infrastructures which apart from providing jobs to people thereby injecting money in their hands starts a process of economic development, would also mean that end product again helps the country. But then tourism forms an important part too. again, i have no facts but the petronas towers and now probably the Taipei tower would be attracting tourists, helping the economy.

So i am confused about the second part. Lets personalise it a bit more (of course we are all self-centred). Would i give up car, AC, vacations etc to give money to the needy, charity? and that makes it hard... because whatever i say, i know deep inside ( actually not even that deep inside) that i cant voluntarily give these up just for others.
But about the first part, i can say - give them up. Its not that i am not into history and historical structures.. though not a complete history or architect buff, i love to see all these... but the price is high. if given a choice, i wouldnt believe it to be worth it. yet, that doesnt make me avoid these. No point in that. The beautiful structures are there to be admired albeit they were built at a huge price. i may be a hypocrite, but thats how i feel.
I dont know what you would say, but either way, never ask the question with condescension!!