We all speak English now.
But in our own ways.
Indian English is perhaps like no other. Each and every country has its plurality of accents but I refuse to believe that any other country could have so many variations as we do. I mean, I do acknowledge the fact that the Americans have the New York, West Coast, Texan, Hispanic, African-American and so many other accents. The not-so United Kingdom has quite a few of theirs too.
Lets have a sample of what we have- Marwari, Gujju, Bihar-U.P. Hinterland, Bengali, Keralite, Tamil, North-eastern etc. These have a solid ethnic reason to exist. But the reason I say we have no competitors in this space simply emanates from the metropolitans. Here, you have a assortment of all global varieties- some speak American, some cockney and some the Brit private-school. Trust me, I have even heard renditions of Irish and Australian. So it works like this- we have cloned varieties of most of the other accents, some mix-up jobs and hybrids and can claim a few (actually many) of our own; of our own vintage.
Then we have our oh-too-famous neutral accent. Clearly-spoken, no twangs, no drawls, no nothing. One of the reasons for our success- businesses all over the world dig this clear articulation. The importance of this can never be overstated: I have to go through the pain of making calls to people of all nationalities, who sadly, do not have this wonder tongue.
Most people say I have a neutral accent. That explains the job. It must have been the way I speak; the words seldom have any meaning.
So is life difficult for us Indians then? I mean every time you have to listen carefully what the other guy is bumbling out. That could mean at least two things- we develop a good hearing ability and hence less divorces; I keep reading that divorces keep happening because couples are not listening to each other! In fact, the divorce rate in India is actually quite low, albeit rising.
Moving aside from this case of spurious reasoning, I have generally noticed the "neutral" metropolitans have an equal distaste of their "firang" brethren and the "desi" bumpkins. The former tries to be too cool and the latter, well, may never grasp what goes as "cool".
Is this justified?
I mean the bumpkin can't help himself. It'll take a lot of time and effort to speak right and even then it may not turn out right. But the "uncool"stigma forces them to adopt a hybrid version of American-Australian-Brit-Irish and probably Yiddish. The logic is apparently right: if you aim for the stars, at least you reach the clouds.
Alas! it doesn't quite work that way. If someone knows you're a bumpkin and then you graduate to an occidental (without going through the breeding and sometimes despite the breeding) you become branded as a "wannabe". Trust me, that is no sign of aspiration and ambition.
The firang brethren are of many colours. Some are indeed very good at it. Bred in a manner detached from the real India, these people are role models for communication- impeccable English styled with the "right" accent. Some are not so good. They are the ones who usually speak in hybrid tones, retaining their last bit of Indianness (in speaking) or trying to be too many things at the same time. They get no respect either. The "Neutrals " look at them with disdain and try to convince themselves and others that they're putting it on. And theirs is the "right one". The bumpkins are more divided in their opinion. Some admire and imitate; some despise and distance themselves.
How does all this help?
I mean the "breds" and the bumpkins cannot help the way they speak. Neither can the "Neutrals". Everyone is just being themselves. Even when you're imitating, you're trying to be something that you're not now. "Now" is the keyword. That's you all the same. You aspire and you wish for it. Strictly speaking you're not trying to be someone else.
So I say, let's declare a peace on the war of accents and live and let be.
Anyone?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Excellence
Most human beings, especially, the male variety, spend quite a bit of their time and effort to make sure they're getting somewhere: usually higher. When we are students, a lot of discussions, especially between not so close acquaintances, are based on how well the discussants are doing in their studies. Then comes the time of hunting for jobs and pay packages readily substitute for grades. Little while later come promotions, pay hikes and awards and ultimately who gets to be Mr/Ms. Big. In between, perhaps there is evaluation done on how well your children are doing.
A natural drive to perform is a good thing. To excel is perhaps even better. But I cringe on the evaluation bit. The thought of comparing my performances with peers has never had any appeal for me. I am certain that this uneasiness stems from nothing but my inherent mediocrity. And I also understand that this basic mediocrity ensures that when I'm doing well on something (judged on the basis of doing better than others) I still cringe on evaluations. It rarely gives me the joy that I feel when I have achieved on my own without being evaluated at; or compared with.
Others who are more competitive and/or less mediocre get entangled in the mess of comparative excellence. There are some who feign intolerance of this paradigm of comparative excellence and inveigh relentlessly against it; yet they are entrapped in it. It is indeed a fact that I'm not much different form this subgroup: I do feel nice when I've risen above my peers. But introspection has made me realise that the evaluation standard does not occupy a major space in my mind and most of my decision making is independent of it. Despite that, I haven't been exorcised of it yet and stand somewhere on the line, feet unsure of where they are.
There are nuances. I like vertical growth. An improvement in grades, salaries, consumption and other gratifying stuff have always been sought by me. But what I feel is that this desire has been independent of the kurtosis (height) of the distribution. I do not make the case I am oblivious of comparative excellence and pride myself on some sort of exalted personal sense of excellence. I know I am just plain mediocre and get distressed by rampant competitiveness.
Lately my friends have graduated from comparing grades to salaries. Some remain like me. Apparently the former group is doing better than the latter. I have no idea what the previous statement means, especially the phrase "doing better". Year-on-year raises are not the only yardstick. I agree that the last is perhaps the refrain of a loser.
Sometimes the talk comes to who's going to be "big". I find it a little exciting. For some reason I've always found it fascinating to discuss other people. I tend to lose my words when it comes to describing myself. I take the cover of being complex and mysterious when the truth is everyone else is as well. In their unique ways.
Usually there are a fixed set of names that people say. They all are brilliant. There is that initial disappointment of my name not being taken. Then comes the desire to disagree and construct profound arguments. Such is the way we act: the so-called educated, agreeably read and smart citizens.
I have noticed that people generally notice and single out the high-performers. This person has all the goods- the path, the speech, the articulation, the dedication, the drive and the brilliance, they argue. I agree. But I also feel that the foundation of that greatness needs to be examined.
Herein lies my interpretation of merit. Your performance is shaped, by a not so insignificant extent, by the privileges accorded to you. The path is a function of your independence- monetary, social and material; the speech and articulation dependent on your background. The drive and the brilliance shaped by imagination, often a privilege in itself. Pettiness does not permit imagination.
Of course there is the objective merit. Given a similar state, some excel over others. All variables are not in control, but still one can make a case. Not everything after all can be defined by the class position.
But why do we ignore people who have done so much, achieved so much in spite of very frugal and humble beginnings? Why do we focus on the exterior lustre and not focus on the background story? My argument is that if this particular person has come so far with his/her feet tied, what happens if they are free?
There is logic to the argument that their feet (and hands too!) may always be tied. Certain things are never overturned. But gradual improvements occur- in articulation and independence. And that may be enough. A person attuned to constraints can expect their achievements to take an exceptional trajectory when some of them are relaxed, if only by a little. They also have strength of character on their side.
Few discount all this when they take in a measure of others. Yet another angle to "Hell is other people"! It is an onerous job to measure a man. And one must do it carefully.
I believe those who have suffered all sorts of roadblocks, speed breakers and culverts will go a longer way than those who have not. "Big" is never measured in relation to others, but in relation to one's own situation. Any other measure is specious. At least in my book.
Amen
A natural drive to perform is a good thing. To excel is perhaps even better. But I cringe on the evaluation bit. The thought of comparing my performances with peers has never had any appeal for me. I am certain that this uneasiness stems from nothing but my inherent mediocrity. And I also understand that this basic mediocrity ensures that when I'm doing well on something (judged on the basis of doing better than others) I still cringe on evaluations. It rarely gives me the joy that I feel when I have achieved on my own without being evaluated at; or compared with.
Others who are more competitive and/or less mediocre get entangled in the mess of comparative excellence. There are some who feign intolerance of this paradigm of comparative excellence and inveigh relentlessly against it; yet they are entrapped in it. It is indeed a fact that I'm not much different form this subgroup: I do feel nice when I've risen above my peers. But introspection has made me realise that the evaluation standard does not occupy a major space in my mind and most of my decision making is independent of it. Despite that, I haven't been exorcised of it yet and stand somewhere on the line, feet unsure of where they are.
There are nuances. I like vertical growth. An improvement in grades, salaries, consumption and other gratifying stuff have always been sought by me. But what I feel is that this desire has been independent of the kurtosis (height) of the distribution. I do not make the case I am oblivious of comparative excellence and pride myself on some sort of exalted personal sense of excellence. I know I am just plain mediocre and get distressed by rampant competitiveness.
Lately my friends have graduated from comparing grades to salaries. Some remain like me. Apparently the former group is doing better than the latter. I have no idea what the previous statement means, especially the phrase "doing better". Year-on-year raises are not the only yardstick. I agree that the last is perhaps the refrain of a loser.
Sometimes the talk comes to who's going to be "big". I find it a little exciting. For some reason I've always found it fascinating to discuss other people. I tend to lose my words when it comes to describing myself. I take the cover of being complex and mysterious when the truth is everyone else is as well. In their unique ways.
Usually there are a fixed set of names that people say. They all are brilliant. There is that initial disappointment of my name not being taken. Then comes the desire to disagree and construct profound arguments. Such is the way we act: the so-called educated, agreeably read and smart citizens.
I have noticed that people generally notice and single out the high-performers. This person has all the goods- the path, the speech, the articulation, the dedication, the drive and the brilliance, they argue. I agree. But I also feel that the foundation of that greatness needs to be examined.
Herein lies my interpretation of merit. Your performance is shaped, by a not so insignificant extent, by the privileges accorded to you. The path is a function of your independence- monetary, social and material; the speech and articulation dependent on your background. The drive and the brilliance shaped by imagination, often a privilege in itself. Pettiness does not permit imagination.
Of course there is the objective merit. Given a similar state, some excel over others. All variables are not in control, but still one can make a case. Not everything after all can be defined by the class position.
But why do we ignore people who have done so much, achieved so much in spite of very frugal and humble beginnings? Why do we focus on the exterior lustre and not focus on the background story? My argument is that if this particular person has come so far with his/her feet tied, what happens if they are free?
There is logic to the argument that their feet (and hands too!) may always be tied. Certain things are never overturned. But gradual improvements occur- in articulation and independence. And that may be enough. A person attuned to constraints can expect their achievements to take an exceptional trajectory when some of them are relaxed, if only by a little. They also have strength of character on their side.
Few discount all this when they take in a measure of others. Yet another angle to "Hell is other people"! It is an onerous job to measure a man. And one must do it carefully.
I believe those who have suffered all sorts of roadblocks, speed breakers and culverts will go a longer way than those who have not. "Big" is never measured in relation to others, but in relation to one's own situation. Any other measure is specious. At least in my book.
Amen
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Discovery of Deepness
Have you ever felt better by trashing "trash"?
One of my dearest friends is culpable of such offence.
So how does he (yes its a he, which really does not mean that only males are capable of such things) do it? He primarily focuses on songs, movies and books.
Lets take songs. Its a habit of his that whenever he gets his hand on my laptop, he fishes for a few of his "favourite" songs and make a playlist. The playlist is appropriately named "discovery of deepness". Why it is appropriate will become clear shortly.
Maybe elaborating his playlist will help. It starts with Scatman, follows up with Shaggy's "Bombastic" and Aqua's "Barbie Girl" thrown in between. Britney Spears and JLo also make their presence felt in this great list.
So?
In essence, this list is what my friend believes is a compilation of the worst songs that my laptop has in its hard drives. This practice of his is a cause of great irritation to me sometimes. But interestingly, though I have the complete liberty to delete these songs, I have chosen not to.
Why?
I do not know. It could be inertia. Why go through the trouble of sifting through numerous files and folders to delete nonsense? let them just be.
This sounds like a good reason. It isn't.
I have never been shy of deleting nonsense from my hard drives even if it means I spend my precious (don't ask me the value, I'd be at trouble to justify "precious") time to do so.
Then? Do I like these songs? It could be a clear cut case of one man's trash being another man's treasure. This can be a promising argument.
Yet it falls flat. I do not listen to them when I'm idle. They are just there, ready to be played when my friend gets his hand on my notebook.
The real reason, I am inclined to believe, is that I also enjoy trashing them up- laugh at the stupid lyrics, rhythm and their apparent zero value. Value is a difficult word, and so I qualify it in a subjective sense.
This is the "Discovery of Deepness". An attempt to laugh at trash. An attempt to jeer at the mediocre output of a flattened world. Do spend some time on"flattened".
This exercise really does not serve any purpose. We do not do it publicly so that a reasonable number of people can take our cue and also identify trash. It could be turned into a social mission of making people identify the "real stuff" from a cesspool of mediocrity and nonsense. Yet we do not do that.
One could say that this post is an attempt to reach out to people to do just that. It isn't. This blog is rarely read and I take great comfort at that. This is just to inform anyone who reads this piece that we do it and why we do it. No grand missions here.
And then there's the classic argument- one man's trash is another's treasure (I am not sure if this has been quoted). Who are we to judge music? I have never listened to the greatest works of the art.
It is probably a personal experience of how to separate the wheat from the chaff based on our own understanding and then gloating on it. For me it has been an acquired taste. Deep down, there have been instances when I have enjoyed it- trashing "trash".
To add, "we" (partly me, mostly him!) do it for movies and books. For the curious, Robert Ludlum is on the receiving end when we're on books. As for movies, it ranges from Govinda to Dharmendra.
Imagine our surprise when we went to watch "Johnny Gaddar" for such a reason (It had Dharmendra in a leading role and we thought it'd be complete trash) and actually ended up seeing a taut thriller.
It doesn't always work.
But Dharmendra was at his usual worst.
:)
One of my dearest friends is culpable of such offence.
So how does he (yes its a he, which really does not mean that only males are capable of such things) do it? He primarily focuses on songs, movies and books.
Lets take songs. Its a habit of his that whenever he gets his hand on my laptop, he fishes for a few of his "favourite" songs and make a playlist. The playlist is appropriately named "discovery of deepness". Why it is appropriate will become clear shortly.
Maybe elaborating his playlist will help. It starts with Scatman, follows up with Shaggy's "Bombastic" and Aqua's "Barbie Girl" thrown in between. Britney Spears and JLo also make their presence felt in this great list.
So?
In essence, this list is what my friend believes is a compilation of the worst songs that my laptop has in its hard drives. This practice of his is a cause of great irritation to me sometimes. But interestingly, though I have the complete liberty to delete these songs, I have chosen not to.
Why?
I do not know. It could be inertia. Why go through the trouble of sifting through numerous files and folders to delete nonsense? let them just be.
This sounds like a good reason. It isn't.
I have never been shy of deleting nonsense from my hard drives even if it means I spend my precious (don't ask me the value, I'd be at trouble to justify "precious") time to do so.
Then? Do I like these songs? It could be a clear cut case of one man's trash being another man's treasure. This can be a promising argument.
Yet it falls flat. I do not listen to them when I'm idle. They are just there, ready to be played when my friend gets his hand on my notebook.
The real reason, I am inclined to believe, is that I also enjoy trashing them up- laugh at the stupid lyrics, rhythm and their apparent zero value. Value is a difficult word, and so I qualify it in a subjective sense.
This is the "Discovery of Deepness". An attempt to laugh at trash. An attempt to jeer at the mediocre output of a flattened world. Do spend some time on"flattened".
This exercise really does not serve any purpose. We do not do it publicly so that a reasonable number of people can take our cue and also identify trash. It could be turned into a social mission of making people identify the "real stuff" from a cesspool of mediocrity and nonsense. Yet we do not do that.
One could say that this post is an attempt to reach out to people to do just that. It isn't. This blog is rarely read and I take great comfort at that. This is just to inform anyone who reads this piece that we do it and why we do it. No grand missions here.
And then there's the classic argument- one man's trash is another's treasure (I am not sure if this has been quoted). Who are we to judge music? I have never listened to the greatest works of the art.
It is probably a personal experience of how to separate the wheat from the chaff based on our own understanding and then gloating on it. For me it has been an acquired taste. Deep down, there have been instances when I have enjoyed it- trashing "trash".
To add, "we" (partly me, mostly him!) do it for movies and books. For the curious, Robert Ludlum is on the receiving end when we're on books. As for movies, it ranges from Govinda to Dharmendra.
Imagine our surprise when we went to watch "Johnny Gaddar" for such a reason (It had Dharmendra in a leading role and we thought it'd be complete trash) and actually ended up seeing a taut thriller.
It doesn't always work.
But Dharmendra was at his usual worst.
:)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
These are but confusing times
This struck me once. And I never came out of it.
Have I ever been blissfully happy? Have I experienced those delightful moments of happiness where you stop thinking about everything else and gloat with your happiness?
Yes I have been. There had been quite a few moments, fortunately. Mostly are moments of what people would say "success". Admission to school, college, university and then the job. And of course the "yes" that every boy wishes to hear since he gains real consciousness.
There have been little moments too.
But life gets tortuous. There have been people who have loved me very much. I have not been so kind. Some had to leave me, but the rest I left behind.
Decisions I take affect others. Yet I seldom flinch. I do think but an outcome with a cold finality is reached.
And the result is the same always- these decisions apparently help me and as a price, I have to leave people behind.
When will this stop?
When and where will I stop?
With regret, probably never. It is the new conquest that always allures me. That is my reason to live and that is the reason I die.
Everyday.
Have I ever been blissfully happy? Have I experienced those delightful moments of happiness where you stop thinking about everything else and gloat with your happiness?
Yes I have been. There had been quite a few moments, fortunately. Mostly are moments of what people would say "success". Admission to school, college, university and then the job. And of course the "yes" that every boy wishes to hear since he gains real consciousness.
There have been little moments too.
But life gets tortuous. There have been people who have loved me very much. I have not been so kind. Some had to leave me, but the rest I left behind.
Decisions I take affect others. Yet I seldom flinch. I do think but an outcome with a cold finality is reached.
And the result is the same always- these decisions apparently help me and as a price, I have to leave people behind.
When will this stop?
When and where will I stop?
With regret, probably never. It is the new conquest that always allures me. That is my reason to live and that is the reason I die.
Everyday.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The benefits of owning a rarely read blog
I am a proud owner of a blog.
I started pretty late, in fact from this June. It was more of a solution to pass away my idle time in office and so the posts were mostly private and hence unreadable. I used to think of it as a e-diary of sorts- only its open to all.
The web is a mystery. Its open to all but yet it hides so much.
There are so many blogs out there that I know for sure no one unfamiliar would even bother to check this one out. For effect, the name that I chose is too cheesy- "free from boredom" and the stern message that accompanies it is hardly a nice welcome doormat.
A month or so passed. No one ever found out. But then Google (Search) dumped me.
One of my friends found out. She told others. And then a lot of people knew. Even office colleagues got the drift.
Suddenly a few comments began to appear on my posts.
It felt good.
It was almost as if people were appreciating my new suit, watch, car...
But then it stopped.
The comments dried up. People became bored of my slow harangues. I mean there is nothing I write that makes sense. Its purely dry and pedestrian.
I was left alone.
With my blog.
So here I am. Writing for the sake of it. Writing because I feel like. And keeping my blog alive, so even if someone pounces on it, the natural curiosity in us compels him/her to check it out and if I'm really lucky, post a comment.
But is this really bad?
Well, it allows me to write on anything without offending/disturbing others. And I'll be damned if I say this but this also allows me to edit the blog time and again to smooth en out the posts and remove the errors. Me no perfectionist but I do get bothered by anything that sticks out and can be changed.
That is one liberty I'd have to give up if this blog ever became popular. And Id' have to be politically correct, gender-sensitive etc etc as well as linguistically correct.
Blah!
Too much of a responsibility!
I started pretty late, in fact from this June. It was more of a solution to pass away my idle time in office and so the posts were mostly private and hence unreadable. I used to think of it as a e-diary of sorts- only its open to all.
The web is a mystery. Its open to all but yet it hides so much.
There are so many blogs out there that I know for sure no one unfamiliar would even bother to check this one out. For effect, the name that I chose is too cheesy- "free from boredom" and the stern message that accompanies it is hardly a nice welcome doormat.
A month or so passed. No one ever found out. But then Google (Search) dumped me.
One of my friends found out. She told others. And then a lot of people knew. Even office colleagues got the drift.
Suddenly a few comments began to appear on my posts.
It felt good.
It was almost as if people were appreciating my new suit, watch, car...
But then it stopped.
The comments dried up. People became bored of my slow harangues. I mean there is nothing I write that makes sense. Its purely dry and pedestrian.
I was left alone.
With my blog.
So here I am. Writing for the sake of it. Writing because I feel like. And keeping my blog alive, so even if someone pounces on it, the natural curiosity in us compels him/her to check it out and if I'm really lucky, post a comment.
But is this really bad?
Well, it allows me to write on anything without offending/disturbing others. And I'll be damned if I say this but this also allows me to edit the blog time and again to smooth en out the posts and remove the errors. Me no perfectionist but I do get bothered by anything that sticks out and can be changed.
That is one liberty I'd have to give up if this blog ever became popular. And Id' have to be politically correct, gender-sensitive etc etc as well as linguistically correct.
Blah!
Too much of a responsibility!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Another comment on JNU
I passed out of JNU three months back. Though I had one of the greatest of experiences in the campus, its difficult to put it down in writing that I love the place.
My belief is that the professors of my department had some role to play in this. CESP professors, or rather most of them are old hacks holding on to a dead school of thought.
No wait!
I'm being kind. They are no more than the extended intellectual propaganda machine of the CPI(M). To them, everything the party does is an unmitigated blessing- from opposing nuclear energy deal with the U.S., to killing farmers in Nandigram.
They do not stop there. They have reduced economics to a farcical textual analysis backed with laughable numbers. Such dilution of the science is hardly acceptable. It has never ceased to amaze me how people like Anjan Mukherji, Satish Jain, Krishnendu Ghosh Dostidar, Subrato Guha etc (high priests of real economics, not the speak-easy leftists) can chose to stay in this stultifying unscientific atmosphere.
Professor C.P. Chandrasekhar (one of those idiots) once mocked those, who according to him, have become economists by reading World Development Reports.
Some of us actually fell for it.
Well to me, JNU rolls out economists whose knowledge is bound by Macroscan and EPW. If you were to ask me, I'd be really confused to point out which one is better.
My belief is that the professors of my department had some role to play in this. CESP professors, or rather most of them are old hacks holding on to a dead school of thought.
No wait!
I'm being kind. They are no more than the extended intellectual propaganda machine of the CPI(M). To them, everything the party does is an unmitigated blessing- from opposing nuclear energy deal with the U.S., to killing farmers in Nandigram.
They do not stop there. They have reduced economics to a farcical textual analysis backed with laughable numbers. Such dilution of the science is hardly acceptable. It has never ceased to amaze me how people like Anjan Mukherji, Satish Jain, Krishnendu Ghosh Dostidar, Subrato Guha etc (high priests of real economics, not the speak-easy leftists) can chose to stay in this stultifying unscientific atmosphere.
Professor C.P. Chandrasekhar (one of those idiots) once mocked those, who according to him, have become economists by reading World Development Reports.
Some of us actually fell for it.
Well to me, JNU rolls out economists whose knowledge is bound by Macroscan and EPW. If you were to ask me, I'd be really confused to point out which one is better.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
A Communist at JNU
Let me proffer a few details about myself- I am a Bengali, born and educated in Calcutta and then when I figured out staying in Calcutta beyond my 21 years of age would actually limit my chances of getting decent education and career opportunities, I moved out.
It so happened that I landed up in JNU, New Delhi and after a remarkable two years, got a job.
(my remarkable period in JNU had a lot to do with the kind of friends and experiences I had and maybe not so much the institution itself)
I don't know whether it was by God's design or not but somehow this made sure I get a lot of exposure to communism- in practice and in theory. Interestingly, the practice came before theory and I suspect that is the main reason my derision for this school of thought remains intact. Some of my Delhi friends have a romanticized left-wing view and my guess is that a month's stay at Calcutta would cure them of their disease. They say if you see what the communists are up to in West Bengal, you'd end up either as someone with staunch anti-left inclinations (centre-right or god forbid, the right-wing!) or someone down the drain (extreme left).
JNU is a heaven made for leftists. Many people may not be aware of this but there are competing schools of thought within left-wing ideology. They probably hate each other as much as they hate the bourgeois. All these schools have their representative political parties and these form the core of JNU life- politics everywhere.
My batch was an exception. Most students were from DU and even the CU (Calcutta University) people had restrained fancy to politics and ideology. In other words, wanted to take up the responsibility of their own life and career.
There was one exception. The guy was from Kerala, so he had similar background to mine. But with totally different results. I have had always been politically and socially conscious and my ideas generally emanated from a centre-right perspective. This guy, on the other hand, saw great beauty in communist praxis and had a dogmatic belief in the party; it really did not matter to him who ran the ship.
Many students of our batch, upon coming to JNU got a flavor of something that they have never had in their schools or colleges- unbridled politicking. We all had moments of confusion and self-doubt. But this guy was different. He never flinched in the defence of his great party- as it plunged into one crisis to another.
The guy also gave up his studies. He spent more and more time in politicking, trying to shore up support for the party in the keralite minority, making placards or simply listening to countless speeches and talks that keep happening in JNU.
His clarity of thought and prose made him stay afloat in the absurdly easy theoretical papers but deserted him in the math based ones. There his scores came in binary numbers.
I am hardly the one to judge. I did not do well in some papers. I gave up studies too, to a large extent, disillusioned at first by the politicised pedagogy and immersing myself in placement work later. But in the end, my grades come to 6, while his, I guess hovered around 4.5 -5, in spite of taking easier papers.
He had an explanation as well. He was ideologically opposed to the mathematical treatment of a social science, or some such rubbish. I at least have the humility to say I am aware of my intellectual limitations.
This fellow had aspirations of becoming an IAS officer in the start. In the last sem, when we had pretty much a direction in our lives, the fellow dumped his IAS dreams.
I suspect IAS requires dedication and commitment; to studies, not politicking.
God knows how he got through M.phil without no knowledge whatsoever of Econometrics, Game theory, Microeconomics or math. Well, stranger things have happened at JNU.
And now he cribs to my juniors that I have corrupted their minds- that I have shown them that even JNU students can have a meaningful life.
I have high regard for a lot of communists and respect some of what they have to say. But I have seen the worst of them as well and what they can be capable of; in JNU and in Calcutta.
Subin, you are just like any other shitty communist- all talk!
It so happened that I landed up in JNU, New Delhi and after a remarkable two years, got a job.
(my remarkable period in JNU had a lot to do with the kind of friends and experiences I had and maybe not so much the institution itself)
I don't know whether it was by God's design or not but somehow this made sure I get a lot of exposure to communism- in practice and in theory. Interestingly, the practice came before theory and I suspect that is the main reason my derision for this school of thought remains intact. Some of my Delhi friends have a romanticized left-wing view and my guess is that a month's stay at Calcutta would cure them of their disease. They say if you see what the communists are up to in West Bengal, you'd end up either as someone with staunch anti-left inclinations (centre-right or god forbid, the right-wing!) or someone down the drain (extreme left).
JNU is a heaven made for leftists. Many people may not be aware of this but there are competing schools of thought within left-wing ideology. They probably hate each other as much as they hate the bourgeois. All these schools have their representative political parties and these form the core of JNU life- politics everywhere.
My batch was an exception. Most students were from DU and even the CU (Calcutta University) people had restrained fancy to politics and ideology. In other words, wanted to take up the responsibility of their own life and career.
There was one exception. The guy was from Kerala, so he had similar background to mine. But with totally different results. I have had always been politically and socially conscious and my ideas generally emanated from a centre-right perspective. This guy, on the other hand, saw great beauty in communist praxis and had a dogmatic belief in the party; it really did not matter to him who ran the ship.
Many students of our batch, upon coming to JNU got a flavor of something that they have never had in their schools or colleges- unbridled politicking. We all had moments of confusion and self-doubt. But this guy was different. He never flinched in the defence of his great party- as it plunged into one crisis to another.
The guy also gave up his studies. He spent more and more time in politicking, trying to shore up support for the party in the keralite minority, making placards or simply listening to countless speeches and talks that keep happening in JNU.
His clarity of thought and prose made him stay afloat in the absurdly easy theoretical papers but deserted him in the math based ones. There his scores came in binary numbers.
I am hardly the one to judge. I did not do well in some papers. I gave up studies too, to a large extent, disillusioned at first by the politicised pedagogy and immersing myself in placement work later. But in the end, my grades come to 6, while his, I guess hovered around 4.5 -5, in spite of taking easier papers.
He had an explanation as well. He was ideologically opposed to the mathematical treatment of a social science, or some such rubbish. I at least have the humility to say I am aware of my intellectual limitations.
This fellow had aspirations of becoming an IAS officer in the start. In the last sem, when we had pretty much a direction in our lives, the fellow dumped his IAS dreams.
I suspect IAS requires dedication and commitment; to studies, not politicking.
God knows how he got through M.phil without no knowledge whatsoever of Econometrics, Game theory, Microeconomics or math. Well, stranger things have happened at JNU.
And now he cribs to my juniors that I have corrupted their minds- that I have shown them that even JNU students can have a meaningful life.
I have high regard for a lot of communists and respect some of what they have to say. But I have seen the worst of them as well and what they can be capable of; in JNU and in Calcutta.
Subin, you are just like any other shitty communist- all talk!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)