Dance of the Hill

Before I tangibilise these thoughts, I must thank the gods, with this line : "Up the Irons, the gods have descended".

And. Tangibilising thoughts on a web page, still keeps them intangible.

Let me tell you a story about a sea's immediate barrier,

About a thing that though stops, is a pleasure carrier.

I was driving through it's projections, its three rills.

And through a bird's eye, it was, beloved, Pali Hill.

I was gliding, enjoying, my lifting thermal,

gazing, down at the stars: the Kapoor and the Khan.

their glory, their pomp, rendered ephemeral

By Malabar's suburban sister and all her brawn.

For some reason it lacked verisimilitude,

For some reason, upon its green cover, there seemed something grey

Maybe it was my flight, maybe it was my altitude,

The people seemed entranced, maybe it was some contraband's hay.

They summoned me over to join in with them:

While I screeched above, they sang below,

My music to them was cavil

While I sang above and they screeched below

Their music to me was hollow.

We were almost past summer on the calendar

But on Pali Hill, it was sultry and the heat was painful.

The rain gods Indra and Zeus failed me

They capitulated to the sun's fiat.

And as I lose my rhyme sequence

And as I lose my rhymes

I look down below, I look at home

Its wet now, its raining.

Filled are its rills

Its green is grey no more.

It is, beloved, Pali hill.

The Fraternal

Diametrically opposite, diametrically different. Diametric. Dizygotic. Di-zygotic. Diametric pertains to diameter too. To a line joining the two, most distant points on a circle. The interesting bit is, every point is at a distance equal to the furthest distance when coupled with another point(provided the form resembles the Ashok Chakra).

Every couple is the longest chord, every two points need to be at two ends. Every couple to be the longest chord need to pass through the same centre. Each point has to be at an equal acute angle from the beginning of the quadrant. Each point to be diametric need to possess the same features. Each point to be Di-zygotic, has to be the same: monozygotic. They got to be the same to be different.

Dizy-gotic.

Why I Do Not Like Science

I expect some horrible comments.

As righty pointed by my favourite critic I dont know enough of science to comment on it.
But the choice I made, is a choice that lakhs of 16/15 year olds have to make. They too dont know enough of science to choose for or against it after the 10th standard. This is a problem we all face(d). These are my reasons:


In Dead Poet’s Society Robin Williams said, there are two kinds of professions; one that sustains life and the other that shows the beauty of life. Science is the former and I would like to be part of the latter. Truthfully, I am studying commerce- part of the former. Hypocrisy? No. The credit for that choice goes to family pressure.

I decided to leave Science when I was sixteen years old. I am eighteen now, had I to make the decision now, it would have been the same. In school science was like a buffet at a seven star hotel. It all looks delicious but when eaten it turns out to be bland and tasteless. And you wait for the desert because you know if nothing else, there will be chocolate ice cream and that suits almost everybody’s pallet. I would place the blame for this bad food more on the cook than on the one eating it. Simply because through this analogy I want to bring out that science in school is not cooked well, it is thrown into platters (books) and served to us and we look at it with fascination just as we look at food at the Taj. And when we study (eat) it, it is bland and tasteless.
These are the roots of my dislike for science.

These roots have more to do with way science is taught and less with science itself. But I think we all accept that our individual fondness for any entity be it a subject, a car or even a curtain depends largely on how we see it first. In my case it is no different.

The content.
Science at the high school level is divided into Chemistry, Physics and Biology. The extraction of aluminum, the rectilinear propagation of light and the evolution of man just don’t seem to arouse even a fraction of the exhilaration that the practioners of these processes and the discoverers of these phenomena might have experienced. My obstinate self refuses to accept knowledge which I can not feel. But hypocrisy catches up in all subjects apart from literature. Because I can not feel history, geography and accounts but I don’t seem to dislike them as much. That begs the question, why the dislike for science? The reason is simple. Science, teaches us to create, which is why I respect it. I place it up there. But every time it fails me because I can not feel it. And it’s human to dislike something a lot more if it is held in high regard and it fails you.

I know I am being unfair because I am absolving myself of at least some of the blame. If I respect science so much, I must work to achieve what I expect from it because I must serve the living of the science which seems dead.

As I mentioned in the beginning I want to be part of the profession which shows the beauty of life. Science unfortunately does not serve that purpose because it is overly factual and devoid of multiple perceptions. Except for when scientists collide over whether space is loopy or straight. I love literature. I love entrepreneurship. As a child I hoped to become a scientist and cure AIDS today I hope to become an entrepreneur and employ and give a living to those who have AIDS. Science is not bad, but it is just not good enough.

Parental Pretense

I decided to write this while I was in a fit of emotion. I am writing this a little calmer than before.

I make many mental notes. One mental note reads " Whatever parents show of themselves to their children, they rarely are". Before I elaborate, it must be kept in mind that more often than not you see your parents as their child. You rarely judge them as members of society as you and I. Another interesting point to make note of is that defining 'a member of society' is very hard. We all view others in different roles. A teacher to me is a parent to another and my view of her will certainly be drastically different from her child's view. It is a matter of perception.

For the sake of simplicity in understanding what I am going to write further let us define a 'parent' as any of the following persons: Gandhi, Hitler or Sachin Tendulkar. Whats common among them is that almost everyone has the same perception of each. To almost everyone, Gandhi is peace loving, Hitler is cruel, Sachin is arguably the greatest batsman. That is the only feature I want you to keep in mind, no other features of these persons.

I will take Gandhi. To me he is peace loving. This is the analogy- Just how, to everyone Gandhi is peace loving like that to every child his parents are real, correct, honest and genuine. Every child believes his parents are real, correct, honest and genuine. Infact I am sure these qualities are attributed to the being 'parent' by all children. But every child in his judgement of his parents overlooks that his parents are parents only to him and to nobody else. I, I think, made the mistake of trying to look at my parents as non-parents.

My perception was astounding. The parents suddenly become just like any body else. They lose their realism, honesty and genuinity. That begged the question then, are they actually real, honest, correct and genuine with me?

I think all children are extremely sure that their parents are real, honest and true with them. Then why is it that they are not when it comes to a domain beyond the walls of a home they dont seem to be so. For me, I could not believe in their spoken pragmatism, realism and honesty any more simply because I never saw them practise it. The truth is parents are rarely true, honest, correct and genuine. They are all very calculated which is real but only in fraction. I could console myself by saying that they are not themselves outside but at home they are. But it is not good enough to say that because till I see congruence in both spheres I dont know which to call true and which false. Of course this dilemma is because I view parents as non-parents, the moment I dont, they are completely real, honest, correct and genuine.

But that is my problem, I dont like viewing them like that and why should I? The fact is they are not parents to anybody else, and my judgement will be accurate if I am not biased. Which is of course when I view parents as non-parents.

So I conclude that parents are pretentious. View your parent as a non-parent and you will understand. But don't because it is not a good feeling. Shrouded with so much doubt it could harm your relationship with them.

But I think this pretense is good, because the intention is good. It is our interest at their heart. They will lie and feign but tell you not to, simply because it is good that you do not. There is one person that we all are true to, ourselves. Lets ask ourselves are we real and honest? The answer will be somewhat like this, I am at times and not at times. That answer, I guess, will make most of us think whether we are real or not? An answer to that is hard to find.

Parental pretense is just a reflection of human nature and motivates me to show greater congruence in both spheres.

I rarely succeed.