getting back to basics

I quote William Dalrymple from ‘the age of kali’. Here Benezir Bhutto was talking to him about the book – Freedom at Midnight.
“Was she being serious? Freedom at Midnight is terrible schlock pop/history – the Indian independence movement for imbeciles – hardly the sort of book you would expect to find a senior south Asian statesman admitting to read. Moreover, its account of the events of 1947 is deeply biased against Pakistan, and presents Jinha as a little more than a crazed megalomaniac. Assuming she was joking and now regarded the purchase as an embarrassing mistake, I laughed – only for it to become immediately clear that she was in fact entirely serious.”

I had read Freedom at Midnight and I though it’s an awesome book. My interest and regard for Gandhi started off from that book. My interest in partition started off from that book. Both of these topics amongst others in the book set me off to many more books that I subsequently read. I recommend that book to all those with a vague interest in history. But in my zeal I forgot my basic lesson. Every book is just that ‘a point of view’. No that I look back I think I was blind to this. This is a lot of weight in what William says. Louis Fisher’s Gandhi too does not really describe Gandhi in Kolkata at the time of partition in the way FaM does. But then the way Louis closes the chapter on the salt satyagraha will remain permanently etched in my memory. To jog back to the book, it was terribly poetic to be history.

So where does leave me. Hehehe. Well, it’s left me with a hard knock on my head. I have spoken about this in the past. Reading books gives you and advantage over mortal non readers. But it also gives you an inflated ego. I try and battle this ego daily. Reading books also gives me an attitude that helps me tide over the ego. The notion that truth is so subjective. Two individuals watching the same incident may such conflicting versions of the truth. There is no absolute truth. It is only a point of view. Such a vicious attack on my favourite book has left me scurrying for cover. While I hold it high esteem (I still do, albeit a bit lower), I am suddenly more open and circumspect while thinking about it, talking about it and recommending it.

This clearing of hubris is not limited to books. Over time I have realised that hubris gets entrenched in your head all the time. Anything that you do well has a potential to create it. The confidence that you get is by doing things well is the positive aspect and the ego is the negative aspect. Both come in together. In cricket after you just hit the bowler for a six, you have to clear your head and your thoughts else you will perish the next ball. You have to forget that you have just hit a six and treat the next ball again on its own merit. Even after doing an action again and again, repeatedly and brilliantly, the follow up action cannot have any of the hangovers of the first. If you let hubris get to you, read this link on hubris by Devdutt to understand the consequences.

I battle this everyday. This passage was a good tight slap to my hubris. Schlock? Imbecile? Wow. Bahut maara re… I will remember this slap for a long time to come. You have no idea what it means when someone destroys your favourite book thus.

Sometimes I too forget the title of my blog. Things seem opposite in nature and they cannot come together. But somehow in life opposites reconcile. In fact in my title I have put an additional word ‘must’. ‘Must’ gives an idea of action, which is a bit misleading. Many times they remain without doing anything. That itself is an act of reconciliation. Hence in your mind they ‘must’ reconcile. Sorry for the ‘schlock’ philosophy for imbeciles. But I have just been proved one so it does work for me :)
Thank you William. But I still do love the book. It has given me a lot.