This is an eternal fight. Mommy versus Jispa and I am stuck in between. It’s a part of parenting that they don’t tell you about, or it’s a part of ‘husbanding’ they don’t tell you about. There is an obvious need to keep a united face in front of your child. That’s what the text book on parenting says. So that you don’t show confusing signals and make the kid play one parent against the other.
But that goes against the principle of duality of opinion. I have always believed that the opinion may not necessarily be clear. Jasmine and I can have a difference of opinion. Views may be extremely polarised and the truth is not known. In fact there can be no truth but only opinion. I have written about the time spent while having a bath. I believe there is no such thing as time spent. It is time invested, and Jasmine can finish her bath in the time it takes me to merely get wet. Jispa is a dreamer. She too can have an infinite bath time.
Let’s take another example. Poor Jasmine is trying to get Jispa to remember her stuff to do. Like put the snack box and water bottle in her bag. Now that’s a real tiring thing to do. I was much like that with my mom completely at odds to get me to do stuff. It was not intention that was the issue, there would be genuine intention. Sometimes the malaise was procrastination and sometimes the problem was simply dreams. Lost in thought. I can still go to the place where I am supposed to pick the item and completely forget what I am supposed to do. It would just pop out and I would end up doing pretty much something else. Over the years life in the professional world will not let you remain forgetful as such. I got my arse whipped, smartened up and started keeping a mental checklist and even writing down things to do during the day. But that took me 30 years. So when Jasmine and Jispa are having a run in, I am completely clueless. I want to be sweeter and take on the responsibility myself. I prefer reminding Jispa again and again and even putting the dam thing in.
So this creates chaos in the morning. Jasmine has had many calls right in the past and I don’t really doubt her instinct but the problem is that unlike her, I remember my childhood vividly and distinctly. A lot of things had left a deep and lasting impact on me. I clearly remember getting scolded for forgetting stuff. I have forgotten to do things; I have left stuff around at school and other such silly stuff. But I always used to think, why my parents scolded me for it. It’s not that I was intentionally careless. I also remember thinking that I was only a kid and that I should be given some leeway. Also not that being scolded helped me remember anything more. So that’s been on my mind a lot. I can keep telling Jispa that remember, do things right away, do not procrastinate, but I can’t really scold her too much. A sharp scold and immediately out.
I also sympathise with Jispa when she gets jammed for sharpening her pencils too much. I too remember sharpening pencils like crazy and my mom losing it saying that “I gave you new pencils just today”. By the time I got home they were a pale shadow of their original size.
This topic can go on with no real solution in sight. Jasmine can find 20 more faults in my thinking. Like the other day when she and Jispa were havinga fight over the pony tail, Jispa came ot me and out of serious frustration I just suggested that she just right now listen to mom and that she could always do whatever she wanted outside the home, when mom is not looking. Jasmine was mighty pissed. What on earth was I teaching her. Hmmm.. ya that was silly I guess. So when I got a book Delhi Calm (on the emergency), to read and on the first page the following lines had deeper meaning. “There no distinctions between what is real and unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.”- Harold pinter - art truth and politics.
What is true in politics is true in parenting. Sab saala maya hai. The challenge is in admitting it and more importantly handling it without conflict. So while I understand the need to put up a united front in front of the child, my bigger motive is that she knows and understands this conflict. I think every day that she must understand that there is no one view to the equation. There could be multiple points of view and that we are only taking the point of view that we believe is the best one at the point of time. Both mommy and daddy need not always agree on everything. Debate and then resolution is healthy and allowed. The last thing I want her to think is that daddy or mommy knows everything. WE DONT. We don’t even pretend to. We are only attempting the best, to the best of our ability, keeping her best interest in mind. Nothing more and nothing less.
The faster she realises this, the better an individual she will be. I love for her to see the other side of the equation at all points of time. Today morning I was googling images of Nehru for her. She needed on with kids, one with Gandhi and one alone. I came across one of him smoking. I asked her if she wanted it. She was quite surprised to know that he smokes. But I guess the ‘kida’ in her liked the thought and then she wanted that pic as well. So I promptly printed it and sent it along with the rest of the pics. It’s not necessary for her to learn that Nehru was a guy with no fallibility. Learn the truth that you can best digest! The truth will set you free. Now who said that?
Showing posts with label nehru. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nehru. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, March 13, 2009
Moderate
We don’t appreciate the plurality allowed in our lives. I am tired of listening to Gandhi Nehru bashing over these many years. People argue without a clear understanding of either history or politics and without a remote inkling of the situation prevalent at the time. A complete waste of breath and brain time. I prefer silence in these situations.
Here is an extract from a Tehelka interview with Mani Shankar Aiyar. Of course it’s only a view point but it’s a view point that is informed and cannot be brushed aside. We give too little credit for the freedom we have. I hear of many ideas asking for a totalitarian regime in India. As I heard Nandan Nilekani say – ‘while totalitarian regimes could give you a miracle like China it could also give you a Zimbabwe.’ Democracy might be slower to rapid change but it also protects you from really horrific consequences. The question to be asked internally is the actually how much risk you are willing to take for the promised land. Another brilliant example of this can be experienced in the amazing Guy Delisle graphic novel ‘Pyongyang’ which vividly brings alive the life in North Korea.
Well here’s the extract of the interview.
Q. Why are our neighbours — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — prone to such convulsions? Why are they more precarious democracies than India?
A. The answer to this lies in the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru — who was Prime Minister for the first 17 crucial years of our upbringing as a modern nation — was dedicated to five very important principles of nation-building that our neighbours have not been equally committed to. The first of these is the idea of plurality and secularism. Under Nehru’s stewardship, India has, almost uniquely in the world, not only expressed its nationhood as a belief in diversity, but a celebration of it. Unity in diversity is the great subcontinental truth we all have to live with, if we want to survive as a democracy. It is not merely an ideal; it is pragmatic. All our neighbours who are in trouble are nations that have deviated from this to express nationhood in dangerously exclusivist ways.
The second thing is, Nehru was not only committed to the concept of democracy, but also to building the institutions of democracy. That bulwark has almost never been changed in our existence as a nation in 62 years. In Pakistan — under Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan — there was the same dedication to democracy, but their stewardship did not last as long, and their institutions were far less robust. So, despite an aching yearning for democracy among Pakistanis, they missed the bus by not having a Nehru among their midst in their formative years. The same thing happened in Bang - ladesh. At the beginning, there wasn’t the same commitment to building democratic institutions; soon after, with the brutal coup in 1975 when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were killed, whatever had been built up was brushed aside.
Sri Lanka’s record of democratic institutions was far superior to India. So why did they fail? With Solomon Bandar - anaike’s victory in 1956, Sri Lanka jettisoned the secular ethos with which it had fought its freedom movement and opted for sectarianism and an exclusivist Sinhala identity. Over the last 30 years, Sri Lanka has suffered such a setback because of this, it is almost impossible to remember that Sri Lanka was once poised to be the Singapore of this region.
Finally, the other Nehruvian principle that has kept our democracy robust is Nehru’s commitment to a ‘socialistic pattern of society’. He accepted the Gandhian ethic that the purpose of the state‘s economic policy was welfare of the poor. In Pakistan, on the other hand, there was a blatant and blanket adoption of the capitalist model. In 1965, it was the secondmost industrialised country in Asia, after Japan. But this was concentrated in the hands of 22 feudal families and the notorious ‘303’ — the civil servants in collusion with these families. All of this came crashing down when Ayub Khan undertook his coup. The other factor in the instability Pakistan faces today is the fact that they also happily allied themselves to the Americans. Pakistan was also founded on the principle that religion constitutes nationality. This is an almost untenable premise. If being a Muslim makes you belong to Pakistan, then why is there a border between Muslim Afghanistan and Muslim Iran? And why would some of its most bitter disputes have been with its Muslim neighbours? Religion is a very poor basis for organising a nation. For all these reasons, these nation states did not become as strong in absorbing the buffeting that all nation-building involves. But while we may be stronger and more stable than our neighbours today, we have to remember that the same potential for stability and democracy exists in our neighbours. And if we move away from these ideals of plurality and secularism, we have the same potential for being torn apart.
--------------------------------------------
It is true there are many lessons to learn form this but yet we choose to forget them and take the radical way out. Today’s newspapers had a headline that certain community leaders (kutchi wagad) decided to ensure that marriage happens only within the community. I cannot for one understand why they do this. Jasmine is a Kutchi (different sub catse from one above) and I am a Gujarati. Our family is enriched by the cross culture pollination (albeit small, as we are quite culturally close). And not just immediate families, even the distant families are enriched; may it be in simple stuff like new recipes to try out. Jispa is definitely better off exposed to more culture than less. Close minded radicals are ruining their own race. Modern day Nazis!
When the attack on crickets in Pakistan happened it was easy to blame a community as a breeding ground for radicals. But there are radicals all around us, in all communities. In times like this I fight forces in my head from being a conservative. It is tough being a moderate in face of immediate flare ups but moderate I must be.
Definition: In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between two viewpoints, neither to be extreme or radical by those applying the term. The word "moderate" can also be used as an adjective describing such a position. Read on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate
While reading Mani Shankar, I was also reminded about another thing I once read. This was in relation to Pakistan’s tryst with capitalism. Disclaimer: do not use this in isolation to be an anti capitalist, but just as a case for more balance. It will also give you idea on why the world financial system finds it where it is.
In the 1930s and '40s, General Motors, the Firestone Tire Company, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Standard Oil of California--all operating through a front company called National City Lines (NCL)--bought up dozens of local mass-transit systems that were operating the popular electric streetcars. Their plan was to control virtually all the leading mass-transit systems in America, and replace electric trolleys with smoky, gas-guzzling buses. In many cases, these trolley transit companies had previously been financially looted by their financier owners and fallen into disrepair, which only made them easier targets for acquisition. Once NCL purchased the trolley lines with "borrowed" money from GM and others, the tracks were torn up and the trolleys sold or destroyed, replaced by petroleum-powered GM buses running on tires and oil supplied by the NCL companies. Source - http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/archive/RJFall2006.html
Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do. Source - http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/speeches/antitrust.html
This is a study of the social consequences of monopoly. It shows that excessive economic concentration can restructure society for corporate ends. As an illustration, it focuses on three powerful automobile companies which eliminated competition among themselves, secured control over rival bus and rail industries, and then maximized profits by substituting cars and trucks for trains, streetcars, subways and buses. In short, it describes how General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reshaped American ground transportation to serve corporate wants instead of social needs. Source http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/American.htm
On another note I was surprised to know that when I typed promised land in word, it puts up a grammar correction, recommending to capitalize the initial alphabets.
Here is an extract from a Tehelka interview with Mani Shankar Aiyar. Of course it’s only a view point but it’s a view point that is informed and cannot be brushed aside. We give too little credit for the freedom we have. I hear of many ideas asking for a totalitarian regime in India. As I heard Nandan Nilekani say – ‘while totalitarian regimes could give you a miracle like China it could also give you a Zimbabwe.’ Democracy might be slower to rapid change but it also protects you from really horrific consequences. The question to be asked internally is the actually how much risk you are willing to take for the promised land. Another brilliant example of this can be experienced in the amazing Guy Delisle graphic novel ‘Pyongyang’ which vividly brings alive the life in North Korea.
Well here’s the extract of the interview.
Q. Why are our neighbours — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — prone to such convulsions? Why are they more precarious democracies than India?
A. The answer to this lies in the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru — who was Prime Minister for the first 17 crucial years of our upbringing as a modern nation — was dedicated to five very important principles of nation-building that our neighbours have not been equally committed to. The first of these is the idea of plurality and secularism. Under Nehru’s stewardship, India has, almost uniquely in the world, not only expressed its nationhood as a belief in diversity, but a celebration of it. Unity in diversity is the great subcontinental truth we all have to live with, if we want to survive as a democracy. It is not merely an ideal; it is pragmatic. All our neighbours who are in trouble are nations that have deviated from this to express nationhood in dangerously exclusivist ways.
The second thing is, Nehru was not only committed to the concept of democracy, but also to building the institutions of democracy. That bulwark has almost never been changed in our existence as a nation in 62 years. In Pakistan — under Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan — there was the same dedication to democracy, but their stewardship did not last as long, and their institutions were far less robust. So, despite an aching yearning for democracy among Pakistanis, they missed the bus by not having a Nehru among their midst in their formative years. The same thing happened in Bang - ladesh. At the beginning, there wasn’t the same commitment to building democratic institutions; soon after, with the brutal coup in 1975 when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were killed, whatever had been built up was brushed aside.
Sri Lanka’s record of democratic institutions was far superior to India. So why did they fail? With Solomon Bandar - anaike’s victory in 1956, Sri Lanka jettisoned the secular ethos with which it had fought its freedom movement and opted for sectarianism and an exclusivist Sinhala identity. Over the last 30 years, Sri Lanka has suffered such a setback because of this, it is almost impossible to remember that Sri Lanka was once poised to be the Singapore of this region.
Finally, the other Nehruvian principle that has kept our democracy robust is Nehru’s commitment to a ‘socialistic pattern of society’. He accepted the Gandhian ethic that the purpose of the state‘s economic policy was welfare of the poor. In Pakistan, on the other hand, there was a blatant and blanket adoption of the capitalist model. In 1965, it was the secondmost industrialised country in Asia, after Japan. But this was concentrated in the hands of 22 feudal families and the notorious ‘303’ — the civil servants in collusion with these families. All of this came crashing down when Ayub Khan undertook his coup. The other factor in the instability Pakistan faces today is the fact that they also happily allied themselves to the Americans. Pakistan was also founded on the principle that religion constitutes nationality. This is an almost untenable premise. If being a Muslim makes you belong to Pakistan, then why is there a border between Muslim Afghanistan and Muslim Iran? And why would some of its most bitter disputes have been with its Muslim neighbours? Religion is a very poor basis for organising a nation. For all these reasons, these nation states did not become as strong in absorbing the buffeting that all nation-building involves. But while we may be stronger and more stable than our neighbours today, we have to remember that the same potential for stability and democracy exists in our neighbours. And if we move away from these ideals of plurality and secularism, we have the same potential for being torn apart.
--------------------------------------------
It is true there are many lessons to learn form this but yet we choose to forget them and take the radical way out. Today’s newspapers had a headline that certain community leaders (kutchi wagad) decided to ensure that marriage happens only within the community. I cannot for one understand why they do this. Jasmine is a Kutchi (different sub catse from one above) and I am a Gujarati. Our family is enriched by the cross culture pollination (albeit small, as we are quite culturally close). And not just immediate families, even the distant families are enriched; may it be in simple stuff like new recipes to try out. Jispa is definitely better off exposed to more culture than less. Close minded radicals are ruining their own race. Modern day Nazis!
When the attack on crickets in Pakistan happened it was easy to blame a community as a breeding ground for radicals. But there are radicals all around us, in all communities. In times like this I fight forces in my head from being a conservative. It is tough being a moderate in face of immediate flare ups but moderate I must be.
Definition: In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between two viewpoints, neither to be extreme or radical by those applying the term. The word "moderate" can also be used as an adjective describing such a position. Read on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate
While reading Mani Shankar, I was also reminded about another thing I once read. This was in relation to Pakistan’s tryst with capitalism. Disclaimer: do not use this in isolation to be an anti capitalist, but just as a case for more balance. It will also give you idea on why the world financial system finds it where it is.
In the 1930s and '40s, General Motors, the Firestone Tire Company, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Standard Oil of California--all operating through a front company called National City Lines (NCL)--bought up dozens of local mass-transit systems that were operating the popular electric streetcars. Their plan was to control virtually all the leading mass-transit systems in America, and replace electric trolleys with smoky, gas-guzzling buses. In many cases, these trolley transit companies had previously been financially looted by their financier owners and fallen into disrepair, which only made them easier targets for acquisition. Once NCL purchased the trolley lines with "borrowed" money from GM and others, the tracks were torn up and the trolleys sold or destroyed, replaced by petroleum-powered GM buses running on tires and oil supplied by the NCL companies. Source - http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/archive/RJFall2006.html
Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do. Source - http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/speeches/antitrust.html
This is a study of the social consequences of monopoly. It shows that excessive economic concentration can restructure society for corporate ends. As an illustration, it focuses on three powerful automobile companies which eliminated competition among themselves, secured control over rival bus and rail industries, and then maximized profits by substituting cars and trucks for trains, streetcars, subways and buses. In short, it describes how General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reshaped American ground transportation to serve corporate wants instead of social needs. Source http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/American.htm
On another note I was surprised to know that when I typed promised land in word, it puts up a grammar correction, recommending to capitalize the initial alphabets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)