The High Notes

It’s the Republic Day again. And the time of the year for many repeats. New Delhi, in bureaucratic terms, is secured, ironically, to pave way for the Indian Army to parade its might; the dhoti clad junta is seen unfurling the tricolor; the nukkads of semi-urban areas are heard playing patriotic songs; and wise men on charpoys talk about the Indian in them. Memory serves as a platform to reenact these scenes year after year-proud memories of the greatness of mother India. What Hindustanis don’t realize is the fact that memory is, and has always been, a cheval glass which morphs the reality depending on one’s predilection. It’s another mirror of Erised.

So when the honorable chief minister of Bengal, Mr Buddhodeb Bhattacharya, decided to delay an urgent call for a meeting by our union home minister, it made me ponder. It brought back memories of a village just 40 km from Calcutta which was a host to a bloody war for territorial control not a long time ago. A battle in which State personnel were mute spectators. Mute not without reason though. Either there were political compulsions, or, keeping in mind its recent heavy casualties, the State was just too scared to intervene. Such a degree of prolonged lawlessness in West Bengal 6 decades after independence was just too shocking for me. I always used to wonder why the mighty Indian army was not called upon to crush the rebellion once and for all. But then I realized that the problem lay somewhere else.

A state cannot exist by waging war against its own people. People need to have a feeling of loyalty towards it. A disturbingly high number of groups in India don’t want to be under state rule-a serious problem. The solution lies in convincing them to be part of one. However, in the process of convincing, if the state gets bullied then it has to respond as well. State being held to ransom every now and then is also not a desirable scenario.

India has always had a legacy of sending mixed, ones bordering near confusion, signals on dealing with this menace. Kashmir wanted independence. The valley was being subjected to unprecedented violence. India responded-a show of immense military strength with jawans being placed at virtually every corner of the state. The great uprising in Punjab, and the demand for Khalistan, was getting increasingly alarming. India responded again bringing the whole movement to a halt. A recent massacre of the entire battalion of troops by Naxals in Chhattisgarh shook the entire state machinery. This time India chose not to respond. Not because it didn’t want to, but because it was not sure whom to go after. Everyone, Naxals and the law abiding citizens, looked the same.

I am not here to judge what form of response by the government is the best. I am not advocating violence nor am I patronizing giving in to the demands of the so called rebels. But what I actually am trying to do is highlight the increasing number of instances where the government is being made to give a response.

There’s widespread discontent in the Northeast where people don’t feel part of India. A heavy military presence has been made to keep control. West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh are victims of intense Maoist violence. A large number of Maharashtrians think of themselves as Maharashtrians first and Indians later. Tamil Nadu had, and perhaps has, its own set of issues primarily pertaining to being sympathetic to the (late) LTTE. And nothing needs to be said about Bihar and Kashmir.

The list does not end here. The ground reality is much more critical. The police and the state forces have control only in cities and towns. The law of warlords and the meager police presence working in collusion with them is what you get to witness in the interiors of India. So which India are we talking about? I hate to break the bubble here but the New Delhi government is just a collection of important cities and towns which, too, have to be made “secure” before important events as well as after terror strikes. Unity in diversity still remains a dream. India is just a fragile state heading towards chaos with an unstable trajectory. We would need something more than a charade of celebrations on our Republic Day to change the course of our nation.

Talking of the Republic Day, 26^th January doesn’t always have to be all about celebrating the Indian in you. Sometimes, you can just go out, get high, and then give fundaes, i.e., the high notes.

The Non compos mentis

I would like to draw your attention to the title of this post. It’s not by fluke I chose this heading. I wanted to have a go at a specific person, and in such a way that he does not immediately realize what I am trying to say. Sometimes when I think that putting an opinion in simple words can have an immediate backlash, I try to veil it through a play of words in order to delay or better still, diminish the trouble altogether. This is also a style of writing. Point Number One.

I was reading a blog of some unknown human specimen. For the sake of convenience, let’s call him (Yes, it’s a him) Sir. I found the comments and the reasoning behind his statements so amusing that it compelled me to do what I am doing right now , i.e., wasting my time.

He was trying to analyze a ScholsAve article. A ScholsAve article dealing with a particularly sensitive issue. To be honest, there was only one thing that I liked about the rather detailed analysis. He did a pretty good job of making his baseless, irrational opinions look like absolute facts. At this point of time, I feel the need of mentioning some of Sir’s points here.

“I can't possibly imagine how such a badly written and completely useless article was accepted for publication; and that too as a "Special Feature". While the article is nothing short of garbage, I have some comments which I hope you might be interested in hearing. The comments are mainly on the presentation as there is not sufficient content in the article to make any useful remarks about it.”

So we can safely conclude that Sir has not been able to make out any of the content in the article. Keep this in mind. We might need it later.

Okay, so now he pastes the entire article on his blog. Fair enough. (By the way, you can find the entire article on www.scholarsavenue.org). I am not pasting it here.

“The article opens with multiple undefined references to something, and it takes till the end of the paragraph to resolve the meaning of it. This is so completely annoying for any reader. The editor seems to have lost himself, so fully, in an ostentatious display of irrelevant words and phrases that he/she has forgotten to define it.”

More details coming in. Sir does not like multiple undefined references. He wants everything to be spoon fed in the first line itself. This sounds okay (given that different people have different assimilation capacities). But wait, he has something more to say. He pompously makes declarations that the article has irrelevant words and phrases .More importantly, he makes this fantastic assumption that no reader will like it. Point Number Two.

He, it seems, has failed to consider the possibility that maybe the editor wanted it the way it is.

Moving on,

“The first sentence makes no sense.

Sometimes it is existent, like an inconspicuous needle in a haystack, sometimes like an ostentatious parade of unity.

Also it has to be worst line ever. That it found it's way into an article is shocking; but that it begins an article is just disturbing.”

Sir has, by his own admission, not understood the first line. Am I the only who seems to be detecting a pattern here? Anyway, let’s explain to him the meaning of the first line. Ragging is sometimes undetectable. Although it might be going on in full bloom, it is still difficult for outsiders to detect a single soul. At the same time, you will sometimes see a crowd of people (read 2^nd years on a 2.2 or in a common room) who will make a show of unity, and deny any trace of ragging. Are they not contrasting situations which deserve a mention in the sentence the way it has?

Taking up his next profound analysis:

“ inconspicuous needle in a haystack?

The number of useless adjectives in this article is just frighteningly large.

... A vast majority ...

Majorities are, by definition, vast.”

Sir seems to have a twisted sense of logical reasoning. He is not aware of the fact that adjectives sometimes add to the impact you are trying to make. If we go by Sir’s advice, all the following words would become meaningless.

1. An unending skyline

2. A fuel guzzling SUV

3. A fast racing car

4. Tall Skyscrapers

And I would like to bring to Sir’s attention the fact that there is actually something called slight majority and similarly, there is something called vast majority. Try googling.

” of today's Indian society perceives it as an occurrence which must be eradicated under all circumstances. However, a seemingly equal majority, ...

Also, how can there be two majorities? The constant switching between both sides of an argument is irritating. Especially when presented without facts. How can you speak for the Indian society without facts to support what you say? And even if you have sound reasons to believe in such things, why can't you say it simply like:

A majority of the Indian society disapproves of ragging.

Besides,

... today's Indian society perceives it as an occurrence which must be .”

sounds like it can be perceived otherwise, possibly by other societies. And stating that ragging is an occurrence is again useless.”

Sir looks a little confused here. He’s not sure about his question. Is the constant switching irritating him, or, is it the lack of facts? Doesn’t it seem ironic that a person, who in the very first line of his blog post, makes an assumption that no reader will like this article, is suddenly asking for facts? Facts which are definitely there, but do not deserve a mention in an editorial. As for the switching, it obviously makes a reader think more as well as leaves some things to his/her imaginations. The writers were definitely not looking for a lullaby here. Regarding the question of two majorities, the word “seemingly”, as far as I know, was added to create the right kind of vagueness to negate this problem.

“So what is the precise meaning of this term which is oft used so unwittingly? Or a more relevant question, in the present scenario, would be-What exactly is ragging perceived to be? Is it a ritual firmly

First, the article doesn't define the precise meaning of ragging. Second, if there were a more relevant question then why not ask that first? The ", in the present scenario," is completely useless -- obviously the article applies only within it's context. If you're enthusiastic about using commas, regularly, and, preferably, without reason, then I, seriously, suggest not writing articles.”

There’s a prominent box stating the precise definition of ragging. Does Sir want that box to be repeated in the article? And Sir, we do not ask the more relevant question first because we have to show that it is the more relevant question. There has to be a comparison, and at the same time, the message has to be sent that the first question is irrelevant. Point Number Three.

And how come the phrase “in the presently scenario” is declared useless, and that too completely? Is Sir trying to say that ragging was very much the same in olden days, and has not undergone even an iota of change?. The question of perception arises because of the present state of affairs. How can one eliminate this phrase? I ask you.

And if Sir wants really simple form of sentences, I, seriously, suggest him to read Hardy Boys not ScholsAve. Wait, Nancy Drew would be better.

“would be-What exactly is ragging perceived to be? Is it a ritual firmly rooted in the belief system of students and a reflection of a deeper malaise plaguing the society? Or is it a term being misused and more often than not, being clubbed with villainous criminal activities? Is it a euphemism being used to shield hideous, condemnable acts taking place on college campuses? Or is it one of those propitious, if not amiable, platforms for healthy interaction with the college seniors?

Why so many questions? Are you going to answer any of them? If they're rhetorical, then I don't see the point in even one of them. You are simply listing out all the possible things it could be -- something that serves no useful purpose. The article, comes off as being thoroughly bland and fully lacking a single meaningful remark up to this point. And yet, I can see a huge number of infrequently used words punctuate the article. Why?!”

Why so many questions? Hmm. How about letting the users ponder over the questions while the paper refrains from making any judgments? How about just playing the role of catalysts, and in turn, providing fodder for the readers to think on? From the pattern that I observe, I know that it’s very difficult for Sir to think of such a possibility. Not his fault.

You don't even tell what ragging in the Subcontinent amounts to. So nobody has any idea what the heck it is that you're talking about. And to top that, you call it villainous and criminal. Or do you expect your readers to share some global, unified view of what ragging entails? Throughout the article you talk of some undefined monster, which you continue stack adjectives on top of. And describe it as something that is firmly rooted in the belief system and is a reflection of a deeper malaise plaguing the society.

Well, an article on ragging can go on and on for pages. Sir needs to realize that the writers might be trying to focus on one aspect of it. Besides, what is the definition of ragging in the box for? Not for decoration, I assure you.

”Why on earth would you prefer

Or is it one of those propitious, if not amiable, platforms for healthy interaction with the college seniors?

to

Or is it a platform for healthy interaction with the college seniors?”

Why not, Sir? Why not? The word propitious has a meaning. The word amiable has a meaning, too, and the two sentences are definitely not equivalent. I know that you are having interpretation problems but the words here are trying to convey something important. I am sure Nancy Drew would be able to satisfy all your whims and fancies. Or if you are lucky, maybe ScholsAve will someday come up with a separate edition just for you.

“When you write an article there is an idea or an argument you wish to convey to your readers. The constant incoherent rambling throughout the article makes it unclear to ascertain what it is that you're finding so much difficulty in saying. It looks like your main goal is to show usage and you think you can invent content on the way. The entire article is a big mess of adjectives and a pathetic attempt at describing something relatively simple.”

Sir has again managed to make a hilarious assumption. Describing the age-old menace of ragging as something “relatively simple” shows complete ignorance and lack of awareness. People in KGP tend to lose a bit of way, and so I refuse to blame him in totality. It’s pretty clear what the article wants to say and the usage also has a message (applicable for knowledgeable readers). Every person, unfortunately, has a different take on this delicate subject. And each one wants this topic to be discussed to a different extent. What Sir might term as an article lacking content, others might bash, and have bashed, it for an excess of content .Point Number Four.

The article was written keeping various dimensions in mind. Some delicate points were put across in a unique way. What Sir terms as a “big mess of adjectives”, the writers would want to call it sufficient padding to withstand any protest on content. The article’s intention was to entangle all (and only) the Sirs in a web so that they don’t start irrationally questioning the content and the cruel, ulterior motives behind the content. However, at the same time, sufficiently intelligent people will get the message the article wants to convey.

I also noticed, and this probably applies to other articles in SA, that most sentences are far too long, use too many commas and complicated words where they are completely avoidable. I personally don't have the time to nitpick every sentence in the article, but if you do review the article more closely you will notice that there is absolutely no flow to any sentence. Sentences continually break every few words to allow for editorial wisecracks between paired commas and parenthesis. It is almost like the writer wrote this not expecting anyone to read it. Some sentences are entirely inconsequential and the article can do best without.

Sir needs to be reminded of the fact that long sentences, which have a lot of commas, are not "bad". It’s question of preference. Why would one want to avoid it in the first place? Certain sentiments are best expressed in long sentences. The breaks in sentences are, without doubt, intentional. The writer may want the reader to stop at regular intervals and reread the sentences. That way, the reader ends up spending more time on the article. It’s a different style. Good or bad is a matter of perception. None of the sentences are, I repeat, inconsequential. If Sir has come to this conclusion, then I would suggest him to reread the sentences in question. I would suggest Sir to watch movies like Memento or, among the recent ones, movies like Inception. The continuous breaks add to the fun and more importantly, force the audiences to use their grey cells. Coming back to my previous point, just because writing smooth sentences is a conventional thing to do, doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to do. Point Number Five.

“All this was indeed to the purpose, and to give me satisfaction, though, by the way, I was not so scrupulous, had he known all, but that I might have taken him without it. However, I looked them all over as well as I could, and told him that this was all very clear indeed, but that he need not have given himself the trouble to have brought them out with him, for it was time enough.”

Sir, do you see the long sentences here? This is an extract from a book written by a very famous author. Do you want me to give more such instances? I certainly understand this fact that long sentences irritate you. However, do not get me wrong here; a lot of people do prefer long sentences.

Writing about what seemed to Sir a detailed analysis of an article, might have taken him a lot of time. I give him full respect for the effort. But the entire blog post does not seem to be making any valid points except one ,i.e., Sir had a problem in understanding the article. My deepest sympathies.

This unwarranted loss of my valuable time would, I hope, enhance the reassessing capabilities of Sir.

Oh, crap! I need to make it simpler.

I hope this wastage of my time would help Sir in future critical analysis.

Not working… need to simplify it further….

Okay, I give up. You win Sir. I can’t make it simpler. Carolyn Keene(s) is your only solution. The Final Point.

So it’s been one whole sesquipedalian semester since the tennis courts and their famed net practice have had the luxury of catching a glimpse of me. Not that I don’t like paying them a visit but then the sheer monstrosity of the elitist levels of play there, is , I am forced to accept, a tad too high for me .And I am quite sure or rather I would like to believe that this feeling is very much mutual. However, a recent episode (And it would be an understatement to call it anything less than life altering) has forced me to think again. It has given a whole new dimension and meaning to the word “net practice” and though I would have liked a nap after an awesome treat at Sibani*, I am here and more eager than ever to document it as soon as possible.

I am talking of August, 2009 and calculating the time difference between that time and the present, it would be grossly unfair to expect a pointillistic narration from my part. To understand the full story in the true sense, it’s vital to make note of the details which I am presently going to elucidate.

There were 5 people excluding me here at Kharagpur that night. All school mates, four of them were from my college and one had been polite enough to make an unscheduled stop at Kharagpur en route to his college on our insistence. We had already completed our dinner at LS (Little Sisters) and two of them had got a little drunk (a modest estimation in my opinion). All six of us had managed to seat ourselves quite comfortably on the gigantic yet seemingly cozy steps leading to the main entrance of the Vikramshila complex. With a handful of Lays and a couple of 2 litre cokes in our possession, the only thing which could and actually did take place was a night long bhaat session. To save myself from grave physical complications, let’s avoid their actual names. Let’s name the Kharagpur chaps as A, B, C, D and the remaining one as X.

Now into that night…

Our conversation started with the Kgp run-of-the- mill. A guy with a mischievous twinkle in his eyes enquiring about the bandi status of the other and the person caught in the dock trying to explain at length as to why one should totally trust him when he says “I have other priorities you know…”.This, combined with loads of imbecilic laughter, was turning out into quite a night until the parley deviated towards something I have always loved to hate, i.e., undivided attention on me.

B- toh customer**, you have been unusually silent. (After a pause) You know what …you are a good guy and by virtue of this quality of yours, I feel duty-bound to give you some vital fundas about life. You should have a bandi and I am now going to tell you how to get one.

Gather around everybody (face suddenly turning mature and the tone changing into something horrendously similar to that of Nicolas Baba embedding the nuances of life in toddlers)

Haan so customer dekh, you know D and E and they are good friends of yours?

Me- yeah so…

B- and you also know their girlfriends D1 and E1 who are also friends of yours?

Me- haan ..yours too I guess.

B- bus aur kya . there’s nothing more to say. Increase your friendship with them as in try to be their confidant. Make sure that they confide everything in you.

C-customer ko tum kya funda de raha hai dog?

B- hold on …just listen to me. See Deepesh that way you will get to know more about their relationship.

Me-and why exactly would I be interested in that?

B-dumbass, you have to keep looking for the right opportunity. When you learn that their relationship is going through a rough patch , at that very moment you have to become active boss. You need to swoooooooop in (his hands taking a dive from the shoulder to the waist level in an attempt to show the swooping). Give random funda to D about D1 and the other way round as well. Swooping in at the right time is the key.

Me- so effectively you are telling me to hit on my friend’s gf who also happens to be my friend by breaking their relationship??

B-There you go, my boy (eyes almost brimming with tears). ladka samajh gaya!!!

(While what had become a complete laugh riot for others, the seriousness on B’s face was somewhat unnerving)

Me- and you expect me to break my friendship with D. I would never do that.

B-you don’t need to. If he’s a true friend, he will surely understand your scenario.

Me- come on .. D1 and E1 are ..are like my sisters

B- totally sahi hai funda bhidu. This is a foolproof mechanism of getting closer .Shower your brotherly affection on her and the rest is heaven (trying to wink)

B-dude, you are not taking me seriously. Pata hai… not hitting on girls is a crime

Me- a what?

B-yes, you heard it right. It’s totally illegal man.

Liking a girl or not is immaterial dude. You have to hit on them for your own sake. You have to do the net practice.

Me- net practice?? (Laughter giving way to curiosity)

B-haan , you have to do the net practice. Tu toh tennis bhi khelta hai… U must have done a lot of net practice there..

Me- yeah, about that…

(Interrupting me)

B- In the same way, you need to have the practice in case of girls too. Soch if Federer bina net practice kiye hue Wimbledon final pahuch jaata toh, then think of the plight he would have landed himself into. Uska toh band baj jaata. Getting my point?

Me- Go on…

B- So sometime in the future when you actually meet the girl you were always looking for, it will be the same thing as playing a Wimbledon final without any practice. Your failure then will make you think as well as regret the fact that you didn’t have adequate practice.

X- sahi bol raha hai B, man this is the truth.

B- (Seeing my unconvinced face) abey, listen to me carefully. Things like “I am not interested” and “I have other things to do” are absolutely unacceptable. The thing is that you have to do it not because you are interested in doing it. You have to do it for the one. When you finally meet the one, it would be unfair to her if you do not have enough practice. So you need to do all kinds of affairs and pataoing right now. Basically you need to do the net practice. (Tone getting louder and emotional)

Dude, you owe it to her. You owe it to the one. You can’t be unfair to her

(2 minutes of pin drop silence followed by C trying hard to kill a mosquito troubling his face. In the end, all of us thought the mosquito was dead. The mosquito thought it was not. Anyway…)

X (to B)- So are you having your net practice ?

B-(stammering) of course I am… (After a pause)

Hell No!!!Man ,I don’t have a net let alone net practicing.

As all broke into a new wave of laughter, the pulchritudinous moon convivially beamed in the dimmed background as if it was giving ratification to the whole episode…

Though several months have passed by, the impact of “The Net practice” remains as strong as ever. Not so much in the way one approaches life but more to do with the tremor it has created linguistically. An invaluable addition to our vocabulary which has changed the way we, friends, greet. ”Wassup” in Gtalk has changed to “net practising?” and “hey” has changed to “net mila?” amongst others. As for me, I still remain committed to bunking the net practice. Be it the actual lawn tennis or…

And as I prepare for an awesome Sunday (tomorrow) in Kolkata, just ask yourselves..

Did you do your net practice today???

**customer- The nick I had got during Quanta at City Montessori School Lucknow for reasons unfathomable