The Difficulty of Being Good and Mahabharat

Just finished the book, The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma by Gurucharan Das.I am a big fan of the Author and My Sunday morning starts with his Article in Times of India. When I picked the book from the gallery I was fully aware of the context but could not stop reading till I finish.

It was my grandmother who introduced me to the Mahabharata in my childhood, then I read a book by R.K. Narayaran, and found the story is most enthralling ever I have come across, even Mario Puzo's The Godfather does not hold a chance with it. Now Gurcharan Das has taken on the difficult task of reading the Mahabharata and interpreting its many messages in light of contemporary circumstances.

Classics like the Mahabharata, The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid have a timeless appeal. But one should guard against reading too much into their relevance to understand our times. Gurcharan poses a simple question. How do we understand and interpret the word and the concept of ‘dharma’ in our lives? In seeking an answer he turns to the Mahabharata, and reads its versions in Sanskrit and English translations, and the many interpretations.

Gurcharan explores the idea of dharma in all its dimensions, while examining the frailties of human existence—envy, jealousy, greed, revenge, resentment, lust—and the many uplifting qualities of a righteous person, namely courage, valour, loyalty, selflessness, remorse, compassion, forgiveness and altruism.

Each of the major heroes have their failings. Dhritarashtra is blind to his eldest son’s faults. Duryodhana’s monumental envy is the driving force of calamity in the epic. Arjuna despairs over killing his kinsmen. The virtuous Yudhishthira has a weakness for gambling. The flaws of epic heroes show how difficult it is to be good in a world of moral haziness.

This tale of a family in crisis is a metaphor, in Gurcharan’s book, for the economic upheavals that have engulfed the world. Capitalism may be a mode of production but it also shapes the nature of social relations between human beings who buy and sell goods in the market.

There are similar parallels throughout the book. Investment bankers on Wall Street suffered from similar moral infirmities as the heroes in the Mahabharata; they exposed the flaws in the global capitalist system. Duryodhana’s envy and greed that makes him want to annex the Pandavas’ kingdom is in tune with what big fishes do to smaller ones.

In other words, the narrative fleshes out through a tale of sibling rivalry the brutal competition of ‘interests and passions’ that is the characterestic of a ‘free market’.

The best chapter in my view is the one that concerns Draupadi. Gurcharan has read the Bhandarkar Institute’s Critical Edition carefully and tells us that Krishna’s rescue of Draupadi is not in the original But that apart, Draupadi raises the question whether Yudhishthira had the right to stake her in a gamble when he had already staked and lost himself and his brothers. Whose property was she if Yudhishthira was not his own master? It is a question which hangs over the assembled men but few can give the answer. The epic itself resolves the rape scene by mentioning the miracle of many layers of garments. But the burning question of dharma and even of property rights remain.

Yet Gurcharan does not pursue the question of how much of the Mahabharata is a padding upon the original core Jaya and even the Bharata, which then became the Mahabharata. My own unscholarly hunch is that Jaya was a simple tale of the battle which raged over eighteen days in which Pandavas won. It was not clear that they deserved to win. But then as victors they invented the grievances which justified the dirty tricks employed with Krishna’s help. The gambling match and Yudhishthira’s behaviour defy belief unless he and his brothers were drugged as well. It is probably a later interpolation.

What is truly appealing about Gurcharan’s contemporaneous reading of the Mahabharata is his reinforcement of liberal values. The epic’s wisdom empowers the individual and shows us the way forward in dealing with daily challenges. It is not a ‘moral’ text, because the epic is characterised by moral ambiguity. It does not take a categorical position in the classic debate on ‘ends and means’, often interpreting ‘ends’ in a manner that would justify the ‘means’. Despite its moral ambiguity, it shows how one can act righteously in an amoral world.

At one stage, Gurcharan gives the example of the Ambani brothers to illustrate how such quarrels can get lethal. He pits Mukesh as Yudhishthira against Anil as Duryodhana. But surely we do not know yet. We need to wait till the end to see who wins. The winner will be Yudhishthira by definition and the loser will be Duryodhana. It is too early to say who will be which.

Are lessons from the Mahabharata enough to save capitalism? Gurcharan, certainly, thinks that a healthy dose of Dharma may restore trust in the system. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that this epic, like all classics, enriches one’s concept of Man. The Mahabharata is seven times as long as The Iliad and The Odyssey combined but it has not been translated in as many languages. It has had no Fagles.

Inception and Udaan Two Intriguing Movies this weekend

Over the weekend, I watched two movies, Inception and Udaan, to my surprise both turned out to be some of the best movies I have watched in recent times.

Christopher Nolan’s credibilities is well known with movies like Memento and Dark Knight but in Inception he crafted a movie that’s beyond brilliant and layered both narratively and thematically. For this magnum opus audience requires intense viewer concentration, raised thoughtful and complex ideas, and wrapped everything all in a breathlessly exciting action film. It’s a film built on possibilities and the boldness of pursuing those possibilities. Its a story of dream and dream inside dream in a recursive manner. If someone say just one line that, story is, through the use of a special device, construct the dreams of a target and use those dreams to implant an idea so that the target will make a decision beneficial to the individual who hired the team. Anyone but Nolan might would have forced theaters to distribute pamphlets to audience members in order to explain the complicated world he’s developed.

Its about dreams, some of the fact of the dream came alive, In dream time elapses slower then real, If you fall or die in dream you come out of dream , dream can be anything where law of physics can be defied and dreams are real when you are in but when you come out it feels strange. the film layers dreams on top of dreams to the point where a unique keepsake called a “totem” is required in order to inform a character as to whether or not he or she is still dreaming. Then you have people in particular roles like “The Architect”, “The Forger”, and “The Chemist” in order to pull off the job and delving too deeply into a mind can cause an eternal slumber called “Limbo”, using memories to construct dreams is dangerous because it can blur the line between dreams and reality. In addition, intruding in the dreams of another will cause the dreamer’s “projections” (human representations created by the dreamer) to attack the intruders like white blood cells going after an infection. And these explanations only represent a fraction of the terminology, rules, exceptions, or details that are necessary for creating the world of Inception. But it’s not a confusing movie if you provide it with your full attention.

The comparisons with The Matrix are inevitable. Both movies deal with the nature of reality combined with pulse-pounding set pieces that will be included in any action-scene highlight reel. But The Matrix is a freshman level course compared to the doctorate held by Inception, and it has nothing to do with how far special effects have come in ten years.

The other one Udaan is all about chasing dream. Much against our will, at several instances in life, one has to helplessly bow down to some entity – be it your teacher, boss, kin or anyone else. Udaan narrates a tale where a son is almost on an extended detention under his disciplinarian father’s domain. Through this allegory, Udaan inspires one to break away from all bindings of life and fly freely. Shoot In the beautiful city of Jamshedpur with least glamor quotient, this has many particlual instances that relates to owm occurance in life.. Udaan comes across as an intensely personal film; a coming-of-age story without the choreographed songs or road-trips; the anti-Wake Up Sid if you like. There is angst you can identify with. With Udaan, Vikramaditya Motwane makes a terrific directing debut, offering up a film whose images will linger in your head long after you've left your seat. The film reaches out because it's sincere. It tells Rohan's story in the only way it could have been told -- without the commercial trappings that might have made it an easier watch. And yet you're overwhelmingly happy that it isn't compromised cinema.

Tsamina mina zangalewa Anawa aa This time for Africa

The grand finale of FIFA 2010 world cup is just few hours away. Watching Mark Webber conquering Brits GP and waiting the clock ticks to Midnight to watch last hour of intriguing soccer with friends and drinks. Looking back at last one month, its a massive success for a nation like South Africa for producing such a beautiful tournament.Reading some reports prior to the start of the tournament, you could have been forgiven for thinking that Sepp Blatter and FIFA had gifted the World Cup to a country in collapse.

Jotting down some of the off field memories that will be there for next four years of this gala celebration of beautiful game;

Paul the astrologer, I have been watching sports with passion for last few years but I never freaked out more when one after another prediction of Paul, the Octopus turned out correct. I have my fair share of superstitions when it comes to supporting Indian Cricket Team, but this was outrageous for me at first to give space to Octopus who picks the team which will win the next match. Boasting the prolificacy of David Villa, the accuracy of a Gio van Bronckhorst 40-yarder and the sheer star quality of Diego Maradona, there is no doubt that Sea Life Oberhausen's Paul has captured the imagination over the past four weeks with his spookily accurate World Cup predictions.

Under-dogs outperforming the heavy-weights, Eouropean historical power house,France Imploded dramatically, Italy was ineffective, Englands rank ineptitude ensured was disappointing but we saw Ghana's romantic ride to the quarter-finals, Uruguay reaching the last four - through means foul or fair - and Slovakia sneaking out of the group stage. Even the South American royalty of Brazil and Argentina failed to reach the semi-finals, helping ensure that a new name will be etched onto the World Cup trophy on Sunday.Japan and South Korea both reached the second round for the first time on foreign soil and special mention should go to New Zealand who, if Netherlands are defeated on Sunday, will be the only team to end the tournament unbeaten.

Vuvuzelas

vuvuzelas are part of South Africa culture and a legitimate way to express delight at a sporting occasion, but they are, in a word, annoying. Drowning out chants and songs from supporters inside the crowd, the constant drone from the dreaded horns came to infuriate television spectators as well. They were especially irritating when played in unison to create a pulsing sound; like having a particularly nasty migrane while sitting in a beehive.

The Jabulani

The advent of every major tournament sees goalkeepers complain about the state of the official ball, no doubt looking to get their excuses in early when a shot squirms under their body, but this year was different. Goalkeepers, outfield players and coaches all lined up to lambast the Jabulani. Brazil midfielder Felipe Melo described it as "horrible", Iker Casillas said it behaved like a "beach ball" and, perhaps most damning of all, USA 'keeper Marcus Hahnemann simply said: "Scientists came up with the atom bomb, doesn't mean we should have invented it."

FIFA's Black Sunday

As staunch opponents to the introduction of technology, FIFA's bigwigs must have been shifting uncomfortably in their executive seats, prawn sandwiches left uneaten, when two glaring mistakes from match officials left a black spot on the competition on June 27. Firstly, and most notably, Frank Lampard's shot clearly crossed the line against Germany, only for Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda to wave play on, sparking confusion in pubs across England. Replays confirmed the horrible truth, and surely moved the game a step closer to welcoming technology, rather than fearing it. However the suspicion remains that Sepp Blatter will continue to be the John Connor to Hawk-Eye's Skynet.

In the evening kick-off, Carlos Tevez then scored a blatantly offside goal as Argentina defeated Mexico 3-1. Somehow, the replay was broadcast live to the Soccer City crowd so referee Roberto Rosetti immediately knew his assistant had made a horrendous call. Aware of the grievous mistake but bound by the rules to ignore the evidence in front of his eyes, the Italian had no option but to ignore Mexico's pleas to disallow the goal. Not a great day for the governing body.

The Heart-breaking Ghana's Exit ( A cheat became a hero at the same time)

Luis Suarez had a reputation-enhancing World Cup until he stuck out his hand and became the spawn of Satan for denying Ghana, the darling of the tournament, its rightful place in the semifinals. Even though Suarez did what just about any soccer player in his position would have, he made the mistake of not showing any remorse when Asamoah Gyan's penalty kick clanged off the crossbar and Uruguay went on to win the game. Instead, he acted as if he had just scored the winning goal of the World Cup final, allowing his teammates to parade him around the field on their shoulders. Although karma caught up to Los Charruas in their defeat by the Netherlands, Suarez's postgame bravado turned a simple act of gamesmanship into a morality play. He now gets a starting spot on the All-Hands Team lineup, joining Diego Maradona, Thierry Henry and Paul the oracle octopus.

Muttiah Muralitharan - Heroics against all Odds

Muttiah Muralitharan, one of the recent memories of IPL3, when Dhoni hit that humongous SIX to seal the Semi Final Spot, Murali sprinted in such spirit as if challenging Ushain Bolt and Asafa Powell. It speaks about the persona, who has taken more International wickets than any one other in the planet. Now he has decided to hang his boot, its time to celebrate a career which is nothing less than roller-coaster. But Smile was never away from the Tamil Tiger, who enjoys as special popularity in India especially in Chennai, where he is son-in-law of the city.

A great ambiguity surrounds Muttiah Muralitharan; some paint him as sinner, others sketch him as saint. He is proof of wondrous skill for some and evidence of rules being conveniently bent for others; he is champion yet he is cheat. Argument over Muttiah Muralitharan is unending, it is alive with bias (both ways), and it is absent of conclusion except this: the page on his life will be marked with an asterisk. It suggests something villainous, and perhaps it does not.

Athletes across all sports have owned careers shadowed by suspicion, great deeds blotted by acts of alleged dishonesty, fine skill tainted by moments of indiscretion. It is a stain no powder can easily wash off. Muralitharan's beauty has been corroded somewhat by controversy, but it takes too great a leap in imagination, too great an embrace of prejudice, to put him in such company. He may stoically bear the burden of defamation ("chucker", "thief", "javelin thrower"), but he is no Tyson, no Maradona; he is neither criminal nor apparent cheat. He has not sent vile text messages or snorted cocaine or assaulted a woman. He has not been punished for using unfair means for, the clamour over his doosra aside, twice he has been cleared by the University of Western Australia.

Murali may stoke debate, some of it cruel, but here he does not belong. This is a better man, a decent human being, a cleaner practitioner, a man whose tarnish is different. His asterisk is unique; it is his alone.

Some might prefer to see him as heroic victim, presuming that the future will give us clarity, that time and distance will allow us to recognise he that was wronged, as if in a way he was some Jim Thorpe-like figure. The Native-American decathlete was stripped of his 1912 Olympic gold and publicly vilified after it was revealed he had earned $25 a week playing minor league baseball in 1909-10, thus negating his amateur status. Eventually, after his death, public outcry led to a reinstatement of medal and reputation.

But Murali does not fit here either; he is not seen as having committed one minor indiscretion, or as an uneducated man unaware of the rules. He is not seen as manipulated but as manipulative, at least by his critics. Thorpe was possibly ignorant; Murali is viewed in parts of the world as audacious. Thorpe's legend has been universally embraced; with Murali geography determines the response: the East believes him, much of the West does not.

When he bowls, he knows cameras are focused on his arm, commentators on his action, and that words will be said, usually not pretty. Spectators in Australia simply bellowed "Nooo" with every delivery; an opponent has allegedly called him a "f------ cheat" to his face; every press conference is rich with allegation. It is an unrelenting pressure that demands an erratic response, either in behaviour or performance, but it has not come. This man has more character than we think; he has grace; he has been for some even heroic.

Through it all, Murali has stayed the course, remained committed to his craft; and his world record is testimony to a moral strength and self-belief that he is not adequately celebrated for.But still, for all this, history will not know what to do with Muttiah Muralitharan. He is certainly not a villain, he will never be fully embraced as victim, and he does not stand as a conventional hero. He is truly a man apart.

Democracy, Strategic alliance and Bandh

Two democratic events happened last week, which has completely different significance, different motive but shows the power of democracy. Opposition parties of India called an all India Bandh on this Monday bring the nation to stand-still and the other one is Former Australian Prime Minister was voted out to be the Vice-President of ICC by virtue of strong Asian bloc representation in ICC.

The Supreme Court of India had banned Bandhs back in 1998, but political parties still organize them. Still all Bandhs although being illegal are carried out which proves how weak is our judiciary system and politicians are not abiding highest court orders. Why Supreme Court failed to punished them? Despite all this the Bandh continues to plague our day to day lives. And today it is adversely going to affect normal life in many cities. Is this right way to protest by disrupting the common man's life? What will happen to poor daily wages workers and people who depend upon daily business or workforce? Will the Bandh decrease the price rise?

I agree for the poor and the middle-class patrons, rising petroleum products prices are proving to be the most unfair tax because it harms them the most. Already, the common man is feeling the pinch, be it in the high price of food commodities, transport, or other basic necessities.

In India, Bandhs or Strikes are a general weapon used by the political parties to express their protests against policies mostly levied by the Government. Even though these bandhs are supposed to be voluntary, but with the kind of shocking impact the political parties impose, people are forced to take part in these strikes. The Bandhs not only lead to paralyzing of normal life, but also force people to stay at home. Schools, Shops and offices are forced to close and the transports are put off the roads and life comes to a halt.

There have been a series of Bandhs, called in protest of the price hike etc, but did the prices ever went down? Why do we need the Bandh? How does a Bandh help to protests against the policies or killings? Does anything change after the Bandh? Has any Bandh had a major positive effect on life and society? Common man becomes the victim of the so-called bandhs without any fault on their part. Is this what the parties calling the Bandhs want? They are fighting for common man or causing more trouble to them?

People who are in need of emergency medical attention get affected the most. If they die who would be held responsible for the mishap? Only some cases get media attention while so many cases go unnoticed.

Offices and schools are forced to close resulting in loss of work and studies. With paralyzing work for the day it seems for them bandhs are more important than work. I am sure political parties will not compensate the financial loss that the people of India will incur in one day. They do not think about economic loss, which happens on a huge level because again the common man- the taxpayer will pay the amount and suffice for the loss.

Protesters motivated by these political parties destroy public properties; uproot railway lines, burn buses and destroying shops. One question that arises is that why are they destroying public property and what will they get from this? How easy it is to ignite other people's properties? But who will be the one to get affected when rails and buses stop to ply?

I am not saying that the common man should not protest. But all such means of protest will not at all affect the government. The protest should to be more selective and bear some positive results. Moreover, for whom are we observing all India close, for those lazy people who would enjoy a day off than to resolve issues of social interest.

If the politicians are so worried, why don't they go on a hunger strike, that will also force the government to reconsider the decision but it will not be at the loss to people of India. Political parties no matter whatever ideologies they follow, their main duty is to work for the welfare of this nation & its people.

In my view, instead of Bandhs, they can protests by wearing black arm bands, by sending continuous petitions to the President, by staging dharna, hunger strike outside the Government offices and compel them to rethink about the policies. Further, the judiciary system should ensure that people who do not want to be part of the so-called political Bandh should have all the liberty to continue their work or move on the streets without any fear. Law and order should be implemented in stringent way.

The other big shocker of democracy was rejection of John Howard from ICC vice-presidency. Whether he has experience of managing cricket is not in question because he has zero knowledge on that, but he has experience of managing a country. His love for the game is as equal as current ICC president Mr Sharad Power if not less. The saddest thing about the rejection of John Howard's nomination to the vice-presidency of the ICC is that, prima facie, the cricket world has split, once again, on the lines of race. For years that was cricket's ugly truth: the white nations v the rest; the us v them syndrome underpinned every major conflict in the cricket.

There are different ways of looking at it. One is this. Seven members of the ICC board didn't want Howard as vice-president. Clearly, he shouldn't then have been vice-president and president-elect. Democracy doesn't always produce the best outcome, but who'd rather have the other system?

Howard was not the best candidate in the eyes of the cricket world. Even between Australia and New Zealand, he was not the unanimous choice. New Zealand wanted John Anderson, the former chairman of the New Zealand board and a proven cricket administrator; and most other members would have preferred him. But Howard was nominated through a rigorous arbitration process, and New Zealand accepted the verdict with good grace.

Similarly, another process has been completed now. Howard's candidature needed to be ratified by a two-thirds majority - it might never have been applied before, but the provision exists. All over the cricket world, non-executive positions - presidents, chairmen - come through an electoral process, which rarely throws up the best possible candidate. Pawar became BCCI president that way, as did Giles Clarke.

There were clear signs for months that Howard's candidature was unlikely to go through, but CA chose to ignore them. Cricket South Africa chairman Mtutuzeli Nyoka wrote to David Morgan, the then ICC president, pointing out that an "overwhelming number of directors were opposed to Howard". It was strong letter which accused Morgan of acting unconstitutionally, a charge Morgan denied equally vehemently. And the Sri Lankan board openly said that they would vote against Howard. Cricket Australia was within their rights to stick by their man. Howard himself made a trip to Zimbabwe, another known opponent, to lobby support. Evidently that mission failed.

There is one crucial difference, though. In a political process, even if it is mere posturing, everyone knows who stands for what. In Howard's case, no one, apart from the Sri Lankan board, has articulated the opposition to him. And the Sri Lankan opposition - that Howard came from outside the realm of cricket administration - was so flimsy that it can't be considered a powerful enough argument to disregard a candidate chosen by two members following due process.