My Mumbai still breathing......but burnt and battered.

Mumbai has been under a terror attack yet again. But of a very different nature this time. This was nothing like the multiple blasts that we've witnessed in the past. We were in turmoil for more than 50 long hours, and this was clearly one of our most agonising moments in history. Our NSG commandos, army, navy, and local police have shown exemplary courage amidst all this havoc. Like the news channels rightly pointed out, these are the real brave-hearts of the city, the men who actually put their lives on the line to safeguard us. There can indeed be no greater patriot than the soldier fighting gallantly for his country. And after the men in uniform, I think our media deserves a round of applause. Our correspondents and camera-men have been out there in the danger zone all this while, giving us a relentless, blow-by-blow account of the entire encounter, while we sat back at home and watched with obvious comfort and safety.

As always, we had the mandatory, meaningless speeches made by the politicians, which after a point were infuriating. Empty vessels do make the most noise. Although the politicians were sorely lacking concern for the victims, they did manage to come up with some surprising antics, like portraying a very controversial (and questionable) sense of unity. Amidst all the political drama, the only genuine response came from our security forces. Their anxiously awaited comments were brief and to the point. Unlike the politicians, these men did way more than talk bullshit and stroll around the Taj hotel and J.J. hospital. And of course, we also heard a few passionate lines from some prominent mumbaikars, who perfectly resonated the sentiments of the city.

But amidst all this chaos and mayhem, what we really need to hear is the voice of the common man, the random mumbaikar. How does he feel today? What does he think about this devastation? Isn't he outraged at the alarming frequency and magnitude of these terror attacks? Doesn't he think that our security system is crap, and that our lame politicians are doing a fuck-all job? Doesn't he believe that the inability to avoid, or atleast foresee this massacre is a paramount failure on the part of the administration and the intelligence? Of course, he does. But whats new? Every single time that we witness a reckless episode of terrorism, we're anguished and angered. But the regrettable thing is that as soon as we've dealt with the episode, our anger drastically subsides, and we fail to analyse, or even question what led to such an attack in the first place. We miraculously just put the unfortunate incident behind us and get on with our routine life. If we choose to be this tolerant about terrorism, why gasp in horror when we witness it? The absurd part is that after every major attack on the city, instead of condemning the administration for their lax, mumbaikars applaud themselves for their endurance, for their so-called "spirit". Even our politicians will vouch for the fact that the "spirit" of mumbai never dies. Of course, the mumbaikars dying is an issue that they don't really work upon. Get my point? This over-rated "spirit" of ours is an utterly romantic version connived at covering up the flaws of the politicians. While it is remarkable that our spirit is not subdued by the psycho-activities of a handful of terrorists, it is daft of us to be this resilient and simply carry on with our routine, foolishly assuming that such barbaric attacks of terrorism will not recur. Of course, they will! What the hell are we thinking? Or are we? How much longer before we realize that by not protesting against these attacks, we are dangerously provoking them. By being so submissive, we are inviting, if not exactly breeding terrorism in our city. How can we possibly allow such a bold assault on our city, on us, go unquestioned and then fantasize that it won't repeat? That is extreme stupidity. We are damned if we just normalize again. We are damned if we think things couldn't get any worse. And we are damned if we still talk about our "spirit".

We need to evoke a united response, an organised mass movement. Solitary, sporadic reactions will not do. Instead of coming up with a pathetic, "Why me?" , or a selfish, "Thank God, it wasn't me." , we Indians need to come up with a dignified and resolute, "It WON'T be us again." That said, we need to actively do something about it. We should know better than to think that our netas will take the initiative. They won't budge unless we DEMAND. So, demand we will. Foolproof security ought to be the first on our list. The politicians had better assure us that we can walk fearlessly in our city, unless they're game for a revolt from the masses. Also, some serious ground level changes will have to be demanded. We have to realize that any significant change in our country is not possible without the efforts of our police department. Therefore, undue skepticism towards them should be done with. Their contribution in our society should be readily acknowledged, and they should be motivated to strive harder. Forget not, that these are the men who really defend us, the ultimate regulators of law and order in our society. Without them, even our judicial system would be helpless. Let us learn therefore, to put our hands together for the men in khaki.

And let us learn, not to make the men in white our perennial scapegoats. For goodness' sake, we've got to stop blaming the politicians for everything that goes wrong in the country. True, they are responsible for most of it, but we are the ones who elected them in the first place. So we are much more accountable for this mess than they are. Instead of just lamenting over them, lets do something more constructive, like say, building up some pressure over them so that attacks like these are not taken lightly, or forgotten easily. We have to make the politicians realize how aware we are of their failures. We need to emphasize the point that they are constantly under public scrutiny, and that their screw-ups will be anything but overlooked by the masses. The press is always at our disposal to assert our opinion regarding the administrative failure. How many of us have ever written a letter to the editor? It is a supremely effective way of communicationg our displeasure and anger to the administration.

It won't suffice to sit back and watch the drama unfold. Its time to intervene. And we ought to begin NOW. We can't afford to wait another 150 years before we fight back terrorism. We have to snap out of the mentality that a common man can't do anything significant to change the current scenario. If you think you're just an ordinary man, fine. Start with some ordinary activities. Follow the news closely. Be vigilant when in public places. Look out for any odd or out of place objects, or suspicious characters, and report these promplty. If you wish to bring something to public attention, write to the feedback column of various newspapers, and also read these regularly. In case of a natural calamity, or a disaster like the one we're currently facing, go to your nearest govt. hospital and donate blood. It will be a huge relief in this time of bloodshed. If you're financially well-endowed, donate some money as well. The funds are always welcome, especially after such a major crisis. If you're a celebrity and have the added advantage of charisma, make yourself useful. Give meaningful interviews to create public awareness about political issues. If you're in the media, make a documentary. If you're in the press itself, even better. Be honest and expose the hypocrisy in our system. Write rhetoric articles and motivate the masses, compel them to think. If you're a teacher, you have an excellent opportunity to mould the young minds. Inculcate a sense of national pride and patriotism in them. If you're a college student, organise debates over political themes. If you are a prominet figure with some political clout, pull a few strings to get some purposeful things done. Any chance you're an MLA, get your lousy ass into action. If doing any of this still seems like a fantasy to you, never mind. Atleast see to it that your kids, elderly members of the family are well-informed about our national issues, your maid even.

And finally, we need to fight the enemy within. We have to think of ourselves and of our fellow countrymen as INDIANS FIRST, before we think of ourselves as Maharashtrians or mumbaikars. If we remain so engrossed in internal discriminations, how can we ever succeed at fighting external threats? What is really needed is not a change of leadership, but an intense sense of national unity. The persistence of internal conflicts in our nation implies deep-rooted problems in our society, which will have to be tackled in a civilized manner. We have to learn to communicate our differences calmly, and then come to mutually acceptable decisions. Riots are never the solution. The indiscriminate finger-pointing and blame-game will have to end as well. We need to keep in mind the bigger picture (read national peace and security), and zealously work our way towards it. Old prejudices and orthodox systems will have to be discarded. Ancient doctrines will have to be replaced by modern ones. The begining of a new era has to be heralded by a new ideology. We first need to ensure that our infrastructure is not crippled with corruption and caste system, that we are not biased towards any region or religion, that we truly are a secular and democratic nation. And when we've effectively dealt with all our internal differences, only then can we defeat the enemy outside. It is ultimately, all in the mind. The battle must be won before it is fought. VANDE MATARAM.

MADE FOR EACH OTHER?

Marriages, they say, are made in heaven. Thankfully, the marriage counsellors and divorce attorneys are found on earth. Recent statistics assert that divorce rates are increasing alarmingly. And although it is unreasonable to say that this is a constructive trend, it would be unfair to call it entirely negative. On one side ofcourse, it reflects a lack in our emotional stability, our immaturity at dealing with and maintaining long-term relations. But along with this fickleness of our nature, the divorce statistics also depict a change in our otherwise narrow mindset. Divorce is no longer a taboo or a social stigma, irrespective of one's gender. Being a divorcee doesn't imply that the individual is the object of mass speculation, or some sort of an outcaste. The social acceptance of divorcees has significantly improved. I believe this change is for the better. But this is not really the point that I wanna make.

My concern is that inspite of the striking increase in divorce rates, there are still plenty of couples who are stuck in a loveless, meaningless marriage that was never meant to be in the first place. More precisely, they 'choose' to remain stuck in such a marriage. Its not even a marriage of convenience. Yet most of them never dare to divorce. Its like some sort of a complusion - once you get into it, you 'have to' remain in it. I've heard this statement more than once, and I've heard unbelievably insane reasons to back it up. Either our species is too damn emotional, or we just don't have the balls to file for a divorce.

A few unfortunate ones do not divorce because they are financially dependent on their spouses. Surprising as this may sound, it is actually pretty common. These are mostly women, ex-working women actually, who became house-wives at the insistence of their chauvinist husbands. Mostly confined to the household affairs, their social network is pretty restricted. They rarely go for outings with their friends, infact they are not in touch with most of their friends. Worse still, they are not even in tune with their own wants and needs. You will spot them occasionally at social gatherings, where they obediently tag along with their husbands, exchange polite greetings with the host and then kill time while their husbands are busy mingling with the guests. You'll find the poor woman waiting patiently at the same spot even at the end of the party, while her husband gulps his last drink and has his last guffaw for the night. I find these women extremely timid, and stupid. They don't have to continue with life like that. But they continue to do so, all the while firmly believing that they don't have any other option. BUT THEY DO.

They can firmly put their foot down, and resist the drab routine. Instead they simply surrender hands down. It has always been my firm belief that each person is responsible for the mess he or she is in. Nobody deserves sympathy. Yet I feel very sorry for such women. Observe them closely, and you can sense how unfulfilled they are. They are always cravinging for their husband's love, longing for his appreciation. They are emotionally starved and usually have nobody to confide into. They seek solace in their kids, but kids can be very thoughtless at times. Besides, teenage kids are always more fascinated by their friends, than by their family. With time, these women lose all sense of self-esteem and often question their own worth. Clinical depression is what inevitably follows. And that is far worse than it sounds.

Another type of marriage is a very peculiar one, wherein the couples spend extended intervals of time away from each other. It is obviously owing to the professional requirements of one of the spouses. The marriage typically looks very well co-ordinated, which it is. The couple meets once in 4-6 months, they give each other an account of the major happenings around them, hang out together a coupla times, and then part for good for another 4- 6 months. They seem to be in perfect harmony, so the question of divorce doesn't arise at all. Except that they are not in love, they don't miss each other during their prolonged periods of absence, nor do they attempt to stay in touch during that time. They are not really working at maintaining their marriage, and they are absolutely not involved with or attached to their spouse. Ironically, the only reason their marriage is working out so well, is because they see each other so infrequently. Its not like they are too mature to fight. Fact is they are too aloof to even talk! They have so much space in their relation, that it turns into distance. Their emotional distance is perfectly commensurate with their geographical distance. Oddly, their mutual understanding is paramount. To the point that if they were to divorce, it would be extremely amicable. The only reason that they refrain from doing so, is that a divorce would be way too tedious. So they would much rather stay in the 'arrangement' and carry on individually with their respective lives.

Theres the other vast majority of couples that claim that they are in the marriage just for the sake of their kids. They do not want their kids to bear the brunt of a divorce, or so they say. But the sad fact that they often over-look is that kids are prone to much more damage when staying in a hostile environment, where the parents are constantly at loggerheads. Most adults have no idea what that does to a kid's sensitive psyche. And all this in the name of their kids' best interests. Quite frankly, these couples continue to remain in the marriage not for the sake of their kids, but because they are not bold enough to get out of it. And at some level they too are aware of this. The kids are only a lame excuse for their own fear, anxiety and apprehension concerning a divorce. Come on, which adult with a sound judgement is unaware of the fact kids brought up in a quarrelsome domestic atmosphere tend to be cynical about long-term relations and marriages? Atleast with single parenting, the kid gets some much needed peace of mind. And somewhere at the back of his mind, he nutures a hope for the possibility of a healthy relation in his future. Instead, when the kid sees his parents stuck in a strained marriage, he subconsciously develops a skeptical attitude towards marriages specifically, and long-term reations in general. In an extreme scenario, the kid might turn into a promiscuous adult, or he might have an aversion just to the idea of getting intimate with the opposite sex.

Actually even without kids or any financial dependency, there are a sizeable number of people who are reluctant to divorce, some owing to the emotional crisis that a divorce entails, some because they had married against their parents' wishes, some due to a kind of social obligation to their in-laws, and some just. An incredible number of couples refuse to divorce inspite of having more than good reason to do so. Marriage seems to have a kind of inertia. Ending a marriage is a drastic step which has many hinderances. The strongest inhibiting factor ofcourse lies within the individual himself or herself. Even when a person has a dozen valid reasons to end a marriage, he or she is still in a dilemma whether to divorce or not. I'm perplexed by this attitude. Seems like we adhere to the routine so much, we're almost afraid to act differently. Doesn't matter even if the routine is just not working out, or its filled with a truckload of crap. We're just too scared to start all over again. Understandably, the 'fear of the unknown' is very daunting, so we prefer being on familiar grounds. And divorce has an additional fear - the 'fear of being alone'. Its a natural tendency [a protective mechanism actually] to be scared to to do something different, especially when we are alone. The innate fear factor never really ceases to haunt the human mind. And its so over-whelming that we simply lose all logic. Another factor that makes us reluctant to divorce is our complex thinking. Men generally regard marriage as a social symbol of their success, while women perceive their marital status as a security blanket. So letting go is not something that is appealing to either one. What further aggravates this situation is that when people actually give a serious thought to divorce, well meaning relatives and friends inadvertently discourage them, and try their best to talk them out of it. Read that as brainwash, browbeat, and even emotionally blackmail them. For the miscellaneous well-wisher, contemplating divorce is just NOT DONE whilst you're [happily?] married!

More importantly, the reluctance to divorce points towards the emotional dependency on the spouse at a subconscious level. This is directly proprotional to the number of years a couple has been married. Also, we are typically plagued by denial. Most people are unable to accept the fact that they made a wrong choice regarding one of the most momentous decisions of their life. It shows us too sharply the error in our judgement. Or perhaps, the judgement was correct, but we weren't tough enough to follow through. For many of us, this is a direct blow to our ego. It takes one considerable time and cool-headed retrospection to come to terms with this. Unfortunately, most of us always tend to justify our actions, instead of accepting our mistakes and drawbacks. The 'blame game' is very common among egocentric couples. The other extreme ofcourse, are couples who are so consumed by guilt, that in their desperation to rectify their mistakes, they continue to stay in the marriage even against their better judgement.

But again, divorce should not be used as an escape-route at the slightest marital distress. And it should never be threatened just to manipulate the marriage. Divorce is without doubt, a drastic step which presumably has some very harsh effects on the individuals involved, as well as on their kids and immediate families. And especially when kids are involved, by all means, every effort should be made to make the marriage work. If it still doesn't work out, then utmost care should be taken to see that the divorce doesn't get ugly. And even with all due precautions taken, one should still expect some emotional trauma to the kids. In due course of time, the damage may or may not be repaired. Still, I do think that the damage caused by divorce is much less than that caused by belligerent couples. In a marriage, its imperative to know when to try harder and when to walk away. Sometimes, its best to argue the toss.

FATHER OF THE NATION???

Talk about India's struggle for independence, and one of the many names that comes to our mind is Mahatma Gandhi. Think of him, and you'll end up thinking of 'satyagraha' by default. That excessively hyped and somewhat inefficient freedom movement which is synonymous with Gandhi, has been applauded in India and abroad alike. But I suppose it was applauded more by the British officials of that era, because they realized the futility of it long before any of us were able to comprehend the absurdity of it. Sure it was a unique idea, and to be fair, it did have some impact on our freedom movement. But it should have been used strictly as a temporary technique. We should have resorted to violence way back. After all, we did call it our 'fight' for freedom, didn't we?

I'm far from being a Gandhi fan. Infact, I've always been skeptical about his relevance in our independence, and this statement has never failed to raise an eyebrow. But then India is a democratic country and I'm making legitimate use of my freedom of speech here. I've always thought that Gandhi was way too saintly to be a freedom-fighter. Either that, or he was one hell of a shrewd politician. The kind of calm that he portrayed has always surprised me. And Gandhi might be doing a gigantic somersault in his grave right now, but there are certain things which can only be done with a vengence, with violence.

I'm aware that Gandhi had his own set of ideas, and his own idea of idealism. But somehow, his fundas have never appealed to me. He made too big a deal of violence. And in the bargain, he failed to see what strategy would truly be in the best interest of the nation. Instead, he put his own set of rigid principles above everything else and led the nation through a tedious and languid freedom struggle. True, his principles were noble, perhaps even exemplary. But honestly, it was not the need of the hour. And if satyagraha were indeed the way to win freedom, wonder what inspires our soldiers to fight so gallantly. Actually, I wonder what our soldiers would opine of satyagraha as the way to bring about a major reform. And back then, we were talking of the most significant reform in our political history.

With all due respect to Gandhi, the fact that satyagraha managed to become such a popular freedom movement had more to do with Gandhi's brainwashing speeches and ardent fan-following, than with a significant effect from the movement itself. Like I said before, the man was too virtuous to be a freedom fighter in the real sense of the term. He had a knack of opposing every suggested freedom strategy on the pretext of violence. And when he chose to be manipulative, he would simply go on a hunger strike. Despite the fact that he was a hardcore follower of non-violence, Gandhi did have a striking resemblance with the infamous dictator of Germany. Hitler passionately killed people, while Gandhi killed the peoples' passion. Paradoxical as it may sound, non-violence did cause some serious damage here. I just feel that our posterity should have been instructed on non-violence and idealism 'after' we had achieved our independence.

One of Gandhi's most controversial action was the withdrawal of the NonCo-operation movement following the Chauri-Chaura incident. His philosophy, once again was morally correct. But he was not justified in overriding the sentiments and the unanimous opinion of a vast majority owing to the 'crime of passion' commited by a handful of people. He ardently stood by his principles, but unfortunately failed to see the larger picture once again. And he wasn't exactly subtle when he declared to the masses that the freedom movement ought to be strictly in compliance with his principles, or he would abandon it. Which is precisely what he did in this case.

Gandhi undoubtedly, had a major impact on our freedom struggle. And having the kind of charisma and influence that he did on the masses, I feel he had an obligation to carry out the freedom struggle with greater responsibility and more foresight. For instance, a tad more flexibility on his part would have gone a long way in avoiding the major rift between the Moderates and the Extremists. Little did Gandhi realize that he actually ended up aiding the British policy of 'divide and rule'. Or perhaps a little more thought by him on the technique of satyagraha would have definitely avoided its backfire that we currently face in the form of transport strikes, hunger strikes in factories and so on.

Whats really grating is that Gandhi was so obssessed about non-violence and tolerance, that he urged the people to go on hunger strikes, wherein a good many of them succumbed, including some prominent ones. What is the logic in starving oneself to death when you might as well eat the food, gain the energy, and plan some other meaningful strategy? And whats unnerving is that given the gravity of the situation, Gandhi continued to believe that the way to achieve independence was to sit calmly on the roads with a handful of posters, some whacky slogans, and an open invitation for lathi charge. He vehemently opposed the rebellious strategies of the extremists, which were infact the dire need of the moment. And despite his resistance at taking any drastic measures against the British officials, he gave the supremely conflicting slogan 'do or die'.

Personally, I feel that the tactics of the extremists were far more savvy to deal with the situation that we had at hand. Satyagraha was decidedly not helping. What leaders like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose did by forming the Indian National Army was what was actually needed. The Swarajya movement by Dadabhai Navroji and the Home Rule movement by Tilak proved to be extremely efficient, as did the activities of the trio extremists Lal, Bal, Pal. The assassinaion of Saunders by Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, the subsequent bombing of the Central Assembly by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, the raid on the Chittaging armoury by Surya Sen and the formation of the Indian Republic Army by him are some of the very commendable and influential activities that took place in that era. Interestingly, all these activities were not just opposed, but condemned by Gandhi. And it was the hanging of these very freedom fighters by the British officials that led to a large scale revolt and agitation among the masses. Clearly, the masses did not fail to see what Gandhi did.

Whats really regrettable is that even after all these years post independence, we continue to glorify one man as the 'father of the nation', thereby grossly undermining the significant contribution of the other freedom fighters. Sure, satyagraha makes a good topic for a hot debate, and sure, it makes great material for our history texts. But 'ahinsa' should be confined strictly to our ashrams. To expect that we can can overthrow over a 100 years of colonisation by being eccentric about following non-violence and portraying our exemplary tolerance levels is daft, to put it mildly. If you dare to become a freedom 'fighter', that is exactly what you're expected to do - fight. And theres bound to be bloodshed there. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose hit the nail on the head when he said the historic words, "Tum mujhe khoon do, main tumhe aazadi dunga."

MIND OVER MAKE-UP

The glossy cover-page of a popular fashion magazine read in bold letters 'white invisible foundation and concealer'. For added effect, the close-up of a ravishing model with inescapably 'visible' make-up adorned the page. I looked at the woman reading the magazine. She was engrossed in it, leafing through it painfully slowly. And she was so caked up that the word that came to my mind upon seeing her was 'abuse' i.e. make-up abuse.

What struck me about the ad was that they were propagating the product claiming it would be easily camouflaged. The keyword was 'invisible'. Why advertise a fashion product with the catch-line suggesting that it was too subtle to be noticed - almost to the point of being imperceptible? Thats a crafty way of suggesting that women need to keep their vanity secrets strictly under wraps. And its cleverly aimed to hit at atleast two of the many facets of a woman; one - she is too self-conscious to go without make-up, and second - she is too proud to admit that she uses make-up. I suppose a woman's caprices do add to her charm. But take that with a pinch of salt.

To be candid, I've always looked at fashion magazines and make-up kits with disparage. I find it deplorable that in contemporary society, glamour is unduly over-rated and simplicity under-stated. Most fashion magazines are stressing on the inane age factor, giving tips about how to capture beauty and how to increase our sex appeal, thereby deviously suggesting that we are grossly lacking both. Whats interesting is that they always omit the part which mentions what potential harm the crappy chemicals in their products could do, or how addictive it could possibly get, or how it alters a woman's persona and leaves her susceptible to self-doubts. My opinion - they should be charged for recklessly advertising such trash.

I've never been the fashion conscious or glamour oriented types. I have neither the interest, nor the inclination for such triviality. I'm satisfied with my modest looks, and apart from the usual waxing and threading (so that I don't end up looking Neanderthal), there is little else I bother with. On occasions when I wanna pamper myself or experiment a bit, I do indulge in a touch of kajal or eye-liner. Max a dab of gloss. Thats as far as it goes. I'm not obssesive about being caked up 24 X 7. And I don't shriek at the thought of being seen without make-up at an event. I know I'm nowhere near being picture perfect. But I also know that my minor skin flaws do not make me look hideous, neither do they warrant the need for excessive make-up. I'm comfortable in my own skin and I'm confident about being me. I'll bet that no fashion magazine or glamour guru could have taught me that, nor can they change that about me. For me, looking good isn't half as important as carrying yourself well. If you've ever seen a decked up woman strutting around with a self-conscious and awkward body language, you'll know exactly what I mean. I believe its not whats on the outside that matters, its whats on the inside that counts. Its called confidence.

I'm not exactly averse to fashion and glamour, but for some reason I just can't adapt to them. I like being me. And by me, I mean simple and casual. I detest being a painted doll. Ofcourse I like to deck up for parties and outings. But for me, dressing up isn't synonymous with going on a painting spree! I may be a mediocre artist, but I sure know how to distinguish between make-up and face painting! Besides I prefer dressing up commensurate with the occasion. I'm not crazy enough to go to the cinema decked up like I'm attending a marriage on one of Ekta Kapoor's sets! Thankfully, I'm free of the much hyped peer pressure or paranoia affecting teens and adults alike.

I can't comprehend why any person in their right mind would want to smudge themselves with layers of make-up in an attempt to 'look good'. Wonder why the 'look good' factor is suddenly the be all and end all of our existence. The 'feel good' factor has arguably lost all significance. The main problem here is fanatic-lunatic advertising which leaves too many level-headed women vying for a stereotyped look. Ingenuty doesn't exist, and individuality is already a lost concept. We try too hard to fit in with the crowd, when we are originally designed to stand out.

Our glam industry is relentlessly coming up with newer and more bizzare products to make us look virtually celestial. Our sinfully gorgeous celebrities spike the cosmetic sales by inadvertently signing up as their brand ambassadors. The fashion magazines are screaming about beauty being skin deep, and even our better qualified dermatologists are zealously backing them up. Sadly, the commom man has been programmed to judge solely by appearances, and the good old saying about looks being deceptive has long since been tossed out of the window. The word 'beauty' itself is cliched. It no longer lies in the eyes of the beholder. It is simply belied by the artistic skills of the said object of observation

On a more considerate [and less realistic] note, may be glamour isn't all about being superficial. May be glam dolls don't shed their confidence at the end of the day when they shed their pancakes of make-up. It may just be that all these beauty magazines hitting the stands actually boost a woman's confidence. And may be, just may be that innately beautiful women never feel envious, or never try to immitate all the artificial, unearthly beauty portrayed in these sub-standard magazines.

I guess the concepts of fashion and glamour are either paranormal or esoteric. Many women are slave to them, but instead claim to master them. These are the prima donnas and femme fatales of our society. They make much revered style statements and pass flawless fashion judgements. But the real trend-setters are the nonconformists who are gutsy enough to go without glamour and risk being tagged 'plain janes'. These are the ones who are truly oozing with a rare confidence. They may not be beautiful in the conventional sense, but they are bold enough to ascertain and assert their feminity. The unabashed woman of substance CARES NOT, to be called a diva. for she DARES, not to be one. Way to go Woman!

A MEMORIAL SERVICE

It was early noon on an unusual February day. Unusual, because it was exceptionally pleasant for winter in Russia. Pleased with myself for leaving the hospital early, I leisurely walked back the short distance to my hostel, and couldn't help smiling at the pale winter sunshine. It wasn't long before spring would be here and the campus always looked lovely at that time of the year. As I approached my hostel, I saw a huge gathering just outside the university entrance. Curious, I walked up to see what was going on. After a few minutes of debate and confusion amongst the students, one of our senior professors solemnly informed us that the head of our pediatric department had passed away. It was then that I realized I was in fact standing in her impromptu memorial service.

Looking around, I spotted my rommie, who also happened to take a detour on her way to the hostel. Before long, the rector was speaking in memory of the deceased, but being at the outer end of the crowd meant that his passionate speech was almost inaudible to me. Not quite knowing what to do next, I just stood there and scanned the crowd. Everybody wore a grave look, but their body language gave them away. Tapping their feet rhythmically, they conveyed their boredom unawares.

I turned to look at my roomie and was surprised to find her looking back at me. She shot me an inquiring glance, suggesting subtly that perhaps we could leave. Somehow, I could not leave. I guess most of the students gathered wanted to leave, but all stood rooted to their spots. And the only thing that stopped us from leaving was our own inertia. It was just a question of who dared to leave first. The rest of us would invariably judge him and eventually follow suit. So was I afraid of being judged, or was I infact afraid of leading the crowd? Interesting conflict.

Perplexed as I often am by my thoughts, I shifted uncomfortably from one foot to the other, and finally went and stood next to my roomie. Neither of us said anything, and I picked up my trail of thoughts where it had last stopped. It must be something to do with the 'respect for the dead', I feebly told myself. But I wasn't convinced. Mildly irritated with myself, I continued to scan the crowd.

My irritation probably stemmed from the fact that I knew I was paying an ingenuine tribute. Just like everybody else. Our evolved species is always so immersed in pretending to be who we are not, that we don't really know who we are anymore. We consciously seek out our pretences and subconsciously master them till we've inhibited all our natural responses. We've sort of twisted Socrates' words - 'Be as you wish to Seem'

Why this obsessive-compulsive need to pretend? Why do we try so vehemently to portray ourselves as we are not, and simultaneously deny the counterfeit? Why do we stubbornly refuse to be ourselves? What are we so afraid of? Being judged? Being different? Being less acceptable in society?

The shrill sound of a distant siren reverted me to the memorial. What on earth was I doing there? Why was I continuing to engage myself in a self-deceptive act despite my deductions? And what right did I have to condemn those present when I wasn't any different from them? I stood there mindlessly like everybody else - too pretentious to walk away, and too proud to admit it.

Almost involuntarily, I tapped my roomie lightly on her shoulder and suggested that we leave. Her brows knitted together momentarily, but she nodded in approval. We left the memorial amongst indiscreet whispers and a few derisive stares. But I couldn't have cared less. There was a thin line between being compassionate and pretending to be compassionate. If anything, I knew I was on the right side of the line. As we walked back together, each lost in our own thoughts, I tried to figure out why did the memorial stir me so? Was it because of my obvious lack of compassion at another's loss? Or the practiced lack of a genuine response?

I finally reached my hostel - rich with an experience I'm yet to decipher, but not without the minutest streak of dejection. Something vague made me feel uneasy, almost guilty. I went around doing the mundane chores mechanically, while still pondering over the memorial and feeling delinquent. I had succeeded in being honest, but what about being humane? Didn't that count as well? I guess there's good reason we're never meant to witness our own memorial. Sometimes, ignorance IS bliss.

APPRECIATION

A brilliant mind once said that if you want to be remembered even after you're gone,do something worth writing or write something worth reading. And he knew exactly what he was talking about. As I ponder over this, Im surprised to realize that it all boils down to the one basic and much understated human need - appreciation. Whether we are baking a cake for our kids or trying out new recepies for our hubby, treating our friends to their fav restaurant, or meticulously tending to our garden, or simply writing annonymous blogs on abstract ideas, its the appreciation that we are really looking for, or rather asking for.

Most of the times we tend to consciously fool ourselves that the recepients' response is immaterial to us, although on rare occasions we are genuinely unaware of how eagerly we await their response. I guess that our denial of the need for appreciation is based on the subconcsious fear of rejection or the guilt of having an ulterior motive. Lets just say that doing something solely for the joy of doing it is something only the saints and sages can boast of. The rest of us mortals had better accept the fact that we are devoid of this virtue. We crave for a dose of appreciation way more than we would like to believe. Imagine a young lover who gifts his lady a lovely flower, but is met by a cool indifference. Any guesses what happens the next time said lover has an opportunity to present a gift? By my reckoning, there simply wont be a next time. Its vaguely on the lines of Newton's 3rd law. Every well-meant and selfless act of ours needs to be met with heartfelt appreciation. Think about it- our joy stems not just from the act itself, but from the acknowlegement of that act, from the appreciation of the effort. Ironic as it may seem, self-satisfaction is too intricately woven with appreciation.

Writers are no different. It doesnt matter whether they are amateurs or professionals. They write because they have the urge,the skill and ofcourse, the will to write. A sporadic writer friend of mine [thats the way he likes to call himself] once said to me that he writes only for himself, solely for the sake of writing. But at the same time he bears in mind that it has to be something that the reader can relate to. I like his funda, although im not entirely convinced by him. What beats me is that if we are indeed writing only for ourselves,why are we not satisfied by merely writing a personal diary? Why do we publish books or put up blogs? Why do we care to read the readers' comments? Why is the critics' approval our ultimate pride? What is it that truly motivates us, moves us? Sure, its the power of the pen that compels us. But deep down, its the promise of appreciation that propels us. Honestly speaking, none of us nurtures a magnanimous desire to write regardless of the feedback. Believe it or not, its our passion to be noticed even as amateurs, an ambition to achieve excellence and win appreciation, or perhaps its just our humble desire to be appreciated even if we do not excel.

Secrets....

Face to face,but miles away
So much to speak,but unable to say.

Distant memories in the sands of time forever lost,
Like the ground hidden beneath the winter frost.

Bit by bit the story shall unfold,
But secrets of this heart still remain untold.