SO MUCH SO FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The Indian IT act

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.,Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device:
  (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;

To my Friends:

I being a law abiding citizen hereby declare that anything offensive directly or indirectly implied against me, will end in a case being registered against you. Commenting on my photo other than praising me will be considered offensive. I will take offence to even appreciating me sarcastically. Commenting on my posts without liking it is offending me.

Sharing my posts knowingly and unknowingly to people I don’t not like and appreciate, will be grossly offensive to me and is menacing my character causing my enemies to appreciate my genius. As I want them to think of my character as an idiot or not.  Not appreciating my genius is anyways offensive to me.

Any status updates or photos you put on the internet, where you are partying and I was not invited is in all the way grossly offensive to me. Your posts of your fancy gismos and new expensive stuff will be considered menacing my character – it portrays me as a lesser species. Your portrayal in bad taste to anything (absolutely anything) in your status updates is offensive to me, as it just happens to be my favorite.  Similarly if you appreciate anything in your communique is still offensive to me as I happen to hate it.

Finally emailing or messaging me to attend your or your sisters weeding is very offensive- I might have a heart for her and you are just not breaking but stomping on it. I will for surely register a complaint.

To My Managers:

Any email communication or messages of any kind asking me to work late or on weekends is very grossly offensive to me. It menaces my character in its entirety by hinting to me that I am a slave at your command. Emailing me about work is also offensive as it suggests that I am not aware of my duties. This also menaces the character of all my colleagues who are on bench portraying me as better than them in dosing this particular task. It goes similarly for not emailing me work items and sending it to my colleagues; offending me by implying that I am not good at doing the task.

Thank you for the law, government.

SO MUCH SO FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.

‘Where they burn books, there they won’t shy from burning people’.

Everyone dreads change, and people will go too great extends to avoid it. However they try they have to change, that the irony, the things they do to avoid change is change in itself. Especially we see that cultures and religions do not want to adapt.  Mostly cultures in homo-sapiens are passed from one generation to another. A new generation comes with change in thought; and technology brings in new ideas. With this new ideas and thoughts there is always a clash with the older generation. The new generation will win eventually when the older dies. However they are then confronted with the next generation of thoughts. It is a never ending cycle.

The problem as I see is that we are trained culturally to follow rather than think. Even so, in most cultures whatever knowledge that is there is not freely available for following. You need to be in a certain sect or cast to have access to this knowledge. Common examples are bhramins in India or priest in the western country. There is this fundamental problem in following, that cultures where formed so that knowledge could be passed from one generation to another. But not all could access it.

In the last 50 years we have seen the world getting more connected. Information passes from one end of the world to the other in matter of seconds. New discoveries adopted and assimilated very quickly today.  Since world war 2 the world has become a more free thinking world. But some cultures still do not want to change. They oppress men, women and eventually progress in their region. In the name of culture or religion, free thought is not allowed, your opinions do not matter and violence is preferred over fair debate. In most cases it is one person whose philosophy is followed by a bunch of followers since most do not want or lack the knowledge to form their own opinion. Then again we have been brought up to follow the system and not question it. Most parents teach their children to follow their culture and not question it, if questioned the all you hear in counter is that it has been this way for generations. Hence most of us seek leaders and gurus whom we can follow, we don’t want to come to conclusions ourselves.

I have seen this happen in most political scenarios, if you question the logic of a leader. They will start with a debate on it. If they have the slightest feeling that you might be right, they won’t change their opinion. But call you name and try to prove how you are not a credible person or how your character or personality is immoral. If their agenda still threatened by your ideology, they will resort to violence.  In most cases such leaders gain mass following not because they want to bring in change but are opposed to change that is happening and want to prevent it. Hence political parties can gain mileage by making religion, language or culture as their agenda.

Most political party agendas are based on vote politics and not progress. However it works that in every personal hidden agenda every voter wants and needs some visible progress. But political party formed on philosophies of saving culture and religion rarely do good to the country and humanity at large. Mainly because any opinion; other than the main leaders opinion is met with violence. I would like to restate Heinrich Heine [ Almansor: A Tragedy (1823)],’where they burn books, there they won’t shy from burning people’.

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.

Why be Spiritual?

Will our actions be clear when our mind in clean? 
Or our mind clear when our action is moderated?
Are we spiritual to clear our sins or to avoid them?
Then why being spiritual we still sin, lie? 
So why be spiritual at all? 

Always have something to hide, that others need not know.
But then why hide from others if we are not doing anything wrong?
Then why be spiritual at all if we do wrong?
Is it so that we can sin and know we will be forgiven, so that we can sin a little bit more?

Then why be spiritual at all if you know you will not follow.

Sometimes I surprise myself

I like to sketch mainly because I cannot paint. I am not as good with colours as I am with the pencil. This sketch here is part of Michelangelo’s ‘creation of Adam’, it is the hand gesture in the painting that had always fascinated me. So one day I thought of drawing it myself, this is my version. When I completed it I was so fascinated with it and surprised I could sketch that good. I literally stared at the sketch for 15 minutes.

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.

Dream a Little More

Let me dream a little more,

Let me sleep till I hit the shore

I am drifting in this ocean

Trying to find the way back home.

Let me sleep a little more

Till I find that prefect moment

So I know this is the dream,

I have been waiting for.

Let me not forget the dream,

Let me remember it as I have seen

But do not wake me as yet

There is lot of evil in the world.

Now as I lay on the bed

Wide awake but eyes closed

Not ready to face this world

Wakeup and face the world

Comes this voice in my head

That your dream is just a dream

Finish the dream and make it real

But there are just a few good people here

Who dream, who dream, who dream.

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.

What is your point?

Somehow it is in my nature that I can argue on both sides of a discussion. I am writing this as
sometimes I have been accused that I do not have a side and I oppose everything that others have
to say. This is not entirely false and I am guilty to some extent. To summarise the apparent question
then, “why?” let me quote Mr. Unknown - “no conversation is more boring than the one where
everybody agrees.”

Let us say 2 guys are discussing which profession is more dignified, being a prostitute, a porn star
or a politician? The first person says “hmmm I think prostitutes are more dignified” and the other
says “ya ya I too think that”. Now that both agree, they move on to discuss something else. Unless
one of them ask “why do you think so?” You as a third person listing to them are left with a big
void, “but why?” especial when you believe otherwise. The inevitable “why?” in such a case depends
on the mood of the participants and their interest in the topic. However when one person opposes
the other it is given that the “why?” is implied.

If you want to get a new prospective on any subject, even though you agree with the other person,
you have to learn to oppose them. Now the odds are stacked against you. If you want to keep the
interest of the group in the debate, you need to have very strong points to back your claims. In most
cases I do have and it is difficult to do so, especially when you personally believe the opposite is
true. This has helped me a lot, in broadening my knowledge gaining other persons perspective and
establishing an image for myself that- I just oppose all that others say.

I do not want the credit for this concept, our parliament has been doing this for ages. For long I
thought the minority party in the parliament are called “Opposition Party” because they are paid to
be in office to oppose everything good or bad. Their agenda is “I oppose you, though I agree with
you. I have an image to keep.”

Great Ideas and philosophies are results of great debates and discussion groups. There are many
examples of these, one famous is the Oxford pub “The Eagle and the Child”. The Rabbit room, were
now well know authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R Tolkien sat and exchanged stories and idea. I have
never been to Calcutta but the Bengalis famous for their debates (and communism) have such
a place called “the Coffee House”. Sadly the new generation have short attention spans and an
inherent hate for conversation and debate other than online- forums. Thus this culture of debate
and exchange of ideas is slowly dying. However the good thing is they do not have to depend on
other for their source and for a different perspective to their though. They have a friend that knows
all called the Internet.

Why Not Anna!!

“Like men, like state” said Plato and true he is. When Anna started his agitation against corruption, it was the first thing that came to my mind. The Anna brigade has been fighting corruption like it is some diseases and it can be eradicated with medicine, in this case the Lok Pal bill.  He could not be more wrong and that is my opinion. I know saying this will make me unpopular, guys will give me names, call me un-patriotic and so on; but like a girl in love these people are thinking with their hear and not head.

In a democratic country everyone has a right to his/her opinion, if I am not to mine, we are not democratic – and this is the first form of corruption in our country. I agree with Voltaire the French philosopher when he says “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” And I ask you this question; do we in India have the right to speak openly?? Where a farmer is imprisoned for questioning, books are burnt and removed from syllabus for their opinion and women molested for their dressing style.

Humans are by nature very corrupt and moreover corruption is a part of our culture. We can see corruption in every nook and corner in our country not just in the government offices. We expect everyone else around us to be saints but we don’t mind breaking the law.

 You may ask me why I believe our culture is corrupt, and it depends on the definition of the word corruption. The basic and widely accepted definition is “the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so”, now I might be wrong but this was what I have seen:

·         Most couples prefer male child – female foeticide
·         Women are torched and murdered for dowry
·         If the cops are not around it is ok to break the law
·         Most want their work done first- no queues
·         Most will pay a bribe than a fine
·         We will bargain even if the price is fixed- according to the definition this is corruption
·         We have the north Indians and the south Indians –  you will be favoured if the person in authority is from your cast, region or speak a common language.
·         We do not vote for political parties agenda, but on what the person standing for election can do for the individual voting.
·         We are highly cast based
·         Media and political parties taking advantage of people’s general despair

They are not just problem with Indians, it is a global phenomenon and varies in degree from country to country, but being corrupt is human nature. So coming back to Plato “like men, like state”, the nature, the personality and the dealing of the state is the refection of the nation. It is the mirror image of the people in it; these countrymen whose behaviour in turn is influenced by the social and cultural environment within. If the country had few bad people we would have had few occurrences of corruption. Now that each and every public project has varied degree of corruption; how corrupt the thought of each individual has to be?

I support Anna for he wants a better nation, I want a better nation, a better world. But I do not support the method in which he wants this done. By introducing a committee of non government civilian, we are only introducing just another layer of corrupt people there. As humans are corrupt by nature we shall find different ways to still be corrupt. Though I agree that this might reduce corruption but not completely eradicate it.  We can achieve this by- all of us being a little less corrupt ourselves or making and implementing the laws we have more stringent. Corruption is not a disease, though the media says it is. Corruption is human nature. Corruption is like being lazy, you may introduce laws to make a person less lazy but that will not change his lethargic nature.

Then again, how do I trust a neutral committee of people, appointed by the people to police those who in the first place were appointed by the same people they are supposed to police?

The solution to this, that I could think is ‘similar’ to that what Plato though when he thought about ‘Utopia’. His Idea still stands today!! You may google what it is- I am not explaining it.  But to all intends and purposes it is not a practical solution. 

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.

Whatever is Success??

What is success? The definition differs from person to person. But true success cannot be defined. Look at the interviews of personalities who are socially accepted as successful and you will find they do not have a formula. Conspiracy theorist and most of us will argue that they just do not want the other to know. I do not believe this to be true, as there is no formula to success and neither is there a definition to it. Let me narrate a story I heard that will best explain this.

When the Greek philosopher Socrates was asked by one of his students, “what is the formula for success?” Socrates asked his student to meet him at the lake the next morning for a bath. When they met at the lake the next morning, he took his student into the lake till the water was neck deep. Then suddenly Socrates jumped on him and held him under water. He being stronger, the student was helpless and struggled in vain to get himself out of the water. After a couple of minutes he let him free. When the student had caught his breath Socrates asked “What is it that you want the most when you were in there?”

“Air” said the student.

“Success is like that air you needed under water. When you need that something the most, you will struggle and fight for it with all your might to have it.”

 I believe there is no definition for success. In this materialistic world we have associated success by the purchasing power a person has or in plain words by how much money he/she has. Today people just want to be famous and rich. Thus the concept of “your 15 minutes of fame” has caught steam this century. Most want to be famous and rich without the needed to excel at something.

 Most of us do not get famous or successful mainly because we set goals for ourselves. I know this is contrary to the general wisdom of all the motivation books of setting a goal, making a plan and following that plan. If you are setting a goal, you do not NEED that what you are aiming for; you just WANT it, it would be good to have. When you need something, like the urge to breathe when you are under water- you are not down there setting a goal like I should learn to swim or reach the top. Your body and mind stop thinking, you just start beating your hands and legs to get whatever air you can.  You can succeed when that need comes into you and then you find a way to get it.

Read autobiographies of any successful personality and you will not find a goal in there. All you will find is zeal, an idea, a need to do whatever, a struggle to achieve it and get better at it. Money is manmade entity, if something is rare on this planet it is worth more. If you are the best in what you do the money will follow you. I do not know who said this but it say a lot “find what you love to do and then go and find someone who will pay you to do that”. In most case if you love to do something and you are good at it, people will find you and pay you to get it done.

So if you set a goal to be someone- you at most will be like that person. Now as there is only one top spot and that has been occupied by that person you idealize, you can only be the second best. The bitter truth is nobody remembers the second best. Name the second man to set foot on the moon?

Cheers,

Ninad Dighe.