Attachment failed

From the very last picture taken of Jithu, days before he fell ill

A few years ago, after the very mundane act of buying shirts, trousers and a belt for my younger brother, we both sat down for chai at a wayside eatery. The chai may have been eminently forgettable but not the memorable discussion we had that contrasted heavily with both the setting and the earlier act of purchases…

My brother, Jithu, startled me with a complaint, “cheTTa you are too attached”. Jolted from intellectual inertia, I asked him what he meant. He grumbled about my being much attached – to my wife, my family, my possessions, possibly my ideas as well (yes, I tend to be deeply opinionated). Trying to sound casual, I asked him why I was supposed to feel guilty about this happy (as it appeared to me) fact. Jithu, by then, was deeply influenced by the ideas and outlook of the spiritual organisation “Brahmakumaris” and sported a badge near his heart that had an insignia of outward-moving red rays like the spread of light from the sun, and the words “Om Shanti” etched on it. Even as an MBA graduate and a person in the sales department of a corporate company, whose sole motive would be profit, he saw no incongruity in professing detachment. I asked him the purpose of this sacrifice he was recommending to me. He said that except the individual’s atma (soul/spirit) everything was mortal and transcient. The soul, he said, has its ultimate goal – being one with the paramatma (Supreme Being). This, he argued, was made easier or facilitated by practising detachment. I was taken aback by his preaching all this to an avowed atheist like me, but I laughed it off and said that I believe only in the truth of my existence which began at my birth and shall end with my death. I would want to live my life with all my attachments intact, I said. As for what happens to my soul/spirit after my death, I continued, I leave it to the soul-traders to do whatever they wish to.

In retrospect, I should admit that I have moved away, ideologically, to somewhat a sense of detachment from the material aspects of life. This is not because of the reasons Jithu gave me, but more with the understanding that they don’t give us much happiness in comparison to the human relationships we share with others. Much against Jithu’s advice, I have doubled my investments (of time and energy) in these beautiful relationships of mine with my wife, my parents, brothers (earlier, brother now), friends and relatives, as also with stray people I meet. I try and understand their predicaments more than I ever did in the past.

Ironically, my brother Jithu, died of brain haemorrhage a month and a half ago. I do hope that his spirit has found its ultimate goal, like he so badly wanted. But my attachment to him (even in his physical absence) has only been deepened by the knowledge that he remained rather calm and composed through the long and frustrating periods of ill-health he suffered, and even as a dead body, by the smile that remained on his lips, the closed eyes and his clean-shaven head – motifs of a Buddhist monk in meditation. The smile almost still mocking at me for the attachments I continue to have, even as he left us all with fond memories to keep us bound to.

I am now at peace with the reality that he is absent (I still don’t believe in spirits and souls), but he has left me with several questions as well as an unwavering attachment I feel with memories of him. 21 September would have been his 33^rd birthday.

Deepesh C

Boys don’t cry?

"The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, and the present worse than it is, and the future less resolved than it will be." -Marcel Pagnol

I am writing this in the context of a second suicide case in two years in my University hostel. Both cases involved young men in their 20’s and both point towards deep emotional trauma as the cause for their extreme step. I am a die-hard optimist and believe in the adage “Life is good, come what may”, and I have been distressed by the fact that we have, as a society, been pushing individuals to the wall so much that they decide to give up.

Why is it that it is young men, and not women who took away their lives in similar fashion here? Is it because the women on campus don’t undergo testing times? Certainly, that is not the case. The answer, I believe lies in the fact that our society brings up boys and girls differently. Boys are unfortunately taught to never be sensitive and weak overtly. If you have problems, learn to deal with them by yourself. “Be man enough” (!) is a common line hurled at them when they show signs of being weak mentally or emotionally. I blame this tendency for the two suicides. We fail to provide individual males with adequate support systems to deal with stress, with anxieties, with insults and setbacks in life. We fail to provide the sympathetic ear and the sensitive shoulder to the average male. This problem is only aggravated in the case of bachelor research scholars who have no regular classes to attend, no great possibilities of venting out pent up emotions. If we had a system where every male was made to feel that it is okay to take counsel from a close person, was allowed to release built-up emotions, was allowed to weep, express anguish and show weaknesses, we could have prevented such incidents.

I hope we can build a society where individuals don’t strive too hard living up to societal stereotypes since in this simple-looking process, lives are lost. This loss of lives is only the worst (and dare I say, occasional) manifestation of a deeper prevalence of unexpressed anguish, unresolved pain and unvented emotions.

Boys do cry, and they do have a feeling heart, and a sensitive mind, and it is high time we recognize this fact and prevent snuffing out lives of bright individuals who could have contributed greatly to the betterment of our society.

Centre-point

The world is not the same as when I wrote the last post. It probably never was between any two posts. But this time, it is a different world. I am happy that we are becoming more conscious of sexual rights and the fact that every shoot-off-your-hip politician or media-savvy socialite is thinking twice before speaking or is at least forced to "withdraw" sexist remarks soon after they make it, notwithstanding their recourse to the line that "people quoted me out of context".

We are a male-chauvinistic world. The men are so insecure that they even 'hit it off' with other men - total strangers by making fun of women, any woman. They have to smile or laugh off when people refer to sexual violence. "arrey bhai, we are losing morality these days. Women are wearing ganda kapda na! Why r they visiting pubs nowadays? Gone are those days when Bharatiya Sanskriti was at its peak..." I have nothing but the sincerest contempt for these moralists who sit on a high pedestal and preach about values.

What pisses me off the most about this discourse whenever such men talk about sexual violence is that they miss the point totally: we need to focus on the perpetrators and not on the victim. How complicated is it to understand the simple fact that if there was no rapist, no one would be raped? When a maverick goes into a school and shoots down kids, we blame the shooter. Simple! When a brain-washed gang 'infiltrates' into 'our' territory and kills innocent people we ask for the death sentence. Very simple! Why do we not say that the kids asked for it or the innocent people deserved it? Then why instead, do we ask women to behave, when they suffer? 

I watched a video today which focusses on teaching kids how to identify danger and what to do if an incident of possible sexual violence takes place. A child refers to the sexual organ, euphemized by the counsellor as "the part between the legs", as "centre-point" amidst some giggling from the others. My heart weeps for the innocence of kids in this world where some men who cannot control their centre-point, go berserk and violate this innocence of the child. I find fault with these men's inability to control their centre-points. That is the root of the problem. So, I would request the Asarams of the world to stop blaming jeans, skirts, pubs or the female centre-point. It is the male centre-point that is the root of the problem.

But, please don't get me wrong. I am not asking for chemical castration and worse still, for the death sentence. I do believe that people deserve punishment for illegal acts and sexual violence is a gory, insensitive act. But, I abhor the idea that any one has the right to take away any one else's life, whatever be the provocation or the reason. I stand against taking away life, be it in the war-field or in court. Then, what should we do about it? Yes, we need tougher laws, effective punishment, fast-track courts etc, but above all we need to change the societal mind-set about the root of the problem. It is the crass objectification of the woman - an ideology that sees the woman's body as 'prey', merely as meat, merely as something needed to satisfy the male centre-point. Educate boys and girls to treat others with respect. Nothing justifies physical violence, including the sexual one.

So, the next time, one of those moustaches and beards sermonize about women's morality, just remind them about the point - the male centre-point. That is where the problem originates. We can make this a better world this way.