How to be HAPPY? Decoded the fictional way.

People are unhappy because they are not content with their station in life. In Animal Farm happiness is approached by abolishing the very cause of misery – stations in life, all are equal. In Brave New World, a different approach is adopted, people are conditioned to like the stations allotted to them, they aren’t given another choice. They are made content. They aren’t given a chance to desire for anything else. Like machines they perform pre-conditioned activities and don’t think at all.

But do they achieve happiness? The answer is a resonating NO in case of Animal Farm, whereas in Brave New World an illusion of happiness is created. “Everyone is happy now” is repeated so many times that everyone believes themselves to be happy. The savage tries to tell them that they are not free, they are slaves. He tries to arouse in them the desire to be free and human. But they seem incapable of feeling. Strong emotions are beyond them. They are sub-human babies. As Mustafa Mond puts it, even after being decanted they continue to live in their bottles.

They have paid a price to be without suffering. They have sacrificed fun. Are they happy? They can barely feel any emotion. How can they feel happiness then? They aren’t happy. They are just devoid of feelings, and so don’t experience pain, but neither do they experience happiness. The joy that comes from thinking, toiling and then achieving is lacking.

So, then both books establish that it isn’t possible to have a happy world devoid of suffering. In Animal Farm suffering re-surfaces, in Brave New World, the inmates are unaware of any feelings.

In both books people are assigned their jobs, they are supposed to like it and not question it. If they don’t have desire for something else, they won’t suffer. Doing only that what is required of them. Not thinking much beyond their set role. Easily taking soma pills (read TV, movies, music, or whatever that does not require any action, any thinking) that just lets the day pass without having to actually do anything, thus giving no occasion for getting tense. No tryst with real good or bad emotions. Just no strain on our brains. Allowing it to lie peacefully in cold storage. No real experiences, a frozen existence.

But it is desire that leads to joy also. One should desire and strive for it. But somewhere one has to draw the line and be content with one’s efforts. For never-ending desire will destroy. But this line has to be drawn by the individual. An individual has to have an individual dream, a desire distinct from that of others, unique. S/he has to individually in her/his own manner strive for it and at some point has to feel happy for having achieved whatever part of that dream. But it has to be an individual decision. Then alone will the individual feel real happiness.

Happiness is created from within and not without.

Should Rivers have married Rosamond?

St. John Rivers in Jane Eyre picks his vocation over love. He is considered cold cause he won’t accept his love Rosamond. But had he done so would they have been happy?

Consider the doctor Lydgate in Middlemarch (incidentally his love interest is also called Rosamond) that apart, he accepted his love. Despite being a person with an aim, he set it aside for “true love”. Was he happy? He considered himself a failure for life. Can anybody be more miserable than that?
He tells Rosy don’t ever say that you don’t like my research, that’s like saying you don’t love me. Isn’t that true? How can one love half the person? One can love a person and hate certain habits, even endevour to alter them. But how can one love a person but not his/her defining trait?

Both St. John and Lydgate are defined by their work. If they are to be happy in love, their love interest will have to love them as a whole. St. John can’t be asked to give up his missionary zeal to marry Rosamond. He understood that. It would make them both miserable. Just as it did in Middlemarch. When they lived life the way Lydgate desired Rosamond was miserable. So was he, he needed a partner to share his miseries but Rosamond couldn’t offer that support. And then he changed course to live her way and remained miserable forever.

I don’t find anything amiss in either Rosamond. They have a dream for their life, but the person they choose doesn’t fit in it. An attempt to mould a person into the person of your dream can not beget true happiness. People can alter habits, not defining characteristics. And if such tremendous change is required then it is as Lydgate put it you don’t love that person.

And so I consider Rivers decision to not marry Rosamond just.

He may come across as cold. But he is right in this. Neither could he give up missionary work nor could Rosamond sacrifice her comfortable life.
And if their minds are so opposed, this cannot be “true love”.

Are Indians Prone To Plagiarism?

Plagiarism has been rampant in India and the world over. Looking backward, when American pop art first appeared some critics accused the artists of plagiarism. The Greeks too at one point in time were inspired by Indian music.

Plagiarism is the appropriation and passing off as one’s own, the work/idea of others. It is not necessarily same as copyright infringement. It is generally considered reprehensible and even theft. On the other hand, in 1988 a number of radical artists organized a ‘Festival of Plagiarism’ consisting of a series of mixed media exhibitions and events at off-beat locations in London and San Francisco. This was a celebration of plagiarism.

There are different forms of plagiarism. It happens all the time in academia where certain characteristic phrases are used in a paper without indicating the source. This is called “The Mosaic”.

In India, especially in schools, plagiarism is in a way encouraged when students are asked to memorize verbatim. Even at the board level an answer of the Navneet guide fetches better marks, when in actuality it should be seen as academic dishonesty and a serious punishable academic offence.

Intentional plagiarism, as in copying an entire research paper, is often blamed on stress or laziness. The Indian examples are many. Vice chancellor of Kumaon University Dr. B. S. Rajput is the latest in a series of Indians found to have literally reproduced research from another scientists’ work in a published article on theoretical physics. Kaavya Vishwanathan admitted to accidental plagiarism. Her novel How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild And Got A Life is similar to Megan Mc Cafferty’s in style.

Plagiarism is widespread in Indian television too. The best selling author Barbara Taylor Bradford claimed that the TV serial Karishma: The Miracle Of Destiny was a copy of her novel, A Woman Of Substance. Even Karishma kaa Karishma is a copy of Small Wonder. Princess Diaries has been adapted into Hello Dolly.

Indian cinema has also not distanced itself from plagiarism. Crossover film maker Deepa Mehta’s movie Water bears similarities with Bengali novelist Sunil Gangopadhayay’s Sei Somoy. Mehta’s production was screened in Toronto International Film Festival this September, in spite of a suit being filed in the Delhi HC against its screening. Aap Mujuhe Ache Lagne Lage is inspired by Rapunzel.

Ad jingles are also inspired by old Hindi film songs or other sources. The Shalimar oil jingle is a word-to-word copy of the movie Shalimar’s title track.

Self plagiarism (the act of copying one’s published or submitted work without mentioning previous use), is constantly carried out by TV serial director Ekta Kapoor. Almost all her serials have similar scripts.



Plagiarism is also prevalent in the world of Indian music. Himesh Reshammiya too is prone to self plagiarism; all his songs have a similar tune. Also, R. D. Burman’s Chura Liya Hai from Yaadien is a good adaptation of Walter Scharf’s If It’s Tuesday This Must Be Belgium. Telgu song Monisha is a copy of Ricky Martin’s Maria.

It seems then that Indians are inclined towards plagiarism. Plagiarism is celebrated as being anti-capitalist in its stance because it seemingly avoids elitism, assuming that everything belongs to everybody! Despite this, the illegal copying of designs, bootleg recording and industrial espionage are in fact typical of much rapacious capitalist business practice. Some fashion designers have been ruined because their new collections have been stolen and copied by criminal rivals.

Whether you write an article or compose a song it belongs to you. Plagiarism therefore is theft. But law and society in India don’t treat plagiarists as thieves. Plagiarism seems so deep rooted here that it is hard to find originality. One always ends up asking, where could Anu Malik have lifted this from? But the fact could be that he really slogged hard to come up with that tune!

Sunset

The very day Chandrayaan was launched Mumbai was gripped with fear. It was a turmoil of emotions, a lot of confusion- whether to feel happy for our progress or to feel sad for our degeneration. In fact, whether to call our selves progressive or regressive? My milk man was scared; he stood at my door listening to the news in fear. He didn’t know anything about this path breaking progress; he was worried about those who were literally breaking the paths of Mumbai. We have made a move towards the moon, but Indians still don’t have the freedom to move within their country.

Futile News

Great entertainments have mostly been tragedies. Tragedy has the capacity to entertain. Aristotle said that tragedy (causing catharsis) should lead to pleasure. His word has been duly followed by all the news channels in the country. They all have one maxim- tragedy should cause pleasure (and hence increase TRPs). This maxim was aptly demonstrated by the coverage of the Delhi blast on 27th September, 2008. All the channels attempted to make their coverage as entertaining as possible; however, it was neither entertaining nor informative.

News channels have a disability or amnesia; they tend to forget the rest of the world when an incident such as a blast occurs. So on Saturday afternoon all the channels exclusively covered the Delhi blasts. No other news featured, not even as a scroll. Fine but even this exclusive coverage was not exhaustive. They kept harping on the same thing over and over again for more than an hour. Every channel followed a similar pattern: the screens kept flashing, in big font and bold letters – Breaking News, Blasts in Delhi, Blasts at 2:15pm ( or 2:18pm in case of India TV), 50/10/15 injured ( depending upon the channel), while a reporter form the news room kept questioning the on-location correspondents in the background. The questions and their answers were also painfully repetitive and devoid of information. Within twenty minutes of the blasts every channel wanted to know the nature of the blast, also of the injuries sustained, the death toll and most importantly- the culprits. The answers to all these questions were: the police have not confirmed anything. This was followed by an uninformed tirade by the correspondents.

Some channels also provided graphic details of the blasts. According to Headlines Today 2 persons on a black Bajaj motorcycle threw “black polythene” and this led to the explosion. CNN-IBN claimed that the cause was a tiffin box containing explosives. India TV again had the most exclusive and unique news to offer: A Mahila Aatanki (Female terrorist) was the pillion rider who threw the explosive. And, she was wearing a dark colored dress!

By the end of the first ½ hour, post the blast the channels got hold of a visual clipping of a bloodstain on the road encircled with white chalk. The channels repeatedly kept zooming in and out of this bloodstain while correspondents discussed the nature of the bazaar in the background. Some channels like Zee News claimed that this video, which was played for over 20 mins on every channel, was a Live telecast. And Headlines Today thought it to be Exclusive.

Every channel claimed to have delivered the news before the others. But what news did they deliver? They kept saying and flashing the same thing for over an hour. By the end of which all the viewers knew, was that: there was a blast in S. Delhi.

Bisleri … I have had it!

Ever overheard conversations of school children? Usually they like to boast about the great and unique experiences they have had. They like to outdo their friends in having done the new “in” thing before them. And so they rattle on endlessly with tales of uber cool holidays to Paris or US, or describe (in much detail) and flaunt their latest gizmos, gadgets, comp. games, mobiles, ipods, iphones and the like. They talk of the cool restaurants they have been to, the various cuisines they have tried, the latest mocktail or cocktail that they had. Also, of designer clothes and accessories.

Lately I happened to encounter one such competition between two school girls. It was sparked by my bottle of Bisleri water. One girl asked the other what I was having. The other felt great and enlightened her friend about the contents of my bottle. The ignorant girl was a bit astonished that it was just water after all. The enlightened girl carried on, its water, Bisleri, I have had it. When we had gone out last year my dad purchased a big bottle of it (mine was too small, so she outdid me too). We drank from it, all of us had it. I have had Bisleri, she announced with pride. The ignorant was awed by the reach of her friend. After all she had had Bisleri.



(I over heard this, not in a village or such place, but in the trains of our very affluent Mumbai)