Wednesday, September 15, 2010


मी आणि रव्या नेहमी प्रमाणे deccan च्या कट्ट्यावर (ह्या जागेचं आणि माझं काय वैर आहे कुणास ठाऊक) पान-बिडी करत उभे होतो. रव्या पचापच थुंकत होता आणि मी धूर काढत होतो. विषय पण नेहमीचाच काहीतरी, hot पोरी (आपल्याला का मिळत नाहीत), पुण्यातले वाढलेले जागांचे भाव (आपल्याला का परवडत नाहीत), वगेरे चालू होता. रात्री साधारण ११ ची वेळ होती, आणि दिवाळीत पडते तशी मस्त गुलाबी थंडी, ह्या वेळेला गणपतीतच पडली होती.

"घ्या, comedy आहे" आम्हाला 2 sec कळलच नाही, कारण आजोबा एकदम व्यवस्थित दिसत होते. म्हणजे त्यांच्या जुन्या पण स्वच्छ कपड्यान वरनं (गरीब असले तरी स्वाभिमानी होते, हे indicate करायचा गरीब प्रयत्न :P) ते असं विकत असतील असं वाटलं नाही. आम्ही ती magazines उगीच थोडी बघितल्यासारखी केली आणि नको म्हणून त्यांना परत दिली. शेजारीच एक पोरा-पोरींचा group मोरे च्या भुर्जी वर ताव मारत बसला होता. मग आजोबांनी तिथे जाऊन try मारला. त्यांनी पण आमच्या सारखच थोडं हसून बघितल्यासारखं केलं. इकडची गिराहीकं संपली हे लक्ष्यात आल्यावर त्यांची cycle ढकलत ते पुढे निघून गेले.

मग आम्ही अश्या situation मध्ये अपेक्षित असलेले काही विषय काढले.
मी: म्हातारपणात असं करावं लागणं कसलं वाईट आहे चायला. कोणावर अशी वेळ येऊ नये (स्वतावर आली तर काय, ह्या विचारानी फाटलेली).
रव्या: हो ना. आमच्या ओळखीत असं झालं एकांचं. तरुण मुलाला paralysis झाला, नोकरी गेली. मग काय...
मी: हो का? (अजून फाटली).
रव्या: तरी atleast ह्यांनी स्वाभिमान सोडला नाहीये. काहीतरी विकतायेत. भिक तरी मागत नाहीयेत.
मी: exactly! that is good. माझं principle आहे, भिक द्यायची नाही. ते encourage होतात आणि मग त्यांचच नुकसान होतं (वगेरे वगेरे full shinning ..)

बिडी संपली आणि आम्ही आपापल्या दिशेने कटलो. पण काहीतरी अस्वस्थ, चुकल्यासारखं वाटत होतं (नशीब!). थोडं पुढे अजून एका टपरी पाशी ते आजोबा परत दिसले. बास म्हंटलं आता खूप झालं. गाडी तिथेच park केली आणि त्या टपरी पाशी गेलो. मी त्यांच्या कडे जाणार एव्हड्यात समोरनं रव्या येताना दिसला.

मी: च्यायला हा कुठून आला! लाज निघणार आता आपली. (अश्या लोकन बद्दल वाईट वाटणे, sensitive असणे, etc. ह्या हास्यास्पद qualities असतात. especially दारू party मध्ये ह्या मुळे बरीच लाज निघू शकते)
रव्या: अरे तू काय करतोय इथे?
मी: (काहीतरी थाप मारावी असं वाटलं, पण anyways त्याला कळणार होतं) अरे त्या punter कडनं एखादं पुस्तक घेणार होतो.
रव्या: मी पण :)

मग दोघांनी एक-एक 'फिरकी - कौटुंबिक विनोदी मासिक' घेतलं आणि तिथून सुटलो. पण विषय सुटला नाही. आपण अजून काही करायला हवं होतं का? अजुन ४ अंक का नाही घेतले? त्यांच्याशी जरा बोलायला हवं होतं का? घरी आल्या-आल्या ashlya ला हे सगळं सांगितलं. ती पण मग बराच वेळ अस्वस्थ होती.

मी: (थोड्या वेळानी) आलीस का परत normal ला?
ती: आपण परत normal ला येतो, ह्याचाच राग येतो कधीकधी.

HBO वर कुठला तरी क्ष horror movie बघण्यात
मी कधीच दंग झालो होतो ..

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

do we really want freedom?

lately i have been reading (mostly at work) and talking (mostly when drunk) about such things as freedom and individual liberty. about how the government should not meddle with our lives and how the law should be based only on the non-aggression principle. and such shit. its fun read, and fun think. but the bottom line is, even if you understand all this and have a solution that will end all the world's problems, you need to be in a position of power to implement it. which you and me, by definition, are not (i write inconsequential blogs and you read them :P).

so what do we have power over? obviously we can have power over our own lives, our ambitions, our relations. the operative verb being _can_ here. yes of course we can take control of all those things, but do we really? and if not, why the hell not??

one answer lies, unfortunately, with our near and dear ones.

our lives, if not disturbed by deep thinking, are a study in dependence. we begin as an infant dependant on mom, then as a kid we stick to both our parents. adolescence comes with heavy reliance on friends and peer groups. as we mature we shift our emotional weights onto our spouse and then, when all is said and done, we look at our kids to ferry us off to the end.

what does this have to do with having power over your own life? power and dependence are in some sense, antonyms. the more things you are dependent on, the less power you have left. so the obvious thing would be to reduce your dependence on your relations, especially the close ones. well this is hard enough and even if you manage it somehow, its just the first step. (if you think all the fun in life comes from clinging to the ones you love, this will seem absurd/stupid to you. read no further :) also, there is tremendous difference between breaking a relationship and breaking your dependence on it. i am talking about the later, and hoping you know the difference.

the next step is a simple question of ethics. you want to do something but your loved ones don't want you to do it. what do you do?

there are some who, without a blink, say 'i do it', some answer 'i won't do it' just as fast and then there are the ones who, think. what follows is for the third kind.

imagine you are a regular joe (i don't need to imagine, i am :P). good job, wife, parents, school friends, college chums, office buddies, the works. throw in a nice little hobby while you are at it (hmm, photography seems to be in flavour). nice and boring.
you, like most around you, are happy with your life, but sometimes have that strange feeling of missing something which will make your life complete. after years of sliding that feeling under the carpet, you finally come out of the slumber and decide to do something passionate and interesting. say, you decide to travel the world, like this guy. you plan well, like you always do :) you decide to work hard and make sufficient financial arrangements for your family before you leave.

obviously, nobody is happy with all this, except you. parents, they tell you that they are just worried about your own safety and that's why they don't want you to go. they suggest a nice relaxing 7 day vacation to Kerala instead. wife says she will support you always but subtly hints at dropping this madness for everyone's sake. she blames it on your not so fulfilling job and suggests looking for a better one. friends tell you stories about how they too once dreamed of doing such things. their solution to the problem is to get some more responsibilities, that sure as hell kills such stupid thoughts.

now back to our question on ethics. is it right to do something you like, even if it makes everyone you like, unhappy? it seems like a trick question, but it is not. the heartless cold-blooded but right answer to this question is, yes. but people will call you insensitive and ungrateful if you do it, and praise you for your sacrifice if you don't. but no one will realize that the problem was not that you were trying to experiment with your life, it was that others couldn't let go of you and your secure relationship with them.

if you don't expect anything from others, you don't need to heed others expectations. it is as simple and as difficult as that. but if you achieve it, that is true freedom.

but i guess we don't really want to be free. we just want things to go our way, always.

and yes, there is a difference between the two.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

on power and freedom

"And after your glorious coup, what then? You take your five thousand and... leave? " - Gladiator

world has seen many who wouldn't. the allure of power is just too much for most mortals to resist. the problem has never been that the corrupt find a way to be powerful, but its that the powerful have always become corrupt.

i understand this urge to seek power, it can be logically traced back to that primal instinct of survival (greater your power, greater are your chances of thrashing the opposition). so the most powerful naturally got to be the leaders and rulers. even today, be it the khadi clad national politician, the gutka spewing local MLA or our good old household patriarch, they all will be extremely uncomfortable without access to total submission from those whom they supposedly serve.

power is fine if it comes alone. but invariably, when someone gains power, someone else (possibly of a different caste, class or sex) loses some of their legitimate freedom. history has seen numerous examples where unabashed power has not only restricted but crushed even the very basic freedoms of those it subdued. really, is there _anyone_ that you would trust with absolute power? the person next to you? the person you adore, love the most in this world? how about yourself? who is qualified to be the most powerful? (the answer is no one. we all are imperfect, we all are fallible)

so there is good news and bad news (actually its the same news, just 2 ways of looking at it :P). whenever these excesses of power have become unbearable, though it took hundreds of years and millions of lives, we have ultimately found ways of curbing them. kingdoms were too person specific (good king, fun. bad king, well not so fun), so we shifted to a more reliable religion backed nation states model. when religion became oppressive we decoupled it from the State. we split the State into legislature, executive and judiciary, all independent (in theory atleast) with the hope that no one person or institution can wield absolute power.

the good way to look at it is that we have firmly established, after centuries of blood and gore, that no human or human institution can be trusted with supreme power. bad news is that we haven't figured out the alternative. everytime a powerful institution is disbanded, some other takes its place. when will this end? is it even possible?

i guess the only time we will be truly free is when the basic needs of every man (food, health, education and property rights) are guaranteed, but his prosperity and progress is left to the free market, unhindered.

the closest i have seen anyone come to this idea are the Libertarians. been following this funny word for some time now, so more about it soon. (btw i have heard they don't consider you a true libertarian unless you can pronounce "Libertarianism" quickly. three times.) 

while i loosen my tongue on that one, here is an excellent post by Amit Verma to get you started.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

road rage

" पुणेकर होण्यासाठी cycle चालवणं हि क्रिया एक खास कला म्हणून शिकायला हवी. चालवणं हे क्रियापद इथे, हत्त्यार चालवणं किंव्हा एखादी चळवळ चालवणं ह्या अर्थानी वापरलं पाहिजे." - पु. ल. 

परवा उत्साहाच्या भरात मी sptm च्या mission 10vi pass साठी volunteer केलं. काम असं होत कि १ तासासाठी बालगंधर्व च्या चौकात उभं राहून तिथल्या traffic पोलिसांची मदत करायची. ती लोकं "signal ला पांढऱ्या line च्या मागे वाहने थांबवण्याचा नियम" enforce करत होती. एखादा माणूस खूपच भांडायला लागला तर त्याला समजवायचा प्रयत्न करणे, इतकीच काय ती मदत.
honestly, i did not expect it to be such fun! people fought with me like their lives were at stake (when the actual stakes were just Rs. 100 and possibly some embarrassment). but there was so much hostility and anger, that it was almost funny. मी, असा-असा नियम आहे, तो मोडला तर असा-असा दंड आहे, वगेरे सांगायचा प्रयत्न करत होतो. पण फारसं कोणी त्याला भिक घालत नव्हतं. काही लोकं कोणाचं लक्ष नाहीये असं पाहून हळूच पळून गेली, काही "तुम्ही जबरदस्ती करताय म्हणून भरतो, पण खरा तर माझी काहीही चूक नाहीये" असं म्हणून गेली, तर काहींनी, "सगळेच मोडतायेत नियम, आम्हालाच का दंड?" किंव्हा "signal फार पटकन पडला, आम्हाला दिसलाच नाही." अशी करणं दिली. but the one common thing for all of them was the question they were asking themselves.

and it was not "why did i have to break the law?" but "why did i have to get caught?"

पुलंनी लिहून ठेवलेलं वाक्य आजही इतकं खरं का आहे? पुणे शहराला संस्कृतीचा प्रचंड मोठा वारसा मिळालाय असं म्हणतात. मग इथला traffic इतका असंस्कृत का? i left feeling all superior and proud for doing my bit for the city. but i knew i would be no different than them, as soon as i get behind the wheel of my own car. all of us think we are better drivers than most others on the road. that myth was broken, atleast for me. and it got me thinking.

why is there so much anger and impatience on our roads? why do i keep inching forward while waiting for the signal to turn green? why do i hit the gas and push my nose in just enough so that the other guy can't pass and i get to go first? why do i have to fight my way through a traffic jam? can't i extend some courtesy _even_ if others are not reciprocating? do these things really gain me any significant time advantage? 

dude, don't get emotional, get scientific instead. how about doing an experiment?
if you start following all the rules at once you might never reach your destination (e.g. lane discipline, there is simply not enough space on most roads). so i made a list of some rules and niceties to follow while diving. i know the avg. time it takes my commute everyday. so i would measure how much time i lose if i abide by this list:

1. if its working, stop at a red light. yes, even if its very long and boring and there is no policeman around
2. look for the white stop line at every signal. if there is one, stop before that line. if not, enjoy the freedom and revert to your old self :P
3. do not honk at the guy in front of you a split second after the signal turns green. (basically stop showing off your dhoni like reflexes)
4. do not honk if you can see that the obstructing vehicles are trying to un-obstruct, but there is some genuine problem holding them up and do not honk if you can't see what the problem is.
5. honk only when you need to alert someone in order to avert a collision with you. or any other time, if you feel you are not contributing enough to the noise pollution :P
6. slow down when signal turns yellow (contrary to the popular belief that yellow is a signal to stand on your gas pedal and zoom through like a 100 meter sprinter)
7. in a traffic jam, let atleast 2 cars pass, before you surge forward and join the battle to prove your mettle

well it turns out all these things added 2 mins to my commute. that is a trade off i can live with :)

i would suggest you try this out. use this list or make up your own standards. and live up to them. i can assure you it will make your daily commute more interesting and you will be among the very few drivers who look happy at 7pm on nalstop.

if nothing else, the utterly confused look on an irritated driver's face when you smile and let him pass in front of you, will make it worth it :P

Monday, April 12, 2010

india verses forest people

NOTE: No, these are not two new IPL franchises. No, this is not even about a cricket match (damn! i lost most of my readership right there).

Now generally I wouldn't have dared to read an 8 page essay in one of those flashy magazines you only see in a doctor's waiting room. and if the author's name sounded like arundhati roy? i would probably have spent my time staring aimlessly at the mosaic tiles on the floor, than flip through it. but when so many articles are written with the sole intention of bashing the living hell out of it, the urge to read the original piece became irresistible.

surprisingly the facts are not what is disputed in this debate. everyone agrees that the mining lobby started exploiting the locals (tribals), the government (politicians + forest/police department officials) being hand in glove with the mining companies (for obvious reasons) did not do much to stop this exploitation, in fact they aided it. at some point in time the tribals took to violence, and became the maoists/naxalits that we hear of in the news everyday. now whether the maoists/naxalists of today represent the majority of tribal people is obviously debatable. but it is pretty clear that the movement started off from among the people.

if these are really the facts (and correct me if I am wrong) then they are believable. what other reason can there be for a people to rise up in arms against an obviously and significantly powerful adversary? other than the possibility of them having gone stark raving mad, that is.

in a democracy everyone has a right to property. but the thing is, they are sitting on a shit load of minerals, which we want. the problem is, they think they don't need anything we can offer. so here is a strong guy who desperately needs something that a weak guy has and is not ready to part with. you only need to remember high school to know what happens next.
a country needs to do whatever it needs to do to maintain law and order throughout its territory. if that means indulging in violence against its own people then as unfortunate as it is, it needs to be done. but lets stop being hypocritical about it. we are _not_ doing any of this (the so called development, getting them into the mainstream, etc.) for the betterment of their lives. we are doing it for our own sakes. they are different and weak. and they are paying the price for that. it is times like these when you really appreciate being in the powerful majority, dont you? :D 

so i do the needful. loathe the AK47 slinging maoist, feel sorry for the war ravaged tribal and immediately cuddle up in the snug feeling of power and invincibility that the Constitution of India with all its armies and police provide me. all the while oblivious to the fact that if tomorrow they find a huge oil reserve under my property, and if the country needs oil, i will have a choice to make. either accept the compensation they give and abandon ship or hold my ground and get run over by a tank :P

some choice that !

Sunday, March 21, 2010

kabir rules big time

God, is perhaps the least understood and at the same time, the most exploited concept in recorded history. came across this beautiful verse which cuts through the confusion, and calls it for what it really is. n'joy

Moko kahan dhundhere bande
Mein toh tere paas mein
Na teerath mein, na moorat mein
Na ekant niwas mein
Na mandir mein, na masjid mein
Na kabe kailas mein
Mein toh tere paas mein bande
Mein toh tere paas mein
Na mein jap mein, na mein tap mein
Na mein barat upaas mein
Na mein kiriya karam mein rehta
Nahin jog sanyas mein
Nahin pran mein nahin pind mein
Na brahmand akas mein
Na mein prakuti prawar gufa mein
Nahin swasan ki swans mein
Khoji hoye turat mil jaoon
Ik pal ki talas mein
Kahet Kabir Suno Bhai Sadho
Mein Toh Hoon Viswas Mein

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Sampling Theorem

so how often do you sample life?

apparently our whole waking lives can be split into two alternating states. one in which we are thinking about the world and doing stuff in it. habitual tasks (eating, commuting, etc.), vacations, sports, movie watching, working, the list is endless. second state is when we think about the self, am i happy? what am i doing here? why do i want, what i want? who am i?

first state is the waveform of life. every life on earth possesses it. a cell is dividing, a tree is growing new leaves, a sheep is eating them, a tiger is stalking its prey, a human is commuting. the level of sophistication may vary according to species but not the fact that they are living (or leaving :P) out their lives. 

the second state is when you sample this waveform. instead of going about living your life, you stop and look at yourself as an outsider. at the risk of sounding spiritual, i must say it is the state when you become 'self conscious'. it lasts a few fleeting moments before giving way to first state again. but it strikes hard and deep.

first state is nice and simple, but do i really need this confusing second state? i mean what can i possibly gain by asking 'who am i' or 'am i happy' to myself over and over again?

simply put, "i" wont exist without the second state. 'cogito ergo sum' really means that 'i think (about my own self) therefore i am' or 'i think (about thinking itself) therefore i am'. it is this second order thinking that makes consciousness and in turn, self consciousness, possible. a lioness is also thinking when she plans an attack. but she does not _know_ that, does she? she does not even know that she _exists_. it is our ability to turn the subject of our lives (ourselves) in an object of contemplation, that makes us exist.

point being?

the more you sample the better fidelity you get (we all remember Nyquist dont we?). so, to truly understand life (and not just live it out) you have to be in the second state as much and as often as possible.

philosophy is cheap, show me the money.

No. philosophy is cheap when it comes from a loser like me. what about when a Nobel Laureate talks about something similar? 

you dont think that is cheap, now do you? :P (actually its a good working approximation to first look at _who_ is talking rather than _what_ is being said. as long as we dont forget its just that, an approximation. but i digress.) 

the only way to reduce distortion between the experiencing self and the remembering self is to sample life as often as possible. the remembering self aggregates all the points that entered our consciousness. more data points will only make it more accurate.

and yes, about the money. you can save on that vacation you don't really want ;)

(video link via Anand)

Friday, February 26, 2010

day dreaming

can you imagine a perfect world? No seriously, can you?

not just a simple "i would always be happy in a perfect world", but the nitigrities of that world. what would you do in it? what would other people/institutions be like? those who have tried it know its not that easy. we are so used to chipping away at the rigid realities of day to day life, that even our dreams can't easily break free of them. 
but its a fun exercise. at least you know what you are aiming for. and for those of you who are crazy enough to go after their dreams, its the only compass which can keep them on course. so go ahead, conjure up something for yourself. i must warn you though. its fun to get in (a dream world), not easy to come back. :)

one dream comin up..

for me, people have been most impressive so far. i wouldn't want them any different in the dream world. or maybe i am not creative enough :P what i would like different are a few social institutions that we have built up over the years.

Courts of Law (Justice)
ya, they are black and bleak, nothing dreamy or romantic. but they are mostly what differentiates us from our savage counterparts/ancestors in the animal kingdom. In my dream world courts will be impartial, accessible to everyone and reasonably quick. the law itself will be based on the non-aggression principle. the police will just be enforcers of the rule of law, and nothing else. thus everyone will be safe as long as they do not harm anyone else. That is all i want from the black robes. and yes i have been reading 'to kill a mocking bird' recently. here is a  beautiful excerpt from it.

But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal - there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States or the humblest J.P. court in the land, or this honourable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal. 

Government (the need for it)

survival of the fittest? Nah. more like prosperity of the fittest, survival of everyone.

There must have been in a time when your survival/prosperity depended on how fast and accurately you can throw a spear.  we have come a long way since then. physical strength might have been replaced by the ability to produce but, the law of the jungle still holds. so the smart/hard-working guys make it big, as they should. but those who can't produce anything (due to ill-fate or choice) shouldn't be left to just die. Government will exist to give them basic things like food, shelter, education and medical care.

other than that the government will just take care of public property and its usage, it will not produce anything. it will do town planning, contract out civic works like water supply, roads, etc. contractors will collect their dues from the consumers directly, where ever possible.

the government will be necessary but unimportant. no one institution will have the power to steer the whole country according to its will. power corrupts, and that much power corrupts absolutely. Instead the fate of nation will literally be the sum total of what its citizens make of their own. good or bad.

Government (the people in it)
democracy is nice, but representative democracy is stupid. no one person can represent a million people. he can represent a mob (hence we have mobsters in parliament) but not individuals. in my world there will be no fulltime politicians, but there will be some compulsory 'political service' for everyone. :P

people won't be voted into office, there will just be a random draw from among responsible citizens (responsible: no history of harming anyone and who produces something for a living, anything from a painting to a cryogenic engine is fine). ofcourse there will be a panel (comprising of eminent people from different professions) to help out if need be. 

people will vote to decide the broad policy regarding utilization of the natural and public resources. 

democracy is not outsourcing the difficult stuff to some elected guy. democracy means everyone will have freedom and liberty to do whatever they wish, as long as they don't aggress.

in my world parents won't try to 'give their kids what they did not get' and kids wont take their parents for granted. parents wont pass on their prejudices and kids will question everything that their folks taught them. i can keep going but i already wrote a whole freakin play on this one :P

wrote about that too ;)

oh ya there will be work in my dream world, and lots of it. i am always surprised by the amount of satisfaction a hard day's work can give you. ofcourse it won't be something as rigid as a 9 to 5, and it certainly wont be tangential to your life's pursuit.

and did i mention that katrina kaif will have the hots for me?


Saturday, February 13, 2010

निषेध !

a friend suggested that common maharashtrians should put up their opinions about what the sena is doing. his reasoning was decent. (most muslims are not terrorists, but the moderates keep quiet, so the image building rests in the extremist's hands.) not that i needed a reason :P
एक पक्का पुणेकर असल्याने ह्या विषयावर 'मत' मांडायचा chance मी सोडू शकत नाही. तर...सरकारचे डोके ठिकाणावर आहे काय?! मी ह्याचा आणि इतर सर्व गोष्टींचा एकदाच काय तो जाहीर निषेध करतो. परत परत प्रत्येक छोट्या मोठ्या बातमीचा निषेध करायला लावू नये. (आम्ही broadband चे bill भरतो)

honestly speaking, i really don't understand these so called social issues. you see, i come from (and roam about) in a class which is not bothered much (or so we think :P) by these issues. some times when we are bored of cricket, stock market and the weather, we tend to talk of them. social issues make for interesting conversation topics (especially if they are alcohol soluble) but never turn into action items (dude, i have got a life of my own to take care of !).

i hope this will change. not for the sake of the underprivileged or the society in general (whatever that means). but for my own sake. 'cause it has been my unfortunate observation that the people who can look beyond their material needs, tend to be happier.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

that guy

आज सकाळी मी (मस्त नहा-धो के) बँकेत गेलो होतो, home loan ची चौकशी करायला. १५ मिनिटे दयनीय नजरेनी त्या clerk बाईंनकड़े बघितल्या नंतर finally त्यांनी "हं तुमचा काय?" विचारलं.

मी: home loan ची चौकशी करायची होती.
बाई: काय करता आपण?
मी: electronics engineer आहे. (software सांगायला लाज वाटते म्हणून :P)
बाई: वडील काय करतात?
मी: doctor आहेत.
बाई: कितीचं loan पाहिजे?
मी: ५-६ लाख, म्हणजे २-३ वर्षात repay करता येईल असं.
she smirked, put the pen down and looked at me with a look that said "what a loser. इथे सगळे ३०-४० लाखांची loans घेतायेत, आणि हा घाबरट इतकी चांगली नोकरी असताना पण ५ लाख मागतोय."
बाई: इथे २० लाखाच्या खालची होत नाहीत. दुसऱ्या branch ला जा.

getting expensive homes and huge home loans seems to be the in thing right now. and it certainly makes economic sense in a developing city like Pune. but i couldn't get myself to do it. i wonder what it takes to sign on a paper which makes you commit to doing a particular task for the  next 20 years of your life.

i guess it might have something to do with our self worth. commitment makes us do stuff. once we commit to being parents, no matter how difficult it gets or how bored/lazy we feel, most of us _will_ try to be good parents for their kids. once we fix ourselves a nice juicy e.m.i., we will keep showing up at our job, no matter how much we hate it, just 'cus it pays good.

and then, many years from now, when we are old and done with all our commitments, we will look back and find that we raised our kids well, created property worth crores for them. and feel that our lives were worth their while. peachy.

but what about that guy who won't commit to this default stuff (family and property)?. the one who waits stubbornly to find _his_ own path. there is that huge risk of not finding it at all. when this guy turns old and looks back all he will find is a life spent unshackled and in the search of meaning. poor soul.

my only fear is that instead of pity, i might end up with envy for him.