The Email Generation Vs The Facebook Generation

There was a time when friendships and marriages broke up because someone read a letter meant for someone else. Many movies had plots where such letters land up in the wrong hands and much mischief or drama happens later. But those were the times when people communicated through letters (pieces of paper which we bought in a government office called Post Office and write on it complete with an address - to and from, which was hand delivered to the addressee). Those letters cost us money, sometimes even as high as 75 paise,  so we were all infinitely glad to know that someone called Sabeer Bhatia had invented a free mail service called hotmail.

Emails, and that too free emails, caught the fancy of all of us letter writers and we sent mails by the dozen, long and mushy to all and sundry, reveling in this free service. And then things started changing what with the advent of Skype and facebook and mobile phones and everyone was all the time connected to 500 people, all of whom who knew what was happening to all 500.

Anyway, recently I thought I'd communicate to a couple of friends and relatives by sending them some long, well meaning emails recently.. The response was cold. No reply. No answer. I shamelessly sent another mail asking them to reply. Again no response. No reply. It was as if they were ashamed of me and my backwardness. They did not even want to acknowledge my long well meaning mails. I thought that perhaps I could access them on facebook where they were showing up every day.

But it was meant to be a private message. I could send it through the facebook message service but even that is not much appreciated by my friends because few reply to those messages. The message to me (the perceived one) was that they chose deliberately not to respond to the email. It was almost as if they were saying - 'Hey you actually want me to respond to a private email? Where the hell are you from man? What about the people who would like to know what you said to me on facebook? No way am I getting into a private conversation with you - you weird creep.'

I am serious. There are at least five emails that are unanswered. It is as if I have committed a major goof up on this aspect of communicating. But whatever happens I not going to send that private message on facebook so many people will 'like' it. Maybe, you'd think, the need for nice, long communiques has gone now. Anyway I am going to try a few more mails before I give up on that.

Ides of March - Movie Review

George Clooney directed this political thriller in which he acted along with a powerhouse starcast - Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and others. Mike Morris (Clooney) is the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Presidential candidate for the Democrats, competing against the Arkansas senator. The movie picks up in Ohio where the two sides are camping with their respective campaign teams. Mike's campaign manager is the loyal and long lasting veteran Paul Zara (Hoffman) who is assisted by one of the best media managers in the business, the young and debonair Stephen Myers (Gosling). Both sides are trying to enlist the support of the North Carolina Democratic Senator who controls 356 delegates making it no contest for the one whom he decides to support. The issue is that Franklyn is a hard bargainer and wants Secretary of State position in return.

The movie starts off innocuously enough. There is a bit of sexual tension in the air when the handsome Meyers flirts with an intern on the campaign, Molly, and dates her. There is also a hard nosed journalist Ida from the Times (Marisa Tomei) who is ferreting out all information about what is happening in the background. The movie lurches on to some action when the rival senator's campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) calls Meyers and asks for a meeting. Knowing that it would be suicidal to meet the rival campaign manager, Meyers chooses to go and meet him without informing his boss Paul (Hoffman). Duffy makes an offer to Meyers to join him. Meyers rejects it and forgets about it. Meanwhile while in bed with the intern he realises that the good Governor is calling her on her mobile at 230 in the morning. Upon questioning her, the jealous Meyers finds out that she had an affair with the Governor and needs money to abort the child from that one-off liason. Meyers gives her the money the next day, knowing that this info could end the Governor's campaign, drives her to the clinic and tells her to go home after that.

Things move fast after that. Meyers tells Paul that he met Duffy. Within no time Ida the news reporter calls him and tells him that she knows he met Duffy and she will print the news. Meyers suspects Duffy but Duffy says he is clean. Paul calls Meyers and tells him that he leaked the information because he wanted to sack Meyers for being disloyal. He also has the governor's approval. An enraged Meyers goes for the promised job with Duffy but Duffy rejects him. Meanwhile the intern comes back to the campaign hotel where she is told that Meyers has been sacked and that he has promised to take down everyone with him. Fearing that he'd reveal all, she kills herself. Meyers goes to meet her and finds her dead. He rethinks his options and gets around to work things his way using rather unethical means to do so and twisting the good Governor's hands a bit. All's well and that ends well for the two guys who had sex with the intern. Mr. Loyal is sacked and Ms. Intern is dead.

Moral of the story - In politics leave the interns alone. Also its better to have a lot of dumb asses than smart thinking and good looking assistants, men and women, who can cause more trouble than do good. I found the way the Governor capitulates to the blackmail rather too easy. Why he would set himself up for a lifetime of blackmail like that is anyone's guess. And as for the title - I failed to see the connection - someone please enlighten me there. Everyone seems happy and there's no big betrayal of Caesar. As a movie, its entertaining but when you think back on the plot, there seem too many holes which are not to my taste. I'd have liked some resolution in a better sense than to leave all the aggressors and the vile men winning in the end and all others losing out. What's the message George Clooney? But on the positive, Clooney does make movies that have political overtones and do make you think a bit. Even this does, though the sleazy underside is too real to enjoy. Would I save this movie and watch it again later? No. Would I recommend a one time watch? Yes.

Thought for the Day - Power comes from action. Helplessness from inaction

All feelings of genuine power comes from taking action, on our own thoughts. All feelings of helplessness come from taking action on someone else's thoughts. Or not taking action on your own thoughts.

To create and to sustain this power one needs to do two things. One is to start thinking for oneself, for good or bad, and the second is to start acting on it. Resist attempts to have someone else decide for you, resist not acting on what your mind feels like doing.

Think and do.

In time, it gives a power that is immensely liberating. You are creating your own life.

Thought for the Day - Responsibility for the Act, For the Consequences

Do we show more responsibility towards the act or for the consequence of the act? I'd like to believe that if we showed more responsibility to the act, the consequence would not matter so much.

Taking responsibility for the action indicates that one is clear why one is undertaking that action. There is no confusion on that aspect. Whatever it is, we have undertaken the act for some particular reason that we are convinced about. The consequences do not really matter after that. (It would normally also leave out factors such as guilt, disappointment and blame because one would also do one's best when one takes responsibility for the action thereby neutralising these effects.)

However if one is taking responsibility for the consequences of any act - especially in a manner that is causing immense pain and negative emotions such as guilt, resentment and such others, it would probably indicate that one has not been fully responsible for the act. Instead one is attached to the consequence, the drama of the consequence, than to the act of doing things responsibly.

By taking responsibility for the act, the act in itself gets done better, and one can take responsibility for the consequences in a positive manner. By taking responsibility for the consequences mainly, one could very well get attached to the drama and not perform the act well, and sink into a mire of blame, guilt and resentment.

The act then - not the consequence.

Empire of the Moghul Raiders From the North - Alex Rutherford

This book published by Headline Review and Hachette India (priced at Rs. 350, historical fiction), is the story of Babur (1484-1530), or Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur, the foremost of the Moghuls and the one who set up the formidable Moghul empire in India. Told in a story form with lots of dialogue and interesting descriptions and characters, Rutherford, takes us through the life of Babur from the time he becomes the King of a small province called Ferghana (in Uzbekistan) after the untimely death of his father at the tender age of twelve. Babur belongs to the lineage of Timur (a Timurid) from his father's side and Chengiz Khan the Mongol from his grandmother's side. He is always made aware of that by his grandmother Esan Dawlat, a women of great strength and inspiration to young Babur.

The novel starts dramatically with the accidental fall of Babur's father in a collapse of the dovecote in which he is standing, in his palace. The small kingdom is seized in intrigue as the vizier tries to usurp power in view of the fact that Babur is but a child. But he is negated by the King's faithful commander-in-chief Wazir Khan (fictitious) and Esan Dawlat. Babur is proclaimed the King of Ferghana in the mosque in a well orchestrated move. The vizier is outwitted but Babur's uncle who rules Samarkhand, Timur's capital, decides to take over the weakened Ferghana. More intrigue as the uncle is ambushed by the bloodthirsty Uzbek Shaibani Singh and killed even as he is on his way to Ferghana. The news is bought to Babur by Baisanghar, a warrior with Samarkhand (fictitious) who later becomes Baur's trusted aide. The danger is avoided for a while but now Babur wishes to take over Samarkand which he believes is rightfully his, as he is the rightful heir of Timur. Samarkand, meanwhile, is taken over by its vizier.

Babur attacked and captured Samarkand and enjoyed the great city that lies on the Silk Route between China and the West. But soon he gets information that his half-brother, Jehangir, the son of a concubine of his father's, had usurped the throne of Ferghana in his absence. As Babur leaves for Ferghana fearing for the lives of his mother, sister and grandmother, his cousin Mahmud Khan, smitten by the Vizier's daughter takes over Samarkhand. Before long the Uzbeks led by Shaibani Khan  take over Samarkand from Mahmud (and Shaibani makes a drum of Mahmud's skin). Left with no land to rule Babur hides in the mountains with his men, taking over small tribes and increasing his force. Jehangir sends him his mother, grandmother and sister and an offer for peace. Smarting at his inadequacy Babur once again tries to take Samarkhand and succeeds as well, when Shaibani Khan's forces go North. But Shaibani Khan lays siege to the city and after three months allows Babur safe passage is he leaves the city, and his sister, for him. Left with no choice Babur leaves his sister whom he loves so dearly, Khanzada, to the barbaric Uzbec. In one of those battles with Shaibani, he loses his faithful Wazir Khan.

More years in exile, a marriage with a chieftains daughter, the finding of a friend his age, Baburi (fictitious) and Babur is growing older and a lot more wiser. He hears of tales of Timur's acquisition of Delhi from an old woman. He takes his eyes off Samarkand and acquires Kabul and Khandahar in Afghanistan. He travels as far as Just as he is planning to attack Shaibani Khan, the King of Persia sends him a cup made from Shaibani Khan's skull, and Babur's sister, Khanzada as a gift. The King of Persia also pledges his support to Babur in taking over Samarkand. Baburi leaves Babur, his close friend, as he thinks that his infatuation with Samarkand is making him lose sight that he would become a vassal to the King of Persia. Babur soon realises that the King of Persia, a Shia, wants to convert the people of Samarkand, Sunnis. The alliance breaks. Babur forgets Samarkand and expands his kingdom eastwards with his capital as Kabul. He begets four sons from different wives - Humayun, Kamran, Askari and Hindal. Just as he is wondering how to leave an empire to his sons comes Baburi with his new find - cannons and gunpowder and muskets. With these, Babur is now confident of launching an attack on Delhi which is ruled by Sultan Ibrahim Lodi.

Babur raises his armies and travels to Hindustan which they all know is famed for its wealth and different customs. Babur also believes that Hindustan and Delhi are rightfully his because Timur had conquered Delhi - and after having appointed a vassal in Punjab, left for Samarkand again. The vassal formed the Sayyid dynasty from whom Lodi, of Afghanistan, took over Delhi. Babur's armies, led by himself and Humayun, vastly outnumbered, brave the terrain, the fierce Hindustani warriors and finally vanquish Lodi's armies (which numbered at 1,00,000)  at Panipat, outside Delhi. However Baburi dies in that battle of Panipat leaving Babur distraught (fictitious part). They acquire the Kohinoor diamond of Golconda from the Lodi's vassal the King of Gwalior and set up base in Agra. Babur survives attempts n his life and vanquishes Rana Sanga, the Rajput warrior before dying of illness in 1530. Before dying he makes Humayun the heir to the vast Moghul kingdom (the dynasty named as Moghul by Babur, which is Persian for Mongol) that sprawled from Kabul to Delhi. Babur's was finally buried in Kabul where his tomb still remains.

It is an fascinating insight into the times of the Moghuls and how they came and acclimatised to strange people, strange ways and hostile weather. Babur lost so many kingdoms, battles and yet persisted which is a great tribute to his persistence, to his pride as a Timurid. The barbarism of the people, the warriors strikes you in the punishments meted out to traitors. Timur was not one who showed any mercy and Babur was also known to be merciless. People hacked limb to limb, thrown down headfirst on to rocks, intestines being pulled out, heads being hung on trees or poles, are common. In battles the Moghuls used a tactic to scare opposition - they would neatly pile up the severed heads of the warriors they had slain in battle in neat piles - to scare off any further attacks. Babur claimed to have built many such pillars in his lifetime. He is also supposedly an immensely strong man who would run up hills for exercise with two men on his shoulders. Babur is also known to have swum across every single major river he came across - including the Ganges. These details are missing in the book though. Understandably, Babur, who led a strife-ridden life, consumed opium and wine and enjoyed the same. He gave up drinking wine publicly before the war against Rana Sanga, exhorting his fellow Muslim soldiers to be a true Muslim and to wage jihad or the holy war against the infidel Rajput king. Babur apparently regretted this move to give up wine.

Another interesting feature was Babur's love to be the King of Samarkand which to him represented the seat of Timur.  But despite gaining Samarkand thrice, he lost it thrice. All his life he pined for Samarkand. It wa only much later, when like Steve Jobs said he 'connected the dots' and said that not getting Samarkand was the best thing that happened to him because he set his eyes on Delhi.

The more one reads of the world and how it progressed the more one is convinced that people by nature are violent. If one does not have he gumption to fight, one way or another, one is as good as dead.

I would have preferred the book to be slightly shorter than its 493 pages, maybe at 400 it would have been a tight read. Some parts appeared to drag to me and I wished they were tighter. Most accounts are historically accurate as claimed by the author himself. Babur himself wrote a detailed diary 'the Baburnama' which contained detailed facts, figures and descriptions. Rutherford also claims to have visited almost all places mentioned in the book. Thoroughly enjoyable stuff though. I am disappointed that Hachette though - pages 245-276 are missing in an otherwise well produced book.

Thought for the Day - Life WIthout an Audience

Imagine life without an audience. No one is looking at what you do. No one is clapping. No one is likely to even comment on your existence. No likes, no comments, no shares, no articles, no tweets, no emails, no messages. What would happen to our life if the audience was just not there? If no one even bothered about you and your existence at all? The whole world.

For one thing, there would be much finer awareness. There'd be far lesser inhibitions (no one's looking at you remember). We'd probably be far more in tune with our relation to the world around us in real terms. We'd find it easy to do things we like and discard things we don't like. We'd express ourselves only to the extent that we need to. All drama would go out of the picture - there are no reactions to be had from drama. No one would even look at you if you cried, or even died. We'd stop feeling sorry for ourselves and just move on with life, with what we can do and what we want to do. We'd just look for our own approval. We'd be much more calmer. We'd do things with a sense of purpose, a sense of love. We'd just enjoy the moment, enjoy the act. Life would be one meditation.


If we did not invest so much with our audience, we'd be far more at peace I'd think. You and your action, without the audience = peace. On the other hand there would be no facebook or twitter (what's the point in putting up stuff that no one is reacting to). Social media would die.

Success - Quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Success

To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.
This is to have succeeded.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson