carrying or career- thoughts of a feminist philosopher

"successful feminists don't have kids... sometimes are not even married" is a very insulting comment I once came across. Though most feminists had to give away their female roles for doing their jobs as feminists, they have nevertheless paved a way for the rest to operate in an equal society. Feminism does not mean hatred towards the other gender, it is just an expression of equality of both genders. It is about accepting that there are certain things men can do and women can't, and other things like giving birth, which women can do and men cant. It is the acceptance of equality of value and contribution both genders offer to the society.This taboo of feminists being female chauvinistic, ego eccentric, dominating females is still in place. Feminism is not about dominance... it is in fact against dominance. It is against the dominance of one gender.

Why are we humans so prejudiced? man-woman, rich-poor, white-black, young-old, Brahmain-Sudra, beautiful-ugly, straight-gay and the list is end less. Can't we see everybody as mere humans who should have equal opportunities to live and thrive? How many generations would we carry these prejudices for? are we not done? Didn't we have enough?

This thought kept bothering me after I saw one of my friends who had to attend to her job right after a month of her delivery, since she used a part of her maternity leave before delivery, due to complications. She had to go on night-shifts which left the baby crying all night. People can blame her that it was her choice but it wasn't in fact her choice. It was nature's choice to stow the mighty responsibility of nourishing a new life on females. Should she be punished for that? It is time our government, employers, colleagues take a note of the contribution 'SHE' is making to the society, and lend a hand in helping her sail through the process. Women are already stretched beyond their limits, both physically and mentally,  in this process of childbirth. They now have a responsibility of another completely dependent life on them. Would it harm us so much if we offer them a warm smile, an understanding nod, a gesture of empathy and a flexible policy?
YES. There are policies in place... but most of them limited to top companies or public sector units. Only if a woman is privileged enough to work in such places, would she be able to avail this. Again, how many companies actually have creches to facilitate the motherhood? What should they do with the child after their maternity leave period?
Again, after arguing so much about equality, how many fathers would be willing to leave their job and babysit, when the woman wants to go back to work? Did we see a single example in our experiences till date? if so, how many? Is it not equal responsibility of both the parents to take care of the child? How does the responsibility of taking care of the child till his schooling and building his/her character goes naturally to the mother, while the rights of decision making, as to which school/college the child should go, which specialization the child should choose, who the child should get married to, etc. goes naturally to the father. Why again the terms like sacrifice, compromise, prioritize etc keep coming back to women?

It is a prevalent argument that "It was her choice to continue working and she should cope with that." But when a man is not put under that situation and never faces that dilemma, it gets tiringly difficult to argue with them the reasons for wanting to work. She might have studied in school, college, university, equal to you or even better than you, she might have worked equally or more hard than you to come to that position, she might have spent equal or more sleep less nights to deliver the work expected.... etc. why should all this change only because she is capable of and willing to give birth to a baby?

It is time we understand the struggle and dilemma a mother goes through in bringing up her children and it is our responsibility to lend a helping hand, either at office, home or elsewhere and appreciate their efforts and sacrifices. It would be a positive change if one can offer more generous help say in washing dishes or changing diapers of the baby at home to offering help at work so that she can go home early to hug the small dependent life of her. This is my new year resolution.... what is yours?

PS: Yes. the number of fathers taking care of their children is increasing as compared to twenty years     back.... and it shouldn't stop here... we have a long road ahead to achieve this equality of thought and action.

What is 'Truth'?

Since my childhood, if there is one thing I observed common to all Indians, it is their layers of thought. No thought or action is simple and straight. There are convolutions of thought and this happens at different levels.
For every action there is a practical explanation and a spiritual one. This might seem absurd to some of my non-Indian friends and they tend to take us as complicated people. But the truth is simple, if we can understand the way these layers are brought into our daily life, it solves most of the problems.

 For most Indians (I am not sure about the western counterparts. I am not qualified to make any comments on it), the spiritual and materialistic worlds form two layers of their life. There are two levels of truths with which we operate in.
1. Vyavaharika satya (practical truths)
2. Paramarthika satya (eternal truths)

Vyavaharika satya is most of the times percieved by one's senses, whereas Paramarthika satya is perceived by the mind. The eternal truth is universal, and unchangeable. One's perception of this world around, and their part in the world forms their vyavaharika satya. This practical truth might differ from person to person, while eternal truth (also called 'Brahman' in Advaitian terms) remains longstanding.

This eternal truth is the one that keeps a person detached from this daily chaos, while still being a part of it. It brings in a sense of bigger entity (God) and a bird's view of life. This idea or thought is very essential to stay stable by not being affected by the traumas of everyday's life. Even in the worst of times, a person can see life from a macro view and get convinced that the situation he/she is in, is a very small one. Paramarthika satya keeps the connection between the eternal entity (God) and a person (Atman in terms of Advaita).

The vyavaharika satya keeps a person strung to the reality and continue to do his everyday tasks. It brings in a sense of practicality and a purpose to life. It keeps you in touch with the reality and senses.

If you see somebody doing a job or doing some act, we can understand his two levels of thought behind it.
Practical truth- he is doing it because it is his job to do it. It is the practical necessity for him to do it.
Eternal truth- By doing it, he is performing his karma and doing what is written in his fate. In a larger sense, he is destined to do it, and he is doing it. This world is just an illusion and his life a passing phase. To reach brahman, he should go through this illusion.

Using my science background, if I can draw an analogy of a man to a bacterial cell in a colony, the practical truth to the bacteria is its existence and survival, where as for someone looking into the microscope, it looks like illusion.

So, all my non-Indian friends, next time you make a judgement about an Indian being complex, try to look into which layer of thought he is in, at that point of time. You might understand him better.

Memories... bane or boon?

What started as "hi.. are you new to the class?" to today's sitting in the balcony and watching the mysterious and beautiful sun sinking into the horizon. It feels like nothing has changed... but nothing remained constant. Everything around us changed, the place we live, the new relation we are now bound with, people we interact with, jobs we do, the way we interact with each other.... everything. But when I look into your eyes, it is still the same. It reminds me of the day I first saw you- you trying to help me. Even today, every time I look at you, the same concern and love are still evident.

Things did not change much... memories are still fresh and alive. It feels like you and me are frozen in this world running haphazard around us. This world never cared for people who lag behind. It is mercy-less in abandoning its children who don't run fast enough. But I never cared what this damn world thought or acted like. I was lost in a completely different world- a world of your thoughts. A world where i did not have to run, but stand still and watch. Nothing else seemed important or worth. This world calls me crazy but why do I get the same feeling when I see them?

People say that everything changed and we should change too... our relation should change... I should get on with life... but how do I get on with life, when YOU are my life? They say you are gone, you never come back, we are no more husband and wife, but I am a widow and you are dead? How can you be dead if you still live in my eyes?

I wish you missed that bus.... I wish my memories erased...... I wish I was there in the bus.... i wish.....

(In memory of all those who were victims of our collective negligence)

You know you are a doctor's wife when......

There are many assumptions and presumptions around being a doctor's wife. I want to finally talk about it and tell this world the reality about being a doctor's wife.

Assumption 1: You married him because he is a doctor
Reality: False. I would have rather married somebody who would come home everyday by at least 7 in the evening and sit for dinner with me. (If you are talking about money, I am coming to that point next.) I married him because i genuinely like him. I like him not because he is a doctor, but in-spite of him being a doctor.(info: I know him even before he was a doctor and it dint change much since then.)

Assumption 2: He is a doctor. He must be rich.
Reality: False.Doctors don't have great packages. If you are looking at the consultation charges you pay at the hospital, doctors are given only a small part of it. He has enough loans to last for a lifetime. He spends his entire life (almost up to 35) studying, and lives on stipend, which is less than a nurse's salary. Finally, when he starts his practice, he has a study loan almost nearing a hundred lakhs.(this would take atleast 10-15 years to pay.)

Assumption 3: Since he is a doctor, you don't need to go to a doctor.
Reality: False. Your husband cannot be a gynecologist, pediatrician, surgeon, anesthetist, dermatologist, neurologist, nephrologist , etc. at the same time. You invariably end up running to a doctor, but Yes. atleast he tells you where you should go to.(but never accompanies you.)

Assumption 4: Doctors wives lead a fancy life. They don't have to work.
Reality: False. Most of the doctor's wives are under compulsion to work. They need to earn to make ends meet. If a doctor's wife is staying home, its not because she doesn't need to work, but because she is trying to compensate for the time Dr.P is not able to spend with his children. She is covering up for him.

Assumption 5: Dr.P doesn't pick his calls. Mrs. P doesn't let him talk to anybody.
Reality: False. most of the times you call him, he has his hand half buried in somebody's body and doesn't bother to look at the phone. When he comes home, and she picks the call, it means that he is sleeping after a continuous 48 hours of standing/running and she would want to convey your message after he wakes up.

Assumption 6: Dr.P is impatient and doesn't talk well/ has no patience.
Reality: False. He might be the most patient guy you might have ever come across... but you might be 172nd person of that day he is trying to explain something and is losing out on energy to do so.

You know you are a doctor's wife when....

• you are eating your dinner alone on your wedding anniversary, your birthday and his birthday.
• You wait for 2 days to tell him that you are pregnant.
• you go alone to all his friends and relatives weddings.
• you spend endless days, holidays, vacations ALONE.
• you go to a movie/dinner (very rarely) - he gets a call in the middle and rushes back.
• you pay the electricity, telephone and water bills, while coming back from bringing monthly groceries.
• crosscheck ten times before you sleep that the front door is locked because you are alone at home.
• keep your 'TV' on whole night, and sleep on the sofa.
• he is in a state of sleep-less coma when he is home and you are waiting to share with him, something important.
• You are talking to him and he is already asleep.
• he talks about patients and their history in sleep.
• you cook food for two, but eventually end up eating it both for lunch and dinner.
• you keep his parents updated because he doesn't do it.
•  you are washing a blood stained apron and stinking cloths.( he would have worn them for not less than 2 days at a stretch.)
• you are spoon feeding him, his dinner when he is already half asleep.
• he gets an emergency call in the middle of the night and runs to the hospital in his night pants, and you sit there watching, not knowing what to do.
• You are in an emergency but don't prefer to call him because you know he is not going to pick/ help.
• you go to all your medical consultations and scans alone, because he can't come.
• when you comeback home from work, there is nobody to ask you how your day was. (you feel like an orphan)
• you are for-ever waiting for him to complete his studies so that you can for once go shopping without budget constraints.
• Finally, you write it on a blog because you can't crib about it or complain to anybody, for it was YOUR choice to  marry him.

Yet, I am proud to be a doctor's wife, for its my (and his) sacrifice that is keeping somebody alive somewhere.....

Who am I ??

"WHO AM I ?"

Every person, in his journey of life poses one question to himself at some point or the other. This question sometimes has multiple answers and sometimes none. This question keeps returning at various stages in various forms. Many philosophers and thinkers have given various answers to this question but the same answer does not satisfy or fit everybody. Our journey of life continues in an attempt to answer this question. A continuous exploration of our inner self slowly but surely reveals an answer. But do we always need an answer to this or is the question enough to keep us thinking? Does the exploration end once we get an answer?

Some great thinkers have come up with answers to this question. Advaita professes the idea of " Aham Brahmasmi " 'I am God'. Dvaita contradicts this by saying '' I am different from God". There are various ways people have identified themselves. But did the question stop bothering once the answer is given? "NO". This question does not end in an answer. This demands more than an answer. This question demands a perspective, a thought, a reality and an identification.

Sometimes questions do not have a single answer. They can not be satisfied by a single thought. They need multiple answers. Answers evolve from each other like thoughts evolve and refine overtime. These thoughts vary from "Aham sahasra roopa" (I am everything (here sahasra means 'everything'... not 'thousand')) to  "Aham arupinah" (I am nothing(formless)).

Every person, animal, plant.... for that matter anything.... has a uniqueness to itself. This conveys that every object has an "I" or "Aham" within itself. this makes "I" as everything. Everything has its self and the self takes the form of the object, like water takes the form of the container but at the same time, when one asks for the shape of water, it possesses none. The same way, self has no form or it is formless at the same time has every form.
This argument reminds me of a famous line popularized by Bhakta Prahlada "ఇందుగలడందులేడని సందేహము వలదు ఎందెందు వెదకినా అందెందే గలడు ". This seems like it is talking about the self present in every form or saying "He (God) is everything" and when this is conjunct-ed with "I am God", we can derive "I am everything". But when we ask our self, where is this "I" within you, the answer is nowhere... "I am nothing".

Did you find your "I" yet?  if not.... its time to introspect...

Procrastination- enemy of a writer

To all those, who are ardent believers of one night stands with the books before exams..... do you know u guyz are lucky??
I joined a course which has no exams!! HURREY!!!! isn't that a dream of every student? But I realized its not a dream.. it started being a bad dream in the beginning, but now its close to a nightmare. Going through the path of engineering, I have been an obedient student, by clearing all my exams with one day batting...  This helped me complete my MBA too.. (both with distinction). At this point, I wanted to study more.... but I thought I was growing old and wanted to join a course which had no exams.... I wanted to study to gain knowledge... not a degree..(Really??). This led me to choosing philosophy. It sounded interesting for the reason that I could speak something, no one else understood.(Isn't that a criteria for being recognized as an intellectual?? ;) ) This course had another perk of having no exams!! This was my dream come true, and I jumped at the idea. Getting admitted and joining the course followed thereby. The twist in the story began when i realized that we were supposed to submit one assignment per week, throughout the course and an end of course dissertation for every subject. Initially I dint care much about it because i thought it was ok to write four assignments per week and four dissertations at the end of semester than going through exams. It all started well. First week was the honeymoon period. I wrote all that I could write. Second week showed me how writers are very hard working people and my respect towards them raised up like mercury in the thermometer. Third week was a disaster. I literally had a writer's block. At this point, i realized that I should distribute my writing throughout the week, than trying to write everything at once. Every week after that, I took an oath to start writing at least two assignments in the week and two in the weekends. All these weeks i didn't have anything less than four assignments pending by sunday night 9 pm.(Some of them i dint yet know the topic to be written about)
My usual one day batting worked for reading, but when it came to writing, it got exponentially difficult with every minute nearing deadline. Writing needs enormous efforts, added with continuous inflow of coffee into your gut.With every passing minute, your craving for junk food+coffee+ frustration increases manifolds. My week papers are generally 750-1000 words. It comes to anywhere between 3500-4000 words per week. For somebody who looks at it from outside, it dosen't look like a big deal. But for the writer, it feels like almost having 4000 deliveries. The pain of conceiving each word can be felt and understood only by a fellow writer.
Coming back to procrastination. It is a two sided knife. One, you cant start writing until the moment of "Start it NOW else u are doomed" comes. Once started at the last minute,it ends up being lousy work. At some point, it gets difficult to read your own paper.(I pity the faculty, who read and give feedback)Other being the effort and pain it takes when you begin the work at the dead end. It feels like the effort required in the last minute is gigantically more than what you feel under normal circumstances. At this point, anything in this world seems more important than opening your writing pad. At times, even washing dishes (with maid coming next day to do that.... not at all absolutely necessary for survival) seems more important and interesting than writing. Calling my previous house neighbor to talk about power cuts tops the list.

There are two things i wanted to convey to this world before this week ends.
1. Dont get misled by courses which dont have exams
2. Dont take up anything that involves writing (in the last minute).


PS: Its 11:30 pm (sunday) and I found writing a blog more important than writing my four pending papers.

The concept of Artha by Kautilya

                                             "Kautilya is an unashamed advocate of power in both internal administration and external relations of the state." When one reads most of the western translations and analysis, it is very common to stumble upon such opinions. Some Indian authors also go by the same notion.(Eg.Rao(1966) in his paper 'Kautilya and the secular state' makes such assumptions). The text should be read in the right spirit, to understand the balance of thought it propagates. When this is read in pieces and not as a whole, one comes to such biased conclusions. To understand his stand better, one should understand how Kautilya recognized four sciences and their inter-relationship. (Supported by researchers like K.J.Shah and Guru Charan Das)

Kautilya, recognizes four sciences- Anviksiki, trayi, vartta, dandaniti. These sciences discuss both material and moral wellbeing. Vartta and dandaniti give us the knowledge of material wellbeing, while Anviksiki and trayi discuss the moral wellbeing. He discusses the nature of these sciences, their interrelationship and implications of these relationships. 

In Anviksiki, the nature of science is illustrated by rational enquiry into Dharma and Adharma, Artha and Anartha, Nyaya and Apanyaya, and relative strength of these. The goal of science is to bring unity in thought, speech and action of individuals and society. Trayi discusses the duties of all Varnas and Ashrama dharmas. Vratta deals with agriculture and dandaniti deals with use of power for internal and external security.

Relationships between these sciences and its implications are further discussed by Kautilya, by stating that these sciences are not isolated from one another. They are related in such a way that Artha will not be Purusartha, unless it is in accord with Karma, Dharma and Moksha. He states that pursuing these sciences individually doesn't fulfill the goal of science- 'Unity in thought and action'. 

This can be summed up as: Artha alone as a goal is greed, Karma alone is lust, Dharma alone is mechanical ritual, and Moksha alone is escapism.

ArthaSastra lays down a structure to establish political institutions, which are in accordance with dharma. It could not have been the intention of Kautilya to say that Artha is the most important of all goals. This is done by explaining how Artha is the first chief of three-Dharma, Artha and Karma, because Dharma and Karma are rooted in Artha. Without Artha, there can be no karma and Dharma. But if there is Artha, without Karma and Dharma, what is the point of Artha by itself? Further, Artha will not be artha, if it is not in accordance with Dharma.

Artha in accordance with Dharma, and Dharma in accordance with Artha , are justified in the system of law and kingship, structured in such a way to attain both Artha and Dharma or Artha according to Dharma, and Dharma in consistency with Artha.

Just like most of the Indian texts, where smaller contexts are an integral part of bigger contexts, (Like a bigger story has multiple smaller stories embedded in it) it can be understood in the right spirit, only if one is aware of the bigger context.

The Gambler's song

The world of gambling is very fascinating and interesting. This is something which stood the test of time and remained alive. It has many references in our puranas and itihasas. Though gambling has been mentioned as a favorite recreation, its role in the epic Mahabharata is pivotal. What draws attention, more than the games are the stakes involved and ownership assumptions of the stakes.

When Pandavas offered elephants, chariots and finally their kingdom, their assumption of their ownership was not questioned. These were mere materialistic possessions. But when Yudhishtira offers his wife Draupadi as stake in the game, Draupadi questions him against his assumption of ownership of her. This whole episode gives an impression that wife is considered as an object to provide happiness to the man. Objectification of women is something that strikes in this gambling scene.

 An abducted Sita (from the epic Ramayana) to a modern day Delhi gang rape victim, there are countless examples of how women are commodified. Perhaps to be purchased, abducted, taken – and once tired of, even discarded; certainly not treated as full human beings with equal rights.
There is another important note that can be made from this story. Draupadi rejects Karna to participate in Swayamwara, considering that he wants to ‘gift’ her to Duryodhan. The same woman who revolted against objectifying her was made as a stake in the game. Does it carry a sense that women are free to voice against objectifying them as long as they are not married, but once they are married, they become possessions of their husband? Was that what she felt, since she followed her husbands into forest even after she was mistreated? The concept of patronizing women who follow their husbands into forests reflects the social expectations and demands of those times. There was no mention even in Ramayana or Mahabharata of how women who followed their husbands into forest felt. Were they doing it voluntarily or just succumbing to social pressures? Are these texts telling women what to do by showing these examples? Was there a context to discuss Draupadi’s opinion on sharing husbands? The story is always told from Pandava’s side as to how Kunti’s words can’t go false and that they had to share their wife. Also while mentioning of his victory in swayamwaram, Arjuna tells his mother that he has won a valuable prize. That is when his mother immediately responds by telling him to share it with his brothers. Is a woman nothing more than a valuable prize? Is she just an object that can be brought home, shared and enjoyed? Doesn't she possess rights to decide her own life? Did anyone bother to consider what she felt? Would any woman be willing to get married to five men?

This story makes the role of women in ancient India questionable. Women are taught and treated to be sub-ordinates and bound by social and cultural factors to loyally serve their husbands. Also the acceptance of multiple marriages of kings (polygyny), while idealizing women, who serve their husbands with devotion as ‘pativratas’ , reflects double standards in the social system. Exchange of a daughter’s hand in marriage to an emperor, as a symbol of their good relations, depicts the way women were objectified. Examples of women, who were treated as mere assets and picturing father or husband as the owner of a woman, while man is free to possess any number of women,  in many ancient texts reflects hypocrisy and patriarchy.

Interestingly, this scene of Mahabharata not only brings one to thinking about objectifying women but also the concept of ‘Dharma’ and dilemma in prioritizing dharma of various roles played by a  man. Mahabharata speaks about Yudhishtira having to have accepted the challenge as his Kshatriya dharma. Going as per the same notions, isn't it his dharma to protect his wife? Which Dharma is more important: As a Kshatriya or as a husband?  When he offers his wife in gambling, is his dharma as a husband overruled by his dharma as a king (Kshatriya)? Even if he is following Kshatriya dharma, does the same dharma approve him of gambling away his kingdom? Isn't Kshatriya dharma about protecting the kingdom and people, but not offering them as stake in a board game?
Isn't it human Dharma to treat all the creatures around you with respect and dignity, while considering them as equals?

The story of a Bengali Bahu in a Tamil family

These days I am encountering people who are so obsessed with the vedic knowledge arguing about going back and adapting ancient knowledge system. On the other side, Philosophers and researchers arguing that India has not significantly contributed to the science in recent times(Excluding Ramanujan and Bose). This made me interested in the trajectory of epistemology. Fortunately, one of my professors came with an article he published, to be discussed in the class. This broadly gave the idea of knowledge system and its emergence. I was more interested in the study of knowledge systems and their evolution, than in knowledge itself. After going through the article, I came to some understanding about western epistemology and its history. I am including a rough summary of it for better understanding of my further arguments(Read only if u r interested in History.Otherwise omit and save your patience for further discussion)
( For 2000 years, until 16^th century,  knowledge was limited to a set of disciplines. First division ‘Trivium’ constituted logic, grammar and rhetoric. Secondary education was concentrated on astronomy, music, arithmetic and geometry called “quadrivium”. Higher education was limited to Philosophy, Theology, Medicine and Law. Theology was a very important subject and was involved in every walk of life. Over a period of time, Theology slowly gave way to early modern disciplines. Various intellectual and social revolutions across Europe transformed the ordering of knowledge. Till 17^th century, Knowledge was ordered into two broad categories: Natural Philosophy and Natural History. By early 19^th century, a new order of episteme emerged, that gave rise to various specialized branches: traditional branches like Theology lost their prominence. Philosophy got restructured and became a part of arts. New disciplines like Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology emerged. In this period a new entrant emerged and gained importance. This branch called Social sciences was sharply demarcated. The birth of this discipline started during the enlightenment period and ended during French Revolution. Three major ideological camps have evolved in this newly formed discipline.1) Conservatives 2) anti-conservatives (anarchists, communists, etc.) and 3) Liberals.

Later, in the mid-19^th century, cultural and complexity studies argue against nomothetic theorizing and shifted to non-systemic, non-rational and non-predictive dimensions of reality. But this occurred more consciously and gave rise to ‘interdisciplinary’ approach. 21^st century brought in more proliferation of disciplines and had no patent interconnections between them. Today disciplines have become multidisciplinary and due to the enormous depth of each discipline, super speciality branches have evolved. )

Now, coming back to the argument of why India should/shouldn't go back and adapt ancient education system, I can state many arguments why that would not be a great idea but i will go with a few important ones.
1)Our vedic knowledge is not available in a complete form. We have bits and pieces, here and there, which are either taking their last breathe or artificially kept alive. Only 0.75% (I will quote sources substantiating this if u r really interested ;) )of our ancient knowledge is currently alive. Can we really afford to re-construct 99.25% of the knowledge from the existing 0.75%? Is it realistically possible?
2)Fortunately or unfortunately, colonial rule has already enforced its learning style and education system on most of the oriental countries. We are now standing at a mid point where we are crippled either to go forward (since western system in not yet imbibed into us) or backward(due to lack of knowledge left, and we hardly think in our mother tongue anymore...forget about doing something exotic and native.). We have been working on this system for more than 100 years now. If we go to our native style of education, we will loose on 100 years of progress.

Now, if you are accusing me of arguing on both sides of the discussion, hold on a minute... i am coming to the point.

To project India's current position, I can draw an analogy of a Bengali Bahu married to a Tamil guy. If one's cooking skill and knowledge of ingredients can be compared to the knowledge system, and Bengali bahu as India and Tamil In-law's house as Western system, the story can be told as:

It is difficult to follow bengali cooking in a tamil household, due to lack of availability of ingredients in TamilNadu, loss of knowledge and memory of bengali style of cooking, (for not keeping in touch with the native knowledge and loosing it overtime).
Since she is married to a Tamil family, she needs to learn to cook sambar. Irrespective of how well she tries to imitate and learn her mother-in-law's style of sambar, its not the same. Half her life is over in trying to learn to cook sambar in the exact way Tamilians do.
Now, for people asking why is India not making any significant contribution:
If half our life is over, to just learn and adapt to the new style, where is the scope and space to think about experimenting? Even in case the Bengali bahu tries to experiment something in Tamil style, She would still need the acceptance and approval of her Tamil In-laws to actually recognise that she has done a good job.
Aren't our scientists recognised in India, only after their work is accepted as authentic, by either american and europian scholars?
So what is the way out? How should the Bengali Bahu build up on the existing knowledge acquired by learning to cook sambar to make path breaking creative contributions?

First, to ignore her in-laws(read it as Western) domination in deciding and dictating what she should and shouldn't do, she should have a strong support system. This can be built by gathering similar Bahus, within the family (say, co-sisters) and create a professional group to analyse, critique and evolve. This makes her stand stronger. I would call these professional groups in India as "Universities" and "Research centres". Once your groups are stronger, strive to collectively produce good work constantly and benchmark these groups to highest standards. This will eventually make the in-laws look at your work with a positive and open mind. Once you beat them in their game, you can further look at integrating your native knowledge with the western knowledge to evolve into a new discipline. This would lead to a better acceptance of this new discipline.

Now, to people who still argue that Indians are not significantly contributing, I would say read about politics in intellectual arena about  how ivy league members are ganging up against the rest of the world when it comes to publishing. Don't count papers from India, but count papers by Indians sitting in the US universities.You will definitely see the numbers raising hugely.
Would it mean that Indians were dumb when they were here, and just got downloaded with knowledge once they go there??

Thinking – Discovering my inner world

I have always had this habit of letting my thoughts loose to just wander around, and trace back the chain of thoughts as to see where I started from and how I reached a certain thought. This is my favorite past time, when I wait for appointments, buses, during travelling and almost all the time when I am left idle. Today it occurs to me that I have never wondered about my experience of thinking itself, while actually doing it all the time, either consciously or unconsciously.

Today, when I think about my experiences of thinking, I realize that my thinking wasn’t constant throughout my journey. I thought differently during different points of my life. Various factors affected my thinking in various ways. So, can I say “thinking is not a constant experience but a dynamic one?” “Does one’s thinking depend on their life experiences?”  I feel that I think very similar to my dad. Most of the times, we come out with same thoughts and words. It makes me wonder if thinking is influenced by inherent characteristics or genes. I also wonder if thinking actually needs a language.

I remember a time, when I used to think in Telugu, which is my mother tongue. While today, I think in English. Now I tried to think in Telugu once again, and it seems to be little difficult. “Does thinking have a language? Does it have preference of one language over the other? ”Is there clarity of thought when one thinks in the language they are comfortable with?” does thinking mean “listening to your own thoughts?”

My thinking isn’t always monologue. There is a dialogue between two sets of thoughts.  I argue with myself and at instances laugh at my own arguments. Further extending these thoughts, I sometimes think in pictures too. These are the pictures I either recollect from my memory or sometimes create them myself.

Now, with my thoughts pondering about thinking, I am discovering a whole new world inside me, which I never realized, that existed. I most of the times lived in this ‘thought world’ playing different roles from an innocent sleeping baby to savior of the earth. I use this world as my rescue, when I need to run away from the real world. I remember this particular incident of picturing myself as bold speaker, while I was standing on the stage and trembling to speak. Most of the times, this thought world takes me into its arms to comfort me from real life problems. I create a whole scenario of the problem and its alternative solutions to estimate the effect each solution would have on me and people around. There were times when I pictured myself as solving these problems and standing as an achiever. Almost all the time, I am the protagonist in the play.

Though thinking happens all the time, thoughts are not always meaningful. At times, they tend to be random, unrelated, weird and creepy too. It takes enormous amount of energy to channelize my thoughts and not let them wander around. It makes me feel like a mental exercise. Thinking about mental exercises, sometimes I wonder how the phrase “food for thought” came into existence. “Do thoughts really need food?” “Do we lose our thinking ability if we don’t practice it (or can I say feed it)?” Does it become easier to channelize thoughts with practice? Are there methods to keep one focused on a single thought? Are there ways to develop specific ways of thinking like critical thinking and creative thinking? Are there ways to practice ‘not-thinking’?

 I also had instances where I did not think absolutely anything. At these instances, I did not think of not thinking anything too. My thought world would be blank and I wouldn’t realize that I wasn’t thinking anything. This mostly happens when I dance. My body dances to the well-practiced steps but my thoughts go blank. These are the moments I feel like in a world of eternal peace. “So, is thinking causing turbulence and making me loose peace?” “Is it good to think at all?” “What happens if we don’t think? Is it possible to stop thinking voluntarily?”

With all this thought about experiences of my thinking, should I call it an experience at all? Is thinking an experience like pain or pleasure? Can thoughts be felt? Do thoughts have any impact on physical processes of the body? Do thoughts control our body or body controls our thoughts?

Thinking about thinking is more like questioning the question. Should we ask right questions to figure out right answers? Do these questions have answers or will the answers lead to more questions and a lot more thinking?