Friday, April 17, 2009


The years after Indian independence has yielded the power to Nehru was unparallel. The task of creating some sense of pan Indian or nationalism was huge. However amidst of that we followed secular path within the wisdom of non-align status. The constitutionally evolved freedom coupled with secular & democratic virtues trying to dwell on non-align principle was monstrous effort. The fact that we had only 25% literate mass present, impact of violence of post partition dividing people on religious front was still visible & social fracture of castes that existed for ever, how do we reconcile these vehemently evolved existence to in secular box?.

The non-align principal made us move away from axis power on one side & power bloc on other side. The soft inclination towards socialist was visible solely for veto power at UNO on long pending territorial issue with neighbor. This has been our double standard operative politics whose roots can be traced much before independence. The formation of non-align got us some respect without identity as democratic nation. The desire to perform the rituals as elder brother was very much clear intention by fact that we could gather only weak nations.

All these ideological fantasies have brought about the pop-secularism amongst the illiterate vanguards, whose credentials are completely at disarray as being secular persona. The secular fa├žade is like metro-sexual, its urban phenomenon, disguise that one adopts for reassurance. The brand political battle for secular vs. non secular (pseudo in either case) is contemptuous on very ground they assume to be standing.

The dividing role that brand politics wish to play on mass can be easily be divided in two faces, one being present oneself globally in guise of secular while other present oneself as romantic idealist of history for nationalist move. It is perhaps most difficult to imagine for most of us about our priority. The word secular seems to be new fashion whose true values are confused. Its like new way of socializing, everyone wants it but no one wants to own it by its value....

Thursday, April 9, 2009


Year 1980, few young students of 12th standard attending Prof. Joshi lecture on Organic Chemistry, floored by his immense knowledge on subject. He could cite page numbers for related topics from various books. He was perhaps best faculty by then, naturally, each student would follow his method to prepare for exams. The time has gone by few decades, & many questions arising today to those students of 1980 about what it takes to be a good teacher, or how one qualifies someone to be a good teacher. Prof. Joshi could teach well, could demonstrate the formation of Kentone or Formaldehyde group in few seconds. However the fact remains today that none of the student of 1980m batch took up organic chemistry as principal specialization or none of them could take up pure science as a principal specialization.

That brings the question raised in 5th line, who is best teacher? One come to some conclusion that either there is good knowledgeable teacher or someone who inspires. There are enough examples from school times, where one who let you prepare meticulously, while someone fires up the new ways of seeing. Prof. Joshi couldn’t make the subject more imaginative, partly due to programmed way of teaching, or shear exam based delineation. While teaching organic chemistry he could have cited examples of chemical weapons of mass destruction versus production of organic compound from nature & use as alternate energy. It may have made subject matter more interesting & could have inspired someone to be specialized in that subject.

Contrast to Prof Joshi, a School teacher, Ms Chawksy was teaching English to vernacular students, rather much difficult situation than Prof. Joshi. However Ms. Chawksy could teach with example of English movie, cricket radio commentary, club with routine subject of English grammar. This is precise difference that student could take active interest in English subject, partly for exam while learning different language with great ease. Attributing major subjects to monolithic format is a typical rudimentary & parochial thinking.

So any subject can be interesting if one brings about generalization from specificity. It is intellectual & moral experiences that brings about meaning & richness in teaching, & perhaps prerequisite for good teacher.

Saturday, April 4, 2009


The failures are vanquished, perhaps redundant of so called civilized society. The misery of such despondent thoughts are very much Indian & perhaps victors are like epic heroism. The paranoia over failure is assumed to be horror, which one may not able to rationalize even if one indulge in practiced anti-system. To work against the system is reforming idea but valid only if it contributes for productive end. To substantiate social complication is common virtue that would justify for such indulgence is also very much Indian thought. The idea of system is like uniform, brings all aspects of circumstances, disparity, inequality, and un-privilege to neutrality. Isn’t that the very idea of any institution stems from…?

I must confess that it had been most horrifying experience to have faced parents & students on account of failure (understanding view on architecture). The parents justifying, assumed honesty & intelligence on part of their kids, further accusing faculty for almost ignoring, overlooking the much oozing potentiality of reformer like the rising of Neo-Einstein had been most embarrassing situation. It is almost confirming my conviction that education has nothing to do with awakening of intelligence. The most learned fellows are most passive & retarded actors, promoting anti system.
It also brings forth the ironed out notion, confirms that performance in any discipline are at par with performance at SSC, HSC, or even engineering & medicine. It’s a brunt that architecture profession has been facing from common man point of view.