Why I love being at Greenpeace.

Many might be wondering why I work for Greenpeace. Well I know, this is a clichéd start to an article. I often pen my thoughts down, now have I decided to go public with them. So yes, working with GP has a charm of its own.

Its an organization with clearly defined and not-that-flexible portfolios on issues. They say, ‘NO NUKES’, ‘NO GM’. PERIOD. No more discussion. They’re radical people. They have been programmed for fixed opinions, which each employee adheres to. I wonder how they manage to keep up with that.

I mean, throughout my stint at GP, I didn’t meet a single, no wait, A SINGLE, employee, who even slightly disagreed, or dared to have a different opinion, on otherwise controversial issues.

I’m not criticizing. One reason could be, the people there have discussed and debated the issue extensively at home, before declaring it as an official stand. Hence the unified opinions.

But I have second thoughts, considering the GP opinions hardly look like debated or discussed topics. They’re assertive. They do not accept any compromise, or a middle way out.

I’m very prone to wandering away from the point, when I write, or even in real life. I’d get to the point now.

I like working for GP, because everyday it gives a huge void to think.

There is this titanic space for thought, under the roof of their assertive propagandas.

And I have penchant for hypocrisy, you allege, I agree.

At the Actions Training at Bangalore, I was discussing the GM food issue with Kuba Gogolewski( I love this name). Kuba commented, all the money you put into biotechnology, you put it into another science, and you’d get better results and products.

I told Ayesha at Barista, SDA Mkt over coffee, that renewable energy sources can still not be an alternative to nuclear power, as they are costlier, and still not very “reliable.” She commented, “All the money one puts into nukes, you put it to develop these resources, they’d do better”.

They’re right in their own right. Kuba has a degree in economics, and Ayesha is a criminologist.

All economic theories are programmed to work this way, ‘the dynamics of demand and supply’, ‘higher profit in less time’ etc. (I wonder how economists manage to think about money that lot.)

I might be making a controversial statement when I say this, but when it comes to science, these theories are blah. Scientists like Mendeleev were honored with posthumously, because their theories were useless in their period, but changed the face of mankind years later! And point be noted, Nobel prizes aren’t about the greatest discoveries, they’re about discoveries that changed mankind and science the most. The day economics starts to be the chief inspiration for the sciences. Sciences would die.

Take my current project in college for instance. I’m working on “Proteinases.” Why? What’s the use? I have no answer or idea. But that doesn’t make it any less interesting. Just four types of bacterial enzymes, their behavior, and surprises are the driving force. Who knows this ‘project of no use’ is the next AIDS cure. (I’m dreaming about the Nobel right now FYI!!)

I have NO suggestions to make. Perhaps if anything changes with GP, it wouldn’t be even half as beautiful as right now. Perhaps fixed propagandas are stronger propagandas. Let’s just say, “Greenpeace is all about a group of people having fun, saving the planet, in the process!!”

Theatre and Patriarchy

Talking about patriarchy is “in” these days, or at least in my friend circles. That’s probably because I am an activist. Being one, there’s one fact I’ve realized about women activists. They might be the fighters for any cause- environment, children, gay rights, RTI, Free Tibet. A female activist would always be a ‘women rights activist’ AND some other activist.

And hence you might quite realize how I’m being forced to realize that men are nothing but patriarchic pigs, and there’s patriarchy everywhere in the world. English is a patriarchic language. Corporate offices are ‘P’. Marriage is a ‘P’ institution. The Bra is ‘P’. Pregnancy is because god was ‘P’. And so forth… Phew!

Theatre societies in schools/colleges are pretty interesting groups. There is one group of so-called passionate actors, who almost always play the lead and the second lead roles. There isn’t much movement in and out of this clan. The rest of the roles are played by a more volatile crowd. They don’t take theatre very seriously, a lot of them quit, and a lot new join in. More often than not, there are very few women in the former. Even the leading ladies have to be drawn out of the latter. Or that’s probably just because women aren’t very passionate about much anything..really!!!

Just imagine, if a play has a female as the leading character(s), it’s called a female centric play. Whereas otherwise it’s just default, it’s a normal play. There is a special mention of the word female, because most of the plays have men as the leading people. That’s because they are the people who matter, and have traditionally mattered. They have been heads of families, societies, institutions. They were the ones influencing changes, and hence, inspiring plays.

I remember myself and a few other boys dominating the theatre scene of our school. There was always a tough fight for the best actor shield in the inter-house plays, who gets to act on the annual day, which one gets the excellence in theatre shield. At the back of my mind I did realize, there were certain girls who deserved these laurels as much as we did, if not more, but were never even considered in the race. I see them doing great in professional theatre, and I look back and wonder why?

The question is not why they didn’t get any prize they deserved. The question is why weren’t they ever even considered?

In college the theatre society has pretty respectable sex ratio. When I read a script, I can well imagine which actor would fit into which role. It’s clear in front of my eyes. But when it comes to actresses, NEVER! I always think I’d have to audition a few of them for the roles. Am I a patriarch?

Most certainly no! But somehow, a thought that women are just not competitive enough does slip into my mind every now and then.

I shared these thoughts with a few friends and I realized, I’m not the only one suffering from such a dilemma. Is theatre about to be added on list of the-bra-burning-women’s hit list? Or am I just keeping a lot of bad company these days!!? I don’t know…..

Ambedkar and Gandhi

Based on the popular play "Ambedkar and Gandhi" by the Asmita Group, directed by Arvind Gaur.

Dr B R Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi both worked tirelessly for the upliftment of the backward Dalit community in India. Different was their method of going about the job. Neither agreed with the other's ideology, nor did they ever get along well together.

REVIEW:
-----------

Ambedkar was a supporter of reservation. His point was that if the Dalit community was even more backward than the Sikhs or the Muslims(religious minorities), and the religious minorities were being awarded reservation in assembly seats, Dalits had a greater right to reservation than them.

Ambedkar wanted to bring about a change in the societal mentality. He thought opening a few temples to Dalits was not the solution to untouchability. He believed the only way out was to make a dalit man work in all offices, schools, colleges right next to a Brahmin. And thats how the institution would die away.

Ambedkar wanted to abolish the Hindu Caste System altogether.

Gandhi had seen the effects of communal divide in the society. He believed caste based reservation would further divide the society. He believed reservation would turn "caste" into a more permanent entity. and its significance would further increase in the social sphere.

Ambedkar however believed if Gandhi's ideas are implemented, the world would continue as it is, where it is. It would mean a "No Change, No Hope" for the Dalits. He justified it with the fact that the community he represented was way too downtrodden, poor and weak to fight for its rights anytime in the near future.

Gandhi was a staunch believer of the Shastras. he believed that the Caste system formed the backbone of Hindu society, and should exist. He believed hereditary inheritance of varnas, and son-follows-father's-profession-only system should continue. Untouchability should be done away with, though.

He believed in the classic ideology that if a man born in a cobbler's family chooses to be anything else except a cobbler, would create confusion and unrest in the society.

Ambedkar wanted to dissolve and nullify caste system altogether.

Opinions of both the leaders influenced each other, and evolved with time. The Poona Pact was a short period of peace between the two leaders. Who otherwise always on each-other's line of fire.

Ambedkar accused Gandhi of being a victim of the Brahmin mentality. Gandhi at instances even agreed with him on this one, and wrote that he wants to be born in a Dalit household in his next birth, to truly experience and understand what it is like, to be an untouchable and root the problem out.

In today's society we see that both the leaders were right in their own right. While caste system has assumed greater importance in today's political and social spheres. We aren't really ashamed of sitting next to a dalit student in our classes are we?! At the same time we question, How justified is reservation? And often resent the undeserving, financially sound harijans enjoying benefits, they don't deserve.

For us Ambedkar is the man on Mayawati's one thousand statues, and Gandhi the smiling face on our banknotes.

What we don't realize that they represent an open-ended debate with no start, and no end in sight.

"These two men, never liked each other, but neither would have been as great a man, had the other not existed"!! :)

Ambedkar aur Gandhi.

Character Descriptions:
-----------------------------

AMBEDKAR: Headstrong, Egoistic, Aggressive, Sharp tongued, Opinionated, A man like him if believes in a certain cause/method would never settle for the middle way out.

GANDHI: Had a more populist and principled approach to situations.
One important fact to be noticed is that inspite of having thousands of people around him who believed that his word is law, and reiterated everyday that he is "The Mahatme Gandhi". He managed to keep his down-to-earth-on-the-streets character alive.

My Day Will Come Again

In class XIIth after a measly score '5' in the first term Physics(terrible teacher!!), I was deeply saddened and depressed. And the little kiddo set out.

And as always this poem i wrote, channeled my emotions out of the crisis!

This is my life, this is not my day.
When too high to trod, the paths do lay
When I lie here, with my spirits too low
When I didn't like it, but was forced to bow
When I want this saga, this story to end
When no-one's sympathy is offered to lend
I think it not still try in vain
My Day May Come Again..

The heart sinks, it fears the tale sordid
I did it not-lies the coward tongue, timid
When eyes do close with water of plight
When lips roll in with utmost might
When slowly the sparkling pearls roll down
When your own stars stare at you and frown
I think it not still try in vain
My Day Would Come Again.

This rocky path i walk alone
a thousand walks waiting, yet thousand gone
I tried to be what i wanted to be
Looking back failures is all i see
The needles of failure at my soul do poke
The thought of sleep when no one woke
When those burnt luck hands beat thy chest
I try it not I try my best
I think it not still try in vain
My Day Should Come Again.

The sun of hope rises again
The heart jumps up and tries a bargain
But the friends are lost, the goal is far
Even intution struggles in this intutuional war
I'd try again, I'd try I'd fail
Yet try again, try not to fail
A dedicated try, a better one
Would make the mountain, valley none
I think it not, still try in vain
My Day Should Come Again..

Everyday when darkness descends
It is night, not life's end.
But you know for sure, will end the night

The Dawn ahead will bring new light

Yes i believe, I like to believe
MY DAY WILL COME AGAIN...