I visited a MAC cosmetics store two years ago to purchase Strobe cream, something Anj recommended. Walked into the Mumbai In-orbit store and felt very intimidated, just as I had felt in their Bangalore outlet. As a make-up novice, it was comforting to know exactly what I wanted. The products were great, the staff was courteous, but professional to the point of seeming cold. I was stumped. Why would a cosmetics brand train itself to be so?
I read up on the origins of MAC. Founded in 1984 in Toronto by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo, MAC was specifically designed for professional make-up artists. It was only much later that they started retailing on the high street and Estee Lauder took over the brand in 1994. That gave me an inkling of why they might have felt so cold – they started as a brand that sold to professionals, akin to a b2b business. When they turned to consumers, perhaps their demeanour remained the same. Even their store design seemed more like a professional's make up box rather than a boudoir. They were professional, even to the novices.
Brands possess inherent qualities which impart a grace peculiar to each one of them. The same is true of characters in sitcoms, books, films and just as true for us Human Beings. As years go by, some of us enhance the grace within us and some of us misplace it within layers of conditioned behaviour. Going against our grace produces a dissonance that doesn’t seem right, to the viewer as well as the character involved. When we speak of actors in plays or sitcoms or movies and marvel how they never let their character slip, we are speaking of them staying within their grace. Like the cast of Friends - their reactions always seem so true to their characters, in good situations and bad. The writers of the show have channelled a consistency makes them so predictable and thus relatable to us, as old friends. Saas-Bahu serials often lose the plot when they make characters do things that are against their grace and viewers lose interest or faith in the story.
To be successful in the long run is perhaps a measure of how well one has managed to not go against one’s grace and stay in character till the curtains go down. As with acting, it is a matter of living the role, of understanding the motivation and inherent qualities that define our character. Once that is figured, it’s a matter of sticking to our natural tendency and relating to everything from that perspective.
Grace is a gift only we can take away from ourselves. Whether we do so willingly or unwittingly, it shapes who we are and who we choose not to be. A block of wood when planed in the wrong direction will tear rather than form a smooth surface, a thing aptly captured in the saying - going against the grain. Or should I say grace.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Everyday Musings > 1000 words on Peace
Last week, V and I watched ‘Thirteen Days’ - a film about the Cuban missile crisis and how it was diffused. JFK was the president, in a run up to the polls, and his armed forces chiefs advised him that war was the only option available. JFK pursued a new course of diplomacy and pushed for peace and eventually in a barter deal with Russia prevented a nuclear showdown.
Today, the Kid sent me a link – to an article on peace journalism by Aditi Bhaduri. She wrote of the role of a journalist reporting the Israel-Palestine conflict and what peace journalism is all about. How by understanding the many reasons and many influences that create conflict, one could really give a credible hearing to all. At the end of the article was a list of 17 do's and don’ts of Peace Journalism compiled by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick.
In both, the film and the do's and don’t s, what struck me was the intent. Both parties were thinking peace, were thinking of how to restore balance, and it changed what they did. But thinking peace also has another side. In the film, JFK was being thought of as ‘weak’ by his Armed Forces chiefs for not taking a firm decision on war, and the journalist for peace possibly faced the risk of trying to balance both sides so heavily that he/she lost objectivity. Aditi quotes Christiane Amanpour – "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing."
I read through the do s and don’t s and found that it was an essential learning. The language of news reporting in India has changed - in paper and on TV. From the DD days of unemotional reading of the news to Prannoy Roy’s analytical and investigative news to the Aaj Tak, IBN, Zee News, Barkha, Arnab and Rajdeep face-offs. The form of reporting that we are exposed possibly also changes our language. Are we always alert to seeing through the words and judging for ourselves and finding out more before we do so. I wonder.
All do's and don'ts I felt, had parallels to our life, as much as it did to peace journalism. I feature some here.
“Avoid portraying a conflict as consisting of only two parties contesting one goal. The logical outcome is for one to win and the other to lose. Instead, a peace journalist would disaggregate the two parties into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals, opening up more creative potential for a range of outcomes.”
This extends to our everyday life as well as politics. The moment we see that there is web of intent rather than just two full stops that say black and white, we are able to form more solutions. A fight between a husband and wife, a boss and an employee. Understanding the greys, the situations from both sides, studying them gives us more options.
“Avoid demonising labels like "terrorist," "extremist", "fanatic" and "fundamentalist". These are always given by "us" to "them". No one ever uses them to describe himself or herself, and so, for a journalist to use them is always to take sides. Instead, try calling people by the names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your descriptions.”
We associate words to people in our life and judge them by how they fare by it, not realising that it was our definition of them, not theirs. Labeling someone a 'calm' person and being disturbed if that person loses their temper than if a person who is labeled 'angry' lost their temper. Many misunderstandings could be resolved or new understandings formed once we dwell on where our judgement of things arises from.
“Avoid concentrating always on what divides the parties, the differences between what they say they want. Instead, try asking questions that may reveal areas of common ground and leading your report with answers which suggest some goals may be shared or at least compatible, after all.”
We could count ten reasons why we absolutely cannot get along with someone, or be on their team or be their friend. Sometimes, looking at the other side, gives you another option of compatibility, if not friendship.
“Avoid imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened to people. "Genocide" means the wiping out of an entire people. "Decimated" (said of a population) means reducing it to a tenth of its former size. "Tragedy" is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone's fault or weakness proves his or her undoing. "Assassination" is the murder of a head of state. "Massacre" is the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed and defenseless. Are we sure? Or might these people have died in battle? * "Systematic" eg raping or forcing people from their homes. Has it really been organised in a deliberate pattern or have there been a number of unrelated, albeit extremely nasty incidents? Instead, always be precise about what we know. Do not minimise suffering but reserve the strongest language for the gravest situations or you will beggar the language and help to justify disproportionate responses that escalate the violence.”
When we catch ourselves in mid speech, trying to convince someone of something we want to convince them on, our words are different, more exaggerated, more forceful perhaps. We see this on News channels now, as they turn more competitive and need to get into our minds before some other news channel does – they brand incidents – create large pictures, use forceful words. We do the same in our lives, but don’t always see how that is affecting us.
Thinking peace is about building objectivity in life, the middle path. There are many among us who do it as a way of life, only perhaps are so successful at it that it goes unnoticed in the maddening rush of winning and losing. JFK said after the Cuban missile crisis was diffused – “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”
Today, the Kid sent me a link – to an article on peace journalism by Aditi Bhaduri. She wrote of the role of a journalist reporting the Israel-Palestine conflict and what peace journalism is all about. How by understanding the many reasons and many influences that create conflict, one could really give a credible hearing to all. At the end of the article was a list of 17 do's and don’ts of Peace Journalism compiled by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick.
In both, the film and the do's and don’t s, what struck me was the intent. Both parties were thinking peace, were thinking of how to restore balance, and it changed what they did. But thinking peace also has another side. In the film, JFK was being thought of as ‘weak’ by his Armed Forces chiefs for not taking a firm decision on war, and the journalist for peace possibly faced the risk of trying to balance both sides so heavily that he/she lost objectivity. Aditi quotes Christiane Amanpour – "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing."
I read through the do s and don’t s and found that it was an essential learning. The language of news reporting in India has changed - in paper and on TV. From the DD days of unemotional reading of the news to Prannoy Roy’s analytical and investigative news to the Aaj Tak, IBN, Zee News, Barkha, Arnab and Rajdeep face-offs. The form of reporting that we are exposed possibly also changes our language. Are we always alert to seeing through the words and judging for ourselves and finding out more before we do so. I wonder.
All do's and don'ts I felt, had parallels to our life, as much as it did to peace journalism. I feature some here.
“Avoid portraying a conflict as consisting of only two parties contesting one goal. The logical outcome is for one to win and the other to lose. Instead, a peace journalist would disaggregate the two parties into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals, opening up more creative potential for a range of outcomes.”
This extends to our everyday life as well as politics. The moment we see that there is web of intent rather than just two full stops that say black and white, we are able to form more solutions. A fight between a husband and wife, a boss and an employee. Understanding the greys, the situations from both sides, studying them gives us more options.
“Avoid demonising labels like "terrorist," "extremist", "fanatic" and "fundamentalist". These are always given by "us" to "them". No one ever uses them to describe himself or herself, and so, for a journalist to use them is always to take sides. Instead, try calling people by the names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your descriptions.”
We associate words to people in our life and judge them by how they fare by it, not realising that it was our definition of them, not theirs. Labeling someone a 'calm' person and being disturbed if that person loses their temper than if a person who is labeled 'angry' lost their temper. Many misunderstandings could be resolved or new understandings formed once we dwell on where our judgement of things arises from.
“Avoid concentrating always on what divides the parties, the differences between what they say they want. Instead, try asking questions that may reveal areas of common ground and leading your report with answers which suggest some goals may be shared or at least compatible, after all.”
We could count ten reasons why we absolutely cannot get along with someone, or be on their team or be their friend. Sometimes, looking at the other side, gives you another option of compatibility, if not friendship.
“Avoid imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened to people. "Genocide" means the wiping out of an entire people. "Decimated" (said of a population) means reducing it to a tenth of its former size. "Tragedy" is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone's fault or weakness proves his or her undoing. "Assassination" is the murder of a head of state. "Massacre" is the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed and defenseless. Are we sure? Or might these people have died in battle? * "Systematic" eg raping or forcing people from their homes. Has it really been organised in a deliberate pattern or have there been a number of unrelated, albeit extremely nasty incidents? Instead, always be precise about what we know. Do not minimise suffering but reserve the strongest language for the gravest situations or you will beggar the language and help to justify disproportionate responses that escalate the violence.”
When we catch ourselves in mid speech, trying to convince someone of something we want to convince them on, our words are different, more exaggerated, more forceful perhaps. We see this on News channels now, as they turn more competitive and need to get into our minds before some other news channel does – they brand incidents – create large pictures, use forceful words. We do the same in our lives, but don’t always see how that is affecting us.
Thinking peace is about building objectivity in life, the middle path. There are many among us who do it as a way of life, only perhaps are so successful at it that it goes unnoticed in the maddening rush of winning and losing. JFK said after the Cuban missile crisis was diffused – “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Everyday Musings > Practice
Practice = repetition = familiarity = routine = boredom = being thorough = perfectionism = Godliness. A simple act of practice if followed through could lead to Nirvana?
So a woodcutter who diligently cuts wood in the same precise manner, every hour, every day, every week, every year, for all his life is closer to Nirvana than the random me who doesn’t stick to anything but flits and is constantly at the starting point over and over again?
I mentioned this to V who promptly handed me Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and said that he spoke of it too. And even quantified it. 10,000 Hours. That’s how much practice masters put into their craft. Bill Gates, Michael Schumacher, Michael Jordan, Beatles, anybody who has made it to the top of their fields did so with practice.
Perhaps that is why they say Jack of all, master of none. Because for one to be a master, one has to choose and do that one thing over and over again. I go back to ‘The Cooking Gene’ and what I wrote about cooking. Of course, there is the element of love and talent, but perhaps the reason why our grandmothers and mothers are so much better at it than we are was because they practiced more than us. They cooked morning, afternoon and night, every day for all their lives, most of them starting to help their mothers in the kitchen from when they were very young. How do we, the microwave-meal generation, expect to match that amount of rigorous practice?
The better writers write more. The better singers sing more. The better cooks cook more. So the sooner you start, the better your chances at more practice time. My friend ‘I’ always said to me, The best time to start is when you are furthest from where you want to be.’ Reading Outliers and the many factors that he states for the rise of winners, it seems like the advantage is clearly with those who began early and had all the advantages of that time - Luck, opportunity, the right guidance and timing. And of course, practice.
The book talks of other things too – of how winners are not self-made - that their environment, the opportunity they got, the guidance they received and how even being born in the right month changed their destiny. Not astrological at all, just a view of how the modern natural selection system works. He also talks of IQ and how in a class of clever students, it doesn’t matter who cleverer. All have great levels of analytical intelligence; what then matters is who has more Practical Intelligence. He makes a case for how wealthy children are brought up to own the world whereas poor children are taught to be deferential and constrained. And that he says makes a huge difference in getting ahead. The reviewers called the book ‘humane’ perhaps because it breaks the myth of the X Gene being solely responsible for why the greats are great. It tells you that there is a system and that perhaps there is a way to beat the system. I’m still reading it and there’s much more to go before I feel the humane bit kick in.
If a thing has been repeated enough number of times, it becomes the truth. I read that a long time ago and wondered about the nature of the universe. 10,000 Hours. There is something in the practice argument. I see it working with my cooking and my writing, when I do write. My parents have said it enough times to me too - practice makes perfect. Thankfully, they also said, it's never too late to learn. Whew.
So a woodcutter who diligently cuts wood in the same precise manner, every hour, every day, every week, every year, for all his life is closer to Nirvana than the random me who doesn’t stick to anything but flits and is constantly at the starting point over and over again?
I mentioned this to V who promptly handed me Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and said that he spoke of it too. And even quantified it. 10,000 Hours. That’s how much practice masters put into their craft. Bill Gates, Michael Schumacher, Michael Jordan, Beatles, anybody who has made it to the top of their fields did so with practice.
Perhaps that is why they say Jack of all, master of none. Because for one to be a master, one has to choose and do that one thing over and over again. I go back to ‘The Cooking Gene’ and what I wrote about cooking. Of course, there is the element of love and talent, but perhaps the reason why our grandmothers and mothers are so much better at it than we are was because they practiced more than us. They cooked morning, afternoon and night, every day for all their lives, most of them starting to help their mothers in the kitchen from when they were very young. How do we, the microwave-meal generation, expect to match that amount of rigorous practice?
The better writers write more. The better singers sing more. The better cooks cook more. So the sooner you start, the better your chances at more practice time. My friend ‘I’ always said to me, The best time to start is when you are furthest from where you want to be.’ Reading Outliers and the many factors that he states for the rise of winners, it seems like the advantage is clearly with those who began early and had all the advantages of that time - Luck, opportunity, the right guidance and timing. And of course, practice.
The book talks of other things too – of how winners are not self-made - that their environment, the opportunity they got, the guidance they received and how even being born in the right month changed their destiny. Not astrological at all, just a view of how the modern natural selection system works. He also talks of IQ and how in a class of clever students, it doesn’t matter who cleverer. All have great levels of analytical intelligence; what then matters is who has more Practical Intelligence. He makes a case for how wealthy children are brought up to own the world whereas poor children are taught to be deferential and constrained. And that he says makes a huge difference in getting ahead. The reviewers called the book ‘humane’ perhaps because it breaks the myth of the X Gene being solely responsible for why the greats are great. It tells you that there is a system and that perhaps there is a way to beat the system. I’m still reading it and there’s much more to go before I feel the humane bit kick in.
If a thing has been repeated enough number of times, it becomes the truth. I read that a long time ago and wondered about the nature of the universe. 10,000 Hours. There is something in the practice argument. I see it working with my cooking and my writing, when I do write. My parents have said it enough times to me too - practice makes perfect. Thankfully, they also said, it's never too late to learn. Whew.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Everyday Musings > The Essential Life
Essential home by Judith Wilson and Jan Baldwin is a home decor book that concentrates on the essentials of a home. Judith and Jan talk of building a foundation with good linen, truly comfortable cushions, rugs that feel great to touch, few pieces of classic furniture, well made glassware and cutlery. It could then be dressed up or down after the basics are in place. ‘Easy Living’ by Terrance Conran talks of similar things; of the element of quality in a home that makes it easy to live in. Of being aware of fabrics, textures, even button fastenings, all of which can affect the sense of real comfort.
The home that my parents grew up in had furniture made of solid teak that’s in the family even today. The utensils were iron, wood, brass; always polished and clean. The thin absorbing cotton towels were just right for the Kerala weather. The flooring was red oxide and kept the home cool. There was an invisible aura of quality, of solidity, of being true.
The homes a lot of us live in today aren’t built or decorated based on those principles. The stores we buy from showcase ply polished to imitate mahogany or teak, Oriental rugs in cheap synthetic with chemical dyes that are not ideal to live with. The towels are velvet finished terry that absorb little water and fade and turn limp in five washes. There was a generation that could tell real lace from machine made, good cotton from bad, preferred silk to synthetic, and it wasn’t royalty. It was everyday people, in everyday lives, buying everyday things, in local markets; quality of the kind that we today consider luxury.
What changed? We are definitely more brand conscious, but are we as quality conscious? If we looked around our homes and kept aside everything that was not true quality, how much would we be left with? How much of what we bring into our lives and interact with on a daily basis are really aware of?
What Essential Home got me thinking about was not just about the home, but about us. What goes into making the Essential Human Being? The Essential Mind. The Essential Body. What do we feed ourselves with? What do we fill in our minds? What is the quality of our life? Our thoughts? Our conversations? And how aware are we of our lives?
The Essentials of life are about having real wealth – good health, clean comfortable home, fresh food, good conversations, a clear sharp mind. A surge of quality in our choices, our acts, places us in a higher plane of life. The people who are stalwarts are examples of that. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela, Schumacher. Before after shows, the ones that work, like Mary, Queen of Shops, are based on that too. They raise the plane that we live on. And life is all about finding the higher plane - of thought, of being, of life.
Quality in life, of life, is the same as breathing. It isn’t a luxury, but an absolute essential.
The home that my parents grew up in had furniture made of solid teak that’s in the family even today. The utensils were iron, wood, brass; always polished and clean. The thin absorbing cotton towels were just right for the Kerala weather. The flooring was red oxide and kept the home cool. There was an invisible aura of quality, of solidity, of being true.
The homes a lot of us live in today aren’t built or decorated based on those principles. The stores we buy from showcase ply polished to imitate mahogany or teak, Oriental rugs in cheap synthetic with chemical dyes that are not ideal to live with. The towels are velvet finished terry that absorb little water and fade and turn limp in five washes. There was a generation that could tell real lace from machine made, good cotton from bad, preferred silk to synthetic, and it wasn’t royalty. It was everyday people, in everyday lives, buying everyday things, in local markets; quality of the kind that we today consider luxury.
What changed? We are definitely more brand conscious, but are we as quality conscious? If we looked around our homes and kept aside everything that was not true quality, how much would we be left with? How much of what we bring into our lives and interact with on a daily basis are really aware of?
What Essential Home got me thinking about was not just about the home, but about us. What goes into making the Essential Human Being? The Essential Mind. The Essential Body. What do we feed ourselves with? What do we fill in our minds? What is the quality of our life? Our thoughts? Our conversations? And how aware are we of our lives?
The Essentials of life are about having real wealth – good health, clean comfortable home, fresh food, good conversations, a clear sharp mind. A surge of quality in our choices, our acts, places us in a higher plane of life. The people who are stalwarts are examples of that. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela, Schumacher. Before after shows, the ones that work, like Mary, Queen of Shops, are based on that too. They raise the plane that we live on. And life is all about finding the higher plane - of thought, of being, of life.
Quality in life, of life, is the same as breathing. It isn’t a luxury, but an absolute essential.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Everyday Musings > The cooking gene
I love food. But I’m not so keen on cooking it myself. For the past month, I find myself cooking most meals at home, a feat for someone who once in sheer nervousness forgot how to make coffee. I could’ve copped out, said ‘I don’t have the cooking gene’ and probably got away because V is a fantastic cook, a kind human being and is partial to anything scientific.
The first day when we cooked in V’s apartment, I watched in horror as he took a pinch of this, a dollop of that, added a dash of something else, all from instinct. Like my mom and all talented chef-like people I know.
At home in Mumbai, cooking was a ritual. I used to stand in front of the gas and pray before I turned it on. V’s kitchen is electric, so it felt silly to chant over flicking a switch. No excuses left, I got down to it. I started reading about cooking to awaken my cooking gene.
Julia and Julia – I have been reading it for a while and then the cow’s hoof jelly bits got overwhelming and I stopped reading. It’s about an American girl Julia, who stumbles upon a book by Julia Child, a famous chef from the 1900s. Julia Child, an American, was a copywriter before she joined the secret service and then married Paul Child who introduced her to French Cooking and at the age of 34, she joined Cordon Bleu to learn how to cook and even made it to the cover of Time magazine as the Lady of the Ladle. What an amazing woman. I could see similarities. Ex copywriter, married, husband introduced her to cooking. Now, when is the Time magazine cover going to happen!
Nora ‘Harry met Sally’ Ephron recently directed a movie based on this book. Girl Julia sets upon a promise to cook all of Chef Julia’s recipes for a year. And it’s a pretty fat recipe book. Well, Chef Julia inspires Girl Julia to take up this madness. And transforms Girl Julia’s evenings of leisure into one of chaotic smelly cooking fests. And somewhere in chopping, boiling, cleaving, steaming, sniffing, Girl Julia finds herself.
V is pure veg, as is his kitchen, not even eggs, which I love and miss very much. I started with corn, the simplest thing in the world to cook. And made corn every day, in every form, till V pointed out to other vegetables. Sticky arbi, bhindi, lauki etc. Time to get help.
I found my Cordon Bleu in Vidhu Mittal’s ‘Pure and simple vegetarian cooking’. I love the way the dishes are photographed, the quality of the paper, the simplicity of her instructions. So every day is spent flicking pages and figuring what to dazzle V with. Stuffed mirchi, dahi baigan, masala bhindi. I was amazed at how easy it started to become. I could even make nice fluffy phulkas and say things like ‘it’ll just take two minutes’. Vidhu was my spidey web, my batmobile, my lantern, my knight in shining hardbound.
I don’t know if I have a cooking gene. I can’t cook as well as my mother or his mother, not even close to as good as my dear friends Ku, Pat or M who have oodles of it. But V inspires me to make a fool of myself and smiles and nods and says ‘wonderful’ as he eats anything I make. I may hold Vidhu close to my heart, but I think the cooking gene has nothing to do with instinct or books or recipes. It probably just has to do with love.
The first day when we cooked in V’s apartment, I watched in horror as he took a pinch of this, a dollop of that, added a dash of something else, all from instinct. Like my mom and all talented chef-like people I know.
At home in Mumbai, cooking was a ritual. I used to stand in front of the gas and pray before I turned it on. V’s kitchen is electric, so it felt silly to chant over flicking a switch. No excuses left, I got down to it. I started reading about cooking to awaken my cooking gene.
Julia and Julia – I have been reading it for a while and then the cow’s hoof jelly bits got overwhelming and I stopped reading. It’s about an American girl Julia, who stumbles upon a book by Julia Child, a famous chef from the 1900s. Julia Child, an American, was a copywriter before she joined the secret service and then married Paul Child who introduced her to French Cooking and at the age of 34, she joined Cordon Bleu to learn how to cook and even made it to the cover of Time magazine as the Lady of the Ladle. What an amazing woman. I could see similarities. Ex copywriter, married, husband introduced her to cooking. Now, when is the Time magazine cover going to happen!
Nora ‘Harry met Sally’ Ephron recently directed a movie based on this book. Girl Julia sets upon a promise to cook all of Chef Julia’s recipes for a year. And it’s a pretty fat recipe book. Well, Chef Julia inspires Girl Julia to take up this madness. And transforms Girl Julia’s evenings of leisure into one of chaotic smelly cooking fests. And somewhere in chopping, boiling, cleaving, steaming, sniffing, Girl Julia finds herself.
V is pure veg, as is his kitchen, not even eggs, which I love and miss very much. I started with corn, the simplest thing in the world to cook. And made corn every day, in every form, till V pointed out to other vegetables. Sticky arbi, bhindi, lauki etc. Time to get help.
I found my Cordon Bleu in Vidhu Mittal’s ‘Pure and simple vegetarian cooking’. I love the way the dishes are photographed, the quality of the paper, the simplicity of her instructions. So every day is spent flicking pages and figuring what to dazzle V with. Stuffed mirchi, dahi baigan, masala bhindi. I was amazed at how easy it started to become. I could even make nice fluffy phulkas and say things like ‘it’ll just take two minutes’. Vidhu was my spidey web, my batmobile, my lantern, my knight in shining hardbound.
I don’t know if I have a cooking gene. I can’t cook as well as my mother or his mother, not even close to as good as my dear friends Ku, Pat or M who have oodles of it. But V inspires me to make a fool of myself and smiles and nods and says ‘wonderful’ as he eats anything I make. I may hold Vidhu close to my heart, but I think the cooking gene has nothing to do with instinct or books or recipes. It probably just has to do with love.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Everyday Musings > Welcome home
V and I watch a channel four show - Grand Designs. It’s a show on people who set out to make their Dream Home. It’s fascinating to see how far they go to make it come true. Some build in the middle of nowhere with volunteers and local materials, some ship a entire framework across the sea, some rebuild an old barn or church and almost all stretch their funds with mortgages. And when it’s all done, it would seem that they would have found the final resting place that you and I make retirement plans for – they would have come Home. Yet some of them find, it wasn’t the ‘home’ they thought it would be.
So what is this elusive thing called Home?
As a civilisation we might have ceased being nomads long ago, but we are still urban wanderers. Sitting by our computers, shopping, eating, flicking channels, our minds are wandering to wishes and hopes and desires. We might have settled but our hearts haven’t. Our lives are too heavy for us to move them around, and we wait for and plan and dream of a tomorrow where we will reach just where we want to get, lighter, unburdened of today.
My friend M dreams of owning her own apartment, my friend J dreams of going back to Bangalore and living there. I dream of a house in the hills facing a lake. V, of a bed and breakfast somewhere in rural India.
Home, for a lot of us, is a sense of peace, of rest, of finally belonging perhaps, of being one with the self. But sometimes, even when we find that apartment or that house by the hills, it doesn’t seem like we’ve come home.
Perhaps the answer lies in what we call Home. Perhaps Home isn’t a place at all. Maybe it is more a feeling. Something that takes away the emptiness of being human.
So then what is home? Is it one thing? Is it lots of things? If it’s a feeling, what kind is it? Could a couch be home, a moment of glory or a cup of tea? A faded letter perhaps. An oft visited memory. A person. A song. A smell. What if any one of these could be Home, or even better, all of this could be Home?
My friend T’s daughter would stop crying if you played a Bollywood song for her and my friend R would carry his blanket everywhere. That was probably Home to them.
There’s a film of Susan Sarandon’s - ‘Anywhere but here’. It’s a great title and captures the essence of search - constantly restless, rushing about in a waiting room, watching life outside it with keen eyes. Perhaps all of us have a Home hidden someplace that we haven’t yet found because we are expecting something else.
For those of us still searching, the world is as alien inside, as it is out. For those of us who have found their Home, every place now seems, welcome.
So what is this elusive thing called Home?
As a civilisation we might have ceased being nomads long ago, but we are still urban wanderers. Sitting by our computers, shopping, eating, flicking channels, our minds are wandering to wishes and hopes and desires. We might have settled but our hearts haven’t. Our lives are too heavy for us to move them around, and we wait for and plan and dream of a tomorrow where we will reach just where we want to get, lighter, unburdened of today.
My friend M dreams of owning her own apartment, my friend J dreams of going back to Bangalore and living there. I dream of a house in the hills facing a lake. V, of a bed and breakfast somewhere in rural India.
Home, for a lot of us, is a sense of peace, of rest, of finally belonging perhaps, of being one with the self. But sometimes, even when we find that apartment or that house by the hills, it doesn’t seem like we’ve come home.
Perhaps the answer lies in what we call Home. Perhaps Home isn’t a place at all. Maybe it is more a feeling. Something that takes away the emptiness of being human.
So then what is home? Is it one thing? Is it lots of things? If it’s a feeling, what kind is it? Could a couch be home, a moment of glory or a cup of tea? A faded letter perhaps. An oft visited memory. A person. A song. A smell. What if any one of these could be Home, or even better, all of this could be Home?
My friend T’s daughter would stop crying if you played a Bollywood song for her and my friend R would carry his blanket everywhere. That was probably Home to them.
There’s a film of Susan Sarandon’s - ‘Anywhere but here’. It’s a great title and captures the essence of search - constantly restless, rushing about in a waiting room, watching life outside it with keen eyes. Perhaps all of us have a Home hidden someplace that we haven’t yet found because we are expecting something else.
For those of us still searching, the world is as alien inside, as it is out. For those of us who have found their Home, every place now seems, welcome.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Everyday Musings > What defines you?
Merriam-Webster defines Definition as ‘the art of determining, as a statement that expresses the essential nature of something’.
What came first, the definition or the word? Most likely the definition. Diplomacy is not really about word play as it is a play of definitions. Border, Third World, Middle East, Anti-Semitism, Fair Trade, Global Warming, Freedom. It is definition that builds our world - outside of us, and inside too.
Our minds create definitions by experience, knowledge, instinct and interaction. For some, Rain might be defined as ‘drowning’, to others ‘nostalgia’ and for someone ‘romance’. Definitions are said to be the key to unlock meaning. So then, what defines a human?
MW defines a Human as ‘having human form or attributes, susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.’
What a boring inaccurate definition! I am sure none of us would like to be defined so. We’d call ourselves adventurous, elegant, tall, pretty, educated, ex Harvard, crazy, intelligent, gay, straight, well-endowed, rich, Indian, Greek, but we’d never define ourselves like that!
I watched ‘Confessions of a shopaholic.’ A fun film, especially if you can’t stop owning things. A girl is convinced that a green scarf defines her, till she had to give it away. When left without possessions, she realises that the green scarf was gone, and she was still who she was.
We define ourselves by what we do, what we did, where we studied, what we own, who we are friends with, what we think, what we hate, what we love, what we will be. We define ourselves to be the most interesting that we can be. Mostly, it makes us rise. And at times, fall prey to our own definition.
Dictionaries evolve over the ages. Our minds sometimes don’t. Definition then becomes a crutch. ‘If not this, then I’m nothing’. A student who commits suicide when he can’t get through medical college or a girl who runs up credit card bills to keep buying designer clothes.
Those around us also define us with statements or words. If they’re positive, it creates an aura, and if repeated by others, it defines us in public. A celebrity known for a certain gesture could end up repeating it consciously because it defines him/her. Or a person known to be always controversial could find it difficult to gain attention by being plain about an issue. Most of us might not even be aware of the things we’ve defined for ourselves or what we have been defined by.
PR managers recognise the power of definition and work at creating positive or controversial definitions for their clients. Most life coaches recommend role play or imaginary definitions to boost confidence.
At one stage 500 words was my defining point - ‘the girl who writes 500 words’. And it gave meaning to my life. When I took a break, it probably moved to ‘the girl who used to write 500’, and today it’s probably ‘the girl who started writing 500 again’. But as long as I remember that these are all definitions and will keep changing as I do, I think I’ll be fine.
Just because we can define something doesn’t always mean we can understand it. And though the world will live by its definitions, the important things - love, faith, life, death – ironically remain indefinable.
What came first, the definition or the word? Most likely the definition. Diplomacy is not really about word play as it is a play of definitions. Border, Third World, Middle East, Anti-Semitism, Fair Trade, Global Warming, Freedom. It is definition that builds our world - outside of us, and inside too.
Our minds create definitions by experience, knowledge, instinct and interaction. For some, Rain might be defined as ‘drowning’, to others ‘nostalgia’ and for someone ‘romance’. Definitions are said to be the key to unlock meaning. So then, what defines a human?
MW defines a Human as ‘having human form or attributes, susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.’
What a boring inaccurate definition! I am sure none of us would like to be defined so. We’d call ourselves adventurous, elegant, tall, pretty, educated, ex Harvard, crazy, intelligent, gay, straight, well-endowed, rich, Indian, Greek, but we’d never define ourselves like that!
I watched ‘Confessions of a shopaholic.’ A fun film, especially if you can’t stop owning things. A girl is convinced that a green scarf defines her, till she had to give it away. When left without possessions, she realises that the green scarf was gone, and she was still who she was.
We define ourselves by what we do, what we did, where we studied, what we own, who we are friends with, what we think, what we hate, what we love, what we will be. We define ourselves to be the most interesting that we can be. Mostly, it makes us rise. And at times, fall prey to our own definition.
Dictionaries evolve over the ages. Our minds sometimes don’t. Definition then becomes a crutch. ‘If not this, then I’m nothing’. A student who commits suicide when he can’t get through medical college or a girl who runs up credit card bills to keep buying designer clothes.
Those around us also define us with statements or words. If they’re positive, it creates an aura, and if repeated by others, it defines us in public. A celebrity known for a certain gesture could end up repeating it consciously because it defines him/her. Or a person known to be always controversial could find it difficult to gain attention by being plain about an issue. Most of us might not even be aware of the things we’ve defined for ourselves or what we have been defined by.
PR managers recognise the power of definition and work at creating positive or controversial definitions for their clients. Most life coaches recommend role play or imaginary definitions to boost confidence.
At one stage 500 words was my defining point - ‘the girl who writes 500 words’. And it gave meaning to my life. When I took a break, it probably moved to ‘the girl who used to write 500’, and today it’s probably ‘the girl who started writing 500 again’. But as long as I remember that these are all definitions and will keep changing as I do, I think I’ll be fine.
Just because we can define something doesn’t always mean we can understand it. And though the world will live by its definitions, the important things - love, faith, life, death – ironically remain indefinable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
