MY GRANDFATHER'S ECONOMIC POLICY: A SUBALTERN PIECE OF HISTORY

 

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”

       Leslie P. Hartley (1895-1972)

Thought travels with a speed differently than men. Some eras are so progressive that a lot changes in a short time and then some epochs are so dull and unchanging that nothing moves. My relationship with my grandfather is more than that of being bodily. I am biologically related to this man, who is a RSSite right wing conservative, a Vaishnavite Hindu, in the sect of Ramanuj Acharya, Proponent of Bhakti Vedanta, a proud Bhumihar Brahmin, who has hated communists and seculars and congressmen all his life. And here I am, a naive class-conscious communist, a snake in the eagle's shadow, someone who disowns all this heritage with only one line, "The History of hitherto all societies have been a history of class struggles." 

But, with some time, that I spent with my grandfather, I have realized that my perception of this man is quite naive. I warn people of reductionism and not dwelling in detail, I often say, God lies in the detail (Contrary to the popular aphorism, The Devil lies in the detail), But here I am, reducing my grandfather into a label of being a conservative, naive, almost blinded by faith, person with no free thinking of his own. So, I decided that I will give him a fair share of honest judgement. 

My Grandfather has always been a Swayamsevak. Since the age of 8 I guess, he used to go to the Shakhas of RSS. But there is more to it. 

This piece ''My Grandfather's economic Policy" is not just a personal piece rather it gives us an insight into the way people of the past used to look at Money, relations, Social capital and more so, to where in this, Caste plays a role. 

Every home, especially every Joint family today, which is joint mostly on occasions like festivals or weddings, there is an intricate and convoluted politics always going on, the way money of every household is allocated is decided by this politics and Everyone in the house, from an infant of 1 day to a old man of 90 participate in it directly or otherwise. 

There has always been a judgement about my grandfather's spending habits at my home. Nobody supports him, not even his ardent follower of his thoughts, not my RSS devotee uncles, not his own wife, My grandma. Everyone hates when he gives money to any needy, to any one who is in need, to temples, to orphanages, to the extent that sometimes, he has to himself take money from someone as a debt to run the household. 

Now, this is a separate issue, why a man of 75 has to run a house still. This has to do with the sad and lazy state of affairs of my parent's generation. 

I also used to think that Daaji (as I call him), is not very kind to people at home but he is almost a saint for people outside. He is one of the most regarded people in the locality, in RSS District branch and almost a trustee of a big temple near, Panch Mandir. I was biased already because of his RSS leanings and these things also fueled my dissatisfaction. 

One day, I asked him, with an intention to know, What's up with that. What he told me made me rethink many of my presumptions about him. It might be a very wise economic policy of My Grandpa to be this generous to people outside. 

As he narrated, 

"I know, that in many places where I have given money, as debt or otherwise, it will not come back. In one sense, My Money got in loss. But understand this, When I came to this city in 1978, and earlier in 1972 in Ranchi for the first time, I came and had no money. I came and took the name of Saryu Singh (My Great Grand uncle perhaps), and got my way. I took his name and got a stay. He had given money to people here for someone's education, for someone's health. Through me, he repaid Babu Saryu Singh. 

So I decided that I will myself invest money in people. This is not debt, there is nothing as such as debt when it comes to public relationships, it is all investment."

As he kept talking, I kept correlating it with the Social Capital. Bhumihar is such a dominant caste in Bihar, and the way it became dominant, was like this only. It is not this simple in Casteism that Brahmins are above and so on. Caste battles are economic and political, which varies region wise. Somewhere, The Rajputs dominate because they converted people in their favour, through money or power or fear, somewhere you see Bhumihars etc. Yes, although the sad thing remains, that never ever can a Dalit dominate this hierarchy. The Dalit and Adivasi dominates only when he acts through a Barel of a gun. When he becomes a Naxal, when he becomes a Mao-vaadi. 

We, upper castes of Bihar, had it easy. I am not saying my Grandfather did not struggle. All I am saying that it was almost next to impossible for a Dalit to be in the position, economically that my Grandpa is. His struggle was to transition from a feudal society to a capitalist society, where you have to sell your labor and earn in the service sector because the land was losing its value as compared to Services and industries. Capital was developing in India and as a result of which, even the wealthy of villages, with non-liquid assets had to sell their assets and come to cities to earn. To study and to earn. 

It was a time of Hugh socio-economic churning for an Upper Caste Bhumihar household in Bihar. 

My Grandfather went on.

"When I came to Patratu, this was almost a Naxal place. Communists dominated everywhere. We were marginal in the sense that we were Dikkus, the outsiders, as Adivasis used to call us. Slowly with the help of Indian Government who started PTPS (Patratu thermal Power station) with the help of USSR, established colonies for working Electrical Engineers, who became Colony-walas as opposed to the Sadaan Population of Patratu, who remained Basti-walas. This division remains even in my age. 

Then, Established in 1989 the first RSS school SSVM here in Patratu. I donated in that. Along with that, I donated in almost every temple that you see today in Patratu. I had to establish again the Hinduist values of our culture back to this place. It took time. 

Whoever I have given money, were not people of just RSS. These were notable Middle class Communists, who used to Hate RSS and any kind of religiosity whatsoever. They used to call us RSSites oppressors and fascists. and I had to change that."

And How did my Daaji change them? By helping them in need. And this explained me why Communists and socialists declined in Patratu and RSS rose to these big heights in these places. It is really convoluted. Here is my Theory. Actually contrary to the Activist Communists and socialists, who were real on field ideologues, and were very helpful to the marginalized and the oppressed, the Middle class communists and socialists were extremely selfish and self-centered. Since, the religious morality they rejected and never attempted to develop a morality of their own, they became extremely Hedonists with no regard for societal collectivist values. Ironical, isn't it? A socialist without social values. But such is the wierdness of Indian Socialists and communists. And the caste consciousness and anti-caste awareness is a new phenomenon. Earlier, in the 70s-80s, it was a common phenomenon, for a noted communist, almost a Naxal sympathizer, to be a member of Brahmarshi Samaaj, a Brahmin caste group. 

Until, the Ranveer sena, by this Brahmin militant leader Brahmeshwar Singh "Mukhiya", took a open massacre fight with the Naxals, it was a common practice in Bihar and Bengal to be communist and a Brahmin altogether. 

In short where the Middle class Socialism was selfish and did not help people, Middle class RSSites made an identity of helpers and sevaks for all. And this charitable work was a targeted approach taught at RSS. Charity became a central economic idea by RSS in the 80s-90s. As opposed to organised strikes for state action for welfare, which was the way of the socialists, RSS cadres made social capital for both their organization and themselves through charity. They made name. They made social capital. 

And with these works, We see, even in turmoils like the Jharkhand Mukti Movement, by people of Jharkhand like Binod Bihari Mahto, a noted Aadivasi leader, and numerous, naxal coups in Bihar, Bengal and Jharkhand, We saw continuous growth of Middle class and hence the Middle class RSS cadre. Also, the Liberalization of 1991 helped them. And thus, we see, today, why RSS is the way it is. Mass middle class Hindu support. Even I know muslims who are ardent followers of RSS. This is not an attempt to white-wash RSS. 

Rather consider it a documentation of an unknown history of a place called Patratu, of regional Politics of this place in connection to the national politics through the lives of a man, who will still be hated at home for being such an extravagant Philanthropist, People at my home being unaware of the fact that how much role he and people like him has in making RSS mainstream in all of India and Making the idea of Hindutva, a marginalized fascistic idea with no theoretical merit to become a victor of current times. 

I respect my grandpa as my rival victor. A man, who was an ideologue, a worker, an ardent and honest fighter of the RSS, who fought for the idea he believed in. I wanted to document his story. Still now, His economic policy returns us favors through strangers whose father, My grandfather once helped. I thought, this man cannot pen his history, but his grandson can. So be it. I have done a bit and will continue doing it, whether one reads or not. This is a tribute from an ideologue to an ideologue, a Grandson to a grandpa, an honest man to an honest man, and from me to my Daaji. 

MY NOTES ON SRIMAD BHAGWAT GEETA ADHYAY 1-2/1/18

 SHLOKA 1

1. Curiosity of a Blind man, Blindness does not help if the desire of seeing is there.
2. How the Blind man can be creator of a seer? A blind bears a Blind.
3. A holy place is a place of peace, not of war. A place of war is not a place of holiness.
4. The Lust of war in the minds of man, the lust of blood, the animalism inherent in Human makes every holy land bare.  Every Dharmaskhetra becomes a Kurukshetra. 
5. There are more eyes than of eyes of vision. There are more to them than being Our eyes. More than being our eyes, they can be receivers of truth. 
6. Any quality that is borne out of your sense organs is not final verdict of truth. It only means you have a natural advantage over others in matters of truth. You can know the truth earlier using that advantage. But it is more likely as well that the same advantage causes your death. For example, Intelligence kills if it is not put in the direction of being the receiving end of truth. 

SHLOKA 2-7

1. Inferiority complex begins with one's own praise. Duryodhan is not feeling inferior.
2. A man having an inferiority complex is worse than an evil man who is sure about his abilities. 
3. The conservative view point that Evil has increased in modern ages is a flawed perception. Only that, everyone is filled with an inferiority complex. 
4. Modern ages are ages of inferiority. Even good people are unsure about themselves. 

SHLOKA 8-11

1. All of Arjuna centric Mahabharata is a retrospective perspective. Initially, It was Bheema centric in the eyes of Duryodhana. 
2. Arjuna was an escapist. Arjuna, as it is, could not join war against his own peers. For him, the distinction between Mine and there was clear. He was never in doubt when the fight was with other kingdoms. Problem came when he had to kill his own kin. 
3. In our perspective, the possibility of an external intervention is usually either absent or in a black spot. External intervention seems divine when it acts in our Favour, it seems demonic when it does not suit us. 
4. In a retrospective perspective, we find our all wills have fallen ill, and interventions has changed what we had "willed" for, and then What is true, happens. 
5. Truth alone triumphs. The one who sees it, follows it. The one who knows it but cannot see, believes in it. 
6. The only way to have your will be reality, is to not will at all. "Not willing" is actually Aligning your will to the external intervention. The external intervention is not to be resisted at all. 
7. The External intervention might be from the smallest of stuff, like a nagging partner, to a family feud, to a taunting friend, to a judgmental society. The one who fights this intervention will end up dying. Especially when the fight includes your will against the will of the unknown. 
8. The intervention is not always demonic. It is divine at times. But if you have a tendency to fight the will of unknown, you might reject the blessing of the unknown. 
9. Of course, Here Divine does not mean God and Demonic does not mean Asura. These are subjective judgements of realities. When the man becomes objectively still, he has no will of his own Whatever comes his way is just Reality as it is.
10. Reality as it is, is a very far possibility which depends upon nothing. It exists like the seer exists. But neither the seer sees the seer, nor the reality as it is. The subjectivity of the seer blocks his view of himself and the reality as it is. 
11. It is about the mind. All religion is about the mind. It is psychological real time therapy.  The Will of the unknown is usually the will of the collective unconscious. 
12. Whatever happens, happens according to no will of God but will of this unknown. 
13. Somewhere you have also contributed to this will of unknown. Your actions have decided some aspect of this will. Somewhere you had wished this. 
14. If you have lost in something, if you have not won, it is not so simple that it happened against your will. Somewhere you have "willed" your loss. You wanted to suffer. 
15. Unknown is God. God is unknown is a statement of the seeker. Unknown is God is a statement of the knower. Only a Knower can declare that Unknown is God. Anything that can be known can be controlled. And only a man who has vivid experience of life can see that he can control only things that he knows. Unknowns cannot be controlled. Hence, they should be respected like God. Unknowns have made this universe. Unknown is the creator of the Universe. Through unknown, came the known and the knowable in existence. Unknown is unknowable. It will be respected by a well experienced knower. Like, only a Socrates can declare that he knows nothing. Because what is worthy of being known is usually the Unknown, the unknowable. 
16. A religious man, the true one, bows down to the Unknown, that is the unknowable. 
17. The binary of God and not God (Demon) is a creation of the mind. Binaries are always a result of not objective observation but subjective interpretation. 
18. A false binary, that is between the Unknowable and the Knowable, is the only true binary that can exist. False because the two categories that is created, one of them is not known. Unknowable is a category not known. This binary is also flawed but the only seemingly accurate one. 

SHLOKA 12-16

1. Response and Reaction are distinguishable. Only Evil can react to evil. If you can find evil in the world, there must be some evil in you that acted as an indicator. Good only responds to evil. 
2. When Good responds to evil, it is not in anger, not in frustration, not in despair, not in remorse. Good, in its nature is too full to feel these emotions. Good, usually, does its duty, both of fighting evil and sending a message of goodness around by responding to it and not reacting. He, the Good, smiles, does not smirk. He, the good, jokes but does not taunt. He, the Good, critiques, but does not attack. Good is dutiful even in his fight against evil. That is why, he has no stakes in it. He fights as if he is doing a service. Hence, he remains rejoiced. 
3. Unknown is always with the good. Luck favors the Good. 

SHLOKA 17-22

1. Arjuna also wants to see. See his rivals. Which warrior wants to see his rival? Which husband wants to see his wife's face during sexual intercourse, which is nothing but a sexual war. No-one but the one who is human, wants to know the human even in his rival. A human husband would want to know the human in his wife. Other than human, no man is interested in knowing the human in anyone. Otherwise, how will man exploit the other man? Man can exploit man by objectifying it. Man can only eat other man when he sees the other man as meat. Man can only rape a woman when he sees the woman as a sexual device, with fleshes at the right places that he wants. 
2. Arjuna is Human. That is his problem. Without being human, Like Bheema, Like Duryodhana, he could have fought blindly. But he asked. And that made all the difference. He could have eaten meat of an animal considering it food and not over-thinking that an animal cried and died and then was served in this plate. Arjuna is a thinker. He thought, who is this that I am going to kill? 
3. Arjuna would have been vegan today. 

OBITUARY: MY KUTIYA

When Sahir wrote the lines, 

It so happens that Human beings learn retrospectively. I did not know the full meaning of what he meant. When My Kutiya died, I understood some more of it. 

Let me introduce. It might be the first and last introduction she will get. She was a female dog. Bitch, I do not say, because this word I reserve for human beings. 

So, She has not much introduction. Just some images of her in my head. She used to dance. She used to wiggle her tail in front of me to get food. She used to do it for other family members of mine, but they were not kind enough to always give her a piece of roti. 

I understood when she died, The meanings of the lines, "Utna hi upkaar samajh...". She knew it. She never showed anger when she was not given food. She used to ask. She used to make a sound. She used to say something like, "Aoooo" in dog voice, which I had understood meant food. I used to study and I used to here a dog scratch on my door, sometimes, when the door would have been azar, I used to hear a "Aooo" and I used to know, Ok she needs food. And she was disciplined like that. She never knocked my door in improper times. She knocked at 9 AM in the mornings just when I used to go to get my breakfast, just to remind me to get her food, at 2 PM at lunch, somewhere around 5 PM for some snacks and then at 9 PM for dinner. A quality that only she had and humans do not. Humans of my house disturb me day and night at anytime. 

I had some feelings for My Kutiya. I knew she also had. She used to talk to me through touch. I used to touch her forehead. This gave her affection. She used to sometimes scratch her back against my leg. That meant, do not worry. We won't judge you. At least I interpreted this as that. 

In her last day, When I forced her to go out of the house in hugh rain, she went outside without resisting. She knew it, "Jo jitna saath nibha de, wo hi upkaar samajh". She knew she will die. She was already ill. 

I obeyed my grandfather. I did not obey truth. I did not obey What was right thing to do, what was dharma. I obeyed my Grandpa. He said, The floor will get dirty of her saliva. She was salivating of all the cough that she had. She had pneumonia. 

She went and I closed the door. I went back to my Optional class. 

The next day, I saw her lying in the shrubs trying to get up but the sheer rain and her weak body. I was looking at her but was unable. My family members expressed sorrow, but I am sure that was performance.  They said we could not do anything. They said, it is good for her she died. How would have she survived.

"Koi na sang mare" I know this. She died of Pneumonia and weakness. I do not know, Karma and other stuff. Dharma, and God and other things. 

But, I think I might die of Pneumonia too. I will also die on a heavy rain, homeless with no help. This is the punishment of mine I must bear. I will have to. Somewhere I feel this will occur. She took with me a human side of me that died with her. In fact, my human side died when I forced her out of the house. 

I do not know and would not want to engage in human explanations of right and wrong or whether it was good bad, necessary or unnecessary or whether My Grandpa is right or I was. 

The fact is she died. And I was responsible for it. I cried that night and I am crying still. The pragmatism says I should focus on my work and We still have 4 dogs. But, 

Just one thing, "No life deserves death yet death it was it gets. And she died miserably. The only way I can repay is by dying miserably like that." 

If I got some financial independence, I would like to have a dog daughter. Humans are ok but I would like to be treated good by a dog and parent a dog than a human. 

My Kutiya had no name. I did not have the emotional sensibility to name her. My daadima used to call her Kutiya, so I called her Kutiya. 

Somehow, in this state of deep guilt and sorrow, I somehow wish, that she should come back. In any other form and give me a chance to rectify my mistake. 

Animals are mostly powerless as compared to Humans. The least a good person can do is treat them with respect and may be care for them. 

My Friend Siddhant used to care a lot for Dogs in IISER. He used to say to me "I see a Dog lover in you." I used to laugh at that. 

But now when the affection of a dog hits you, it is really a surreal feeling, spiritual feeling. And I conjecture that in this digital age of post irony and all that, The only genuine spiritual love possible is between a dog and a human. like an animal and a human. Rest all human-human relationships are corrupted by barter and transactions. 

Pet a dog, or may be some animal. It is natural only to have affection for an animals and parent it like your own kid. It makes you less animal to be friends with animals, it makes you more human. 

THE OPACITY OF LITERATURE

 Every Literary work presents itself as a form of opaque transparence to the reader. The Form is as transparent as it could be. In fact, 

The Form is by definition, a transparent display of the content. If it is judged solely on the basis of its own, it is not encrypted at all. The encryption comes only when It is seen in the context of the content. 

The Content, on the other hand, by virtue of being content, needs to be encrypted to meaning, connected to Form via an encryption and more so, In its structure, Encryption comes as an ingredient to the story itself. 

The three-factor authentication of Content is what makes it Decode worthy. The reader is invited in, engaged in and pushes him to know and decode. 

Take an example of a fiction drama, "Asaad ka Ek din" or "A day of Monsoon". The form in front is a set of people talking under the banner of "A day of monsoon". This generates some expectations. Some pre-assumptions about what the story is going to be about. 

But an intelligent reader knows that it is very much essential for the expectation to break and more and more rift between expectation and content to arise for further engagement of him with the content. So he is not only prepared for conflict, he is hopeful, he is counting on it. 

The content of course, then turns out to be a love story. Love stories in all day and ages are not that conflict generating. It might be having some inner conflicts of its own, but at least, it is not more deviation from the Form. A monsoon day can be considered already romantic. 

But the hidden message is that the title is kept fundamentally non-relevant to the story at large. As if, Mohan Rakesh, the author, delivers this message that the fundamental seer of this conflict, him, sees it not from any one perspective, but from the perspective of the stage, since it was a drama. 

A temporal title. This is what a day in a monsoon looked like once upon a time between these people. One of the key tenets of storytelling is to further de-aggrandize your story since, it is the very nature of fiction that it often intimidates reality. 

The reader enters, already intimidated to the characters at large, thinking, "What special have they done to deserve being written on a page and I don't? 

The reader comes from a certain space of intimidation, that is why he decided to turn to fiction in the first place. As I say, 

"Zen men read non-fiction. Rest non-Zen men and women console through fiction. Those who do not read at all, their sexuality is always in conflict, they remain unsure of their sexuality." 

What do I mean by this is, It requires a certain amount of give in, a submission to fiction only those can afford who do not have a good reality to look forward to. On the other hand, Non-fiction is basically truth. If taken literally, "Non-fiction" means "Not a story" that is, basically truth. It requires a very courageous mind and a sort of privilege to be able to read non-fiction. Rest those who do not read, they fight with both natures. They are submissive where it is required to fight, they are aggressive where it is required to submit. Their lives become a constant anxious nightmare. 

The Opacity of literature, be it fiction and non-fiction reveal itself like sexuality. You slowly discover the facets of sexuality, and you slowly get to know what the story is about. 

PAPA

What was absent in you, you ensured that I get them in excess. You were underconfident as a person, I am somehow the most arrogant, intimidating person in every room I enter. People envy me. People are insecure of my stature. When I speak, people feel jealous of my speaking skills. You used to speak less. Over the years, I have realized in your own way, you have ensured that you provide me with what you lacked. 

In why rebellious phase, I have tried a lot to cut the communication between us, but you kept adapting. Your patience is always daunting to me. If I can even have 1% of patience that you have, I will win the world for you and gift it to you. I am in practice. I look at you and then I start practicing. You are in a way, My Dron Acharya in Patience. What good is a son who could not learn the most powerful trait of your father. I will learn it one day, Papa. I will one day defeat you in this competition of Patience. 

It was always about competition with you. I am and always have been an egoistic and competitive person. I never feared you. I never feared the man you feared your whole life, that is, Dadaji. I competed with both of you. Dadaji was a competition for me in lifestyle, cleanliness, self-sufficiency and discipline. I know that I lose to both of you every day. But I ensure you, at your ages, I will be the most disciplined, most self-sufficient and most clean and mannered guy out there. The real competition will take place at the age of 50 and 70. If I could survive till then, I assure you I will not die of natural causes, I will beat the hell out of you both. 

I have seen both of you crying. Strong men cry alone. Strong people, in general, irrespective of gender, do not cry in public. They do not shout while crying. One drop of tear rolls down their cheeks and then they wipe it and start working again. When I will be asked by patriarchs of the world, From where you derive your strengths and emotional maturity, I will take your name papa. Dadaji is not that emotionally strong. He keeps his head up. But he hides pain. He hides emotions. You do not. 

Dadaji never treated his woman the right way. Perhaps, the societal conditions were not pro-respect of women in those days. Maybe he respected in his own way. But you respected. It is another question, if she was worthy of respect or not. I have learned this from your mistake. Not every woman deserves your attention and respect. In general, any human being, the respect criteria should have a narrow bandwidth. You missed that, papa. You were too much a gentleman but at an age where gentle-ness was not respected. 

I am brute. For a woman to gain my attention is her task. I am gentle to gentle people. To others, I will show them what cruel means. To them, I can show from where toxic derives its meaning from. 

Few things, I will not inherit. I will not be casteist. I will not be misogynist. I will not be communal. These are traits that ends with you papa. I refuse to learn these things from you. Also, I will not inherit the religion papa. I will not die a Sanatani. I will die religion-less or may be a Buddhist. Also, Perhaps, having a family is a 20th century thing for me. This also ends with you papa. I do not wish to be a husband or a father ever. I have my reasons. I wish to work and enjoy my life. Family institution comes in my way to live my life to the fullest. Also, to have babies in 21st century is basically suicide. The pressure that it puts on ecology is overwhelming already. Also, to have a wife in this country is actually a burden. You are not owed a partner, you are owed a slave and at most a repressed rebel, who wishes to live more but was repressed by her own family. 

I will be dishonest if I do not admit that I have many other things that I developed on my own. My honesty is my own creation. You people are not hell bent on this. I am. My morality and my Adhyatman are my own approach. You people have nothing to do with this. 

I was the first rebel in our lineage. The original rule breaker. You people did not have enough courage to defy your societal and family norms. But, I will admit you people prepared me for that. I was never beaten by you people. Papa, you never even shouted at me. Children who were shouted at by their parents tend to become feeble, courage less folks with horrible social skills. 

Contrary to that, I have Saraswati on my tongue because of you people. The Debates at home that I heard, I saw Dadaji giving speeches. This is all due to you both. 

I know I am going to be successful. And I am going to be successful of you Both's share. What you deserved, I will get in bulk. Dadaji worships God for 3 hours daily. I am an atheist. But, still I think, that worship is for my success. Gods owe me success. Because of you both. 

May be you will read this, may be you won't. One thing is sure. I love you. And the conversations that we have, and the way you hear me, I have your listening skills. 

Although, let's be honest, I have better speaking skills. 

Anyhow, I made this post about myself. Yes this narcissism is something I wish to work upon. I am not that social like you guys. But believe me, I think you people are enough social, even of my own share. I do not wish to know this idiot race more. I will one day rule them. This narcissism is necessary, this neurosis is necessary for the "Will to Power" the "Shakti Puja" that I always talk about. 

Just want to say one thing. I will give you ample chances to be proud of me. You have brought to this world greatness in my form. I am Great. I am the God you worship. I am the Man of the family. I am the whole, the universal. I am the eternal rule. 

Happy Father's day. I know what Dadaji's going to say, British culture. And he is right. These motherfucker white men love their father one day.  We, Indians do it all the way till our graves. But why to waste a chance to officially celebrate something. It is celebration only. another reason to be happy and thoughtful. 

Very well. Gonna end this now. 

LOSER HEROES: A NEW PHENOMENA IN RECENT BOLLYWOOD

Except a few exceptions, like Ranveer Kapoor in Animal or some Shahrukh Khan in some other recent film, We have seen a recent very peculiar films like: Sui Dhaga, Barelli ki Barfi, Chhalaang and most prominent of recent, Bhool Chook Maaf. That is, the Hero is no longer Macho, he is flawed but these indie characteristics are also qualities of some Anurag Kashyap and earlier parallel cinema Heroes, one main feature of these film's Heroes are "They are losers!"

Bollywood's deliberate attempt to depict loser masculine hints at the socio-political conditions that we are living. But this loser is not just a loser, it is complemented with a redemption arc. 

For example, In Bhool Chook Maaf, Rajkumar Rao's character is a selfish idiot who bribes an agent to get a government job just for the sake of marrying his loved girl. He is far from honest, far from ideals of the socialist India, the neo-liberal Hero of India is obviously corrupt. He is not just corrupt; he is obviously corrupt. 

Then, he goes through all of this redemption arc where he not only turns essentially honest but also takes a moral high ground and reclaims the position that was held by someone like Amitabh Bachchan in films like Shahenshah. What are the implications of these movies on our current societal circumstances? Let us see. 

1. It is no longer possible for Cinema, especially Bollywood cinema to depict an "Ideal Hero". This is the depiction of Death of "Dream of Ideal Man and Ideal society". The real, so called, is now flawed one. Cinema is now not meant to deliver a message of the goodness, rather just runs on naive relatability factor. And I am not a big fan of Relatability. If your piece of art is relatable to a rapist, I spit on such cinema. 

2. It seems essential in today's time, that is the decline of Patriarchy, Men are not the ideal of society. Women are. That is why, in all these films when the man is a loser, the woman is a single dimensional character, that is, a strong independent woman, mostly either challenging the ego of the man, or covering it for his loser behavior. 

3. The redemption arc of the Hero is coming from typically the Bollywood's compulsion of victory of good over evil. So, the Hero reforms. The Hero comes out to be this empathetic welfarist man who thinks about common good now that he understands that his behavior is the contributor to the evil at large. This gives us a false hope that eventually, we will also reform and become the best versions of ourselves. But this reform for the Hero happens within 2 hours of the film, unfortunately, men who watch these films, never reform. 

4. One other peculiar implication that we see in these Heroes is that they use humor extensively. It seems in films like: Stree, etc. That there are no side-heroes or comics like Johny Lever type characters in these films. The Hero itself is the comic. That is an effect of Stand up comedy and its popularity in contemporary times. The Comic is not considered a joker anymore. He is considered an artist. He is considered someone worthy of becoming a Hero. 

This should not be seen as a bad thing. I think Hero has not become Funny. We can say, nowadays funny people are beginning to be accepted as heroes of today's times. Earlier, funny was associated with immaturity and naiveness, anyone serious was considered mature and socially conscious. Nowadays, this has reversed already. 

Anyone serious is considered seriously pathological and naive. It is like, we are living in such difficult times that anyone who is not seen joking and lightening the mood, is considered seriously pathological and even boring. If you consider yourself a hero today, it is mandatory to be funny today. No other option. 

In fact, comedy acts as a redeeming factor to the Hero's loser nature. "at least he is funny, covers up for all his lack of morality and his mischief." 

4. One thing this Hero is really firm at. He is differently moral as to the socialist Hero of 80s-90s Cinema. He is not patriarchal at all. Like, even if the film is not about Gender issues, we see extensive in talk commentary about women's rights and depiction of free woman and Hero, however loser he is, supports women's freedom. The socialist hero was progressive yet retained his patriarchy in his moral stance. In fact, In case of the Loser Hero, His being loser can also be interpreted as his comfort with not winning. His comfort with his masculinity. "It is ok not to be best in everything even if you are the Hero of your own film" is the central message of this Loser Heroes' character. It is sort of a signalling, an instruction manuel for the men. What kind of men are desired in today's times by women. It is Rajkumar Rao of Stree, Bhool Chook maaf, or for that matter in Chhlanng. 

POST LOVE SOCIETY: SELF-LOVE, ARRANGED LOVE and all Other Zombie forms of love.

It is not like people, sane people out of their own will, behave in a particular way, nor does this happen that people turn insane and behave insanely. This is the power of Ideology that the economic and social system shapes that People, start considering yesterday's sanity as insane and vice versa today. 

We live in Post love hostels today. Strategically used words with precise meanings, I have tried to succinctly put what I want to say. Post love is a condition where Love in its raw openness is prohibited. Post love is a situation where Love, as a concept, can only survive behind a reversal of a defense, such as in humor twisted in Rom-coms, in horror twisted in lust, etc. 

Post Love has some hidden assumptions. 

First, Love is too mushy and cringy to be performative. So, its performance must be engendered, Like Judith Butler dictates, Gender is performative, out of many subjects, Love becomes a performance art for a particular gender. Women perform love in a particular way and you are trained to receive love from a woman in a trained particular way. If a woman deviates from the prescribed performance of love, you somehow judge the woman just like an Art critic judges a poem, "Oh! It is not in meter". Men have to perform Love in a particular way, or else, they will be judged for their performance. So, Love becomes a gendered genre of performance. What is love if not associated with any gender norm? nothing precisely. There is no concept of love which today can be called a Neuter gender love. Why is it so? I claim, this is the result of post-ideological trauma. We live in a post-ideological era. Although this is a false statement. No more than now we are engrossed in Ideology today, and no more than he is most ideological who claims that he belongs to "No -isms" and he comes from "No-wing". He actually comes from all wings and all ideologies fool him constantly. Since in the 20th century, horrors were committed in names of political ideologies, we have stopped claiming our ideologies today. As a result, calling yourself a liberal is frowned upon, a communist or otherwise is seen as a mark of "being too naive" or "a blind supporter" and being from a "no-winger" is considered the new intellectual. So, with this, comes a dishonesty towards society. Since the ideologies which claimed to offer help to the collectives as a whole are on a decline, A sudden Narcissistic rise of individuality is being seen. Individual with just a digital identity and stripped of all collective social relations is the new subject today. I call it, "The Techno-feudal Slave". 

The Techno-feudal slave does not know love. He knows a product called, "Self-love". He has been sold that as a commodity. All other forms of love that he has somehow invented in his head are actually an extension of this Commodified "Self-love". 

Self-love is the most fetishistic and undignified form of love possible. It is worse than lust, a traditionally considered heinous and unspiritual form of love is Physical love. Self-love is today's lust. Today's Techno-feudal slave is addicted to his own identity on digital forms of media. He is addicted to his own self Narcissistically. The pressure to be a self-made is so much in a rise which has led to a corresponding rise of mental health diseases, or depression. Depression is analogous in concept, with the Auto-immune diseases, where the Subject starts attacking his own allies, his own cells, his own self in a way. Depression occurs in a positivity obsessed society, where there is a pressure to be successful on your own, not because it is for a purpose, being successful itself has become a purpose to be successful. And more for the story. Man today, wants to become a story of his own success. The motivation to become successful has become this self-driving machine, where the sole motivation of becoming successful is motivation itself, no other reason. Someone wants to be successful so that he can motivate others to be successful. It is like a "Motivation Zombie Apocalypse". 

So this Techno-feudal Slave, knowing no love but self-love and all other love as manifestations of self-love deprives itself from the social love that was the Zeitgeist of the last century. In the Last century, being a social activist, being a leader for a cause, or just someone who stands up for collective goodness was considered a Hero. It was considered the highest form of Love. Today, the most hated occupation is the people who protest, people who are activists, people who stand up for someone other's grievances, mostly people who still believe in the concept of "Helping Members of a society as your own Family." 

Numerous UAPAs, numerous people in jails, journalists and all, and leaders calling the people who protest as "Andolan-Jeeves" or "People who earn and eat through revolutions". So, People have begun to equate Protestors with inefficient failures who could not achieve anything for themselves, so they started complaining. In a society where criticism and protest is constantly considered as a "false complain" or "nagging", This society is under the full attack of what Byung Chul Han calls "Psychopolitics" or the politics of Mental health. Politics where the social structures and economic structure enslaves you through having full control on your mental Healths. The Market controls your attention. The market will decide what you consider important and what you consider worthless. The Market will decide what you will feel when and when you will feel depressed. And Market will take away your rights to be left alone and non-attending by giving you lakhs of eyeballs in front of your screens and incentivising you to perform in front of Digital media. As if Market is the "Madari" and you are the Monkey who starts using Social media and post a picture of you enjoying life whenever Madari fansies. And the delusion that the Monkey lives is that he is doing it on its own. That it is his decision to post a picture, not the Market's. 

When you are rewarded with eye-balls on the internet, and more so with some hearts occasionally, it is at this time that you are now incentivized more often to perform. 

Second, Authentic love is too risky and dangerous to have in this economy. So the techno-feudal subject avoids it at all cost. Gone are the days when people used to die in love, People used to feel depressed in love. Today's subject avoids "falling" in love via two ways, 

1. Falsely "Spiritualizing" love by making an idea out of it. Not acting on impulses, passions and just to fancy a woman and performing on Digital media by putting songs and other stuff. This digital performance still remains hollow, so it must be supplemented by Pseudo-spiritual correlations like, "I love her like I love God." Nobody loves God, first of all, And Nobody wishes to Fuck his god, since it is evident that loving her includes a violent and fascinating dimension of Sex.

2. They avoid falling by planning. People today, Plan for love. I call it the "Arranged love". Dating sites, Marriage apps, etc. Social media connections. All are manifestations of Arranged love. I claim, Post love is a society of Arranged love. There are no authentic love marriages anymore. Market has intervened. Now, either you let your parents decide (Conventional Arranged) or you let the market forces decide (Love-arranged by market). Both are equally bad and enslaving. Since what are parents but products of Market today. They will use their own parameters like Caste, Class etc. It is like planning to make a forest. You cannot plant a forest. However unorganized, your made-up forest will be a complexly made-up farm. It is an established fact that, Humans cannot make certain things in its human way. It is a work of nature's randomness, and it is supposed to be made so. For example, Love has and should occur in an accident, in a coincidence, in a way like slipping and falling and it should hurt. The Love was a product of nature in a way that love, like all products of nature, included in itself a loss of itself. 

Like all products of nature, Like say, Water includes in itself thirst. If water, no thirst. If no water then thirst. Thirst is essential for water's subjective existence in Human's mind. Similarly, loss of love is an essential thing, all those violent reactions, emotional traumas, are an essential part of loving. That makes it a natural thing and not a market product. 

A market always tries to sell you "The thing without its side-effects". Coffee without caffeine, Diet coke etc. "Love without falling in love" is this planned love. 

Third, I consider is the most dangerous ideology of today's times. Love as in love for Pragmatism. Today's techno-feudal slave is an un-emotional hijacked plane being run on autopilot of optimizing success. Today's techno-feudal subject abhors making mistakes. And most of all, it abhors not making mistakes at the same time. Let me explain. 

The tecno-feudal subject, as we dealt in last section, has heard enough number of motivational success stories and an equal share of failure stories. So, most of all, today's information addict Techno-feudal slave has more stories, more myths than any aboriginal society in this world. The fear psychosis of failure is greater today than any other fear psychosis of any religion of the past. No Devil haunts more than the Devil of failure to the Techno-feudal subject. 

"I do not want to die a mediocre man", declares this slave, And not dying mediocre, in his mind has a specific meaning. it can be defined by clear cut tangible goals. 

1. Significant social media presence and popularity. 

2. Significant accolades in his field and recognition. 

3. Significant material wealth to be able to afford a life worth a display on social media. 

4. Significant personal relations to be displayed on social media in form of family vlogs, friend-blogs. 

In essence, success means today what can be converted into a story, a story in the form of a digital content which will fetch eyeballs and views. A digital God they all worship, and the sacrifice they do is of their mental health. They kill their healthy mental self in making the Digital God of eyeballs happy. 

For this pursuit, the greatest weapon of this Techno-feudal slave is "Pragmatism" and "Utilitarianism". 

Anyone who is attached to fixed morals and principles is considered today a dogmatic person. Since when you believe firmly on fixed objective principles, You declare, "Ok, if I am going to suffer for my honesty, let it be. If I am going to suffer for my principles, so be it." 

But, then how these success goals will be met? They should be met. So, the techno-feudal subject adopts pragmatism as his new ideology. Pragmatism began from America. America, a market which decided to call itself a country. Any one de-ontological is dogmatic today. Why so? A Gandhi is disliked today not for his interpretation of Hinduism in liberal terms, or for his conservative stances, but for his firmness towards certain principles of life and struggle and to accept defeat even while walking on the path of truth. 

For Gandhi, the path of truth must equally be true and in this philosophical sense, merely walking on the path towards truth was like victory of truth already. But today, Gandhi is the hated one. Communalists hate him. Seculars hate him subconsciously. Conservatives hate him, liberals hate him. Nobody loves this man because this man was one of the examples who can beat the current hegemonic idea of "Pragmatism", "Success mania" and "Victory at any cost". 

So, third point is understood. In post-love societies Love exists in three forms. 

1. Self-love or Digital narcissism. 

2. Arranged Love or a planned artificial forest. 

3. Pragmatic love or love for Pragmatism. 

In these scenarios, where our most sacred concepts like, Love are commodified. We can no longer trust our own common sense what we perceive as love. It is natural, then, that the new Generations, GenZ and Gen Alpha, which I consider most honest generations till date, have coined new terms which sound similar to love but not exactly love. This I think is the symptom of the malaise that the Neo-liberal techno-feudal market has created. 

Situationship is an honest symptom of something deeply grave. I think an honest person today will have situationships only. Marriages are farce in this day and age. They are not outdated, but they are too commodified to be true. They are fake. You do not need to say, "Fake marriage". When you say, Marriage, that means "a fake relationship". 

Relationships are too, now commodified. Live-in relationships are commodified. Everything is build around this Economy of Post-love where the attempt of the market is to bring hyper-certainty. You are not allowed to be unsure about love. But this uncertainty is in a way, a pre-requisite for love. If you are not anxious about your to be partner, the one who you wish to be with your whole life, you are not really in a process of being in love. Ideally, the anxiety of "What will happen" should drive the feeling of love. The "What will happen" should naturally be converted into "Whatever will, we will see together". 

But, today's post-love societies are societies where economy just wants you to keep Posting about love. Do not fall in love. Never experience the actual thing. Never try to actually meet a person, a random stranger, not through social media, talk and keep meeting and then develop affection and then fight, and then feel sad, then after break-ups, feel depressed. This is how naturally these things occur. This is actually Love occurs when left untouched. But, today the man is scared too much. Hence the Secure version that Market provides, 

"The Anxiety less, The trauma less, The depression less, The fall-less form of love" 

A Love worth posting on social media. That is post-love. It is exactly not what it is advertised. It is not love but just a hollow advertisement of love. 

That is why, Love, in my opinion, should be frowned upon the most today. anyone who says, he regards Love the most. Consider him either delusional, already brainwashed by digital economy, or a sinister, a predator, someone who can actually make content out of your highly regarded relationship. 

What is the solution? Is there a genuine way to express affection today. Here, in loss of newer ideas, I am forced to return to some old conservative ideas. Some ideas which are now considered bad. Some ideas which are considered even not sane today, but symptomatic. 

For instance, "Neki kar dariya mein Daal" or "Do good and do not post on social media". 

For instance, "Do something that expresses affection and do not ask for payment", and Also, what goes without saying, "Do not post on social media". 

What to not post on social media? Anything. I mean anything that makes a commodity out of your own life is post-love and not love. 

I consider, at last, that our parent's generation of absent love is a love to be practiced now a days. Our parents were never present in our memories loving us, or saying that "Beta, I love you!" because they were busy providing us with resources that made us live a good life, something that they will never be alive to see. Something that they will never boast on social media by posting. Our fathers, Our mothers knew what is love. They might not be aware that they know. But they know. It is in them. Programmed by nature or conditioned by society, whatever you say, but it is there. 

Return to old love. "Love as practice of giving", "Love as fall", "Love as which does not exclude the possibility of loss". 

Love that cries, sings, writes poems, dances imagining her in his arms, dreams to have kids with her, dreams to cook for her, but never never never and I repeat, never ever dreams to post his love online.