On reading

Triggered by this post. Go read it.

V is one of the first people who suggested (to my shock) that reading might not be the virtue it is made out to be. “You’re just escaping reality,” is his contention. I scoffed.

But I wonder. In the same way as alcoholics need a drink a day, I need to read. I specifically need to read before I go to sleep. This is a problem when married to a man who wants to chat, or indulge in other nighttime pleasures, before sleeping. It helps, however, to be married to a man who can sleep with the light on.

When I travel, I need to have a book. I remember a short flight to Beijing on which I discovered – horror of horrors – that I had forgotten my book. Initially, I was fine but having read the entire inflight magazine in half-an-hour (it was bilingual), I began to get angsty. By the end of the flight, I was at screaming point. Didn’t help to have a husband who fell asleep beside me. Smokers have the same reaction and bear the same expression when coming off a flight.

Basically, I need to have a book with me at all times. I’ve taken a book to church, but restrained myself and read the hymnal through the sermon instead, and to my own birthday party (in case it got boring I planned to escape to the loo and catch a chapter).

When I’m reading, I’m in a different world. I pretty much ignore people around me and if someone says something to me, I can’t hear. I walk around in the mood of the book even when I’m not reading it. I find books more interesting than most people. Kind of like being on pot, no?

Moreover, there is some credence to the books making one live on another planet thingie. Not just because one is physically on another planet when one is reading them. But also because one has greater expectations of the world even as one is become more cynical about it. One is constantly analyzing, shifting focus, wondering about the side stories, even in real life. I’ve only just realised most people are not like this.

Of course, reading enriches the mind and all that. But not if you’re reading the Shopaholic series. And a lot of the time, books of this caliber are what I’m reading. I’ve tried to remedy that with The Book of the Year endeavour but be that as it may, most of what I read is hardly enlightening.

Nevertheless, I’m convinced there’s some value to reading. Certainly, I don’t really have friends who don’t read. I may have a spouse who doesn’t but I married him for, erm, other qualities. Maybe fate tricked me into marrying him so I’d get my nose out of a book? But I’m basically confused – reading, virtue or vice?

And interesting thought from this article: “I read so much, the overflow became writing.” Isn’t that what happened to so many of us?

Update: From a friend on Facebook, Kafka’s advice on what to read:

Read the kind of books that wound and stab us … that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us.

Would one of my recent reads – Paris Hilton’s ‘Confessions of An Heiress count’ count?

Be a man

This weekend is Sevens weekend in Hong Kong. It’s this big rugby tournament that attracts teams and spectators from all over the world and is generally one big party. It tends to be an expat driven thing, with some people going so far as to call it “our event” (as opposed to an event by and for the local Chinese population), which I guess is an indication of the expat mindset in Hong Kong.

Sevens tickets are extremely prized but the first year I was here I got a free ticket so I went. I really enjoyed the event. There are carnival atmosphere, a lot of people go in costume and generally, a lot of drinking goes on. I was one of the minority who actually watched the sport, although I had never been into rugby, and got completely hooked. It helps that the format of the Sevens game is a very simple, pared down version (I’m told) of actual rugby so easy for a newbie to get it. Anyway, I couldn’t be bothered to scrounge around for tickets again so that was the one and only time I went. I wouldn’t mind going in a group and actually watching the game though.

The hippest Sevens stand to be in is the South Stand. This is where most of the dressed up people are but also the place that gets the most rowdy – from people throwing beer and/or jugs to people peeing on the stands below. I’m still not quite sure why this is fun and why people would queue up to take their chances on being peed/puked on. I guess it’s a step away from the famed British footie fans who end up seriously brawling.

And then there’s the drinking. Huge amounts of beer are consumed during the event and then everyone rolls across to the bars and more in consumed there. In the interim, while they’re on the streets getting to bars for example, they are drunk, a bit annoying and sometimes disgusting (puking or throwing stuff at each other).

Basically, the whole event has a male-bonding feel to it. What got me thinking was when someone mentioned that the corporate boxes have these girls in slinky costumes dancing. The assumption I guess is that the guests in the box are male (these are generally top executives of big firms). But what of the senior female executives (I’m assuming here that they are some)? Wouldn’t it be a little odd for them, though as usual, I’m sure they play along? But that apart, do men really like this sort of thing? I mean, if you live in HK you see skimpily-dressed women all the time and it’s quite easy to see them dancing in Wan Chai too. So would you really be a treat to see them jiggle a bit at a company event?

That got me thinking about male stereotypes. There’s a lot of attention paid to how women are conditioned and pressured to conform to stereotypes relating to how they look, dress and behave but not much is said about how men have to/and generally do conform to some ridiculous stuff*:

1. Drinking a lot. I’m sure there’s no inborn desire in men to imbibe copious amounts of alcohol. But men seem to pressure each other to drink more than women do. Of course, for both men and women drinking is a sign of being cool but I feel men have the harder deal here if they want to opt out.

2. Eating slabs of meat. I’ve realised that men think there’s something macho about eating steak. I don’t get it. That is, I do like steak on occassion, I just don’t see why a big deal has to be made of eating it.

3. Having to pretend to enjoy scenarios like skimpily-clad women dance for them. I know this should seem like a no-brainer (ie- that all men do) but I’m convinced that not all men get as much a kick out of this stuff as is made out. Especially if you live in a place where this sort of thing loses its novelty value. Then it might just get uncomfortable and tacky no?

4. Having to love sports. Like the meat-eating thing, sports is considered a male bastion for reasons unknown. And men who are not into sports, get this “what’s wrong with you” look. Conversely, women who are into sports are generally patronized a little. It seems to me that men would rather just discuss sports with other men. I have grown up watching sports because my entire family is passionate about it, from my grandmother to my mother to my sister and my dad. I’m the least passionate about sports but it’s rubbed off. Admittedly, many women don’t like sports but enough of them do, so why do sporting events have to be this guys-only thing.

5. Being rowdy. Admittedly men tend to enjoy pushing and shoving each other more than women do, but why the pressure to get rowdy to the point of being a menace? I understand if teenagers do it but when it’s grown men, it’s kind of sad.

6. The final one, I guess, would be the pressure on men to make money. And to like talking about it.

My beef really with conformity. Just as I dislike people who project this aura of cliched cool or a persona that comes across as too cultivated (unless subversively), I find gender stereotypes and those build their personalities around them tiring. Granted some women might genuinely adore shopping, the colour pink, babies… (ok, I’m running out of things women are supposed to stereotypically be into) and some men might actually like beer, red meat, scantily-clad women, sports, talking finance and being rowdy, but if one is all these things all of the time and pretty much nothing else, it’s basically boring.

*I still believe women have the worse deal though, because the stereotypes that apply to women are more various and more rigid.

Twi-ed out

So the Twilight series.

I was warned not to bother with the last two books but I thought Eclipse was quite good. That is, it served the purpose of pushing me firmly and unswervingly onto Team Jacob. All I was hoping for was for Edward to Just Go Away.

However, New Dawn. Is bloody (haha pun!) unbearable. Even in Eclipse, I had taken to skipping over some the Bella parts and most of the Edward parts, which were generally Bella parts also (interesting how the story is never told from Edward’s perspective. Then again, thank God! Oh, but it appears Meyers is writing a book told from Edward’s perspective which I am NOT going to read). In ND, I’ve been simply skipping Bella altogether which makes for a whole bunch of skipping. Let’s just say I’m speed reading the book. I could just skip the book altogether but I’ve read three and I have to know.

When I first started the series, I remember remarking to V that books like these were the worst things for teenage girls like my cousin. Because when you’re a teenage girl, your head is already so full of romantic fantasies that this one might fuel you right out of the roof. But I wouldn’t concede that Bella has no agency because she does dig her heels in on certain things. And while the books might not provide role models, it is not mandatory for books to provide role models.

However, while pounding the treadmill this weekend, it hit me that these books were like porn for women. Emotional porn. Just like standard porn, generally geared towards men, encapsulates male fantasies that might not be desirable in real life, these books portray fantasies that would grip many (not all) women but whose subtext is undesirable in real life. Intense love that is kind of destructive. Throwing everything to the winds for the one you love. Having two men devoted to you. Idolising one’s lover.

This review by Slate says it better:

Hardwicke, whose first film was the harrowing mother-daughter melodrama Thirteen (2003), has a keen sense memory for female adolescence—not just the social insecurity of that time but the grandiosity that can make self-destructive decisions feel somehow divinely fated. Unwholesome, sure, but arguably no more so than Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre, two better-written Gothic romances about young women in thrall to a remote, charismatic, often cruel hero. And while Pattinson’s Edward is a bit of a vain prig, no one you’d want to risk your immortal soul for, his worthiness doesn’t really matter. Twilight is a story about pining for the one person you can, and should, never have, and who among us hasn’t at least once experienced that vampiric craving? As a life lesson for teenage girls, Twilight (excuse the pun) sucks. As a parable for the dark side of female desire, it’s weirdly powerful.

I also finally managed to articulate what bothered me about Bella’s choices. Not that Edward made all her decisions for her (because despite Bella’s low self-esteem and her idolization of him, I don’t believe he did). But that Edward’s family made all so many decisions for her. She defers not just to Edward but to his whole family who she considers superior. Like the time Alice kidnapped her when she had plans to meet Jacob (though to be fair she did run away later but I did wonder why she didn’t throw more of a tantrum). Or when she had to ask Rosalie to protect her. I think it really hit me when she was going out on a hunt and said something like “my family” behind me.

Or maybe I’m only seeing this because it hits a nerve. When I got married I felt like there was something of a project on to incorporate (not so much welcome) me into my husband’s family. Language was one thing but also in subtler ways. Apparently there was all this discussion about whether I would fit in, which was actually repeated to me. There is also an assumption that you will go along with their plans and their way of life. I resist this quite furiously. Well, I tend to be laid back and my husband’s family is not, so in terms of plans I do go along with them mostly. It’s a terrible surprise when I put my foot down. But I refuse to be changed into one of them. If I want to learn their language, I will but I dislike insistence upon it. Just because they like to party hard and do all the clichéd out there things, doesn’t mean I should too. I dislike the idea that I should be turning into one of them. I am me and there may be aspects of your culture I will like but definitely not if you force them down my throat.

Ok, so the above is only loosely connected to Bella but basically, it irritates me that she was so willing to change, to want to be exactly like them.

The whole family dynamic is also echoed in the structure of the wolf pack. Although Jacob rejects the hereditary leadership position, in the end, he embraces it as also the Alpha role. I found that slightly weird.

The above has been tied to Meyer’s Mormon origins as also has the abstinence theme. Interesting take in The Huffington Post:

Now that’s a real fantasy: a world where young women are free to describe their desires openly, and launch themselves at men without shame, while said boyfriends are the sexual gatekeepers. Twilight’s sexual flowchart is the inversion of abstinence-only/purity ball culture, where girls are told that they must guard themselves against rabid boys, and that they must reign in both their own and their suitors’ impulses. But even while inverting the positions, Meyer doesn’t change the game. Purity is still the goal. Men, or vampires, are still dangerous and threatening while females are still breakable and fragile. Intercourse still has the potential of resulting in “death,” just as it once relegated women to a social death. The only difference is the controls are handed over from the teenage girl to the guy–who happens, in this case, to be totally responsible and upright.

Most of these things have been repeated over and over. But I found an interesting critique of the reaction to Twi-hard fans:

Doyle concedes that the books are “silly,” what with their unlikely chastity and the characters’ sappy, unconditional, and constantly verbalized mutual adoration, but, she argues, these fantasies do offer teen girls much-needed “shelter from the terrors of puberty.” On the other hand, “male escapist fantasies—which, as anyone who has seen Die Hard or read those Tom Clancy novels can confirm, are not unilaterally sophisticated, complex, or forward-thinking—tend to be greeted with shrugs, not sneers. The Twilight backlash is vehement, and it is just as much about the fans as it is about the books. Specifically, it’s about the fact that those fans are young women.”

Heroes

Curly and I were having this discussion about the famous/eminent/inspiring people we’d like to meet and I mentioned that none of mine would be bankers. Also politicians. I sometimes have these fantasies about doing something really brave or impressive and being awarded a medal of honour (ok, here’s where you DON’T laugh) and then I used to wonder what I would do if the person awarding it was Bush, or even Vajpayee. Like would I smile and nod politely, or would I give them a piece of my mind about their policies. I used to think Manmohan Singh is ok but I’ve been kind of disillusioned with him after he used “foreign hand” in his much-too-late address to the nation post 26/11.

I never used to have heroes. Try as I might to find someone to idolize, I couldn’t really identify anyone I admired to the point of adoration. Another favourite pastime of mine was pretending I was in the Miss India/Universe/World (but not Asia-Pacific) competition (Again, DO NOT laugh, I was a teenager then). Then, I would run into problems with questions like “which person would you like to have tea with” or “if you could be a man who would you like to be”. Basically, the subtext of the question is “who’s your idol” and while there are many people who’ve done impressive things, I couldn’t think of one alive that I would actually want to meet, leave alone be. For example, I love Salman Rushdie’s novels and have huge respect for his talent but I don’t think I’d like to meet him because he seems (and I’ve been told he is) very arrogant and smirky (though that may be just his eyebrows).

Also, when I was a journalist, I met many in-the-news type people and I realised that they were just people and far from perfect, sometimes even disappointing. Then again, some of them were cool but frankly, so are many people I know who are not in the news and far more accessible.

Anyway, maybe it’s a sign of growing up (which should actually be the reverse because aren’t you supposed to grow out of your heroes when you hit adulthood) but I now have identified The Three. That is, three I would feel honoured to meet.

They are (in order of preference):

1. Irom Sharmila. I think if I met this woman I would touch her feet or start crying or something. And I am totally not one of those people who does any of those things. But her strength, her strength.

2. Aung San Suu Kyi. Maybe a clichéd choice but her grace under pressure astounds me.

3. Barack Obama. I know, I know I said no politicians. But I kind of have a crush on him. And maybe I have to meet him because he’s the only politician I’ve ever admired. And how.

So who are your Three?

On Reservations

Recently, I got interested in the Women’s Reservation Bill and the arguments surrounding it. Some point to problems with the Bill itself (eg- the rotation system, the need for “quotas within quotas”). Many many others in the non-political sphere (ie- people like you and me) take the anti-Reservation stand. Not so much that women don’t need reservations (which is one argument that could be made) but against Reservations themselves.

I admit I used to be one of these people. Until I went to an institution where Reservations actually worked. That is, where students in the reserved category didn’t just drop off the radar unnoticed and unmissed but were nurtured and supported and managed to make their presence felt. I have no doubt that they went on to be reasonably successful thanks basically to the opportunity afforded to them by Reservations (and of course, the very supportive faculty that refused to give up on them simply because they didn’t have all the social and cultural capital that the rest of us did). It was an enlightening experience.

Don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t all huggy huggy joy joy. These students came from backgrounds very different to the ones you and I come from and they weren’t quite ready to forgive and be friends with the likes of you and me. Maybe they felt that being friends with us would blunt the edge off their rage and prevent them from fighting the fight that was ahead of them. They completely bristled at attempts (such as the one I’m going to make) to speak on their behalf. Despite this, I am glad they were in the same classroom as me.

And despite their “don’t speak for us” dictates, I’m going to try (and it’s only an attempt) because one thing I realised from all I’ve been reading is that the lines between us and them are so invisible and yet so strong that most of us will never see their viewpoint, partly because they have stopped talking to us.

So, the anti-Reservation brigade. Below is a list of some of the common objections to Reservations and hopefully a different perspective to one’s you generally get in the mainstream media (I used to work for the mainstream media and in the English press, I can safely say, there are very few Dalits, if any, which is a very very dangerous thing):

1. The Constitution enshrines equality. So reservations go against the spirit of the Constitution because if people are equal, how come some get special treatment.

The Constitution itself makes space for reservations under Article 15.

The key here is that the Constitution forbids discrimination “against” but not discrimination “in favour of”. If that was not clear enough, the Constitution spells it out in the First Amendment.

Why? Because the Constitution recognizes that much as we would love it to be so, people are not equal. Some people are still treated like shit. So much so that they have no hope of climbing out of it, unless given a massive boost by someone to level the playing field. Legislation doesn’t always work, but it’s the basis. For example, there are many ways people find to evade anti-dowry legislation (such as claiming to be giving gifts), but because the legislation is there, at least women have a route in case they find it in themselves to complain. Similarly, reservations are not a panacea but at least they provide that space in the door.

Also, this “equality” line is too similar to the brain-dead things men say when seats are reserved for women on buses. Eg. “You want to be equal? Then why do you require reserved seats?” Because, asshole, if we didn’t have reserved seats, you’d be pinching our ass or masturbating down our back (as has happened to TWO people I know, the cum-on-back I mean, not the ass-being-pinched which happens to everyone). Until you get your hormones and twisted mind together, the government in all its wisdom has decided to forcibly keep you away from us by giving us a space that we don’t have to fight for with our elbows. Similarly with reservation. Until society is ready to give the lowest castes the chance they deserve, the government has to forcibly create space for them.

2. Which brings me to point 2. “There is no inequality or discrimination.”

Oh really? If the fact that there are very few Dalit people in senior positions (except in politics maybe where they have either muscled their way through against the odds or got there through Reservations) isn’t enough, just Google.

The fact is that most Dalit people still live in villages, where they are kept on the fringes. It’s still common for Dalit kids to be separated from other kids during the mid-day meal at school and they’re the only ones made to clean toilers. This is what we know. Who knows what else goes on. You’re not going to hear about it in the media because the media is not that interested in reporting about what happens to poor people unless it’s really horrible like a woman being stripped, fed shit, gangraped etc. Standard beating and intimidation is run of the mill.

Dalits constitute 16% of the population but you’re more like to have a Christian (2%) or a Parsi friend than a Dalit. Why? Because most of the time, Dalits don’t make it far enough up the ladder to even be registered by us. They aren’t even let in the door of our privileged circle, those in the Reservation category are the rare ones that managed to slip through the cracks of the system.

When I was at university, one of the profs explained to us why Dalit students generally had more than the allowed number of people in their hostel rooms. It’s because, unlike most of us who move to a new city and can find through our social network some contacts to put us up, a Dalit student is probably the only contact for anyone in his village.

Saying there is no inequality or discrimination is like white people saying there’s no racism. Dude, of course, there’s no discrimination if you’re white. The world is a beautiful place is if you’re white. Similarly, there’s no discrimination if you’re upper caste (and if you actually meet someone who isn’t, they will inform you that everyone who is not in the absolute bottom rung is upper caste. That is, it’s not just Brahmins and Kshtriyas who are upper caste to them but everyone except them. Why? Because only they get treated like shit and denied the opportunity to even go to school. Yes, even today). Now go and ask your friends and colleagues what caste they are. You’ll be hardpressed to find one person who actually belongs to the Dalit caste.

I was once asked to name the Dalit people I knew. I could come up with only 1 name before I  joined that university. The one name was a girl from my brief tenure at law school. We met outside the principal’s office. I was trying to get a seat in the college (a completely novel experience, having to be waitlisted for a seat but in retrospect good for the soul) and had been told that when some of the Reserved seats dropped out, I’d get in no problem. She was trying to get a Reserved seat. We hung out a lot after that even though we had practically nothing in common. By the way, guess who dropped out of law college among the two of us? It wasn’t my friend with the Reserved seat. Last I heard she was apprenticing with a lawyer (yay for her!).

The point is, all the Dalit people I know are through Reservations. I realised if it weren’t for Reservations, I wouldn’t know any.

3. OK fine, it sucks to be from the lower castes but Reservations don’t work because look, the problems still persist and they haven’t done anyone any good.

Reservations haven’t been that successful because of a failure of the system. You can’t just reserve seats but not put in place an enabling environment. When there is an enabling environment they do work. As was the case with the kids at my MA programme. Even when there isn’t an enabling environment, sometimes they get through. Like my friend above. By the way, my friend above is probably from what is known as the creamy layer of Dalits. For one, she lives in a city. She had a telephone in her house. However, I once called her and not a single person spoke English. Her English also wasn’t great and kudos to her for passing the law exams in English.

Where Reservations don’t work is when there’s nothing put in place to give these students that extra boost. They’re just given up as a lost cause. My sister tried to help out a girl who was from the Reserved category when she was in engineering college. But in the end, she felt it was too big a task. Finally, the girl dropped out. That’s the common story and preventable if there was some infrastructure to help them cope.

Anyway, Reservation may not have rid society of all its evils, but some progress has been made. It’s better than nothing, right?

4. If people really want to make it, they will.

Yes, this is true. There will be the odd outstanding person who will risk whatever in the pursuit of their dreams. Look at Dr. Ambedkar. He was beaten and bruised but he made it. Now let’s condemn all his fellow-caste-members to be beaten and bruised before they make it too.

5. Why can’t people succeed on merit?

This concept of merit is misguided, just like IQ tests are misguided. If someone has had no opportunities but at least manages to secure a pass mark is he or she better than someone who’s had plenty and secures a first?

6. If one gets a post on a reserved seat, everyone will sneer at you.

So what? People who come from these communities never had any shortage of sneering. A little sneering is good for the soul. It doesn’t change the truth which is that the world is a shitty place to require reservation. So sneer at the world instead, why don’t you? Or better… do something to change it.

7. Shouldn’t we focus on uplifting these people from the grassroots itself?

Yes, we should. And some efforts are being made. And there are some success stories. Just as there are some success stories with Reservation. Because even if you manage to take a Dalit kid through school in the village, it’s still going to be very hard for him to get into and survive university in the city “on his merit”. To even get to stage where he can apply for university he has to be exceptionally strong. Reservation just gives him that breathing space.

8. Why can’t Reservations be based on economic status and not caste?

Because the discrimination on the basis of caste is two-fold. It is economic because the lower castes are (surprise!) largely the lowest economic class too. And because the two are related. A poor Dalit faces an even more uphill battle than a poor person of any other caste. Because the poor person of the other caste has social capital. If nothing else, the poor person of the other caste can move to a city because he won’t be shut out of housing because of his caste. Yes, it happens. One’s caste is so apparent by one’s last name.

There have been suggestions that the “creamy layer” be excluded from Reservations. However, this is really hard to do. And it has been pointed out that even in the so-called Merit category, it’s the “creamy layer” (ie- the reasonably well-to-do ones often with social connections) that has an advantage. Nevertheless, there have been some success stories in the Reserved categories. One could argue that almost all the now “creamy layer” Dalits came up through this category.

So the question is really this – is the success of this minority enough to keep the system going? It depends who you’re asking I guess.

Finally, tell me, how different has your life been because of Reservation? Maybe you lost out on a seat in college. But so what? You’re still doing ok right? Now ask the kid who got in on the reserved seat and actually made it through college. Yeah, there are only a few of them but that’s not their fault. Or even the kid that didn’t make it– “hey, you kid, that dropped out of your reserved seat because the system was just too hard, were you there just out of laziness? Would your life have been better if you never had the change”. Then close your eyes and imagine what that kid would say.

Now my questions:
1. How come a lot is said about reservations for SC/STs but none about NRI quota and the so-called management quota in educational institutions? These are also people who get in without the so-called “merit”. But it’s ok because they look like the rest of us and can pay.
2. There are also reservations for people with disabilities. So how come no objections to that from the people who cite the “equality” argument. Is it because it’s clear that disabled people need to be given some leeway because of their disability? Why is it so hard to make the same jump for people who face social disabilities? Or is it just that we don’t believe that such social disabilities exist.

A clue: Stop thinking in terms of people in cities. The problem is that we only see people like us, that is people who live in cities. By the way, there’s discrimination in cities too. Just that you don’t see because it’s not targeted at you. And you could go through your whole life without even meeting one Dalit person (except for Reservations where you’re forced to). That is how bad the discrimination is.

Write to me:
1. If you’re Dalit and you believe I’m wrong. Tell me that things have really changed, that more than half of you can get to university and can find white collar jobs. Tell me it isn’t a bitch of a fight. I would love to be proved wrong like that.

2. If you’re not Dalit and have at least one Dalit friend. Heck, even a colleague (in a white collar job) will do. I would love to hear that too.

PS: I know I haven’t really said anything specifically about the Women’s Reservations Bill. Frankly, I don’t know if I support the Bill or not. But I won’t condemn it just because it involves Reservations.

Going green

Because I ended up writing quite a bit about green issues when I was a journo, some of that magic rubbed off onto me and I began to actually alter my actions and be less wasteful. Basically, being environmentally friendly a lot of the time is doing exactly what your mom and grandmom have been doing for years and which you used to roll your eyes about (like, saving plastic bags, and eating more veggies, and walking instead of driving).

Sometimes though all the rhetoric gets a little crazy and you might think “pshaw, forget it, it’s too much.” But really, even a little bit helps. So it’s like being on a diet… just do as much as you can. A couple of days ago I listened to a talk by a very cool person (and also world famous artist and architect) called Maya Lin and I decided to take stock.

Because positive feedback always helps, I’m starting with what I do before what I don’t and could do.

Things I do:

1. Take public transport. I have realised I’m not a car person. There are a lot of fabulous cars on the streets of Hong Kong and I don’t register most of them. Having a fancy car does not form part of my dream life. I learnt to drive because my mom pushed me to (she needed someone to driver her to the vet with our dog). I’d probably like a Mini Cooper but not enough to make the effort of actually driving one. Taking a taxi happens only when I’m ill, super tired or drunk. This happens less often than you’d think. I also enjoy public transport. In Hong Kong, It’s organised and if I get a seat, I’m totally a happy camper checking other people out. Private transport is so lonely. Even better, I love walking so I do a lot of that… and it really helps when you’re too lazy to go to the gym.

2. Take short showers. I’m also not one of those people that needs to bathe twice a day. Sometimes I even forget to bathe once (I know, gross! but it happens rarely); maybe because I don’t sweat much. I also make it a point to save my bathing time for after the gym. I used to love tub baths but having had a tub in my bathroom, I realised I barely use it. Probably once a year and I do feel guilty when I see the water glugging down the drain. I do like hot showers though.

3. Recycle. I’m not militant about this but I try. My previous buildings had a recycling area near the place where we dumped our trash and I noticed it was well used. Having the waste separation containers right there makes it so much more motivating to do. I pretty much never threw cans, plastic bottles or newspapers in the regular trash. My new building has it downstairs but I’m already in the habit. It just feels wrong to mix up waste. I can do more to separate waste though.

4. Use both sides of the paper for printing. It used to really irritate me that my previous office didn’t have this manual feed option on the printer. My current one does and all of us use it. The good thing about the previous option though was this lady used to make the one-print paper into notepads and I used quite a few of those. Miss those in fact.

5. I’m also a fan of reusing stuff. It’s tempting to buy the cute storage jars in HK but when I think about all the jam and pasta sauce jars I’m just going to be throwing away, I can’t do it. So, less pretty kitchen storage but my conscience is clear on that one. I am however going to stop reusing plastic takeaway boxes and bottles. Because I’ve realised these can get toxic. Or maybe I’ll just prune frequently.

6. Bring my own bag. The HK government last year made supermarkets start charging 5 cents for each plastic bag at the checkout counter. It’s amazing how many people suddenly remembered to bring their own bag. I had started before the levy. Sure, I slip up and occasionally have to pay for a bag but mostly I have this one down. I also don’t ask for extra slip bags for cold meat and stuff. Honestly, what is with that?

Things I can do more

1. Switch off the main switch on our electrical appliances. Apparently, this saves power though I think we have so many wires back there it might get complicated.

2. Change ALL lights to energy saving ones. Right now 90% are. Even better, remember to always switch off lights. Both my sis and me are bad at this and our respective husbands collectively bitch about it.

3. Eat less meat. Did you know the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from cattle FARTING (I’m not joking here) is huge? Also, grain is grown and fed to cattle only for the cattle to be killed and us to eat it. Much trouble would be saved if we just ate the grain instead. So, though I can’t totally eliminate meat, I’m just going to up the veggie quotient. This is healthy too.

4. Stop buying stuff with excessive packaging. This would mean most Japanese foodstuff. I’m already prejudiced against overpackaged stuff because I hate how long it takes to get to the thing you bought. So I just need to set my brain to “No” when something looks overpackaged.

5. I can’t afford organic but I’m going to cut down on chemical products we use. I think this is a good decision healthwise also. I’m considering, for example, this ceramic laundry ball thing instead of detergent. Also, I’m a fan of doing laundry with cold water (mainly because it takes less time).

Things I can’t do

1. I just audited my carbon footprint and the biggest component is air travel. However, considering I must go home once every year, I really can’t cut down on this. Hong Kong is small and not connected to other places, except China, by train. So if I want to go on holiday I have to take a flight. Sadly, I keep wanting to go to Europe. Maybe I should channel my holiday aspirations to SE Asia. The good news is that I’m probably going to do one train journey into the Mainland this year so yay for me (well, V actually whose big dream this is).

What do you do to be nicer to Planet Earth?

The Oscars: a take

So, for me the Oscars are more about glamour and fashion than the actual movies involved. Some thoughts:

1. Best dressed: Cameron Diaz in Oscar de la Renta

2. Most beautiful: Kathryn Bigelow. Honestly, the camera kept focusing on her and she looked amazing every time. Annoying. I guess it’s the glow that comes from being the (not a) woman of the night AND trumping one’s ex husband. Apart from a great dress of course. I guess Stefano Pilati’s my designer of the night.

3. Is it weird that I keep seeing dresses and going: if I get married again, I’m going to wear that (apart from the fact that I’d have to sell my kidneys to afford it, that is). Cameron’s would be my first choice, second Amanda Siegfred.

4. Am I the only one:

a) who dislikes Meryl Streep? Not what she was wearing (she looked great) but just she accepts everyone’s fawning as if she has every right to it and generally seems to be looking down her very thin nose all the time.

b) who loved what Diane Kruger was wearing? And her in general, of course. Also, is she the new Uma… that would be tragic in a please-do-not-sleep-with-Quentin kind of way.

c) because, much as I adore his movies, I think Quentin Tarentino looks like a brat. Not in a good way. If Meryl is the grand damn, Tarentino is the monster child. Just an impression, he might be very mature and sensible in real life.

d) who disliked what both Zoe Saldana and SJP were wearing. Side question: why was SJP’s hair looking so weird when she was presenting?

5. Why is it that the foreign language films and the documentaries seem more interesting than the big winners?

6. Demi Moore sounds like she smokes too much.

7. I kind of felt a little sorry for James Cameron. I’m such a sucker for losers. You can just imagine what’s going to happen when Blogshetra starts in earnest. I’m going to be feeling guilty about Duryodhan.

8. I didn’t like Vera Farmiga’s dress but I’m officially in love with her after Up in the Air (though I didn’t like the movie that much).

9. Nicole Richie is suddenly pretty. Is this what pregnancy does to one?

10. I had to google Rachel McAdams because I liked her dress. I’m so out of it, tethered only by fashion.

11. Generally everyone seemed too thin. It really seems like the world is shrinking size wise. Or that I am expanding because I never had this problem before. Thank God for Monique and Gabourney Sidibe.

12. Apparently nominees attended a workshop on how not to annoy people with their speeches. It seemed to have been counter-productive because many of them were frozen, unable even to do the usual teary gushing properly. Best speech of the night was by that French guy. Or maybe Jeff Bridges but I fell asleep by then so I’m voting for the French guy.

Blogshetra begins

So, the first post in the series is up and it’s not by me. MinCat’s picked Kamala Subramaniam’s translation and has already got started. Go see!

I reserved the RK Narayan copy (for lack of choice) and was most excited to pick it up last week. Now, however, I am not so excited.

This is a very abridged version of the epic. That is, I finished reading it in two days (and I only read it during lunch and on my commute home). It’s a very fine abridged version no doubt and the illustrations at the beginning of each chapter are AMAZING but sadly, it’s not enough. So I’m treating it as a sort of primer. Here are my thoughts:

1. Dhritharashtra is portrayed as extremely fickle. He is torn between what is right and pressure from his sons (basically Duryodhan). Much is said about how be vacillates.

2. Bhisma is not played up in this version. He just spouts wisdom occasionally. He comes across as wise but caught by his promise to be on the Kaurava side.

3. The sari scene with Draupadi is quite extensive. Both Chitra Lekha Bannerjee and Narayan mention that Draupadi was having her period at the time so I’m assuming this was mentioned in the original text. I’m kind of surprised that something so erm intimate was mentioned.

4. There’s this section where the Pandavas have been banished to the forest and are super upset. And they keep saying things like “We are like straws wafted about by stray winds!” and “The Supreme Being enjoys it all like a child shaping and squashing its clay doll” which strikes me as very similar to a famous like from King Lear “as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods”. Wonder which came first, Shakespeare’s line or Narayan’s (ie- if it’s a translation from the Mahabharata in Sanskrit). I guess I’ll never know.

5. There’s this part about how Arjun singlehandedly took on the best of the Kaurava army to save Matsya. He seems to have let off his disguise there and been recognised before the 13th year was up. So technically, they broke their vow and should go back into exile. But how come we’re supposed to support them?

6. Much is made of the attempts to sue for peace before going to war.

7. There’s quite a bit about Bhim. When I first watched Mahabharata on TV, I kind of liked Bhim but couldn’t take him seriously as a favourite. But in the Palace of Illusions it’s clear that Bhim is the one who really loves Draupadi and I’m a sucker for that sort of thing. Even in the Narayan version Bhim has more lines even than Arjun and seems to back Draupadi. I wonder then if Bannerjee was so far off.

8. For the most part, this version which I think does well to include all the core episodes of the epic, and The Palace of Illusions had lots of common ground. So I’m impressed that Bannerjee managed to write a perspectival novelistic work while keeping all the salient features of the epic.

Now, as I said, this is only a primer. I’ve pretty much decided on the Ramesh Menon copy but the question remains of how to get hold of it. My friend is still willing to bring it for me from India (though I need to make it clear that it’s two volumes and might be heavy) but that will only happen early April. Which is too far away! I’m super tempted to buy a copy online, but I’m worried about delivery and whether I’ll be home to pick it up. Sigh. Hate being in phoren.

PS: Though keep your suggestions coming on which version you prefer and why. Since I’m probably asking someone else to bring me a copy, I’m just going to give him a list and ask him to buy whichever one he finds most easily. So fate will ultimately decide which one I read, which I guess is quite apt in this case.

Good news

I woke up yesterday to an sms from my dad saying my sister was in labour. She had been feeling some pain but wasn’t expected to go into labour. That night I had sensed something and shuffled around for my phone till I fell asleep.

By the time I got through to my dad, I was an aunt. In the two or three hours in between, I prayed like a fiend. I demanded from God that both my sister and her baby be safe… or else!

My mum told me my sister was incredibly brave during labour. That she amazed the nurses by smiling through her pain (which incidentally went on for 11 hours). I’m in awe.

My new niece is perfect and I am already in love with her. It sucks that I have to get all the info secondhand and not be able to hold her yet.

V asked me who I’d love more – my new niece or my new tail (also my niece) – and in all honesty I answered both equally. However, the child of one’s sister – especially if one has only one sister – is the closest thing to one’s own child. For example, I badgered my sister about the name of her child and she actually picked one that I liked. (I know, I’m quite annoying that way but I would only feel free enough to do this with my own sister). I know I’ll be more involved in raising my niece simply because I can say things to my sister that I would never tell my sister-in-law. It’s already been agreed that I will be the fashion coach. Also, the instiller of rebelliousness (ok, that’s not been agreed but what are aunties for?).

Anyway, a WHOLE month to go before I see my niece. Her name is Siara Maya.