Your Smile means I am fine...

Similar to the incident where I met the 100-year old man, I happened to meet another elderly person. I was in the hospital to meet a friend and someone mentioned about this person and said he was also admitted in the same hospital for some ailment. I never knew him, I hadn't talked to him anytime before, but I knew he was a resident of the community. A couple of other friends also thought let's go and visit him although none of us knew him well. So we went to his ward. He knew only one among our group but he understood we are a gang. He must have been in his late eighties (or may be in early nineties). As we could see, his ailment had taken a heavy toll. The first thing that happens, I think, to some people who are otherwise healthy, well-built for a long time and suddenly fall sick in their old age is that, they lose their cheeky build and drastically reduce to a thin frame. He had great difficulty having food on his own and his wife was feeding him a semi-liquid from a cup. We thought it wouldn't be good manners to step in but they said its okay and moreover, it was already getting dark and we thought he might wish to take rest later. His wife was also in her eighties and still does voluntary work.

I felt that though his frame had reduced, the shine in his eyes had not. He mentioned about my friend's father and recollected how they went back a long time, though they had branched out into different workplaces. He was happy that we were visiting him although he actually knew only one of us. He said: I am not so sure about the ailment and the pain that has inflicted me, but when I see the (well-wishing) smile on your faces, then I know I am getting well. Your smile is a sign of my wellbeing. I had mentioned in an earlier post, that elderly couples, after a threshold age, go on to become good old buddies, with the bonding turning almost as a spiritual friendship. I felt the same way when I saw the old lady feeding her husband. Seldom do young couples pause to think that the test of true bonding lies far ahead later in life, that the best of fun times are only the beginning part of the wedding promises and keeping them up till the end is the proof of the pudding.

They both probably had come to the plain realisation that the ailment may be terminal. She mentioned, that the God they believed in, whatever He did would be good to them. Wow, I thought. It's easy to debunk or theorise about a belief in God, but it's tough to turn that faith, whatever God you may have, into a positive strength when it matters the most and when all our devices are shutting out in non-co-operation. You know that your most possessive possession so far, your own body, is giving way and you have to use the strength of something that is not made of body stuff. You don't even want to think of trying that, and even tougher to try it at 80+.

His strength was even better. Similar to the earlier incident, his mental strength was amazing. His voice was blurred so I couldn't get it verbatim, words came with breaks, but let me capture the main idea. He said : Suffering is a great test of your spirituality. For a long time, we have been 'knowing' the whats and hows of being spiritual, but in such a situation, it is a test to have the faith that My God is always with me. And I firmly believe He is with me. That the condition of the body is this or that doesn't matter, but in my mind I know, whatever happens we have His Blessings. This is the time to remember, and actually practise what we have always known all these years.

It set me thinking on suffering. Suffering, I agree with him, is really a great test of spirituality. Other times, you probably "apply" your spirituality "on others", to third party situations, but the acid test of your spirituality is when a real suffering touches you directly. Dhoodh kaa dhoodh, Paani kaa paani Ho Jayega. Buddha devoted his entire life in finding the answer for this one question. We live off our lives not bothering about it, as if it were out of syllabus, but dude, thats one sure question thats going to be on exam paper. For, old age and its accompaniments are a certainty and more often, such a certainty that we will most likely be all alone to handle the actual stuff. If at all you want to have an Either-Or choice, now is the time make that choice between becoming a Budda or a Buddha. The others can rally around you in support, speak nice words and may be even help you out, but there is no proxy for living out your pain. You have to do it, yeah scary it is, all by yourself, bit by bit. This requires a lifetime's preparation of your mind, brick by brick, to keep it strong in old age. When the body is strong, the mind may fritter away, but if such a frittering can be streamlined and built to be strong, then such a strength would come in handy when the body is on its withering way.

I and one of my friends are opposites in our lifestyles. There are many unhealthy elements in my lifestyle, I blog after midnight and I sleep late, I have a lot of junk food and less of healthy food, I live like a sin(e) curve, don't keep a standard schedule etc. Whereas he lives his life as if a clock decided to become a human being and bless the earth, and lives in a very simple straight line, while a few others run around in circles. :) . I often joke that he is like The Wall, stay and play, ball by ball and hit a slow century. Another friend of mine jokes that he spends the first 60 years in disciplined suffering so that he may live the next 20 happily, whereas others spend first 60 merrily and suffer the last 20. While I often quip away the flexi lifestyle to be the ultimate exercise of Brahamachari independence, I have to sheepishly agree when well-meaning friends often insist, will rolling eyes, that body will soon show its signs. Come to think of it, the jokes apart, my friend does have a healthier lifestyle than mine, and the compliment is not only about the body. The health of the mind that you acquire across years is going to be a major support when you have crossed most of your years. This recent quote about paradoxes on Prasanna's blog puts it well.

When we moved away from that hospital bed that night, after holding his hand reassuringly for a moment, wishing him the best and praying for his good health, we didn't know he would be no more within two weeks. But those two minutes of interaction with him had set us all thinking on why it is important to live a life in a particular way and not just in any way, anyway.

Being a part of a rising Nation

Continuing my earlier post on Gandhi, here is more discussion on the same thread : discussing whether Bhagat Singh and Nathuram were the same, and whether Nathuram didn't have any choice, and reply to some feedback on my response:

Bhagat Singh .vs. Nathuram
I think I have already mentioned what I think is the difference and I can't think of anything more to add. As to your saying, that the actions are the same, only the words are different, I would say: Which is why there are different words to refer to different kinds of actions, and the meanings often include the context, motive and the implication it would have on the listener. There are different words to refer to the actions of cutting paper, cutting trees, cutting carrots, cutting goats and cutting necks.

The inappropriateness of comparing murder and martyrdom can be seen, if you try to extend the example under comparison. What if someone had a problem with Nathruam for killing Gandhi and he wanted to finish off Nathuram's family or friends ? Does it appear ridiculous ? One might ask: why bring in family and friends here? I would say it's a valid question. A person arguing from the killer's side would say, from my viewpoint it's a passion for me, i am ready to surrender and how else will I handle the fanaticism of people like Nathuram ? Extend this kind of responses from either side and what we have would be a series of violent retaliations and there wouldn't be discussing any more, there would just be dying.

Nation building was still left...
Moreover, Bhagat Singh and Nathuram didn't operate on same terrains. I'll also use this to answer Surya's question: What alternatives did Nathuram have ? India had its teething problems but it was a free nation. It had plenty of nation-building work to do. Nathuram was just 40 when he killed Gandhi. He had a lot of years left in his life. He could have joined the national mainstream, either in politics or in whichever field of work he thought would contribute to nation-building, even the Hindutva school which he subscribed to. He did have a great passion for his country and age in his favour, he could have used it to,let's say, start his movement, even explicitly against Gandhi and take him headon at his game. Sure, it would have taken a very long time to achieve what he dreamt of as a good nation, but Gandhi himself took plenty of time to build a stature and gather momentum for his movement. Every leader, unless gifted with the hereditary couch, has to build his fort by taking his movement to the people.

Did the trees help those who came later...
For all its demerits, India did turn out to be a great democracy in the 50 years that followed. Anything would be debated, one doesn't have to go by a populist school, one indeed can start a new one. Even the populist leaders did have a couple of other senior leaders to contest their supreme hold. Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Rajaji, Patel all of them had serious differences with Nehru or Indira, but they collectively showed what democracy can do. Amartya Sen compliments this Indian spirit to allow diversity in discussions which India very much allowed, atleast relatively better than all of its neighbours. Nathuram could have been a part of all that, a part of India that was rising, instead of the earlier India that was :) fasting unto death. Okay, he killed Gandhi, did he achieve whatever he thought of, as nation-building dreams ? Okay he died before he achieved, did he atleast give a strong fillip to his brethren or followers to take up the daunting task of building the nation ? Whom did the killing benefit in a long-term nation-building way? This is a difference between Bhagat Singh and Nathuram. What Bhagat Singh did, gave a boost to the people who were to follow soon and take the freedom struggle seriously. It did give a jolt to the British, that we got to take Indians a helluva lot seriously, we can't kill them in a closed garden and get away with it. That there is young blood, stuff out there that takes freedom seriously.

@ the view that the rebuttal was out of context :

I did notice the direction or context the discussion was taking and had read the full thread many times over before formulating my response. May be my response didnt cover the other points raised by other members and was primarily directed at a particular post by Surya, which is why it looks like the primary issue hasnt been handled. Moreover, I would like to think that the rebuttal is as much in context or (as much out of) context as the bashing in the first place. Discussions like this do have a tendency to stray off into lanes and bylanes that might have never been thought of !!

I do have my reservations about Gandhi's life and writings, but I found that those that were mentioned here were not the ones. That's another thread, lest this thread goes out of context !

On the other points mentioned :
Agree that we should attempt to take a 360-degree view, though it's quite possible one has formed one's views, after such an attempt.
Agree that there is nothing wrong in analysing Gandhi, he was one man worth analysing over and over.
Also agree that analysis is better than idolization, particularly in the Indian context.

@ the remark by Surya that it's an Emotional Response :

I agree partially on this, though I would have loved to have heard the phrase "there are certain emotional elements in the response", instead of categorising the entire response as emotional. There are, for example, mentions about institutionalising solutions experimented at the individual level and appropriateness of using political tact in democratic choices, which are purely issue discussions.

Also, I would like to think my responses are as emotional (or as intellectual/objective) as the average of the quality of the posts on this thread, including me and everyone for the averages. On the flip side of my approach, is my tendency to write in the "I and You" style, which often gives the impression that I am "pointing out and outpouring", whereas 'You' refers to the World and 'I' refers to any average thinker (both sometimes looping back to me). I try my best to say "One does this, One does that" and so on, but sometimes, it builds up to too many ones :) . I hope to improve on this. Reading too much of Arundhati Roy is injurious to my writing style.

These two links, from Rang De Basanti, might be interesting in the discussion:
Go Ahead and Transform your Country
Violence is not the solution