We, the Bet-ters

“We, the ‘Bet-ters’ of India, do hereby solemnly resolve to make ‘Bet-ting’ one of the biggest revenue earners for the country. And in this endeavour we would appreciate as many followers as possible…because with every addition, there would be an exponential increment in the output.”

This is the solemn pledge—though unscripted and unuttered audibly—taken by a large cross-section of the society…at times consciously and at other times circumstantially. And with globalisation of everything…from the weather changes to economy…this pledge too has found global acceptance. Yes, acceptance and if not acceptance at least not rejection also.

To take the best (ideally termed, the worst) example of the usage of this word is in the game of cricket. In fact cricket brought the term ‘bet-ting’ popularity and fame and in return became infamous. Well, everything is relative—it all depends from whose perception the issue is being considered.  Even earlier too betting used to operate, unabated, but in recent times it has shown a ‘remarkable’ growth! In fact it is one of the ‘better’ professions—as far as the income and job vacancies are concerned. Actually vacant posts are absolutely infinite in this profession…Thus ‘bet-ters’ can claim to be in a profession of a much ‘better’ yield…that has an added security of having an immunity from recession.

But staying with the ‘bet-ing’ in the cricket scenario, apart from the professional ‘bet-ters’--who get better everyday—are we not ourselves, abetting bet-ting?  Please think…

Do we find this menace of betting to have infiltrated others sports? And even if it has, the magnitude is well below the danger mark that normally attracts the attention of the media—print and electronic both—because given the hawk-eyed approach of media nothing can stay hidden for too long.

The popularity of the game in India transcends all other sports—thanks largely to the iconic players that we have been producing over the years and are of unimpeachable integrity. The accolades received by them are well deserved. So though cricket has made them what they are today—game being bigger than individual(s)—it is undeniably true that their feats and stature…not only as players but to some extent as human beings too… have gone a long way in ensuring the unbelievable popularity of the game. But this popularity gets extended to the extent of insanity due uncontrolled emotions of the people.

At the same time the players hadn’t ‘planned’ to make the game popular. It was their un-deterring dedication towards—complemented very well with commensurate talent, determination, devotion and discipline—fulfilling their duties when on the field and at the same time doing the job that is (was) closest to their heart, as also carrying themselves commendably off the field as well, that has had a cumulative effect. This in the long run has fetched India so many accolades…achievements of the individuals getting translated into a collective accomplishment for the team as well as the for the country.

This popularity for the game was never meant to bring the game so much shame.

But that has happened and hence I state that we have abetted betting—in fact caused its exponential growth. The logic lies in the ‘supply & demand’ theory of economics. The popularity of the game is directly related to the growth of betting. There could be no other reason…other sports being relegated to the secondary status…by people and almost non-existent by ‘bet-ters’. As other sports are neither popular to even a fractional extent as compared to cricket nor do they find any takers in bet-ters.

Bet-ters too would be drawn to where the general public is drawn…because to them, people are synonymous to money (currency) with the revenue generated being entirely dependent on the (fan) following for the game. And that is what has happened.

Under the circumstances, what could be done? Nothing it seems. Because the people who love the game would watch it, throng the stadiums, …allowing the sports channels to vie for the telecast rights as they know fully well that they would be able to regenerate the money that they invest. It is because of a select class of people, from amongst us, who indulge in such undesirable acts. And we cannot ask the fans not to watch or follow it…after all it is their money and their desire…dependent solely upon their discretion how it would be used and achieved. Science too is being used as a bane. But that doesn’t mean that science ceases to be a boon. It only depends on who is handling what.

With this IPL (Indian Paisa League) even the politicians are finding it difficult to stay away from their love of the game…after all the current of currency is in operation! So the circus of betting seems to get bigger with infinite potential.

There are many things…improbable though…that could be tried to check this menace…other than the legal actions. Legal actions alone cannot stop it…so long people are not morally uplifted. But what we could do is by at least behaving a bit responsibly. Excess of anything is bad. Maybe then there is a limit to an extent the sport is followed…instead of lapping up anything and everything that is served. I know I am suggesting something that would be highly unpopular. But then it is a probable option. Think it over. A collective consciousness on the issue is required. Whether you want to become popular by giving popular suggestion or an unpopular one? The excessive popularity has though taken away the tag of ‘gentleman’s game’ from cricket.

The decision to some extent rests with us. Because you bet, advertently or inadvertently, we and our money is abetting the bet-ters, which most certainly makes us, “We, the bet-ters”.

Copyright ©  Sushmita Mukherjee

Irrelevance of Relevance

“I don’t know what you are saying, doing, writing or thinking. Neither do I want to know. Yet I do know, whatever it is, it is wrong—in fact bound to be wrong. And I say so because I know for sure.”

I know these words are bound to evoke amused expressions—not the least furrowed brows—all precursors to, in all probability, in their unanimity…the conclusions, that I have taken leave of my senses…that is if I had one according to some people! But let me assure you that I couldn’t be more in synch with my senses. I might be out of my mind, but not out of my senses…and that I prefer because it is my senses and feelings that I have helped me realize a number of things which the sole dependence on mind would not have catalyzed.

Well, this is a preamble to the fact—and you are free to contest it—that when we do not agree with something: it could be an action, person, conversation, writing(s)—we start calling the person and the issue concerned irrational, illogical, irrelevant, incoherent, pointless, imagination running amok…and what not. The list is actually endless!

All because we do not agree with (to) it?

But do we not know that likes and dislikes are all relative—and not absolute…quite contrary to the way we proclaim it to be? True, sheer acts of criminal nature shall always be absolute acts of crime—carried out for selfish reasons at the cost of the welfare of others. But apart from these acts, we cannot label the sundry, as mentioned above, just because ‘we think’ them to be so.

Are we really thinking or are we truly capable of investing the effort required to get under the skin of the corresponding topics concerned and do we really want to make that attempt?

Generally we pass mere statements—a by-product of our myopic perception—as declaration of truth. And, this generalization as ‘we’, includes me too.

If we really want to know the truth—which is of only one variety…Absolute—we would definitely opt for the best option which is to ask the person concerned as to what led to his/her action…eg: an author of a piece while criticizing a piece of writing. Each and everyone—the creator as well as audience—both have a right to their opinion. But the audience before forming an opinion of the opinion—the piece of writing—should take proper measures.

But instead of doing so, we opt for a ‘reaction of resistance’. We prefer to utilize our ‘freedom of speech’ too freely. True, if it is freedom it has to be free and we have that right to our right, but to be used in the right manner.

Disagreements are very normal phenomena but that doesn’t necessarily imply that to disagree we need to be disagreeable. But quite unfortunately this is what happens and the glaring examples are less than desirable reactions most frequently observed in disagreeable retaliations to literary expressions…books or an article. And the reason behind these disagreements is mostly found to occur what we cannot comprehend or which is juxtaposed to the conventional.

Since we human beings are too concerned with our image and external satisfaction we fear that if juxtaposition to convention gains acceptance that would lead to a paradigm shift in the thinking, and hence beliefs, of fellow humans. This thought instills a fear in the followers and propagators of ‘the conventional’. We are unable to accept the new because that would render our long-standing views—that we call beliefs—false and also because we are creatures of habit. Last but not the least, this generates—an irrational but factual—insecurity given the fact that we as propagators of ‘the conventional’ find our followers to decrease in number. Looked at from other angle, liberation of people from dependence—on us—makes us feel insecure.

There are various reasons…in fact many more…than the ones I have touched upon here and some, which I might concentrate later at some other time. This outright rejections of something, just because it had been hitherto un-encountered though might be ‘normal’—given the human nature emanating out of conditioned and habitual thinking—but to me is illogical, as I realise now. Illogical are not the views—newer ones—but is definitely so for their rejections.

So instead of accepting that it is we who are rejecting something just because we cannot come to terms—or don’t want to make even the minimum effort to do so—we label it to be an act of a person who is not normal—again a relative term. That person is either said to be insane or propagator of blasphemy. And in worst case called a spiritual person—spiritual being pronounced as some disease, if afflicting a person before a ripe, right and respectable age of sixty!

Hence many Relevant issues are put away as Irrelevant. After all Truth being always the difficult to accept—which is another paradox of life. Whereby Irrelevance of Relevance is flaunted though actually through the act—of outright rejection—Irrelevance of Irrelevance gets projected.

Yet to me NO THING is Irrelevant—as nothing happens without a reason and there is a season for everything. Even Rejections become incubators of Expression yet again hitherto Unexpressed. So while for some there is Irrelevance of Relevance to me there is Relevance of even Irrelevance.

Copyright © Sushmita Mukherjee.

Projectile of Project

THIS IS A COPY OF THE E-MAIL THAT I SENT TO THE HONORABLE HRD MINISTER, Mr. KAPIL SIBAL ON 3rd NOVEMBER,2010  AND AM YET TO GET A CLARIFICATION IN THE FORM OF A REPLY TO MY QUERIES.IF YOU ALL AGREE WITH MY VIEWS THEN PLEASE SHARE IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND IF NOT THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO! I LEAVE IT YOUR DISCRETION. BUT IT 'HAPPENS SO' IS NOT A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM--THAT IS IF YOU ACCEPT IT TO BE A PROBLEM. IN ANY CASE, WE CAN AT LEAST TRY TO BRING SOME CHANGE FOR THE GOOD. BECAUSE THIS EDUCATION SYSTEM AFTER WHAT IT CLAIMS ITSELF TO BE, LEAVES A LOT TO BE DESIRED AS I GET TO SEE IN COLLEGE WITH MY STUDENTS. EDUCATION IF IT HAS TO BE EDUCATION IN THE REAL SENSE, IT HAS TO BE MORE VALUE ADDED--MORAL VALUES AND NOT COMMERCIAL. AND IF MY MESSAGE DOESN'T APPEAL TO YOU THEN I AM SORRY TO HAVE CONSUMED YOUR TIME.

Respected Sir,

First and foremost my warm Diwali greetings to you and your family. Hope you have a great year.

In my introduction I would only like to state that I am a teacher (NET qualified) of Organic Chemistry…trying to help out the students of Class X to MSc. And would like to request you not to delete it before going through it in its entirety…as it normally happens. Being a teacher has it demerits…we try to explain too much!

Now coming straight to the reason behind this mail of mine…it is the confidence you have instilled in us with some real soul-searching as far as revamping the education system in our country. As far as I can remember this is the first time some concrete steps (apparent) are being taken in this direction. I congratulate you for that and thank you as well.

Drawing confidence from your efforts I would like to state the following…in fact glaring lacunae in the format of CBSE curriculum…even at the elementary level. I know with years of neglect preceding (with no disrespect intended to your predecessors), it is not possible to rectify all the faults simultaneously, but still being a teacher and a responsible citizen of the country I feel it my duty to point out the follies…as no system can be absolute and the moment we start to live in a fool’s paradise, not feeling the need for improvement, we are doomed.

You have every right to dismiss my petition but I would be grateful…and I am sure, guardians of innumerable students too would echo the same feeling who are not able to protest directly fearing the backlash.

I as a teacher feel that education should be fun… learning while retaining an element of fun. Only then studies would not be repulsive…a job that that hence needs to be done perforce and not spontaneously. And we as teachers should not confine our responsibilities to the confines of the syllabi. Our job is to shape the overall growth of students…so that when they move out in the competitive arena they are capable of looking after themselves professionally as well as at the personal level. But for that they would have to derive joy from their studies…look forward to their books, which unfortunately is not the case.

I enumerate the peculiarities in the system and would be extremely happy to know the reason why they came into being and are persisted with.

(i)      What is the logic behind goading the students with the elaborate project works?

               It is the guardians who complete them…as the students have to study (which is more important) and their ‘study load’—class work and homework doesn’t spare them the time for such irrelevant projects. I know there is relevance in assigning those projects…but what if the students are not in a position to do them?

            We in our student days used to have class work wherein these projects were carried out…instead of the present format when it is goaded as homework…and we learned from them.

          Mere intentions do not help. The feasibility of the approach needs to be considered.

(ii) Students are given ‘drawing’ tasks in all imaginable and unimaginable subjects…from Sanskrit to English to Hindi…none is spared when the students do not have time to spare.

        Why this ridiculous system? What is the point, barring allowing the teachers to wile time, instead of teaching?

(iii) What is the point in conducting tests almost as a continuum?

                  This spoils the natural momentum for learning and not only that, students thus have become only concerned about studying for their exams and passing, with not even an iota of interest shown towards real learning.

(iv) And after all this they--majority of them, thus allowing generalisation-- draw a blank when they go for their undergraduate studies, barely three months after their qualifying Class 12th exams

Well, this is the effect on the students in general…and exceptions are bound to be there to prove the rule.

Under the circumstances, I have certain queries:

(a) Do we want to churn out morons?

           I know statistical corroboration I cannot provide but don’t you feel that is what we are ‘manufacturing’ as an offspring of this system?

(b) Do we need Jack-of-all-trades or specialists?

                I know you are in favour of the latter, going by your interview in The Times of India, Ascent, dated 3rd November, 2010.

(c) Can’t we make the system pro-students?

(d) Furthermore, in my blog “Intentions vs Repercussions” I have mentioned the possibility of the CCE being misused by the teachers.

The guardians are fed up with the present structure but cannot protest as there three outcomes of it. First is the plea of the school authorities that they are bound by the CBSE format. Second is the harsh reality wherein the guardians are asked to take away their wards from the school if they are so dissatisfied. Last but not the least, the ward of the protesting guardian has to face the wrath as a backlash.

Sir, is this becoming of educational institutions? If this and the present format of curriculum continue without any further changes in this context, we shall continue to have qualified but not educated subsequent generations. Do we want such a progress for our country?

I know I might have over-stepped my limits but being a teacher and given the fact that you have taken the issue of reforming the education system so very seriously I couldn’t control myself…in spite of people telling me “It would be of no use”. At least this gives me some satisfaction of having tried to do something…even if by merely writing to the right person. Still, if the contents of my mail have in anyway offended you, it has been completely unintentional and I am extremely sorry for that.

I earnestly hope that my plea would be read, considered and the necessary actions, as per your discretion would be mulled… and executed subsequently.

In this regard, if you want any more suggestions (which I don’t think you would need, given a wonderful team that must be working with you) I would try my level best.

With warm regards,

Sushmita Mukherjee

Hypocrisy of Democracy

Hypocrisy of Democracy

At times I—as well as people like me—get tired of writing about these things repeatedly. But given the tenacity of the perpetrators—for propagation of undesirable activities—I am pulled up from the labyrinthine tiredness.  I am sure I have used the term ‘hypocrisy of democracy’ in one of my blogs, but don’t quite remember, which one. In any case, it is not only I, but also majority of the population—the qualified class, herein I refrain from using the word ‘educated’…no disrespect intended—who feel the same. And it is this ONENESS, which is now compelling me to put my thoughts to words.

As one tragic incident after the other follows…being flashed in the newspapers while the electronic media airs the heart rending scenes…all because of the shameless acts of the politicians –men and (wo)men in power—I decided to take up one issue…though not relegating others as far as their severity is concerned…which most definitely makes mockery of the term DEMOCRACY and CIVILISATION.

The RSS chief, Mr. Sudarshan, made some comments on Mrs. Sonia Gandhi…whether it was his personal views or his party’s that is redundant here. The status of a remark is marked by the response it generates from the recipient or from the people on her/his behalf…and I don’t claim that the contents of the comments shouldn’t have irked or offended the people it did. But my point is, whether the nature of the protest over it should have been so violent? Did it call for the destruction of public property all over India?

I know by putting forth these questions I am giving people the scope to call me ‘communal’ and what not. But mind it I am yet to congratulate Mr. Sudarshan for his views! And I openly state that my religious views are ‘humane’…for which I don’t have to don a certificate around my neck. Also I believe that politics…for the sake of the nation…should be much above mud slinging…with interests of the citizens being the focal point.

At the same time I would like to ask the very protesters…who vented their anger (however justified that might have been)…were the comments more disgraceful than the disgrace that befalls the women of our country with frightening frequency?

Everyday honour of women is violated and desecrated…by molesters, rapists and also ‘rapist-husbands’. Even a child—a female child is not spared. But do we get to see such protests being staged, let alone nationwide, but even in the area to which the victim belongs. NO. This implies that such comments are more serious than the actually physically committed crimes against the gender of which Madam Gandhi is the most prominent representative in Indian context! I am in no way justifying the comments nor I am stating that there shouldn’t have been protests. On the contrary the comments could have generated protests alone…but the manner and magnitude for it is ridiculous, if one cannot say incredulous.

Wasn’t there a better method and definitely civilized method to protest?

Couldn’t the Congress party workers filed a Defamation Suit against the concerned person?

Or did they evaluate the comment and found it to be not offending enough legally?

And based on that they felt that they had the (il)legal right to do what they did…for what I don’t know…to please Mrs. Sonia Gandhi or to show their ‘respect’ for her?

We all would definitely like to see such unified concern and protest against the innumerable dishonourable acts being committed against women ‘in general’…instead of violent actions over comments against only prominent politicians. The politicians are supposedly, for us and by us…and most unfortunately one of us. I say, ‘unfortunately’, because once they become what they are, they forget this fact. And hence they see themselves as specimens of a different category…from the one they ‘thought they belonged’.

This has led to the abominable germination of double standards, wherein in the name of DEMOCRACY, we have become victims of factually HYPOCRISY OF DEMOCRACY. I don’t know how should I relate to India’s IN-DEPENDENCE –63 year old DEMOCRACY or 63 year old HYPOCRISY OF DEMOCRACY…

Sushmita Mukherjee,

17^th November 2010.

Theory Of Relativity - III

The first part contained the relative use of Science, while the second part concentrated on the excessive use of the ‘relative’. But both the parts have one thing common—apart from the main theme of relativity—and that is the medium of expression, the language.

When the language is so adept at explaining behaviours—scientific and human—how can it remain elusive to the effect of relativity?

       

Hence in the third part—the last one—I would like to discuss certain aspects that are again obviously known to all. Still I take it up as cognizance of the fact that any discussion on relativity would be incomplete without acknowledging—which we fail to do, failing to recognize its importance, as is with all things that are obvious—the medium that allows us to express our relative views on relativity encompassing disparate domains. Yes, you have guessed correctly—the English language. In fact it is an ode to Queen’s language—a medium is needed to express the findings—realisations as well—the lack of which would erroneously manifest the non-existence of any finding(s).

Though the language and its usage is resplendent with innumerable examples to represent the cause, I shall consider only some of them—frankly speaking I do not have the true estimate of number of such representatives, given the infinite ocean of the language in which we are fortunate to sail. Furthermore it is dependent upon the perception of the person concerned, so permutations and combinations totaling to give the exact number too, would be anything, but finite!

Thus Theory of Relativity decides a specific action to manifest resistance, rigidity, conviction or selfishness.

        An act resulting out of sheer conviction of one person might be termed as resistance or selfishness by others—depending upon their perception of the matter. At the same time a person might effectively be resistant to something or might be acting out of sheer selfishness—but is of the perception that by doing so his/her conviction is being followed.

The words are relative in the sense that they are directly dependent upon the situation at hand—as also on the perception of the people involved in it. Thus, different people, under different conditions, might ‘label’ a similar sort of action ‘differently’ for different perceptions. Just like my penchant for writing—which is my passion, backed by my conviction that I need to share my views—might be termed as madness, by others!

Furthermore, accuracy is referred to as ‘frighteningly accurate’ and imperfection as perfect as in ‘perfection in imperfection’. And the best one to me is our Independence—which is actually In dependence as I have mentioned earlier as well…it is an independence from the foreigners but again it is relative ……as now we are in dependence and slave to our vices as well as to that of our politicians’.

Hence the issues that ‘concern’ me might not be worth a thought for others—to them it being too obvious to be important and hence, redundant. I don’t blame them, as it is again a matter of perception and relativity, which it leads to—things important to others might not be so for me. But the things that I have mentioned here are obviously relatively important with their inherent relativity, to merit my time and attention to ultimately gain identity as this piece!

Thus interpretation, based on an individual’s perception is relative. But deliberate misinterpretation is distortion to the extent of manipulation.

Hence it is not always the literal meaning that gets implied. Relative use of words and their interpretation—again a relative action—changes the meaning…some sort of linguistic alchemy in operation…. with human perception being the alchemical agent.

Sushmita Mukherjee,

11^th August 2010.

Theory Of Relativity - II

The first part has been dedicated to the ‘relative’ use of Science—as misuse and abuse—as a cause of a neither dormant nor extinct—volcano of a debate, “Science is a boon or a bane”—instead a very much active one.

But as I have mentioned—oops sorry, rather in trying to take a peek into what Einstein had possibly intended with and for, his theory of relativity—relativity has no boundaries. It transcends all and encompasses all—that which comprises our life and the world as a whole.

Science, we all would accept can never be wrong or could never harbour negative intentions for mankind—at least this remains an absolute philosophy. Yet it is again the paradoxical element of life that keeps alive and fans the above-mentioned debate—to keep it on its raging course unabated. Hence the very mankind for whose betterment Science stands for—and whose advancement too is brought forth by mankind—some of the members of that same species is utilizing it for the purpose it never was meant for—harming, again the same, mankind.

Not only in the field of Science, but life in itself, we have ended (yes) up misusing—and that too by an excessive ‘use’ of relativity. If relativity pervades the entire canvas of life, then life too would engulf relativity by getting it ‘used excessively’ by the inhabitants of this earth. And that is what has happened; to lead to the society in which we live today…bad is the excessive use of anything.

In the ‘relative’ society that we live, we do not consider ourselves to be a part of a bigger family—nation as a whole, to subsequently embrace the entire world as our own.

The simplest example is the distortion of the word ‘cooperative society’, due to this relative approach, albeit excessive. Our actions manifest cooperative as, to co-operate, but towards ‘co-ntradictory’ causes—only to satisfy our own desires with no concern whatsoever for that of others’.

This is the reason our country projects a very dirty—literally—picture to the world. The roads are littered with ‘what not’. Even the residential colonies and housing complexes too give them a stiff competition in the race for ‘un-cleanliness’

     People by their behaviour prove that the ‘carpet area’ of their ‘house’ is their own and hence needs to be kept clean. Rest—the common area—is not their responsibility and hence can be littered with…as a consequence the whole area becomes a big waste-bin, but they are not bothered. No sense of belonging for anything or anyone outside their four walls.

While we were in Bihar people use to prefer Bengalis for tenants—I too being a Bengali took pride in this fact—stating Bengalis keep the house clean. But having shifted to Kolkata, my pride turned to shame—as I have unravelled one of the main reasons behind the cleanliness that they maintained—they throw the unwanted items out of their houses on the roads, in the campus…. whichever turns out to be at fault, by being adjacent to their house! They do not even labour to get up and throw the waste in the bin, when a huge expanse of a bin is easily available to them—at a ‘window’s throw’ that is at a ‘stone’s throw’! Naturally the house would remain clean and only clean.

This I do not state to demean the place where I live. In fact the same story is prevalent all over the country, and hence the cumulative image. I have just stated my findings—one of relative cleanliness. If only we could accept the simple fact that each and every part of our nation is our own—though I know with blatant show of extremism in regional feelings, it is difficult to inculcate and maintain; and about this I have talked of in my blog: “Empowered State and Belitted Nation”—roads, forests…everything, then India too with its rich natural resources—though fast depleting—would look clean like other countries. Very often the first impression turns out be the last impression.

      

Poverty is cited as one of the main reasons for the lack of cleanliness. But this too is a relative approach—adopted only to avoid responsibility and evade accountability—in totality.

     Needy people do not come and litter the surroundings of our abode with half-eaten packets of biscuits, wafers, etc. Rather they act as scavengers—picking up things as useful, which we consider waste. So all blame cannot be levied on them—an already deprived class of our society—for the mess, the rest of the society plays a major part in creating.

It needs to be humbly accepted that it is our self-serving, extreme use of relativity that has primarily led to this negative outcome—instead of blaming the rest and the sundry; we need to reflect on how we are contributing to the menace.

        If we could cleanse ourselves from within, to bond with our surroundings as our very own, only then we can cleanse the image of our nation—which we have converted into a literal, absolute and not relative, waste bin. 

Sushmita Mukherjee,

 August 9, 2010  

Theory Of Relativity - I

Relativity of relativity makes it a diverse field. Manifestation of relativity in all walks of life is quite apparent. Hence a specific domain for relativity becomes difficult to assign. At least this is a fact—absolute—in this relative world that we all cohabit! And with the confidence in this ‘absolute-ness’, I have dared to title the current ‘piece of thought’.

The original theory, of this name, by the genius of Albert Einstein I am not going to delve in and dwell upon—for the simple reason that I am not at all qualified for the job. But yes, his theory has given me the courage to look beyond the realms of Physics and Chemistry and realise the omnipresence of relativity. My realization of the said omnipresence is the product of my experiences in life and their retroanalyses. All theories have physical significance—events from our day-to-day life inspiring their inception. And when I decided to go ahead and translate my thoughts in this regard little did I know I would get validation from Einstein himself, through his analogies! No, no, not my theory but my application of the original by extrapolation to life, as is evident from the following anecdote: Albert Einstein was often asked to explain the general theory of relativity. "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour," he once declared. "Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity!"

All theories—generalizations—are based on the execution of the three steps: experiment, observation and inference—in the order of their mention. When an experiment yields an unprecedented—in its unexpectedness—result for the first time, it is termed a fluke; recurrence for the second time elevates it to the status of coincidence, which is maintained over a specific statistical value. But when the frequency of its occurrence becomes too frequent it necessitates a promotion to generalization! This I have realized during the course of my training as student and teacher of Organic Chemistry, which has forced me to generalize that, “Frequent Occurrences of Coincidences Leads to Generalization”.

This holds true in life as well, rendering this thought absolute. And the beauty and efficacy of science—with its wonderful theories—increase manifold if they are assimilated and integrated, and ultimately incorporated, in life. Only then they could be of use, in the absolute sense, to mankind—the primary reason for their coming into being.

But as I have stated, life as a whole is masked in relativity—in fact absolute relativity. Our life is an outcome of the way we react to our surrounding—people, environment, issues, incidents…..And the way we react depends upon how we relate to these parameters. Relating with people around us in a specific manner either enriches or blemishes, our life with relationships—healthy or unhealthy.

And if science could be extrapolated to life then the extrapolation could be in the reverse direction as well.

The way various chemical compounds relate to each other decides how they would specifically ‘inter-act’ with each other, which gets manifested as unique reactions. This has enriched us with an indispensable branch of science—Chemistry.   

Also with advancement in science the problems that earlier either used to go undetected or suffered from lack of solution are joining the list of ‘erstwhile-s’—both in their non-detection as well as solution. This is evidenced in the aftermath of the ensuing technological as well as medical wonders—the latter being an extrapolation of the former at times. No longer a breakthrough in one specific field remains confined to the limited domains of that field. They are being used by various disparate ‘disciplines’ to anoint themselves with the tag, ‘universal’.

But relativity is absolute!

Despite all these we still cannot deny the fact that ‘instead of human-beings being at the mercy of science for betterment of life, it is science that is at the mercy of its human handlers’. The nature of the dividend—positive or negative—it yields would depend upon how the scientific information is used. This fact, we are being blatantly forced to accept by the ‘terror inciting & inflicting groups’, who by their misuse of science actually abuse science and mankind. And it is not dividend that is yielded, but deficit that is incurred—dividend and deficit being the two sides of the ‘coin of relativity’. And this misuse is not restricted to only the terrorists—rather has become all pervasive with respect to its users.

This menace is a ‘by-product’ of the progressive world. But the way it is gaining identity it’s getting elevated to the post of ‘the product’ and not remain a mere ‘by-product’ seems frighteningly imminent. As the world progresses so does the menace—but at a brisker pace—gaining alarming proportions; after all downhill reactions are always faster.

Nothing can be absolute in this world—an absolutely relative place. Not even science. This is a fact. Yet the fact of the matter is the fact that life is a paradox and in this paradoxical life we cannot deny the equally paradoxical absolute—ness of relativity.

Thus my theory—if of any consequence—of relativity is that, “Relativity is absolute and if not absolute, at least relatively absolute”.

Sushmita Mukherjee,

31^st July, 2010.