Something happened yesterday and I had to depend on a third person for my safety. I dislike such instances where my vulnerability is evident. The vulnerability arises because I'm a woman. I'm okay being vulnerable, but only to people whom I am comfortable with. Apart from family, there are very few with whom I am vulnerable with, and I'm ok with that. In fact, i feel happy that there are some people concerned about me. But yesterday was certainly not to my liking. Is it so difficult to be a woman? Why can't a woman be looked upon as an individual first, and then a woman. Of course, there are times, when the feminity of a woman comes ahead of the individual, but that's hardly most of the time.

I read a piece by a woman writer today on rape of a girl kid. I also read something on how Srinagar's water bodies are disappearing due to rapid urbanisation. I was annoyed and irritated.


Is it so bloody difficult for us to respect the other sex, is it so bloody difficult for our men to understand that women are more than weaklings than they are made to be. Guess it is so. I use the public transport in Delhi, and i have heard people use the m********d and b*******d word on the road. It is appalling that people of different age groups, all male use the word, maybe, as part of their daily vocabulary. I don't know the equivalent words in Kannada, I have not come across them on the streets of Bangalore. Maybe, I was leading a protected life there, without my knowledge.


Maybe, when I say that I want to be looked upon as an individual first, and them as a woman, I am asking for the sky. I doubt if society is capable of it.

Yes, it's been about 2 months that i've written here. I was thinking about closing my blog, shutting it down as i don't post often. But on second thought, i think it's ok to post rarely, assuming that somebody reads it. And i wouldn't want to delete something that's been there for more than 6 years or so.

I have been thinking about this. I think live-in relationships are totally fine. The basic necessity of a marriage is companionship and the blind trust that the spouse will remain faithful that a marriage 'calls for'. It's the same blind trust that works in a live-in relationship too. A marriage simply 'authenticates' a live-in relationship which is not really necessary. But, is the authentication required when we have a society which is rigid. And as i like to put, a society is 'not exactly essential' and 'am not bothered by it'.

When i call the society around me 'not exactly essential', then another question poses itself before me. Having human societies for centuries and centuries, it's always been there. I guess, one of the factors aiding the evolution of mankind has been establishing societies. I recollect having read about it during school and it makes sense to me now as well. Hence, i can't really say that the society around me is 'not exactly essential'.

I'm not sure if there is a line that i can draw between the society and me, and if at all there is any possibility at all. Moreover, when an elderly lady in the neighborhood asks about me when she hasn't seen me around, i don't think i can at all. It's just varied opinions.

When i travel to different cities alone, my parents ask me to be careful. I understand that all parents would be concerned if their daughters travel alone, anywhere, moreso in a country like ours. We are advised not to be gullible, not to trust strangers or anybody for that matter. I agree with most of it. But, this question occurs to me quite often and i don't have any answer for it. Who else can i trust apart from 'my people'? The man/woman i meet on the train is from my place. Talking about regions, that's a different thing. Have we lost all credibility as people, even from the same country within the geographical boundaries of the same region?

Incredible, isn't it?!

Men and women are structured differently by Nature. I don't know much about men, or i haven't read much about it. Of women, i do know that it is better to bear a child between the years twenty-five and thirty. If women are given enough respect in homes, then i wouldn't mind making a choice of being a homemaker. There should be other factors which are kinda valid but i'm not aware of it. If a woman, in order to fight against unfair social norms, has to defy the laws of Nature, let it be so.

The whole of mankind is on a deteriorating path, a part of the population defying Nature's rules isn't a big deal. Maybe i'm being narcissistic here. But the whole damn responsibility of going along to propagate or protect mankind and Nature cannot solely be women's. Let's all go to heaven or hell together.

 p.s. deteriorating path or not, you do understand me, right?

Let's call a rape a rape. Let's not feel queasy about calling it so, whether we are talking about the presence of women or not is a different thing. I think that calling a rape by the correct term makes us sound less shallow.

I would like Hinduism to be defined by the kind of life we lead, and not by the Gods we are supposed to worship, or by the traditions, rituals that are sometimes thrust on us. As i have written on previous occasions, those traditions that make sense and if it does good, i definitely welcome it. But not the innumerable additions that decorate our lifestyle. I admit i sound selfish when i use the word good, but what else do we ask for when we pray?

Diverging slightly, all our systems are primarily built on this thought. We all want goodness in our lives, from A to Z, throughout our lifetimes. Similarly, even animals could (or rather, should) think along these lines. Should - because, again, no animal would not want harm in it's way. We are able to think it out and express it, while they can or can't (I'm not abreast with the latest on animal psyche and psychology).

As i ponder on it, i tend to lean more towards the theory that societal rules and religion was created by man to prevent him from doing wrong. Here is an example.

I would say that live-in relationships are fine, totally. After all, we, as evolved people seek loyalty, faith from the other person. If it exists in a live-in relationship, why not? To the question of one not being faithful, well, it can happen irrespective of whether one is married or not. That's really not the point. The crux lies in one being true to another. A marriage stresses or imposes (for want of a better word) this on the man and wife, and hence 'sanctifies' the bond between them.

As time passes and as i see more of the world around me and try comprehending it, the one conclusion that i have reached is that bravery is required of us, irrespective of whether we like it or not or rather, if we prepare ourselves with it or not.

Moreover, being a woman and facing things requires much more of that courage. And many times, we are unable to do them because we are women. I don't know if i'm speaking pro-women. But i've felt this given some circumstances. It's so easy for a man at times.

I don't understand the perspective in which our clothing is viewed, that of women and men. Traditional attire for women are sarees and salwar kameezes, and it is extremely important for us to wear them often, if not everyday. We are supposed the uphold the land's culture when we do so, we being 'women'. If that's the case, then men get away with wearing trousers and shirts, and that's not traditional, least in India.

Why the bias? Obviously, the woman is supposed to follow and live life according to some set of rules, And men, they have an option to do or not to.

I find walking and working in a saree quite cumbersome, but i do enjoy it at times. There is one instance which really (in my opinion) does not make much sense. During a wedding, the bride is decked in finery and of course in sarees. Women these days, find spending time wrapped in a saree tiring (including me). While a mans steps into the wedding pandal (for want of a better word) in a suit in which they are definitely comfortable.

I don't really understand this. If the idea of upholding one's culture, by way of one's dressing is to be performed by a section of the society, does it mean much?

The perspective matters a lot.

After hearing positive reviews on Puttakkana Highway, we trooped to the theatre to watch it.

The music is amazing. Hamsalekha has done a really done a good job on that. In fact, i would consider it the best aspect of the movie. The protagonist, Puttakka played by Shruthi lacks expressions. In fact Veena Sundar who plays her friend in the film expresses herself quite well, even though her character is a small one.

After having seen Do Bigha Zameen and this film, i so wish that everybody is educated to an extent where they can read, write and know things, lest they be cheated by greedy people. On seeing such films, one feels miserable. They are taken advantage of so easily.

Do see such films, for leading a life in the city is not the end of it all.

I was appalled when a small girl in my class was telling a fellow-mate that people from a particular community are liers and they should not be trusted.

How on earth do kids pick up such nonsense?! God save us!

I was reading a book the other day which tells the story of two kids. When trying to imagine them, figures of cute children came into my mind. They were fair, plump and dressed in bright colors.

When trying to visualize them, i wonder why i captured charming images. Well, not all of us fall in line with my description. Most of us look ordinary, and i guess we are required to see beauty in being ordinary. With scars on the skin, imperfect teeth, which is I and the rest of us.

Most of the news channels were, or rather, are running the news of Sai Baba's death every minute. Talking about his life, how he produced 'blessed' ash, gold coins, watches and other paraphernalia out of thin air.

I was surprised to see news channels do this. I mean don't they have some responsibility about airing news with substance. Sai Baba was after all, some 'god-man' who proclaimed himself 'holy', 'announced' his previous and next births, whose techniques of producing things from thin air are practiced by ordinary magicians.

Yes, he has helped people by providing for their needs, by being charitable. Nevertheless about his 'immortality', aren't they misleading the general population?

I was reading the last few chapters of The Kite Runner. Where a person expresses pride over Amir's mission to rescue Sohrab from Afghanistan, and calls him a true Afghani.

The reason behind my mentioning this is, that i think we share beliefs, values. Though the manner of expression might be different, it boils down to this. Yes, maybe we differ on various aspects, like a tribe in the hills might allow a man to marry two women or vice versa. But is rooted to simple aspects of life, both good and bad, a few deviations do appear.

Perhaps, if a situation similar to the one in the novel were to appear before us, a person in Amir's shoes would be called a true Kannadiga. Wouldn't it be so?

After all which culture in the world would ask to kill one's sister of brother for fun, or something like that?

I haven't observed if advertisements outside the cricket season can turn funny and senseless. Maybe some companies do produce such ads. But with the current cricketing season, the soda people have produced some amazingly stupid ads. Seriously, what makes cricket and film stars act in such ads?

Of course, it's money and nothing else. Nothing new.

Speaking of the fibreglass(?) helmets (i don't know the material that is used to make these) covering the top of the skull with a strap dangling down (which are not strapped many times), do they serve the purpose of protecting the head? When the straps are not clipped together (perhaps, even when they are in place), there is every chance that the helmet could slip off with a strong jerk of the body? These helmets seem fragile to me.

Seriously, people should use the ones which covers the entire head, with a visor in front. Atleast the head is protected to quite some extent by these.

I don't know if 'sir names' matter a lot these days. Maybe it does for those whose 'sir names' are 'family names' as well. My name is followed by my father's, so we don't have a family name as such.

The fact that we are in the twenty-first century does not matter a lot with respect to some aspects of our lives. One being our 'sir names'. Some of us carry the name of our native places, 'family' names, the vocation that our great-grandfathers and grandfathers practiced (by which our social standing was spelt, and from which some of us have disassociated). Like in 'The Da Vinci Code' when Sophie is told of her actual family and it's history.

Frankly i don't know how to react when somebody tells me of their family lineage, linking other people (about whom i know very little) and it's greatness. Their family name speaks some amount about them, but to ignorants like me, i am totally unaware about it. Does it actually concern us, to speak of such in today's times? Maybe to people of your own community where such things might carry some weight. Of course, we have a few famous 'sir names' which are too popular; of celebrities, industrialists, the like.

But to me, such things do not matter. Seriously, i started recognizing second cousins of my father's only from recent years.

I don't really know how far this is true or to what extent this works. I've noticed that when in trouble, and as a result of which one resorts to philosophy. I don't know the practicality of what i've mentioned. Maybe one might obtain an iota's worth of peace of mind by reasoning so.

Yesterday, i'd been to the Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath (KCP) to enqire about next years 'Chitra Santhe'. When i was given an application form for the same, i was also compelled to buy a calender which had Professor Roerich and his son's paintings. And i didn't like it one bit.

I understand that Roerich is quite a phenomenon in the area of visual arts, no offence meant, but the KCP shouldn't force people to take copies of his paintings. I did tell my opinion to the office staff. There's a nominal amount set aside as registration fee which is logical enough. But i think that it shouldn't be accompanied by these so called 'complimentary stuff' (if i can put it) which has to be paid for.

What about us artists who pursue art as a hobby and can't spend good money on flimsy material?

Most non-Bangaloreans with whom i talk to speak of coming to Bengaluru for the kind of opportunities that are available here. This is understood isn't it? When crowds from distant parts of the country arrive here, why not people from different regions of the state?

If only some other town in Karnataka were to be stressed upon and developed as much as Benagluru, perhaps we wouldn't have faced the growing population in the city. Development in terms of infrastructure, education, employment etc. I heard that Mangaluru is quite a big city. But if one could stress on the growth of Hubli, Dharwad or a town in northern Karnataka, then i think things would have been slightly better.

I don't know how true this is, but i tend to feel that in other states, cities apart from the state capital have grown; if not to the extent of the capital. But the fact that they have grown does not put that extra amount of burden on one major city.