Time- Running Too Fast, or Too Slow?

Time has been a tricky term. The more we think of it, the more dimensions it seems to have to itself (considering it is regarded as the fourth dimension). Time has been a concept of not just day and night, or mere hours and seconds to monitor our day, time is that entity which symbolises the start and end of probably everything.
The start of good times and the bad ones, birth and death of the living, perishing of the non-living and so much more.

While we all know how time play's with us, what we do not know is if it is actually so, or just what our mind leads us into believing. Have you ever heard, or said, about how fast time went by, or just how slowly it is crawling for you? This is a fairly used notion which allows us to understand the actually pace of our mind, life, emotions and happenings around us.

Time run's fast when we enjoy. How going out for shopping with friends seems so short lived, even if it is for an entire day. Its like time is practically falling off our hands, just like sand; no matter how hard we try it simply won't stay. Now why is that? Well, all analogies fail. After all, there is no cap to happiness. But all good things must come to an end. Now talking about time going too slow? Now imagine going out shopping with someone you barely know, or for that matter going out for shopping but not for yourself? Time will NOT pass, and not just that, but suddenly you will feel tired, you will be cranky and you will clearly be the carrier of misery. Contrasting isn't it? The same actions seems to bring two contrasting emotions to you just as situations change.

Yes, the focus here is on situations. From the above analogy, I feel completely content in establishing a relationship between the situation and the time.

Time is directly related to the situation you are in!

Funny but true. The situation we are in will surely decide if the time is moving fast enough for us, or not. As far as I believe, this is something to which not much thought is to be given to because no amount of thought or energy can make any difference anyway! Your time is not in your control, and so are the situations. However, what is in your control is your attitude in the best as well as worst of your time.
That clock on the wall is not going to determine if you are happy or sad, or for that matter anything but the time you wakeup and the time you will sleep at. Time is a tricky notion, something way beyond our understanding but even after this spectacular display of tricks that it has for us, it demands all are attention, hard work and respect. Time, after all is the reality we live in,

As they say, "Time and tide wait for none". I'll add to it and say, "Instead of running faster than either of them, try keeping pace; for that is when life is worth living".

The Gender Collision - Are Men and Women Equal?

Probably one of the most difficult topics to write on; not because of the social paradigms but because of the inner conflict and bias that surrounds me.
Being a woman, it is expected out of me to not only be a feminist but to also not take anything less than the first spot amidst this gender superiority debate. However, my take on this is a little different.

Evolution gives us the base of this distinction, and how men and women, evolved in their roles throughout their physical, mental and sexual development. When we understand this conflict from the evolution paradigm, the results are pretty simple and interesting. According to evolution, both men and women were developed to perform different tasks based on their mental and biological developments. While men were better navigators and hunters, women were better at gathering food, building homes and protecting the tribes too! to explain this better, the ideas on which these explanations have been formulated are pretty simple; while men had better cognitive processing of 3D figures and were often restless and energetic, they were better suited for hunting and fighting. Women, on the other hand, were more focused, aware and had better visual perception than men, and hence, were responsible for gathering food and building homes.

Evolution still provides just a basic idea to our question. The real understanding happens when we weigh these gender roles in the social spectrum and how across ages the roles have defined an identity beyond gender and genitals.

Different societies have a different perception of women and have evolved with times. For example, the Greek civilisation, earliest to have democracy as its political system did not allow women to vote, work or take decisions of the household and were expected to simply take care of the house, provide sexual pleasures to the men of the house and dutifully abide by anything expected out of them. A very clear indication of these practices can be observed from various Greek mythologies.
Few hundred years later, the British society, said to have colonised as many as sixteen countries from all around the world had as their supreme commander the Queen, a stark reversal from what happened to them in Greece centuries ago. Furthermore, China and Japan were quite liberal with their womenfolk from the start, where women were considered to be the sole bread earners and were in the army of the rulers as well!
When I talk about these developments, India was no less behind. Rani Laxmibai the queen of Jhansi was one such person to have broken the barriers of Gender to fight for a free India, along with several other female sepoys.
The above explanation simply sets the base for the understanding that while evolution and society have defined the gender role in quite a plastered fashion, it will be wrong to say that this mould cannot be broken entirely and that it is to be followed by the word. While women have taken to the battlefield, there are several instances of men running the house. For example, the tribes of north India witness men running homes and women providing sustenance and heading the family. While this may sound weird to majority Indians, this is how these tribes function and this practice, in no way, emasculates the man.

The debate over the superiority of the genders is endless, owing to the history of treatment, ego and intellect of both the genders, However, this debate is not only pointless but also lacks logic. It is no doubt true that women all around the world have been deprived of several rights, robbed of dignity and subjected to various indignities, and history definitely owes us an apology.
However, comparing men and women is like comparing air and water; we cannot survive without either of them.

Men and women are two sides of the same coin; compliments to each other. What one cannot do is taken care of by the other, and what either of them cannot do alone can done together. It all goes back to evolution and the difference in our respective psychologies; which by the way is essential since it brings balance to the world. Our reality today might say that women and equality are far reached causes, however observing this with a subtle mind and logic comes to this conclusion!

I strongly believe that one should be a feminist, only because it is about being equals! The modern definition, however, has seen quite an adulteration where women in the name of rights and equality have time and again played victim, or have made it an excuse. And it is because of such people (both men and women) that women in general, often the less privileged ones, suffer. The math is simple; when demanding quality let there be equality, and equality is never achieved by undermining the other person.

Men and Women are EQUAL not just by birth, law or human rights, but by the virtue of nature and existence. While one is the Shakti, the other is the form. The idea is to see them as two complimenting forces making one unified strength where equity is achieved. A balanced state where more important than dignity, freedom and power is the existence and the identity of either gender, beyond their genders roles imposed by the societies we live in.

I may come out to be passive to few, regressive to many and wrong to a lot of people, however, I do believe that emotions and logic often never go together,  and this is currently the state of many in the world. A battle which can be won when fought together, is now being fought against each other. The results? Everyone loses!

The Non-Violence Paradigm of Today

I write from the land of Mahatma Gandhi and speak for the values he left behind when he saw the tri-colour being unfurled on 15th August 1947.

Today, on October 2, we mark the 149th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the face of the Indian independence struggle. Mahatma Gandhi is associated with non-violence and the path he took to set his country free from the British Colonial rule. While there were several problems from the division of the country to the use of deceit by the British government, even after all these obstacles, with mere dialogue and boycott, he was able to uproot the British empire from its core; setting the foundation for an independent India. He could unite the entire country on one simple cry, could bring together people of conflicting ideologies to talk and sort things out and most of all, he could do all this with nothing but a smile. He was not just the leader of India, but a leader and an inspiration across borders; from South Africa to San Fransisco, his voice seldom went unheard! However, amidst all the political instability and transition that the world is witnessing today, the Gandhi model of non-violence is something which will only buy time, and not bring results; for it is not only sluggish, it is also quite arduous to keep up with.

While he set examples for several generations of world leaders after him like Nelson Mandella and Barrack Obama, the Gandhi brand of non-violence seems a little impractical today. It is not because of the lack of leaders to take charge, but it is because of the lack of practicality in the approach which brings a halt to its relevance today. The youth today is more aggressive, ready to take on challenges head-on and do not believe in anything remotely passive. The world today witnesses war over the border, and a war in the parliaments or closed room; while one uses high-quality missiles and grenades as their weapons, the other can simply create enough damage with words. Imagine sitting out for a cause, peacefully agitating in front of media amidst a huge support. Sooner or later, both the support and the media vanishes, leaving behind nothing but disappointment and shattered hopes. There is a lot which is to be understood about non-violence today, most of which has to come from the understanding of the social and the political reality we live in today.
Non-violence does not guarantee results with the snap of a finger, neither does it ensure success, in-fact no method of peace does, but what it guarantees is bringing together people of same thought and ambition, to join together and win the battle they lost because they weren't in it together. Non-violence not only addresses the conflict at hand but can reach to its root too. It can bring together cooperation and concurrence, which are the building blocks of any unity based on non-violence and understanding. While Gandhi believed in the power of truth, today the power of diplomacy and the subtle art of reasoning are the key to avoid conflicts.
The non-violence today is a lot more than just simply initiating dialogue and peace processes, or government sanctioned peace drills and conferences. Non-violence today is about accepting what is wrong and uniting together to stand up against it and set things right, bring a revolution where instead of screaming high we get our way by mere reasoning. While we may feel the urgency to make our voices heard in any way possible, what sets apart non-violence from impatience is the strength to stick to a commitment, the strength to love and the strength to get over all the irrational beliefs and prejudices, and not give in the easy way of violence. It will be difficult to show such exemplary patience that Gandhi did, but as they say, faith can move mountains, and love moves the world! While it is better understood that implementing the Gandhi model of non-violence is not only impractical and futile, there is certainly no harm in taking away relevant bits and pieces from it to come up with a model of non-violence that will suit the 21st century. Like a seed can grow into a tree bearing thousand of fruits, one Gandhi can make several thousand Gandhi on their own.
you see, it is about the context and the cause after all!

We fail to understand that non-violence and peace are something which come from the inner self, from the commitments and convictions we have for ourselves. It is all about the growth and nourishment of our souls, which eventually reflects in the society.
In this age of social media and virtual connectivity, the youth of India seems to have lost its sensitivity and passion towards the nation, society and self. While it is easy to blame all these factors, what often goes unnoticed is, if in our pursuit of becoming successful individuals are we losing out on becoming successful humans?
For non-violence to work you need not walk miles barefoot and break rules to liberate people, it can start by going deep within and liberating yourself by breaking all the notions we have of the self and the surrounding, the judgements and the inequity and the ability to open ourselves to all that is beyond our understanding and beliefs.

As Gandhi once said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world" let us all be the change, let us all be the power and let us all be the strength.