“Isn’t history continuous? Incidents don’t happen in a vacuum, but cause ripples spreading out, interacting with other ripples, changing their courses and, in turn, themselves being changed, and changing the course of anything coming in their contact. Nothing can escape their impact.”
This is a thought that I had written almost 15 years ago, when I was in my final year at college. Today, I reflect upon the same.
The context, when this was originally written, was to write to a girl whom I wished to befriend. The idea behind the thought was to tell her that when two souls come in close contact with each other, it is a foregone conclusion that they will interact (negatively or positively is immaterial), and be influenced by each other. And even if they choose to go separate ways, history tends to bring people together once again. The continuum of history is such that things don’t just happen by design or choice, but empirically, we know that many incidents happen unknowingly and unwittingly. You must be wondering, what am I trying to insinuate? Let me elaborate.
When I made a decision to move to Mumbai (from Delhi) in January last year, neither my best friend, Varun, nor I had an idea that he would make a similar move within the same calendar. But then this happened; though this could not be sheer chance, a lot of it was by design on Varun’s part – he actively began looking at offers from Mumbai (which he may have been rejecting till my move), and finally we both are again together. But that is not the point of my writing this.
A very surprising circumstance happened this month, which makes me write this essay. A school-time friend, Reena Puri (nee Singla), moved to Mumbai. In the last 18 years, we would not have met or talked on more than 3-4 occasions (not much by any stretch of imagination). And for the last 6 years, she was based in Dubai. It would be pretty safe to say that we had lost touch forever, with no hope or effort of meeting again.
Never in our wildest dreams would we have imagined that we would all (Reena, Varun & I) be living in the same city (which is different from our original abode) 18 years from last we were colleagues. What’s more, she looked at various homes at Lokhandwala, Kalina, Santa Cruz, and finalized deals at each of these places that didn’t go through at the very last moment, finally to take up residence barely 3 kms. from my place. And that’s not the end of it all – her kids have got admission to the same school (Podar CBSE) as my son, and take the same school bus everyday! Now, doesn’t that sound like a rerun of our own lives?
All this made me suddenly remember the almost-forgotten lines that I had written long ago. And the thought came blinding back to me – isn’t history continuous?
Friday, June 23, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Kings or Gangsters
A random thought just drifted into my mind… something that I’ve been toying for almost two decades, and have debated till kingdom come with many people… never losing the debate, by the way. I write on that today – “Kings or Gangsters”.
“Blue blood in their veins… that’s what royalty is made of.”
Really? Then, in my opinion, the colour of blood running inside the biggest gangsters in the world must also be myriad shades of blue!
Surprised? Let me take you down history lane to explain this rather bizarre thought.
What made Kings? Where did they come from originally? And when I say originally, I mean how did the very first king come about thousands of years ago? What would make people follow them blindly, and be ready to kill for them and to be killed for them? What wins such loyalty?
There are only two things in this world that bring such devotion. One, is the love of family and the very dearest of friends, who will do anything for someone they love so much. Two, is the position of power that binds people together – they may love each other or loathe each other, but the power of being in control and of gaining hugely by such an alliance – is what earns such allegiance.
It is my hunch that the first kings came about the same time civilization was coming into existence. The very necessity of the people to fulfill their basic needs – food, shelter, protection from wild animals – made them form groups. These groups needed a leader – like all groups – who could envision the dangers they faced, come up with solutions for the same, and guide them in times of need. This task would have invariably been entrusted to the wisest (or the most cunning) and the bravest (or the toughest) person in the group. The cleverest person became the holy man (who could talk to God and foresee everything), and the cruelest man became the king (the most powerful protector & provider). Together, they formed rules for the group to follow and bade them to obey them by fear of the Almighty or by power of the muscle.
Soon, these groups had a need to go farther than where they were born, to seek out new places for food and shelter. In doing so, they came into contact with other groups, who were pretty obviously hostile to theirs. Conflict of territory arose (much like it arises in wild beasts), and they had to fight and kill each other. If the leader was killed in the battle, the next most powerful living man would take the mantle. If the leader survived, he would be eulogized by the surviving few. These leaders were the rulers of the entire land now. And as they grew their territories and their population, they became bigger and slowly formed their kingdoms and became kings. To keep the large flock together, these kings needed a common belief (or fear), and an instant solution came in the form of spreading the word of God. I am not an atheist, this merely is an attempt to understand how man first learnt about his Creator and how he came to fear His wrath so much. One can clearly see why so much affinity existed between the King and the High Priest of yester-years. I think this is the only plausible explanation, and you can correct me if you have a different thought on the same.
So, the first kings were nothing but largely feared gangsters. Their sons automatically inherited their legacy, and may or may not have been as cruel. But they were also driven to expand (or protect) their territories, and so they stepped out of their comfort zones. You may call them bravehearts; I prefer to call them ganglords. What, for example, made millions of people leave their homes in Macedonia and trek all the way to India to win lands for Alexander the Great? And why did Alexander need to win over the world by killing so many people – I am sure the right religious teachings would not have permitted him to do so; and he was not threatened by anybody & fighting in defence. It was the lust of demonstrating himself as the most powerful man in the world (propelled by wrong religious backing) that drove him and his troops so far.
Isn’t this the very thing that we see around us today? How different are the kings from present day gangsters or terrorists, who follow the same route to riches? And how different are they from the heads of various nations (the present day kings) that wish to subjugate other states by sheer demonstration of their wild, merciless power?
“Blue blood in their veins… that’s what royalty is made of.”
Really? Then, in my opinion, the colour of blood running inside the biggest gangsters in the world must also be myriad shades of blue!
Surprised? Let me take you down history lane to explain this rather bizarre thought.
What made Kings? Where did they come from originally? And when I say originally, I mean how did the very first king come about thousands of years ago? What would make people follow them blindly, and be ready to kill for them and to be killed for them? What wins such loyalty?
There are only two things in this world that bring such devotion. One, is the love of family and the very dearest of friends, who will do anything for someone they love so much. Two, is the position of power that binds people together – they may love each other or loathe each other, but the power of being in control and of gaining hugely by such an alliance – is what earns such allegiance.
It is my hunch that the first kings came about the same time civilization was coming into existence. The very necessity of the people to fulfill their basic needs – food, shelter, protection from wild animals – made them form groups. These groups needed a leader – like all groups – who could envision the dangers they faced, come up with solutions for the same, and guide them in times of need. This task would have invariably been entrusted to the wisest (or the most cunning) and the bravest (or the toughest) person in the group. The cleverest person became the holy man (who could talk to God and foresee everything), and the cruelest man became the king (the most powerful protector & provider). Together, they formed rules for the group to follow and bade them to obey them by fear of the Almighty or by power of the muscle.
Soon, these groups had a need to go farther than where they were born, to seek out new places for food and shelter. In doing so, they came into contact with other groups, who were pretty obviously hostile to theirs. Conflict of territory arose (much like it arises in wild beasts), and they had to fight and kill each other. If the leader was killed in the battle, the next most powerful living man would take the mantle. If the leader survived, he would be eulogized by the surviving few. These leaders were the rulers of the entire land now. And as they grew their territories and their population, they became bigger and slowly formed their kingdoms and became kings. To keep the large flock together, these kings needed a common belief (or fear), and an instant solution came in the form of spreading the word of God. I am not an atheist, this merely is an attempt to understand how man first learnt about his Creator and how he came to fear His wrath so much. One can clearly see why so much affinity existed between the King and the High Priest of yester-years. I think this is the only plausible explanation, and you can correct me if you have a different thought on the same.
So, the first kings were nothing but largely feared gangsters. Their sons automatically inherited their legacy, and may or may not have been as cruel. But they were also driven to expand (or protect) their territories, and so they stepped out of their comfort zones. You may call them bravehearts; I prefer to call them ganglords. What, for example, made millions of people leave their homes in Macedonia and trek all the way to India to win lands for Alexander the Great? And why did Alexander need to win over the world by killing so many people – I am sure the right religious teachings would not have permitted him to do so; and he was not threatened by anybody & fighting in defence. It was the lust of demonstrating himself as the most powerful man in the world (propelled by wrong religious backing) that drove him and his troops so far.
Isn’t this the very thing that we see around us today? How different are the kings from present day gangsters or terrorists, who follow the same route to riches? And how different are they from the heads of various nations (the present day kings) that wish to subjugate other states by sheer demonstration of their wild, merciless power?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)