In question of mourning

It hits you when all is silent. A very heart wrenching version of Anuradha Podwal’s Gayatri Mantra is playing. The room smells of roses and yes the agarbattis. The thin ribbon of smoke from the incense sticks rises up in front of her picture - bright purple saree, healthy and that evergreen smile. They say the picture should reflect the personality, what better than this? My eyes steel on her face and reels of memories flash.

Everyone knows all about it – Death! Much has always been spoken about it, written about it and thought about it. Yet we refrain from talking about it. Always by the side wife, caring mother of six girls, a loving grandmother of ten and a super great-grand mom of seven. What a life, what legacy. And with all that I know of her for twenty five years, I’m left with a cheerful image with that smile frozen in my head. I’ve seen her cry and have seen her unwell. I've seen her angry and have seen her worried. But these images are retrieved only on purposeful scanning. She’s always been here. Here, there, over the phone. Even when sick, which in her number of years she’s gone through a lot, her spirit has lifted her up, oh and yes with that graceful smile. And then one fine day, she’s gone. There’s grief. Much called for.

But I wonder what mourning is. Do we mourn for the one who’s gone, or for the society, or is it for our own selves? Those who've gone are gone because they were supposed to be gone. It is quite a repetition to say this that everyone needs to move on to the next stage. Do we cry for their purpose is done? Their roles have been played? All theories, philosophies – dharma, karma, cause and effect – all speak of how a soul gets going. Do we want to send them to their next purposes, ventures, crying? Would our crying help them?

Well, then does the society ask us to mourn? It’s essential that we talk of death and talk why. There’s a gathering immediately. They are all here to pay homage to the one who’s moved on. But as we mortals are – all experts we start with our interpretations of life and death. Our interpretations of Gita! Is mourning individual or is it societal compulsion? There are blurring lines. Why does one need to be worried how many attended one’s father’s mourning meet? Why do I see a few relatives always popping their heads to see if the gathering has increased or not? Why is it that festivals aren't celebrated for a year? If I am in grief I obviously won’t celebrate, on the contrary shouldn't one be pulled out of grief? Agreed that festivals are forceful agents of sorrow, reminders of loss, but they are also a chance to remember them happily and move on. Moreover, if otherwise one has moved on has made peace with oneself and one’s loss but doesn't celebrate for what would the people around say. Is it only to show to the society that we are sad? And how imperative is it for the society to see us sad? Where is the effort of bringing people back to normalcy? Sadly, this pushes us into the cauldron; men and their morals. We, including me who writes this, end up constructing the same society. We raise our eyebrows when one moves on rather quickly from any parting.

Then we perhaps mourn for our own selves. We understand the theories and the philosophies yet we feel sad. There are times when no words can console the ones who remain behind. I wonder then what aspect of death hits us. And it is almost obnoxious to say it point blank. But it is selfish. We cry for selfish reasons – for we find it difficult to part with loved ones. We cry because we find it difficult to live on. It is never that the gone soul misses anything on this mortal land.

People never leave; they are always here in their past and present lives. The Koran (Do not say in the name of Allah, they are dead; for they are alive even though you cannot see them. - 2:154) and the Bible tell us. Then why would we want to trouble them, mourning? We refrain from talking uncomfortable subjects. For non-believers there’s another urge. Why can’t we put our individual grief of parting aside and be happy for those who have left the land of countless suffering, for those who have moved on?

Philosophies keep changing, changing as the time carries us ahead. Life and its purpose? They are deep conversations. Soul and Body? Avoidable again. What remains is a life of love - given in abundance and you receive it in abundance.

Problems with Paradigms

On one of my train journeys, I arrested a cop’s attention by not bribing a TT. Okay, call him a constable, Prakash Yadav. Our conversation took a turn after I acknowledged I was unmarried. It isn’t his fault that he thinks men have a right to philander and women don’t. Further, our decibels rose and he argued why a woman cannot love more than one man.

“Two? In succession,” I asked.

“Oh! She would be labelled a whore”

“What if she loved one but that doesn’t materialize and later settled in a beautiful relationship with another?”

It's a bogus question to even ask, most people who read this here would think. Sadly we form a miniscule percent of an ocean of thoughts.

“A boy and girl can never be friends” he slapped a cliché.

“Oh why not? I am friends with many girls. Girls whom I know are in a relationship”

“Not possible. You haven’t felt anything for them? Plus they’re cheating on their boys.”

“No.” I frowned.

“A girl should not befriend boys anyway”
My forehead lines deepened as I wondered to which era he belonged.
”You’ll allow your sister to befriend boys?”
And he mocked at my prompt yes as he got down at Mathura.

I collected myself; perhaps I was the only one in the entire compartment who was comfortable with the notion of a girl in boys’ companies and women in multiple relationships. A little off the paradigm.

How is it when you get stared at instead of being soothed, stigmatized when you should be sympathized? Well that’s how a victim of sexual assault sustains. Where a woman chief minister says a rape victim has concocted a story, while the police divulge the name of another woman for her to face further harassment. The regular argument would be rhetoric. Yes blame the woman’s liberation for the man’s uncontrolled libido.

But that’s the problematic play of paradigm. The question is, do you feel embarrassed when you’re robbed off? Or when you’re diagnosed of cancer? Or even when one passes away? It’s all tragic. Then why humiliate a rape victim, embarrassing her for her tragic accident?

How would it be had we all accepted women as men, and realized their right to love?

How would it be had we all grown up condoling a rape victim, helping her forgo the trauma and point our stares and stigmas on the culprit? 

Have you ever wondered why we pray to the Gods?
The discussions and arguments would be incessant. Theists, atheists and to top them all, people like me, agnostics. Contemplate the idea of God without man. From where has He come? Religion – a set of righteous rules, gone horribly wrong, being the sole reason for much enmity and bloodshed across the planet? So follow any all or none. God or divine presence is the ultimate solace for many, someone or some belief that someone is forever there by their side, guiding them.

If the man means no harm and upholds morals, what good is religion to him if he’s happy like that? Ah! With such paradigmatic disgust we question him.

How would it be had we all acknowledged that not all follow our faith and have a right to think different, be different without being scorned at or forced?

How would it be had we all been comfortable with the ones in faith and with their beliefs, greeting their Gods if they wished at times, without a mock?

How would it be?

Our societies have been fixed in thought. And it takes more than many lifetimes to move the paradigm. Why should an introvert be pushed into talking more and socializing more, when he/she is equally or even more capable, efficient or good? Even as the ‘Satan in the child’ lore having been discarded centuries ago, mothers force their left handed kids into right handedness, a paradigm shift into accepting homosexuality is a far fetched reality. A trait observed in many species apart from humans, being perfectly natural for it occurs naturally in some as part of nature’s diversity would wait with its stuck up believes for some considerable time.

How would it be had we all been open to think the other way?
How would it be had we all never fallen into paradigm in the first place?