Arguments with my brother Part 2: Vegetarianism

Bro: Humans are more suited to be vegetarians!

Me: What makes you say that? (Seri kottu...)

Bro: The biological structure of a human being shows that humans are supposed to eat plants and vegetables. For example, the human saliva is basic which matches with that of herbivores, while that of carnivores is acidic. It makes it easier to digest meat.

Me: That doesn't make any difference. We produce acids in our stomach which is enough to digest that meat. What about the incisor teeth we have. Doesn't that help us to tear meat better? Doesn't that match with carnivores?

Bro: We have 4 incisors out of 32 teeth which is not a big ratio. Plus, incisors help to tear vegetarian food as well. In cows there is a forestomach which helps do this. This is substituted by the incisors. Also the eyes of humans are very calm and round in shape like those of herbivores. Carnivores have sharp piercing eyesight which helps them see far for hunting and many also see well in the dark.

Me: We don't need far eyesight for hunting because we have been given the brains to hunt them with tools and cook meat for better digestion.

Bro: Don't include the brain in this. We have been given the brain to stop and think if we should eat meat like the animals or make ourselves different from them by not hurting other organisms and lead a civilized life. The brain is for us to realize ourselves. I 'm talking about the human anatomy and what it is better suited for.

Me: Doesn't the fact that we are able to survive eating meat show that we can eat meat. My point is we are neither herbivores nor carnivores but omnivores.

Bro: That's a stupid argument. Anyone can survive eating anything. It's what we are more suited to eat that I 'm talking about. You give a lion in a zoo only grass and no meat. After a few days it ll start eating grass.

Me: No it won't! It would die after a few days. By evolution humans have the power to survive forever on any type of food.

Bro: Don't get me started on evolution. For all you know, it just a theory based on the 10% information that we have got. There is still 90% information that is yet to be discovered. Science is based on vague theories which can never be proved, like the big bang, evolution etc.

Me: No! Science is based on strong facts from which the theories have been put forward. There is a framework of proven facts like fossils collected, radio carbon dating etc., and the concept of evolution fits perfectly for the given data.

Bro: That's my point. Science has got a framework only. There is still much more left undiscovered. What if they find a human fossil tomorrow that dates back before the monkeys? Then they would have to throw away all the evolution theory and come up with a new one. Science has always been proved wrong in history. People would come up with some idea and they would get a contradicting evidence and everything would be rewritten.

Me: At least science has been proved wrong by science itself and nothing else. Are you telling me that humans just appeared on the earth? That they were created by God?

Bro: Yeah! At least that answers more questions than evolution does! About the purpose of life etc. The way God created our biology goes on to prove that humans were supposed to be herbivores.

Me: Now that's argument for argument's sake.

Bro: Look, forget about evolution. Let's talk with what we have now and not how we evolved. Take our intestine, for example. We have a very long intestine like herbivores. Meat spoils quick. Worms and bacteria grow quickly on dead meat. And with a long intestine which takes a long time for food to get excreted, the dead body of an animal in our digestive system doesn't support our eating meat. Carnivores excrete 9 kg for every 10 kg they eat and that too quicker than herbivores. They have smaller intestine.

Me: Again, we have brains to cook food, destroy the bacteria and make it suitable for our consumption. We have "evolved" from monkeys. Okay, forget that! We are scientifically closer to the monkeys in our biological structure. Monkeys eat both meat and vegetable. Monkeys are omnivores. So why can't you accept that? If you want biological proof, consider the limbs of herbivores. Cows, horses, goat, elephant etc., haven't got fingers or hands like us. They can't hunt food. They can't even hold things without opposable thumbs.

Bro: Exactly, whereas lions, tigers, eagles etc., have got claws with sharp nails... to kill and tear flesh. Another proof. We can't strike that hard or tear flesh with our bear hands.

Me: That's what I 'm saying. We are neither here nor there. We are halfway between the two. We are omnivores.

Bro: Look, I'm not going to accept what you say and you're not going to accept what I say. I've given you biological proofs. You've got the brain to think. With all the facts proving that we are closer to herbivores decide if you really want to eat meat that badly.
___________________________________________________
Disclaimer: The ideas and views expressed above are not my own. They were just to irritate my brother. I fully and strongly support vegetarianism.

Has Bollywood failed to recognise Rajnikanth as an Indian Superstar?

This was the hour long debate in NDTV prime time from 8 to 9. You know... when thousands of Indian Airlines passengers were waiting for the flight service to resume from the strike, the news channels felt, how better to keep them entertained. This is the extent of the Rajni mania that's been sweeping the nation. Setting aside the debate of whether it deserved that much media attention with so many more pressing issues at stake, let's try to understand why it was given that much importance. One word. Money. In predominantly Hindi speaking nation, with Bollywood being recognized as India's mainstream cinema, they couldn't digest the fact that the highest paid actor(second highest Asian) in the nation was from the Tamil Cinema. They couldn't see what was so special in this man, except for the fact that he had 35000 registered fan clubs only in Tamil Nadu(68000 all over the world) while Big B had a mere 8 all over the country, his last movie Chandramukhi made 60 crores, while Big B' s Cheeni Kum made 6 crores, he demanded a minimum of 10 crores apart from profit shares, while Big B asked 3-5 crores, and that he acted in one film in two years while Big B acted in 6 films just this year. I mean, what's so special in him?

They tried to find this for many days ever since his Sivaji pay package was announced but couldn't come to a solid conclusion. So now, they've joined the fan club too, with the movie's release getting closer. Covering items like "Pal Abhisekams" to his posters and starting contests like "Why I am Rajni's greatest fan", the news channels have slowly started stooping to the range of Zoom TV, B4U etc. I don't know if I should say the channels have gone down or Rajni has gone up. But definitely as one of the speakers in the show put it, "The channels depended on him and he didn't depend on them." They were catering to the appeal of a large Indian mass who's tastes have gone down, I would want to say. But being one in that mass, I wouldn't say that.

Coming to the big question at the top, it is as absurd as asking, "Has the Hollywood failed to recognize Big B as a universal superstar." Their target audience is completely different. The audience's tastes, their expectations and their appeals differ. But one thing that's common to all those who've made it big, is that they've clearly identified their target audience. They have understood where they stand, how far they can reach the people and have properly tried to please their fans. There are lots of escalators reaching to the peak of one's life, taking you slowly to the top. If you suddenly jump from one escalator to another, you are bound to get hurt badly. What Rajni's life has taught us is... Better stay where you are and work hard to improve yourself. It doesn't matter if you start small. Believe in yourself. Stick to your conviction(who knew 30 years back that his style would be the only thing that brought him to this level? He
did!). And yeah, be god-fearing. That divine grace will definitely make a difference in your life.

Gora: Book Review

This was the first time I started reading an Indian author(well if you don't count How Opal Mehta got drunk, got wild and got a life), that too one from before independence. And I feel that I have wasted these 20 years of my life, after reading this masterpiece of Rabindranath Tagore.

Such profound ideas, clarity in thought, poetic word formations!!! It is difficult not to lose oneself in it. What struck me first was the depiction of the pre-independence India, the life of people, their customs, traditions and their thoughts and the revolutionary changes that were going on in their minds. For if it is difficult to talk about inter-caste marriages nowadays it was impossible to even think about them in those days. No wonder Tagore was considered to be revolutionary! But one thing that was surprising was the level of intellectual and social maturity which was present in every character's speech. I was dumbstruck when I found out that Sucharita's age was only twelve or thirteen which came only towards the end. And I'm not sure if I can believe it. Were the teenagers of those days so developed in intelligence and maturity, were they so proficient in their understandings, that such a book that came in those days could actually portray the Calcutta of the 1910s? What is evident in the entire book is the author's immense knowledge of not only his religion, customs and rituals but also of his knowledge of all the societies existing in that period. For his arguments cannot be so powerful if they weren't something he had experienced personally and given years of thinking to. My favorite character in this book is without doubt Gora. Although deep in his heart he knows his religion to be posing unwanted and unimportant obstacles in the way of India's development, he never once tries to display contempt and shields his feelings with hair-splitting arguments as to why one must not revolt against them for the mere fact that whatever their ancestors were following for centuries could definitely do no harm. Till his realization in the end, Gora gives absolute and unwavering respect and submission to the Scriptures. His rigid opinions and his resolve in making his stand clear to the entire society with no fear of contempt and with the fullest dignity was admirable. The parts of the book where I was totally held in awe, were the speeches made by Gora. Be it for defending the caste system or idol worship or the destruction of Hinduism, Tagore has a wonderful gift of wording his arguments with perfect analogies, whichever side he takes, whether Paresh Babu's or Gora's or Binoy's. Paresh Babu's character was also intersting. For every argument in the book, I expected a particular retort, but the one given by the author himself was not only the most perfect way of putting it but also made me feel humiliated for the way I would have replied to them. And another factor that differentiates Tagore's style of writing from any other's is the way he lets the reader form an idea about the characters by their reactions to various situations, instead of giving an introduction to how they are as soon as they are introduced, which gives the reader very less scope for forming their own opinions on different persons. For example in Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austin introduces the Bennets and Darceys by giving us a brief idea of their characters, which actually gives way for the reader’s prejudice. Strong character formations in this book ensured each one to be as individual and different from the other.

The concepts explained in this book are so pertinent to the Indian society, that it would be difficult for any foreigner to even get into the mindset of the characters and understand the actual difficulties that the characters face. Because when it comes to concepts like arranged marriage, idol worship, devotion to motherland, etc. it will be difficult for them to grasp their significance and they would feel as to why the characters are giving importance to familial bonds, promises, respect to society and so on. This makes it all the more important that we as Indians definitely read such books and keep alive our past, our heritage and our pride.

What should we ask God?

There was a rich landlord in a particular village and he was in need of a good singer to entertain the crowd during his daughter's wedding. He asked a close friend of his who wasn't as rich but quite well to do, to arrange for a singer. This friend approached a man who was poor but a highly qualified singer with a great voice. He readily accepted the offer. On the day of the wedding, his performance was really good but the crowd concentrating on the bride and groom did not have much time to appreciate his singing. But the friend was listening to the singer with rapt attention, as it was he who had arranged the man and wanted no complaints against him. While leaving, the landlord called the singer into a room with his friend. He had two bags in his hand and said, " This bag on my right is the amount you had requested. This bag in my left is the amount my friend here asked me to give you. Which bag would you choose?"

The singer was in a real dilemma now. He wasn't entirely sure of his performance and felt that the friend might have found flaws in his singing and advised the landlord to pay him less. But he couldn't choose his amount for he might be offending the friend who had given him the chance to perform lest he might not recommend him for further performances. So he was staring at the two bags quietly. Seeing his predicament, the landlord asked the friend, " What my friend? What do you say? Which bag should I give him?" Now the friend was in a dilemma. But he replied, "For your status you can afford to give both." And thus the landlord trying to rescue both of them from the uncomfortable situation, gave the singer both the bags.While returning from the wedding, the friend asked the singer how much he had requested to which he replied Rs.500. The friend said that he had asked the landlord to pay him Rs.5000.

From this we see that, though the singer's performance was the same, the singer felt that it deserved Rs.500, the friend felt that it deserved Rs.5000 but the landlord didn't mind giving him Rs.5500. For the same dedication to a job, their expectations varied depending on their status. A poor man would be happy to get a small amount for a job which a rich man would expect a lot more for. Instead of asking for an amount beforehand, if the singer had asked the landlord to give him what he pleased, he would have definitely given him something more than Rs.500 at least to maintain his status.

Imagine God, sitting in His Abode, with all the wealth in the universe lying at his feet. Should we ask him, "Lord give me this, give me that" ? We must do good things and we must ask him "Lord give me what you think I deserve" and you will definitely get more than what you expected.

How Eskimos kill wolves

Eskimos have a peculiar way of killing wolves for food. They coat the blade of a spear with blood and dip it in water to create a coat of ice over it. Then they insert the handle of the spear into ice or snow with its blade standing out. The wolves are attracted by the scent of the blood on the spear and they start licking the blade. The ice on the blade freezes their tongue so that they have no feeling even when the sharp blade makes their own tongues to bleed. They continue to lick the blade more vigorously because of the taste of their own blood, because of which they lose so much blood till they fall unconscious or die.

In the same way, man is driven into the temptations and addictions in this world. He yields to them and starts experiencing pleasure beyond his imagination till the very temptations numbs his sensibilities and his abilities to comprehend right and wrong and ultimately gets destroyed by them. Just food for thought....

Pirates Of the Caribbean: Movie Review

The third part of the swash-buckling pirates saga, wasn't so swash-buckling after all. With not as many action sequences as the first two, it was more of a drama, with romances, deals made, deals broken and no scope for witty Jack Sparrow to display his usual knack for getting out of stuff. He had to do with some repartees which gave few laughs here and there. In the scenes where he talks to himself, he has proved with his acting skills, that he one actor in Hollywood to be reckoned. Can't wait for his next movie with Big B. Following the first installment which became an unexpected hit, the story began to take a complex turn with new characters and storyline in the second. The third movie was expected to answer those complexities and give a concrete ending. But it continued to make the story more abstract, bringing in the useless Calypso, pirates from all over the world etc. and took it to a point of no return, when finally it dawned on the script-writers that "Enough is Enough". After that it was the high-speed twisting turning story that made the first two a blockbuster and that was missing till that point in the third movie. That was enough to compensate for the first 2 hours of dull drama.

The end of the movie not only took us back in a cycle to the beginning of the first movie with Jack sparrow abandoned by his crew in Black Pearl, and left with nothing but a boat and a bottle of rum, but also has left scope for a sequel with all the main characters still alive and ready for the next adventure. There are however some points which weren't clear to me in this movie. Why was there so much hype for Calypso who proved to be as useless as a log on-board? Why did the commander not order his men to attack the ships in the end? What happened to the other 100 ships standing against the 9 pirate ships? What happened to Elizabeth's crew and ship with her being the king of pirates?

Eragon: Movie Review

There are many movies based on books. In some, the movies are better than the books (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars etc.). In some, the books are better than the movies ( Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code etc.). Eragon belongs to the former. I read the book a year back and I didn't remember the story exactly, but what I' m sure I remembered was how much of a drag the book was. I couldn't get through its pages quickly even with the story going very very slow. It was a little predictable too, with the hero turning out to be the villain's son, the never-before-tried concept of "good against evil" etc. Christopher Paolini has tried something in the lines of J.R.R.Tolkein, inventing Elvish languages, drawing maps of the places in the appendices, but with a far simpler storyline than the Lord of the Rings, these looked like desperate attempts to make people appreciate his efforts.

So this simple storyline with scopes for some dramatic scenes was exactly what the director needed for expanding his creativity in the fields of visual effects and stunts. The best visual effect in the movie was the dragon Saphira, which was reproduced exactly as it was illustrated in the book, and Rachel Weisz 's voice suited her perfectly. The stunts performed on the dragons where astounding. The baby dragon was the cutest depiction of a dragon in any hollywood movie. The other thing that perfectly matched with the book's description was the Shade both in casting and make-up. The dragon-riding sequence and the final fight, were worth watching second time. Overall the movie was much better and fast-paced with graphics and screenplay than its paper twin and definitely worth a watch.

P.S. If there's anything I wish to be in my life after this, it's a Dragon-Rider. Imagine a pet, which loves u, can talk only to you, takes you on an air-ride whenever you want, helps you do magic, breathes fire on your enemies, fights for you and is literally ready to die to help you live. What more could a guy want?