Is Reality a Choice? Nirpadhuve, Nadappadhuve by Bharathiyar

Romanticism is the intoxicating elixir that the poet sips, gulps and bathes in.  A simple blacksmith going about his daily business becomes immortalized in the words of a Longfellow:
Under a spreading chestnut-tree, 
The village smithy stands;
The smith, a mighty man is he, 
With large and sinewy hands

The sight of colorful blooming daffodils sends Wordsworth into raptures:
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Needless to say, a majestic tiger with its chiselled physique and chilling glare would have to have its own tribute:
Tyger, tyger burning bright
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

These poetic flights of imagination can, however, be dragged down into the pedestrian world of gravity by cold factual information. The information possessed by the sociologist, botanist or a zoologist only makes them all the more poorer as it deprives them of the spine-chilling thrills that Longfellow, Wordsworth and Blake experienced in their moments of wonderment.

Bharathiar had to make a choice. He had to choose between the black- and-white view of the world provided by philosophy or the exploding spectrum of colors that his poetic vision had blessed him with.

Bharathiar was well versed in philosophy- the hard-core philosophy of Advaita where the very existence of everything is questioned; the entire creation is a mirage, a figment of imagination, a dream. God alone is Real; the World is illusory; there is no difference between the individual soul and God 

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन् मित्य जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः 

To a poet, this brings in to question everything that he cherishes– the lofty peaks, the roaring rivers, the majestic animals, the melodious birds. He thus wonders

நிற்பதுவே நடப்பதுவே பறப்பதுவே
நீங்களெல்லாம் சொப்பனந்தானோ
பல தோற்ற மயக்கங்களோ

Ye, who stand and walk and fly
Are you all just a dream?
Just a delusory form?

கற்பதுவே கேட்பதுவே கருதுவதே
நீங்களெல்லாம் அற்ப மாயைகளோ
உம்முள் ஆழ்ந்த பொருளில்லையோ

Ye, that is learnt, that is heard, that is thought
Are you all mere illusions?
Is there nothing deeper in you

If the enchanting garden of the world outside, and the mysterious forests of the world within are to be scythed ruthlessly by the uncompromising blade of cold reasoning, "What about my very existence?" as he enquires later in the song.

போனதெல்லாம் கனவினைப்போல்
புதைந்தழிந்தே போனதனால்
நானும் ஓர் கனவோ
இந்த ஞாலமும் பொய் தானோ?

If what is past, like a dream
gets buried and disappears
Am I also a dream
Is the world also just a lie?

But what about that magical moment?– that was tangible, the thrill that was felt, even if only fleeting, that which was majestic in its grandeur, albeit for a moment, before disappearing into the depths of the invisible abyss of the past. Was that moment unreal just because it has disappeared, never to be seen again?

Bharathiar begs to differ. He uses a reverse logic to justify his viewpoint.

காண்பவெல்லாம் மறையுமென்றால்
மறைந்ததெல்லாம் காண்பமன்றோ

If everything that is seen would disappear
Hadn't everything that disappeared been seen?

காண்பதுவே உறுதிகண்டோம்
காண்பதல்லால் உறுதியில்லை
காண்பது சத்தியமாம்
இந்த காட்சி சத்தியமாம்

What we see, we feel firm about
If unseen, it is not proven
What is seen is the truth, we aver
This sight we see is true, we aver

Bharathiar decides to make a choice. He has his feet firmly planted in the world even as his heart soars to the clouds and beyond. He is of this world; he breathes its air, sucks the nectar of its blooms, partakes of its fruits, and serves it with the last ember of his spirit.

While talking about the tangible world as the truth, Bharathiar does not decry God or a Higher Truth. In fact, he sees Him everywhere. How do we know?  Every fan of Bharathiar knows what comes next. Let us discuss that in our next post

An Appeal Disavowed: Rahul Dravid and Thiruvalluvar

To punish wrong, with kindly benefits the doers ply;

Thus shame their souls. . . .

(Thiruvalluvar, translated by G.U.  Pope)

Yep, the bowler was appealing.  Adam Gilchrist was not amused.  2013, Mohali, Punjab.  Gilchrist was playing for the Kings XI Punjab team, against the Rajasthan Royals, in the Indian Premier League. The ball had gone directly to the fielder, and the throw was on its way.  Gilchrist, who was backing up at the non-striker’s end, had to scramble to the safety of the crease. Just then, the ball hit Gilchrist on the glove, and ended up in the hands of Ajit Chandila,the bowler.  Gilchrist was caught well short of the crease.  Chandila immediately dislodged the bails, and appealed for a run-out.

Gilchrist, arguably the greatest wicket-keeper batsman ever in international cricket, was fuming.  This was clearly against the spirit of the game.  Here was this upstart, no-name bowler, tearing down centuries of tradition.  The umpires were caught off-guard by what was happening. An ugly confrontation was about to erupt.

Only one person could defuse the situation- the captain of the bowling team.  As luck would have it, the general on the field was one of the finest gentlemen that the game had ever seen.  A man with a steely determination, impeccable technique, unyielding spirit and unimpeachable character, Rahul Dravid was a man respected as much for his game as for the class with which he conducted himself.

The irony of the situation was, however, not lost on anybody.  Just five years earlier, the roles had been reversed.  Dravid had been at the receiving end of a controversial appeal by Gilchrist.  This happened in Sydney, Australia in 2008.  The stench from that infamous game,    to this day, taints the atmosphere of any India-Australia cricket match.  Indian fans and players alike are unlikely to forget this game, the cricketing equivalent of “The hand of God goal” game, that the English football fans have had to endure.

The clash was inevitable. Cricket had, but, one empire. The Australians dominated the game much like another island nation that had established an "Empire on which the Sun never sets." The Indian cricket team, initially an itinerant, irritant to the mighty Australians, had gradually grown to become a thorn in their flesh. They reflected the new-found confidence of the Indian nation. Their economy had started to gain strength in the new millennium, and the world could not ignore the reverberations as the mighty Indian elephant thundered ahead. In 2008, as Mukul Kesavan wrote in the Telegraph, "...the two grand narratives of 21st century cricket, India's growing economic clout and Australia's cricketing hegemony, met like unsheathed live wires.

Australia had won the first test match in Melbourne quite handily. The second test was fought more evenly. The cricket was, however, overshadowed by ugly gamesmanship. On more than one occasion, the Australian batsmen had clearly been out, caught, and had refused to walk. While fielding, they had claimed catches that were grounded. One of the Indian players, Harbhajan Singh, was even accused of racially insulting Andrew Symonds from Australia.

The men in charge, the umpires, in a perfect storm, had been equally pathetic. Calling the umpiring as sub-standard would have been insulting to the standard itself. The law of averages would dictate that in a five day game, the erroneous calls would even out between the two teams. However, due to sheer incompetence of the umpires, or for reasons hard to fathom. the game was decidedly being tilted towards Australia, much to the chagrin of the Indians.

A cricket test is as much a war of attrition as it is a clash of skills. By the final day of the match, tempers were frayed, patience was running thin, nerves were raw, and emotions were running high.

Rahul Dravid was the lone warrior on the bridge, holding the Aussies at bay. His was the prized wicket that the Australians needed for the win. Not for nothing was he nicknamed "The Wall". Anything directed at the stumps was met with a defence that could not be breached; every delivery away was left with a saintly dispassion. The fast bowlers had hurled every weapon at their disposal at him, but Dravid had survived. Ricky Ponting, the Australian captain, had to bring on his trundler, Andrew Symonds– hardly somebody who kept Rahul awake at night.

The fateful ball pitched well outside the off-stump; its line and length had been telegraphed to Rahul the minute it left the bowler's hand. Outside the offstump: no stroke. He tucked the bat safely out of harm's way, behind his pads. One more ball safely negotiated. Get ready for the next delivery. Dravid's precise decision-making and measured movements would have made any robotic engineer proud.

The ball grazed Rahul's front pad and landed in the gloves os Adam Gilchrist. Symonds went up in celebration as he appealed for a catch. So did the Australian fielders. Most surprisingly, Gilchrist, glorified by none other than the MCC as to "...encapsulate the Spirit of Cricket" threw the ball up in the air to celebrate a catch. The ball had gone clearly off the pad; only the most rabid of supporters, jaundiced by misplaced patriotism, could have been blind to it.

It is implausible that the wicketkeeper could not have known that the ball had hit the pad and not the bat. The video evidence (see 6:18 of the video clip) suggests that Gilchrist was watching the path of the ball until it reached his glove. As Peter Roebuck wrote in The Age, "...Doubtless the fieldsmen heard a noise, but canvas and wood make different sounds, a fact known to every cricketer. That the bat was hidden away behind the body was surely more obvious from behind."

Gilchrist maintained that he had appealed because of his uncertainty as to whether the ball had hit pad or bat. later, he wrote in his autobiography, True Colors, "...I appealed for something which I genuinely thought was out, and then replays showed that it wasn't. It may have come as a surprise to peter Roebuck and other critics, but I was not perfect...I thought Dravid had hit it. I was wrong!"

The entire episode should have been relegated to the place that it deserved– an inconsequential moment in a fascinating game lasting five days. Umpire Steve Bucknor made sure that it wasn't. he raised the dreaded finger.

R Dravid c Gilchrist b Symonds 38.

Rahul shook his head on his way back to the pavilion– as forceful an act of remonstration that this gentleman cricketer would ever display on the field. India went on to lose the game.

Coming back to Mohali, Punjab, Gilchrist was now at the receiving end of the appeal. He had been caught outside the crease, albeit of a deflected ball. Spirit of the game or not, this was professional cricket with high financial stakes. The bowler was appealing for a runout. Gilchrist was furious and was letting fly some choice epithets.

Rahul Dravid, the captain of the Rajasthan Royals, had to make a decision. In poetic justice, Dravid, the gentleman, stayed true to his colors. He quickly took charge of the situation and prevented it from getting any uglier.

Dravid rescinded the appeal. He walked up to the agitated Gilchrist and calmed him down. The game continued with but a minor hiccup. Rahul's spirit of sportsmanship and sense of ethics had defused a potentially explosive situation.

Rahul was, however, nobody's fool. He knew very well as to how and when to get his point across.

During the Cricket World Cup in 2015, Rahul was in the commentary box. The conversation meandered to the question of appealing by wicketkeepers in the face of a clear, non-catch. Rahul. Rahul asserted that most wicketkeepers, including himself, would appeal for fear of falling out of favor with the bowlers. A fellow commentator suggested that perhaps Gilchrist might be the exception, who would not.

Dravid stated: "Sydney Test– Rahul Dravid, caught Adam Gilchrist, bowled Andrew Symonds, is all am going to say."

"Missed the ball, did yo?" he was asked

"By miles."

Dravid's response was just as good as his cover drive– cool, measured, precise with perfect timing. And then he got ready for the next ball.

Read this story and others in The Goal Keeper in Midfield and Other Sports Stories"- coming soon to amazon.co.in and flipkart.com

Who arbitrates morality? Jesus Christ, Krishna and Kannadasan: Ilakkanam Marutho?

John 8:3- a dramatic scene from the New Testament. The teachers of religious law bring a woman accusing her of adultery. They want to stone her to death. Talking about fairness, there was no concern that the act had required a consenting partner. The Apostle of Peace answered, "Let anyone of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." As one by one, her shamed accusers left, Christ advised her to go home and leave her life of sin.

It is easy to judge. All of us are the very barometers of what is right and what is not. Any perceived positioning of an individual below our estimate of our own moral values, certainly, is a cause for derision and name-calling. Anything above that, usually, sends us into a frenzy of fact-finding, to explore for possible skeletons in the cupboard of the glorified individual.  The success of TMZ, National Enquirer, and the several tabloids that line the aisles of the check out lanes of the grocery stores are proof enough.

There is no doubt that laws are and should be Universal. There cannot be too many interpretations of what is right and what is wrong; even then, we do have exceptions and expediating circumstances.

The ethical line, typically, stands less clearly demarcated, with more scope to interpret. Most professions demand and insist on an ethical standard that is to be maintained higher than the legal line. As a doctor, one cannot have an intimate relationship with a patient; the law of consenting adults do not apply.

The tricky question comes when moral issues are concerned. We have standards: some are derived from parents, some from society, some from books- more often sacred than secular, some from the pulpits and rarely, some from intuition.

Kannadasan has brought this issue of moral questioning into focus in one of his famous songs- இலக்கணம் மாறுதோ, இலக்கியம் ஆனதோ- Has Grammar transformed into literature?  from the movie "நிழல் நிஜமாகிறது." - A shadow becomes reality

A simpleton from a village, barely in her late teens, has a dream of becoming a princess; and why not? As a servant maid in a house, she presumes that the handsome, rich owner is the prince of her dreams, and falls for his overtures. About to be burdened with a child, whose father refuses to acknowledge his paternity, this young girl is now the object of scorn in society.

Is she immoral? Is she a gold-digger? Is she a vile temptress? With poverty preventing even a semblance of chance at redemption, here is this young girl, suddenly having to grow up and face the wrath of the self- appointed moral guardians.




தள்ளாடும் பிள்ளை உள்ளமும் வெள்ளை
தாலாட்டு பாட ஆதாரம் இல்லை
தெய்வங்கள் எல்லாம் உனக்காகப் பாடும்
பாடாமல் போனால் எது தெய்வம் ஆகும்
மறுபடி பிறக்கும் உனக்கொறு பாதை
உரைப்பது கீதை

Struggling kid, with a heart so pure
To sing a lullaby, doesn't have a proof
All the Gods shall sing for you
If they don't, what kind of Gods are they?
You will get another chance
Thus avers the Gita

Kannadasan goes to the aid of this girl, whose life has been swept into a vortex by currents that she can hardly fathom, let alone negotiate. He points his verbal arrows directly at the moral cops, who read the scriptures superficially, forgetting that morality devoid of humanity is to be discarded. Kannadasan questions the very validity of these self-appointed moral guardians dare condemn this unfortunate girl.

Good or evil, moral or vulgar, sacred or satanic, selfless or selfish- Oh and one of the best of them all- patriotic or treasonous- all it takes is a quick look or a superficial reading of a situation and we are happy to sit on our own moral thrones and pass judgement. Fortunately, in many civilized countries, we are not the juries and executioners. We are only painfully made aware of the societies that are the exceptions.

It is very tempting to feel secure, ensconsced in our own moral cocoons, and take potshots at the  so-called sinners of the world. We do not hesitate to ponder, as exemplified by the holy martyr Bradford. It is said that whenever he saw a man condemned for his sins, John Bradford would exclaim with utmost humility, "There, but for the Grace of God, goes me."- indicating that Bradford himself could have very well ended up as a sinner, if it were not for the Grace of the Almighty

In the final two lines of the quoted verse, Kannadasan assures the young girl of redemption, quoting the Gita. Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. There, perhaps, cannot be a better example for this than Kannadasan himself. He was well known for his debauchery and moral transgressions, which he openly admitted to. His transformation into a philosopher-poet was as dramatic as they come.

अपिचेत सुधुरचारो भजते मां अनन्यभाक्
साधुरेवस मन्तव्यः  सम्यग्  व्यवसितो हिसः  (IX: 30)

क्षिप्रं भवति धर्मात्मा शस्वच्छान्तिम् निगच्छति
कौन्तेय प्रतिजानीहि नमे भक्तः प्रणश्यति (IX: 31)

Lord Krishna assures, "Even if a sinner worships Me with undivided devotion, he would be considered a saint, for he has the proper resolve.
Ere long he becomes righteous and attains peace everlasting. O Arjuna, know it for certain, that my devotee never perishes."