At 3 am, the phone rang. This was a few years ago. “Hi, how are you?” I was groggy and the male voice unfamiliar, unsure. I should have hung up. Instead, I said, “I don’t think I know you.”
There was a short pause
and then, “But I do. I am Lt. Commander X, and I want to talk with you.”
Why? Was this the time? I asked these questions, but I did not bang down the phone. I understood his emptiness.
He made me
listen to the sea, the ship bobbing on the water. He told me he was some
distance away from the shore and from the porthole all he could see was
darkness. He told me about his parents, his wife, his little son; he talked
about the naval exercises, about how he had fought for us in Kargil.
I did make attempts to cut
short the conversation after a while, but he said, “Look, I am going far from everything,
this line will be cut off any time, I felt I could talk with you, somehow I did
not think time and other factors would bother you, I could reach out….” I listened. After what seemed like a very long time, he said, “You have been so nice, I
have to confess something. It is true I am on a war-ship, but we are docked. If
I had told you the truth, would you have talked? I desperately needed to speak
with someone…”
I felt sad. A
friend told me later, “No ship went to Kargil, you are just
such a sucker.” I did not even think about Kargil then. Yes, this person should have been shooed away for the nuisance he probably was. People tell me that I waste time, waste energy, waste opportunities
and allow fragile and fickle moments to stay for too long.
There has been a good deal
of self-questioning. Some of those I went out of my way to reach out to because
they had reached out to me have let me down. But for a brief while at least I
had been able to comprehend their journey, always aware that our seas were
different. No one knows what is at the end of the shore. We can at best feel the saltiness of the water and experience unknown tides.
Storms aren't meant for anchors…
27 comments:
Hi FV, Sorry, but I admit to chuckling when I read it, and I know this is a serious post. But if the fellow fought in Kargil, he was in the Army and probably not part of the crew of a navy vessel. Lucky the person caught you at 3 AM (or maybe that was intentional) else I imagine if you had been more awake, you would have whipped out your claws and scratched his eyes out, metaphorically speaking. :-)
-Al
It's not difficult to envision a naval gunnery crew being detached to an army AO (officers need to punch their tickets somehow); even less difficult, a naval intelligence/communications detachment monitoring Pakistani command and control. In that it's not altogether clear whether Farzana had only just then became acquainted with the fellow, for some, surprise at his, "But I do [know you]," might be reason enough to "bang down the phone" in shock, anger or fear. Yet others might elect to stay on the line to see what he had to say for himself.
I'm surprised, AI, that, given what Farzana has thus far shared, you'd be so quick to dismiss the fellow's account. Is it possible you've done the same with religion? :)
Mark
"I'm surprised, AI, that, given what Farzana has thus far shared, you'd be so quick to dismiss the fellow's account. Is it possible you've done the same with religion? :)"
mstaab, I did not read the post carefully enough to note that FV already knew the person on the phone, so this was not a crank call as I figured earlier. But then the one thing I have learnt about humans across the board is that they lie all the time, even when you wouldn't think they would need to.
But on the religion front, I know that most tenets of religion can be figured out by any human if they considered the world from a standpoint of behavior driven by "enlightened" self-interest, to use a cliche.
This is expressed in some religions by the saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is just a way of achieving self-preservation of the individual and maximizing outcomes for the group.
This is easily seen if you consider that individuals harming one another leads to less than optimal realities for the individual and group. In short, religion is just a framework invented by ethical/smart leaders of tribes in the past who did not know game theory or had the skills to experimentally evaluate optimal behavior of the individual to maximize global outcomes, or at least that is what I have concluded from all of god's pithy quotes.
A more tractable example is the case of the multi-shot prisoners dilemma (this is a variation of the prisoner's dilemma game theoretical problem where the same players are involved in multiple prisoner's dilemma situations over time) essentially ends up training the participants to gravitate towards what would be called morally upright and ethical behavior in today's society. If humans were much smarter than they are now as a species, they would figure out optimal personal behavior by just focussing on their own self interest. Summarily, the answer to your second question is "no". :-)
-Al
Sorry FV if I am distracting from this post. Just had to respond to mstaab's taunt. :-)
thanks
-Al
"Some of those I went out of my way to reach out to because they had reached out to me have let me down. "
Hope you don't consider me one of those...
Meriam:
How could I? Why did the thought even cross your mind? And here I was thinking one day you'd visit India and we'd together sing a nice secular song for the last man standing, free and footloose :-)
Al, Mark...
I did not know him. He did. A reader. (Aww, now wasn't I quite something!) It isn't difficult from my 'personal' writings to figure out I would be a good listener.
Now, was he lying? No. At the end, he gave me his office control room number. It was the truth.
About Kargil, of course I know, but besides being groggy, his 'I'll be on my own, away from family' had all the ingredients of an emptiness I identified with.
It's all right to chuckle. My friend did. But, the last line is what it's about.
PS: Now you two, bring on the game theory!
FV "Storms aren't meant for anchors…"
Thanks for pointing out the last line -- that's brilliant you left unsaid the rest of the sentence "...even if anchors are meant for storms". I apologize to the anonymous soldier who called you...for doubting him, if he's reading this.
-Al
Hi Farzana,
>>Now you two, bring on the game theory!<<
I assume your invitation rhetorical, Farzana, in that you have handily settled the matter in reply. You are still quite something. :)
Even so, I wouldn't tangle with AI over game-theory as all I know about it might fit on the head of a pin. In such an instance, I am content to lurk, listen (read) and learn. For example, I don't think I quite appreciated game-theory's application toward behavioural modification on a global scale until AI mentioned it. While this also seems somewhat overly ambitious, it may well be that I am, as yet, missing some finer distinction.
>>"Storms aren't meant for anchors . . . even though anchors are meant for storms"<<
I too had pondered deeply upon the significance of "Storms aren't meant for anchors..." I considered that an anchor might refer to an object that affixes another object into place (a nail, screw or bolt; but, most obviously, given your context, a ship's anchor used to keep it from drifting with the tide/currents) -- I considered likewise how an anchor might refer to a *place* of anchorage or safe harbour where a ship might, as they say, "drop anchor," perhaps seeking refuge from a storm -- I also considered such least obvious, that certain vessels fare best *at sea* during a storm, oftentimes dropping what's referred to as a "storm anchor," not so much to affix the ship in a certain place, but lowered to such a depth whereby its weight/shape combined with the water's own drag at depth might serve as a sort of stabilizer. I had no idea -- none -- you were citing or paraphrasing a quote and significance known to folk better read than I, lol.
Might I trouble you for its provenance?
Mark
Hi, Al:
What rest of the sentence? I drew attention to the last line to emphasise the 'transitoriness' of even what might cause tumult.
The suggestion that anchors could help out in storms is a given. I still don't know what you implied.
Regarding the anonymous soldier, I don't know where he is. When I rewind, I recall that the conversation was mostly one-sided.
There would be every reason to doubt. Why that hour? Why me, a stranger? But, then, aren't we all? We even know each other's beliefs, and what time we are awake, based on when we post!
Hi, Mark:
Aha, thanks:-) The game theory was part rhetorical, part bait. Thought you and Al would take it further (recall an earlier discussion where both of you managed to render me redundant!).
Re "Storms aren't meant for anchors ...", this is not a quote or paraphrased (had it been so, it would be attributed), and the latter part of the 'sentence' you mentioned I haven't stated and wouldn't imply due to its sheer obviousness. (You took it from Al's comment, I reckon.)
Therefore, while all your definitions and ideas of anchor are true, the anchor in the context here is in apposition. I am merely suggesting, besides what I told Al, that the nature of a storm is not to 'dock'. The anchor becomes void in such a case.
This is quite different from the 'void' of the storm, or tides - the para preceding it used sea as metaphor - that are meant to be so. Boats need anchors.
The provenance of what I said is a feeling I believe in. If there is some other, do let me know...
I am at sea :-)
FV, mstaab,
I think the second part of the last sentence "...even though storms need anchors" was just actually a figment of my imagination...I thought that was what FV meant when she wrote "storms aren't meant for anchors..."....just goes to show that I creatively interpret FV's prose much like I seem to creatively interpret her poetry.
mstaab,
Sorry if I gave the impression that the quote was from actual literature -- I just completed FV's incomplete sentence in my head, so to put it simply "I just made that up" :-)
I will admit to have little to no knowledge of the "English literature classics"...I have read a bunch of random english literature over the years, unfortunately most of them in abridged form. I have read a lot more of modern prose by such weighty authors like Douglas Adams, Kurt Vonnegut, and Terry Pratchett...in short, my knowledge of classical literature could fit on the business end of a pin. :-)
Re: game theory in a larger social context, I have seen it at work in countries like Denmark where peer pressure (that is, the people around you, basically) has created a society where people actually cannot imagine not standing in line in a queue, and breaking the queue is considered equivalent to committing homicide, metaphorically speaking. On top of this, everyone is courteous and nice to each other to an extreme almost, and boorish behavior is curtailed by everyone out-booring the boor until the boor learns the right lessons.
This is similar to the multi-shot prisoner's dilemma, where a person does the most advantageous thing for himself or herself over time by learning that ratting on a fellow prisoner for one's benefit is not necessarily a winning strategy in the long term, especially if the fellow prisoner is liable to be involved with you in future interactions. So the typical way such an experiment usually progresses is that the participants betray each other initially and all of them collectively suffer the worst outcome of being thrown in prison -- after a few rounds of the prisoner's dilemma game, the participants learn to work with other participants in their own self-interest which may look like "trust" to an observer, but it is really self-interest at play.
I guess what I mean is that in the case of society like Denmark, social pressure against anti-social behavior ensures model behavior from the average person -- there are no spiritual guidelines or religious morals involved in engendering such behavior.
It seems to me that all of today's religions that originated in another time for another place and another mindset have been less than successful in engendering such behavior in people.
Not to mention that most humans themselves rarely ever think of shaping their reality in the long term, and short term thinking usually results in poor judgement or existential conundrums that require unethical behaviour for resolution of said conundrums. I will stop rambling now :-)
-Al
General note:
My intention is not to discredit anyone, but there is a threshold that ought not to be crossed. As I've already stated, one's personal musings have a context, and while others are free to interpret it, as has been done with abandon and dignity on this post itself, a judgement cannot be passed on me, my life.
I have deleted my earlier comment regarding this, but my position on the unpublished ones are clear. Using personal terminology is NOT an opinion.
"And here I was thinking one day you'd visit India and we'd together sing a nice secular song for the last man standing, free and footloose :-)"
*laughing* I like that thought a lot :)
"Why did the thought even cross your mind?"
I always expect the worst :)
Eh? Render *you* rendundant, Farzana? Hardly. As engaging as Al can be, it's never far from my mind that Cross-Connections is your . . . well, as it sometimes seems, "salon," perhaps? Thus, whatever I might offer by way of comment, and while not always exclusively so, is first and foremost meant for your amusement. You may recall I took your hiatus from the discussion then as indication you had other fish to fry (so to speak). :)
With respect to your trailing, "Storms aren't meant for anchors…," I was apparently unduly focused on the "anchor" part to the exclusion of the "storm". Succumbing thus to my own *mental* storm, as it were, I reckon I must then have seized upon Al's "completion" as a sort of life-line . . . blub blub blub . . . :)
>>The provenance of what I said is a feeling I believe in. If there is some other, do let me know...<<
My sense is that this feeling may describe yet another venue in which we are in sync.
M.
Al,
The thing where "English literature classics" are concerned, as with any other period of literature (English or otherwise), is a sufficient understanding of such idiosyncratic cultural/aesthetic affectations then extant (the Renaissance wearing of codpieces at court is one such example). Another is in what manner language -- individual word usage, expressions, syntax -- has changed since then. That said, such idiosyncratic affectations notwithstanding, I see folk generally as fundamentally the same in their variety of outlook, save for how geography, climature, population, diet and proximity to other cultures might peculiarly colour that variety ('maudlin' Russians, 'hot-blooded' Spaniards, 'demonstrative' Italians, 'diffident' French, to identify certain well-'known' stereotypes -- to which we might add 'exacting' Indians, lol). It then becomes quite reasonable to suppose (viz my codpiece example above) that certain manners/ways/attires are adopted not so much as an expression of individual dash and flair, but in the interests of a certain uniformity and protection -- that one does not stand out (or rock the royal boat of privilege, as it were) save as a member of a group. Of course, as has been suggested then and now, this makes the marital bed kinda crowded. :)
Perhaps you've read Azimov's "I, Robot" sci-fi detective series?
>>Re: game theory in a larger social context . . . .<<
Just so, Al, your analogies are helpful and quite clearly stated. I read something similar (Der Spiegel, I think) respecting the German stare or glare, used to enforce manners on public transportation. While I didn't get the impression that the offender would then be brought to heel by "everyone out-booring the boor," certainly for such a stare or glare to successfully communicate disapprobation, the offender must first receive that non-verbal communication in the manner in which it was intended. Second, as you note, the offender must thoroughly appreciate that it is in his/her self-interests to modify his/her behaviour, that the stare or glare, if not heeded, would be followed up with the inconvenience of more authoritative involvement (detainment, paperwork, phone calls, etc). The Danish method strikes me as being not dissimilar, provided their out-booring the boor proves in some manner likewise intolerable or inconvenient to him/her. Some, not getting the 'hint,' as it were, might see it as justification for their continuing "boorishness".
One cannot help but at least consider Farzana's 3AM phone call in this context -- not that I find her commentary intolerable or inconvenient, but that certain others may and might thus seek to hint in some quasi-official manner their stare or glare . . .
>>This is similar to the multi-shot prisoner's dilemma . . .<<
In terms of game-theory, I see the comparison, yes. Again, your analogies are quite helpful. And yet, perhaps you can see that the setting you describe is one of a closed system and one of very few options. I don't think there are many countries' governments or their citizenry that would like to think of their respective systems as quite so closed -- nor as quite so bereft of options.
M.
Ps. Any thoughts on how and why the sari came to extend to so many yards of fabric? Do they even wear saris in Chennai? :)
Hi mstaab,
"Any thoughts on how and why the sari came to extend to so many yards of fabric? Do they even wear saris in Chennai? :)"
I would think Farzana is more of an authority on sarees than I am for many reasons :-). But I do know that my dear departed grandmother used to wear 9-yard sarees during her days. These were referred to as "9 gajam" sarees in Tamil, where "gajam" is a yard in tamil.
These are extra-long compared to today's sarees...unfortunately never did ask her the logic behind 9 yards...was too busy asking her other questions and badgering her for stories :-)
-Al
Mstaab, FV, I agree with mark that game theoretic methods probably won't work in systems where there is weak law and order and poor law enforcement -- a uniformity in culture also probably helps to an extent. The reason why the people in Denmark and Germany can get away with boldly putting down boors in their place is that the other person is not likely to pull a knife and stick it in the ribs as a response....which is what will likely happen if I tried the same in Madras or Bangalore. A stare can be mistaken for many things not connected to game theory :-)
-Al
Mark:
Now that we've cleared the decks about where the phrase came from, perhaps unlike you concentrating on the anchor, I was on the storm. Would this allude to different ideas of 'survival'?!
Re my 'redundancy', it was said in jest. I do get a bit occupied and may not participate in the more delightful tangential discussions. It may also be that I am not fully equipped to do so.
After I have said my part, the 'salon' is open. (I can hear the grunts about restricted entry:-) ...)
---
Meriam:
I should hope you know that the reference in the original comment has no resemblance to any real person! Expecting the worst does ensure that one is never disappointed in most contexts.
Al, Mark:
Is it not a stereotype that a saree discussion has been transferred to me, as female territory, perhaps another form of 'stare'?!
But let me take a shot at it and use the 'prison' to my advantage and share the knowledge.
The nine-yard saree is common in Maharashtra too. The difference is that while it is used on a day-to-day basis by the working class as well se fisherfolk community here, in the South it is a high-caste or celebratory tradition.
It is interesting that the drape does not require any additional under clothes, such as a skirt petticoat and even a blouse. I read somewhere that it also has symbolic significance as ose bottom half is tucked in and resembles a dhoti. This, one is to understand, conveys the ardhanarishwar aspect of the male-female confluence in the human, the yin-yang, as it were.
For parity, the male dhoti for special occasions is elaborately pleated like a saree for the purpose above.
The women in Maharashtra seem to consider it more functional, although it is probably mandatory for brides to wear it to.
I'd have thought it would be used more extensively in cities where commuting to work makes the six yard saree cumbersome. But, then, the tucked in functionality also is a tight fit, and in urban crowded areas could be fixed with a 'stare', where to use Al's commentary it becomes difficult to out boor the boor. Although, fisherwomen are known to be a fiery lot.
Incidentally, if we see pictures of warrior women, they appear to be wearing the tucked saree.
So, give us a yard and you won't get an inch:-)
FV: "Is it not a stereotype that a saree discussion has been transferred to me, as female territory, perhaps another form of 'stare'?!"
FV, If I wore a saree as frequently as I wear a lungi or dhoti, which is not all that frequent, I would have expounded at length on the saree, truly. But then it turns out I was not mistaken in my gamble that you would know more on this top, as you have ably demonstrated even from the narrow confines of your "prison". :-)
One thing I know is that modern sarees are not 9 yards in length, which is why I mentioned that old-school sarees are 9 yards in length. I also know shorter sarees and sarees not made of cotton and of rough texture brought the skirt petticoat popular.
That scraping sound you hear is me desperately clawing the bottom of my bucket of knowledge on sarees.
-Al
Farzana, Al, Meriam,
Much as your "redundancy" was in jest, so too was my "might I trouble you" (troubled waters = storm). Thus, I wasn't really "unduly focused on the 'anchor' part" -- I was too busy high-tailing it out to sea. I would have made it too, but Al got in the way with his 9-yard lungi and swamped us both. :)
>>Would this allude to different ideas of 'survival'?!<<
Perhaps it depends?
>>It may also be that I am not fully equipped to do so.<<
I know where you can find an anchor, only slightly used. :)
Re: the saree. I was privileged as a youngster to watch it being donned once or twice by our live-in aya in New Delhi (there was an undergarment involved, I hasten to add, and the blouse was already in place). I recall it as quite the intricate process and being fascinated by the folding of the pleats. I also remember puzzling over the saree's length just as much as I puzzled over women's high-heeled shoes. Neither made much sense from an efficiency/comfort standpoint, lol, but I was quite young then (still am, actually; though perhaps a little wiser).
>>So, give us a yard and you won't get an inch:-)<<
I knew it! :)
started removing all my comments from your blog , I hope you would appreciate it!
Al:
Set forth and conquer! The newer sarees are about six yards. Incidentally, the one most people wear in cities has Bengali roots, although the traditional Bengali one is different. It is said that the women in Tagore's family 'designed' it to give it a a modernist touch. Gujaratis wear it differently, with the pallu in front. Years ago, the sister of a Catholic classmate wore it that way. Her response was delicious: "Why should I not enjoy the pallu and let others do so?!" Often the pallu has a thick border and is indeed more elaborate, sometimes with tassles.
Now, you can scratch your head and curse the moment when you brought this up.
This is my way of keeping people informed with trivia.
- - -
Rizwan:
To be honest, I just see it as something you have chosen to do.
mstaab, FV,
That was pretty slick how Mark started the topic on sarees I am now the villain! But I shall go forth and conquer, as FV suggests, and next time anyone mentions " so what about the Saree?" to me, they are going to severely regret asking me that question -- I don't see enough regret from Mark this time around. :)
-Al
Hi Mark, Al:
I see a conspiracy here, where the saree is a red herring :-)
Mark, your comment landed up in spam, therefore the late posting.
About anchors, I don't think a rocky boat would even consider an inexperienced anchor. Besides, just having to bear the brunt of tides should make it "slightly used"!
How wonderful that you were exposed to the saree at a young age. The fact that you noticed the intricacy of the pleats reveals that you might like layered readings.
Al, perhaps Mark thought that he'd see how you fare in the saree storm? That's his usual way of expressing deep appreciation :-) Not quite a villain, you.
Hi FV, mstaab, I was just kidding. No offense taken or intended. Sorry for the saree distraction...don't know why I have to try and answer every question that appears before me, must be some sort of compulsive behavior. :-)
cheers,
-Al
Post a Comment