No one had told me about Halloween. Nothing had prepared me for what I was about to see.

I boarded the bus one morning. The only other passenger had his face painted entirely white and was dressed in what, to my uninitiated eyes, looked like demonic clothing.

I sat through the journey with my heart in my throat, unsure what to expect from him.

Later, when I recounted the experience to some American students, they explained that it was Halloween. That explained the costume. But our conversation offered little explanation of why the festival existed or what its customs might mean.

Years later, through a series of classes on Navratri, the metaphors of demons and the significance of festivities around seasonal and agricultural transitions began to acquire greater meaning for me. I found myself returning, in thought, to that bus journey.

I had learned to recognise a celebration long before I began to understand the questions beneath it.

That gap resurfaced when I asked students in the classes I teach about their Halloween celebrations. None could explain why a festival such as Halloween had begun to take root in India. Their familiarity with the celebration had not prompted much inquiry into its origins, meanings, or journey into their own lives.

The encounter brought my experience at Penn State full circle. Back then, I did not recognise the costume. My students recognised the celebration, but the questions behind it remained largely unexplored.

Perhaps this is how festivals travel—and how we sometimes inherit our own: their visible forms become familiar while their meanings receive less attention.

Halloween’s connections with the Gaelic festival of Samhain place it at the end of the harvest season and the approach of winter. Its Christian associations bring remembrance, saints, and the departed into view. These histories offer opportunities to contemplate mortality, uncertainty, and our relationship with forces beyond our control.

Sharad Navratri also unfolds during an autumn transition, although its relationship with agricultural calendars varies across regions and crops. Its nine nights culminate in Vijayadashami on the tenth day.

The festivals have distinct histories and theological meanings. Their resemblance, as I see it, lies in the possibility of using a changing season to examine how we inhabit a changing world.

For farming communities, seasonal transitions make the relationship between present abundance and future need tangible. As an economist, I find here a connection with intertemporal consumption smoothing: allocating resources across time so that present enjoyment remains compatible with future well-being.

This is an economic lens I bring to the comparison. The underlying human difficulty is familiar: understanding the need for restraint does not necessarily give us the capacity to practise it.

The Durga Saptashati, or Devi Mahatmya, explores this difficulty with extraordinary subtlety.

Its opening introduces King Suratha and the merchant Samadhi. Both have suffered loss and betrayal, yet remain emotionally attached to what has caused them distress. They approach the sage Medhas seeking to understand why their minds remain captive even when they recognise their predicament.

How does what we know become reflected in how we live?

We understand that anger damages relationships, yet become angry. We recognise the costs of excess, yet indulge. We see the fragility of status, yet organise our lives around securing it.

The distance between understanding and conduct can be immense.

An inward reading of the Saptashati makes its battles especially compelling. Within an established tradition of symbolic interpretation, the demons represent tendencies we must confront within ourselves: inertia, craving, possessiveness, pride, and the ego’s determination to prevail.

Raktabija, whose spilled blood produces further adversaries, offers a particularly striking image. To me, he evokes the way an unchecked tendency reproduces itself. Resentment generates further resentment. Repeated indulgence strengthens the expectation of indulgence. An attempted solution can even nourish the difficulty it seeks to overcome.

The battle requires discernment about what keeps the adversary alive.

Here, Navratri’s elaborate rituals acquire philosophical depth. Across different traditions, fasting, recitation, worship, offerings, and sustained attention can bring questions about how to be into daily practice.

A fast can make our relationship with appetite observable. Recitation can reveal how readily attention wanders. An offering can invite us to examine possessiveness. Repeated practice can help cultivate an intuition for restraint that an abstract instruction alone may fail to produce.

These observances can make philosophy something one encounters through the body, attention, and devotion. Within this sacred framework, the Goddess also exceeds any simple metaphor for willpower. Grace and surrender challenge the ego’s conviction that it can accomplish transformation entirely through its own command.

In my conversations, with one memorable exception, I have rarely encountered celebrants of Halloween or Navratri who discuss these deeper perspectives. That reflects the limits of my encounters, rather than what others may privately understand. Nevertheless, it leaves me concerned about what we transmit.

The concern extends equally to festivals we borrow and those we call our own. Cultural familiarity does not automatically produce understanding.

Joy, costumes, dance, and community deserve their place. Alongside them, we need opportunities to ask what our celebrations invite us to notice and practise.

There is a real travesty in allowing occasions that can deepen self-understanding to become further opportunities to forget ourselves.

I think again of that passenger on the Penn State bus—and of my students in India. Across these encounters lies an educational responsibility: to encourage curiosity about the practices that enter our lives.

Let us give the next generation more than the names, dates, costumes, and procedures of our festivals. Let us help them encounter the questions carried within them, leaving room for interpretations that deepen with experience.

After the celebrations end, what changes in our relationship with appetite, anger, pride, and one another?

The deepest measure of a ritual may be the distance it helps us travel between what we understand and how we live.

#Halloween #Navratri #DurgaSaptashati #RitualsAndMeaning #SelfAwareness #IndianKnowledgeSystems #BehavioralEconomics

He chose the chair facing the room.

When Naina arrived, she moved the artificial tree.

“There,” she said. “Now we can see something.”

They had met three days earlier at a conference where a speaker had used the expression human flourishing seventeen times. Naina, sitting beside Rahul, had kept count on the programme. During questions, she had asked whether flourishing required permanent employment. Rahul had laughed before anyone else decided whether laughter was permissible.

Afterward, over tea served in cups too small for the biscuits, they had talked until a man began stacking chairs around them.

Inviting her to lunch had seemed the natural continuation.

Now she was taking off her sunglasses. A faint red mark crossed the bridge of her nose. She wore a blue kurta, silver earrings, and the impatient expression of somebody who had already forgiven the traffic but would appreciate an apology from it.

“You look exactly as you did on Thursday,” she said.

“Should I have changed?”

“No. Content. How do you manage it?”

He unfolded his napkin with a smile on his for the bluntness in the response.

“I’m a witness, mostly.”

“To what?”

“The unfolding of life.”

She waited, apparently expecting the rest of the answer.

“I don’t ask much of it,” he added.

A waiter appeared with water. Rahul thanked him, then watched him rearrange the glasses he had just placed.

“Most people aren’t especially nice,” Rahul said. “Once you stop expecting anything from them, things become easier. It’s like watching a film. Do you expect actors to do anything for you?”

Naina glanced at the waiter, who was still within hearing.

“Do you include yourself?”

“I’m the audience.”

“That’s a very good seat you’ve found.”

She worked as an independent editor, which meant that people sent her books they considered finished and became offended when she agreed to do the work. Rahul taught economics. Both were divorced; both had disclosed this at the conference with the briskness of travellers declaring something uninteresting at customs.

They ordered dal, fish, and two rotis.

“Manto would have enjoyed you,” she said.

Rahul knew the name. There was a story about a madman, a border, something terrible that happened because people had decided to become sensible.

“Toba Tek Singh,” she supplied.

“Yes.”

“Have you read it?”

“I know about it.”

“That’s how I know about differential equations.”

He laughed. She did not make him pay further for his ignorance, which he appreciated more than he would have admitted.

“What do you like about him?”

“He doesn’t tidy people up before letting us meet them.”

Outside, a motorcycle had stopped beside the dusty tree. A woman adjusted her dupatta before climbing onto the back.

“He notices cruelty,” Naina continued. “But also the detail that spoils your satisfaction in calling someone cruel.”

“Then we agree.”

“Do you write down what you see?”

“No.”

“Do you let it change your mind?”

“I haven’t ruled that out.”

“You said most people weren’t nice.”

“In my experience.”

“But your experience is still happening.”

The waiter brought a plate of sliced onions. She squeezed a lime over them, shielding the plate with her other hand. Rahul watched the small competence of the gesture.

He had liked her immediately at the conference. He liked her now. This made her questions feel less like questions and more like somebody trying handles in his house.

“My father used to tell a story about Premchand and Manto,” she said.

“Your father knew them?”

“My father knew everybody who was dead.”

She smiled for the first time since the water arrived.

“He taught Hindi in a government college. He could make a literary anecdote last longer than the period assigned to the writer.”

The story began in Lucknow, at the first conference of the Progressive Writers’ Association. Premchand had spoken about literature and the lives that respectable notions of beauty excluded. Afterward, in Naina’s telling, people surrounded him with the particular urgency of people who wanted to be remembered as having stood nearby.

At the edge of this gathering waited Manto.

“Young, difficult, already involved with films,” she said. “Although I may be moving the films forward. And I can’t promise he was in that room.”

“You’ve lost your principal witness.”

“I’m telling you what I imagine. You can object to the furniture.”

Manto had a cigarette he could not light because everybody worth offending was watching. Premchand noticed him.

“Come home,” the older writer said. “We’ll talk there.”

“Was Premchand living in Lucknow?”

“You’re making this very hard.”

“You said I could object to the furniture.”

“All right. Come to the house where I’m staying. Later, come to my home. Happy?”

He was, unexpectedly.

She moved the onions between them, establishing a second table inside the first.

In the house Naina supplied, there was a fan that turned without improving the temperature. Premchand sat near a window. Manto occupied the edge of a chair, ready to disagree before he knew the subject.

Someone brought tea.

“Who?” Rahul asked.

Naina looked at him.

“Someone who will have to wash the cups,” she said. “We should remember that.”

Manto complained that everybody wanted something from a story. Improvement. Instruction. A serviceable poor person. A woman whose suffering could be put to work.

“And you?” Premchand asked.

“I want to write what I see.”

“Then you must look carefully.”

“I do.”

“Especially when you think you’ve understood.”

Naina paused. The waiter was approaching with their food.

“That sounds suspiciously like you,” Rahul said.

“It’s my imaginary Premchand. He has my weaknesses.”

The fish arrived in a shallow steel dish. For a moment both attended to the transfer of hot plates, the practical negotiations by which strangers keep one another from being burned.

Then Naina continued.

Her Manto wanted to know what happened when two writers saw the same person differently.

“Let them,” her Premchand replied.

“One says he’s generous. The other says he’s a fraud.”

“Perhaps he lent one money and borrowed from the other.”

Rahul laughed.

“The reader gets both stories,” Naina said. “Then goes home to a husband, or a neighbour, or a brother asking for a loan. With a little more experience than the reader actually lived.”

“So literature is preparation?”

“Sometimes it’s company. Sometimes it makes your old experience available to you for the first time.”

“And sometimes a fraud is simply a fraud.”

“Yes,” she said. “We need that story too.”

He served her fish. She thanked him.

For several minutes they ate without contest. Rahul described a student who had asked whether opportunity cost applied to opportunities one’s parents had forbidden. Naina told him about a novelist who wanted a character to be poor but objected to every inconvenience poverty introduced into the plot.

He liked her laugh. It began quietly, as though she were trying it out, then escaped her.

“You see?” he said. “This is what I mean by witnessing. Paying attention. Being here without insisting the world become something else.”

“That sounds lovely.”

“You don’t believe me.”

“I believe you’re enjoying lunch.”

“And that’s insufficient?”

“No. But I’m not sure you were here when you said most people weren’t nice. You sounded as if you’d already left.”

He put down his fork.

“My happiness bothers you?”

“Your explanation interests me.”

“You seem determined to improve it.”

“I’m trying to find you inside it.”

The words pleased him. Their pleasure irritated him further.

“There’s nothing inauthentic about being content.”

“I didn’t say there was.”

“You implied my smile was false.”

“I wondered whether it protected you.”

“From what?”

“Having to want something you might not get.”

He felt the room contract. He could hear the air conditioner, a spoon tapping glass, someone at the next table discussing a discount.

“Who gave you permission to analyse me?”

She sat back.

“Nobody.”

“Then perhaps don’t.”

“All right.”

Her compliance was immediate. He discovered he had expected resistance.

For almost ten minutes, they said nothing.

The waiter approached with the roti basket, assessed the situation, and withdrew. Naina ate the last of her fish carefully, separating bones with her fork. Rahul became interested in a wet crescent beneath his glass.

He had spent years learning not to be dragged through life by every feeling. During his marriage, an unanswered message could ruin an afternoon. A change in tone could reorganise a weekend. When that marriage ended, peace had arrived so gradually that he first mistook it for exhaustion.

He did not want to surrender it merely because an attractive woman found it philosophically inadequate.

He also knew that he had enjoyed describing himself as a witness. The word had dressed him well.

Naina folded her napkin.

“I hadn’t expected lunch to become quite so intense.”

“Neither had I.”

She looked at him, and something shifted in her expression.

“I wonder where all that intensity would have gone if we hadn’t spent it on the table.”

He understood. His body understood before he decided what to say.

Instead, he stood.

“I’ll be back.”

At the counter, he paid the bill.

He knew she would object. He had gone to the counter precisely because he knew. In his family, a man inviting a woman to lunch paid, and his body still obeyed this rule more quickly than his mind could examine it.

When he returned, she was looking at the empty bill tray.

“You paid.”

“I invited you.”

“I noticed.”

“I didn’t want another argument,” he said.

“So you settled it while I was sitting here.”

“It’s lunch, Naina.”

“Yes. That should have made asking easy.”

He sat down again.

She was angry now, openly enough that he preferred it to the silence.

“Think of a young man who wants to ask somebody out and can’t afford two meals,” she said. “He postpones it. Then postpones it again. Everybody says men should initiate, men should pay, men should provide. Then we wonder why every small encounter arrives carrying a family budget.”

“We could have had tea.”

“They could have tea. Sit in a park. Walk somewhere. But look at the places we’ve made for them.”

Through the window, the motorcycle couple were gone. A security guard was telling a delivery rider to move.

“No benches,” she said. “No privacy unless you buy it. People watching. People photographing. Then we ask why our cities feel so loveless.”

“You’ve made my paying for fish responsible for urban planning.”

That surprised a laugh out of her.

“Not solely.”

He took out his phone.

“Half?”

“Half.”

She transferred the money. The notification arrived with a small, cheerful sound entirely unsuited to its importance.

For the first time that afternoon, he felt something loosen without feeling that he had won.

Outside, the heat had begun to retreat from the pavement. They stood beneath the real tree.

“My place is ten minutes away,” Rahul said. “I have coffee.”

Naina looked at him long enough to make him hear the invitation himself.

“Coffee,” he repeated, and immediately wished he hadn’t.

“I know what coffee is.”

At his flat, she examined the bookshelves. There were economics books, philosophy, three novels still bearing airport stickers.

“You really haven’t read Manto.”

“I confessed under questioning.”

She pulled out a book on consciousness.

“Is this where you learned to be a witness?”

“Among other places.”

“Was it difficult?”

The question had lost its prosecuting edge.

“Yes,” he said.

She returned the book carefully.

While he made coffee, she stood beside the balcony door. Below, a boy was teaching a younger child to ride a bicycle. He held the seat, released it, then ran after her with his arms still extended.

Naina had taken off her earrings. They lay beside his keys.

When he handed her the cup, she touched his wrist.

Neither spoke.

He put his cup down first.

She came toward him, and he held her. The contact was uncomplicated for perhaps three seconds. Then it became full of everything they had said, everything they had withheld, and the astonishing fact that another person had a temperature.

She turned her face toward his.

He drew back a little.

“What?” she asked.

“I’d like to go slowly.”

She nodded.

He kept holding her.

Later she sat on the rug, leaning against the sofa, while he pressed his thumbs into the tight muscles above her shoulder blades. He had asked first. Her kurta remained buttoned; his shirt was still tucked in with the slightly ridiculous neatness of a man who had come home from lunch and not yet admitted the afternoon had changed.

“Here?”

“A little left.”

He moved his hand.

“Yes.”

There was trust in the instruction, and he felt grateful for its precision.

After a while she turned and put her palm against his cheek.

“I want to kiss you.”

“I know.”

“That isn’t an answer.”

He lowered his eyes.

“I don’t want to go further today.”

“All right.”

She moved back. He felt her effort to make the movement ordinary.

“It isn’t that I don’t find you attractive.”

“You don’t have to repair it.”

“I want you to know a man can be with you without expecting—”

He stopped.

“What?”

“Without everything becoming primal.”

She looked toward the balcony.

“Mine has become fairly primal.”

“I didn’t mean—”

“I know. But don’t make your restraint the civilised person in the room.”

The sentence reached him more gently than her questions at lunch, and cut deeper.

He sat beside her on the rug.

“I’m trying to be honest.”

“So am I.”

She told him then about an afternoon years earlier when a man had mistaken her coming upstairs for an agreement she had never made. Nothing happened, she said, then corrected herself: an exhausting conversation happened. She had spent an hour making her refusal pleasant enough for him to accept.

Rahul listened without touching her.

“So I’m glad you can say no,” she said. “I mean that.”

He nodded.

“But being held doesn’t settle me. It makes me want more. The massage makes me want more. I’m sitting here trying to respect your boundary while wishing your hands would stop being so considerate.”

He almost smiled. She caught it.

“You may laugh. It is a little funny.”

He laughed, and she did too, briefly.

Then she stood and retrieved her earrings.

“We can meet outside,” he said.

“Perhaps.”

“I’d like to see you again.”

“I won’t come here again.”

He looked at the cups, the indentation her shoulder had left in the sofa cushion.

“Because I said no?”

“Because I heard you.”

She put in one earring, then the other.

“I’m not going to keep arranging an afternoon I find difficult and call it friendship just because we both approve of friendship.”

“I could simply not touch you.”

“Today you asked me not to explain your feelings to you.”

He remembered.

At the door, they embraced briefly. This time she ended it.

That evening he opened their conversation on his phone several times without writing.

He wanted to say that she had misunderstood. He could not decide which part.

He wanted to explain that his restraint had contained tenderness, uncertainty, desire, and a fear of finding himself responsible for hopes he had not yet examined. It had also contained the wish to be recognised as an unusual man. He disliked that ingredient, but removing it would falsify the mixture.

At nine, he sent: I’m sorry I spoke sharply at lunch.

She replied twenty minutes later.

I pushed too hard. Your happiness isn’t something you owe me a defence of.

Then:

Your generalisations remain terrible.

He laughed alone in the kitchen.

The following morning she sent the title of a Manto collection.

Start anywhere. Don’t look for yourself too efficiently.

For a week he expected another message. Twice he proposed meeting. Once she was working; once she said she would rather leave things for a while.

He did not ask whether a while meant something measurable.

The quiet in his flat was the same quiet he had valued before lunch. He noticed that its value fluctuated.

He began writing on a Sunday.

At first he called Naina “a woman who could not tolerate his peace.” Reading the sentence, he heard how neatly it acquitted him.

He deleted it.

Then he wrote that she had mistaken tenderness for an invitation. That was worse. She had asked. He had answered. She had listened.

He tried the scene at the restaurant. The artificial tree. The onions. Her hand shielding the plate from lime juice.

Those details stayed.

When he reached the bill, he wrote that he had paid to avoid embarrassing her. He stared at the sentence for a long time before changing her to himself.

He could not write what she had felt at his door. He could write that she had struggled with the clasp of her bag, and that he had wanted to help but had kept his hands at his sides.

Outside, the child on the bicycle was riding alone now. The boy ran behind her anyway.

Rahul watched them until they disappeared beneath his balcony.

Then he returned to the table and wrote the part in which Naina moved the tree.

He had forgotten, until that moment, that she had moved it so they could both see.

I. The Day Language Betrayed Its Masters

In the version of the afternoon that Ananya liked to imagine, Eubulides of Miletus was smiling when he destroyed the world.

Not the physical world. The olive trees continued to stand in the Mediterranean sunlight. Merchants continued to haggle over their merchandise. Children continued to quarrel, and old women continued to complain about the children. Even the gods, who had acquired a considerable reputation for interfering in human affairs, appeared undisturbed.

What Eubulides had destroyed was something more delicate: the confidence of intelligent men that language, properly disciplined, could lead them to truth.

It was the fourth century before the Common Era, and somewhere in the Greek intellectual world, the philosopher associated with the Megarian school had introduced a remarkably economical instrument of destruction.

It required only four words:

This sentence is false.

Imagine the distinguished men assembled around him. They had been trained to reason, distinguish, classify, and argue. They believed that although human beings might disagree about what was true, the disciplined application of reason could eventually separate truth from falsehood.

Eubulides asked them to decide whether his sentence was true.

One philosopher, impatient with what appeared to be a schoolboy’s trick, declared it false.

“Very well,” said Eubulides. “If the sentence is false, then what it says must be false. But it says that it is false. Therefore, it must be true.”

The philosopher frowned.

“Then it is true.”

“In that case,” Eubulides replied, “what it says must be true. And what it says is that it is false.”

Silence followed.

Someone suggested that the sentence was neither true nor false. Someone else wondered whether its apparent meaning concealed a grammatical deception. A third proposed that any sentence referring to itself in this fashion ought to be banished from respectable philosophical discourse.

But the sentence remained.

It was as though language had suddenly developed a mouth and begun swallowing its own tail.

The trouble was not that the philosophers had encountered a particularly difficult question. Difficult questions were their business. The trouble was that the machinery with which they ordinarily answered questions seemed to manufacture a contradiction.

Truth produced falsehood.

Falsehood produced truth.

Neither could be maintained without surrendering to the other.

And the most disturbing discovery was that the contradiction appeared to arise not from defective observation, unreliable memory, or inadequate evidence, but from reasoning itself.

Ananya imagined the older philosophers returning home that evening with a peculiar embarrassment.

One of them might have looked at his wife and wondered whether he had ever understood what she meant by I love you.

Another might have opened a book and found himself staring suspiciously at the sentences.

A third, who had devoted his life to teaching young men how to reason, might have wondered whether he had been training them to navigate a ship that contained, somewhere in its hull, an opening into an infinite abyss.

There is no historical record of such collective despondency. Ananya knew this. But she found the imagined scene psychologically plausible.

For what could be more unsettling to a philosopher than discovering that the instrument he trusted most had turned against him?

She had written in the margin of her notebook:

The liar’s paradox was not merely a logical difficulty. It was an epistemic catastrophe waiting to happen.

Then she crossed out catastrophe and substituted black hole.

The sentence seemed to attract every attempt to escape it, only to swallow the attempt as well.

And there was something particularly cruel about its simplicity.

One did not need to be wise to understand it.

One needed only to be wise enough to recognize how little one understood.

II. The Long Life of an Impossible Sentence

Ananya was twenty-four and studying philosophy, although her father preferred to tell relatives that she was preparing for the civil services.

She had developed a habit of falling in love with questions that promised no employment.

The liar’s paradox was her latest attachment.

Its history fascinated her almost as much as the puzzle itself.

A version of the problem had been associated with Epimenides of Crete, who was reputed to have declared that Cretans were liars. Strictly speaking, this was not necessarily the same paradox. A Cretan could make a false generalization about Cretans without creating the inescapable contradiction of the sentence that explicitly declared itself false.

But Eubulides’ sharper formulation could not so easily be dismissed.

The Stoic Chrysippus would later wrestle with the problem. Ancient writers continued discussing it. Medieval European logicians gave such puzzles a name, insolubilia, the insolubles. Jean Buridan and others tried to discover what made sentences of this kind so dangerous.

Centuries passed, empires rose and disappeared, religions spread, languages changed, and the sentence refused to die.

In the twentieth century, Alfred Tarski proposed an ingenious discipline for truth. A language describing the world should not be allowed unrestricted authority to pronounce upon the truth of its own sentences. Such judgments could be made from a properly distinguished metalanguage.

It was an extraordinarily sophisticated way of saying that a speaker sometimes needed to step outside the language being examined.

Later, Saul Kripke would explore another possibility: certain self-referential sentences might simply fail to acquire a definite truth value.

Other philosophers entertained the possibility that some contradictions could be true without making every proposition true.

There was no universally accepted resolution.

The sentence survived them all.

Ananya had begun to suspect that its significance lay beyond logic.

For centuries, philosophers had asked what was wrong with the sentence.

But perhaps another question deserved attention.

What is it about the human relationship with language that makes such a sentence so terrifying?

One afternoon, her supervisor, Professor Raman, found her staring at those words.

“You seem unhappy,” he observed.

“I am beginning to doubt whether language can ever bring us to truth.”

“That is rather a large conclusion from four words.”

“If a sentence can defeat our distinction between truth and falsehood, how do we know what else language is concealing?”

Raman pulled up a chair.

“Does a defective mirror mean there is no face?”

“No.”

“Then perhaps you should investigate the face rather than spending your entire life polishing the mirror.”

“What is the face?”

“That,” Raman replied, “is a much more interesting question.”

He rose to leave, then turned around.

“Have you ever encountered the two birds of the Ṛgveda?”

She shook her head.

“Look for them. They have been sitting on their tree for a very long time.”

III. Two Birds on the Same Tree

The verse came from the Ṛgveda, 1.164.20, and appeared again in the Muṇḍaka and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣads.

It described two birds, intimate companions, resting upon the same tree.

One ate its sweet fruit.

The other did not eat.

It merely watched.

Ananya read the verse several times.

Dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā...

द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते।

तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति॥

Two beautiful birds, companions and friends, embrace the same tree. One tastes the sweet fruit; the other, without eating, looks on.

She found the image irritatingly beautiful.

But what did it have to do with the liar’s paradox?

At first, very little.

One bird ate. The other watched. Neither bird said anything, much less anything false.

Yet as she read the next verse in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, a subtle transformation began.

The bird immersed in the tree was bewildered and sorrowful. But when it recognized the greatness of its companion, its sorrow disappeared.

Traditional interpretations identified the eating bird with the embodied, experiencing self, the jīva, caught in pleasure and pain, desire and disappointment, action and consequence.

The other bird represented the witnessing Self, ātman, or the supreme Self, paramātman, depending on the philosophical tradition.

One experienced.

The other witnessed experience.

The distinction disturbed Ananya.

She had spent years trying to understand consciousness as something arising from the activities of the mind. Here was an ancient image asking her to consider whether the awareness of those activities could be understood differently from the activities themselves.

The bird that ate knew sweetness.

The bird that watched knew the eating.

And the same tree accommodated both.

That evening she called Raman.

“I think I understand what you wanted me to see.”

“Tell me.”

“One bird is involved in the world. It acts, experiences, desires, suffers. The other observes without becoming entangled in the experience.”

“Yes.”

“But I still don’t see how this resolves the liar’s paradox.”

“It doesn’t,” Raman said.

She was disappointed.

“Not by itself. You were hoping for a logical solution. The birds offer an ontological distinction. They ask what sort of being is doing the speaking, knowing, acting, or witnessing.”

“But the liar’s paradox concerns a sentence, not a person.”

“Precisely. Now ask yourself whether every problem created by treating language as self-sufficient can be understood solely by looking at language.”

She remained silent.

“There’s another story you should hear,” he said. “It involves Krishna, some very intelligent women, a hungry sage, and the Yamuna.”

IV. The River That Was Asked to Judge the Truth

The Gopīs had been laughing all morning.

There was a special kind of laughter in Krishna’s company, one that frequently began in delight and ended in exasperation.

The young cowherd was forever inventing new ways to confuse people.

He stole butter and then persuaded its owners that their butter was fortunate to have been stolen. He rearranged the ordinary meanings of things until those who had intended to scold him found themselves laughing instead.

Nobody in Vraja was entirely confident about what Krishna might say next.

And this was especially true of the Gopīs.

One afternoon, word arrived that the sage Durvāsā was meditating on the far bank of the Yamuna.

Krishna listened and said, “You should take him something to eat. He will be hungry when he comes out of his meditation.”

The women agreed immediately.

They prepared sweet rice, fresh butter, milk, vegetables, and delicacies fragrant with ghee.

But when they reached the riverbank, they discovered that the Yamuna had risen beyond its ordinary boundaries.

Recent rains had swollen the river. The current was fierce, the water dark, and the familiar crossing had disappeared.

They returned to Krishna.

“We cannot cross,” said Lalitā.

“Why not?”

“The Yamuna is in flood.”

Krishna seemed surprised.

“Then ask her to let you pass.”

The Gopīs looked at one another.

“Ask the river?”

“Yes.”

“And what exactly are we supposed to tell her?”

Krishna smiled.

“Tell her that if Krishna has never spoken a falsehood, she must make way for you.”

For several moments nobody spoke.

Then the women began laughing.

Lalitā laughed so hard that she almost dropped the vessel of sweet rice.

“Krishna! Have you forgotten who you are?”

“No.”

“Have you forgotten who we are?”

“Certainly not.”

“Then how can you ask us to make such a declaration? You deceive us every day!”

“Do I?”

“You hide our belongings. You invent excuses. You pretend not to know things you know perfectly well. You say one thing and do another.”

“And?”

“And if we tell Yamuna that you have never spoken a falsehood, she will swallow us.”

Krishna listened patiently.

Then he repeated his instruction.

The laughter subsided.

They knew that curious look. Krishna was not merely teasing them now.

At last, carrying their vessels of food, they returned to the river.

The water rushed past like an enormous argument.

Lalitā stepped forward.

“O Yamuna,” she said, “if Krishna has never spoken a falsehood, make way for us.”

For one terrible instant, nothing happened.

Then the water began to withdraw.

A path appeared between the currents.

The Gopīs stared.

Even Lalitā, who was rarely short of opinions, found herself without one.

They crossed.

On the far bank they found Durvāsā seated beneath a tree.

The sage had emerged from meditation.

He welcomed them warmly and accepted their offerings.

He ate the sweet rice. He ate the vegetables. He ate the butter and drank the milk. He consumed so much food that one Gopī wondered whether the sage had spent his entire meditation anticipating lunch.

When he finished, he blessed them.

The women gathered their empty vessels and prepared to return.

Then they remembered the river.

“Revered sage,” Lalitā said, “the Yamuna is flooded. How shall we cross?”

Durvāsā regarded her with apparent surprise.

“Ask her to make way.”

The women exchanged glances.

They had heard this advice before.

“What should we say?”

“Tell her that if Durvāsā has never eaten anything, she should allow you to pass.”

A silence fell.

It was longer than the previous silence.

Finally, Lalitā spoke.

“Revered one, perhaps you have forgotten what has happened here.”

“What has happened?”

“You have eaten.”

“Yes.”

“All the food we brought.”

“Yes.”

“Every last morsel.”

“Indeed. It was excellent.”

“And now you want us to tell the Yamuna that you have never eaten anything?”

“Yes.”

Lalitā looked toward the heavens.

“First Krishna. Now his sage. Is there anyone in this country who understands the meaning of words?”

Durvāsā laughed.

“Go,” he said. “The river will understand.”

The women returned to the riverbank, more confused than before.

They had crossed once by declaring something apparently false.

Now they were being asked to cross by declaring something they had personally witnessed to be false.

Lalitā addressed the Yamuna.

“O river, if Durvāsā has never eaten anything, let us pass.”

The waters parted.

The Gopīs walked through.

When they reached Krishna, they were not laughing.

V. The Meaning of Eating

“Explain yourself,” Lalitā demanded.

Krishna looked up from his flute.

“About what?”

“About everything.”

“That may take some time.”

“You told us to say that you had never spoken a falsehood. Yet we know how often you deceive us. The Yamuna parted.”

“Yes.”

“Durvāsā told us to say that he had never eaten. Yet we watched him eat. Again the Yamuna parted.”

“Yes.”

“Then either the river cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, or you and Durvāsā cannot, or we cannot.”

Krishna smiled.

“Perhaps you are very close to discovering something.”

“Discovering what?”

“Tell me, Lalitā. When Durvāsā ate the food, what did you see?”

“His hands taking the food. His mouth chewing. His stomach receiving it.”

“And what else?”

“What else is there?”

“Who knew that he was eating?”

“We did.”

“And Durvāsā?”

“He knew too, presumably.”

“What in him knew?”

Lalitā frowned.

“His mind.”

“And what knows the movements of the mind?”

She had no answer.

Krishna continued.

“The body eats. The senses experience taste. The mind recognizes pleasure. But the sages ask whether the deepest Self is identical with those changing activities.”

“Then Durvāsā did not eat?”

“His body certainly ate. He would have been a poor guest otherwise.”

The women laughed despite themselves.

“But the sage does not understand himself merely as that body. He knows himself as the witnessing consciousness, which is not nourished by food and is not diminished by hunger.”

“And your falsehoods?”

Krishna became quiet.

“The same question arises. Who is acting? Who is speaking? And what do we mean when we name the Self?”

He pointed toward a tree.

Two birds sat among its branches.

One was pecking at a ripe fig.

The other remained motionless.

“Look,” he said.

The women watched.

“The eater is not the witness. Yet both are present upon the same tree.”

Lalitā considered this.

“Then are you saying that whenever someone lies, he can declare that his deepest Self has never lied?”

“No,” Krishna answered immediately. “That would be another falsehood used to excuse the first.”

His expression had grown serious.

“Actions have consequences. Words can wound. A person cannot escape responsibility by borrowing the language of liberation.”

“Then what are you teaching us?”

“That the question Who am I? cannot always be answered by listing everything this body has done. And that the same words may conceal different understandings of the being to whom they refer.”

He waited.

“The river did not ask you to abandon reason. It asked you to discover whether you understood what your words were pointing toward.”

The women sat quietly.

For the first time that afternoon, the Yamuna seemed less mysterious than the person speaking to them.

VI. The Second Reading

Ananya finished Raman’s account just after midnight.

She had found several versions of the tale.

In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad, the challenge was framed somewhat differently. Krishna was described as a brahmacārī, despite his intimate association with the Gopīs. Durvāsā was represented as one who ate only dūrvā grass, despite the feast he had just consumed.

In popular retellings, the two claims sometimes became broader: Krishna had never lied; Durvāsā had never eaten.

The differences mattered.

But what intrigued Ananya was the pattern common to the versions.

An apparently impossible statement became intelligible through a distinction between outward action and the nature of the Self.

She carried her notes to Raman the next morning.

“I think the story offers an answer to the liar’s paradox.”

“Does it?”

“Perhaps the paradox exists because we fail to distinguish the different levels from which something can be asserted. Like Durvāsā’s claim that he has not eaten. At the level of the body, it is false. At the level of the witnessing Self, it expresses another kind of truth.”

“Good. But there is a danger.”

“What danger?”

“You must not confuse an ontological insight with a formal logical proof.”

He took out a sheet of paper.

“Consider Durvāsā. If by Durvāsā we mean the embodied sage, and by eating we mean the physical ingestion of food, then he ate. We must say so. We cannot preserve truth by changing the meaning of a statement halfway through an argument without acknowledging the change.”

Ananya nodded.

“But if the sage is speaking from a carefully specified understanding of the Self as distinct from bodily activity, he may be making a different claim altogether.”

“Exactly.”

“Then the apparent contradiction dissolves because the two claims do not concern the same thing in the same respect.”

“Yes. But now return to the liar’s paradox.”

He wrote:

This sentence is false.

“Where is the witnessing Self in this sentence?”

Ananya stared.

“There isn’t one.”

“Precisely. The sentence refers to its own truth status. Distinguishing the witness from the embodied actor does not, by itself, assign this sentence a consistent truth value.”

“So Krishna has not solved the liar’s paradox?”

“Not in the technical sense. Tarski’s hierarchy and Kripke’s truth-value gaps are attempts to do that work. Even they face difficulties. The problem remains an active subject of philosophy.”

“Then why did you send me to the two birds?”

“Because you were asking two questions and mistaking them for one.”

He pointed to her notebook.

“The first was: How can we construct a coherent language of truth that does not collapse under unrestricted self-reference?”

“And the second?”

“Whether the limitations of language imply that reality itself is incoherent.”

Ananya thought about this.

“The paradox threatens our confidence in what we can say.”

“Yes.”

“But it does not establish that what exists is contradictory.”

“No.”

“And the two birds suggest that there may be dimensions of experience, especially the relation between awareness and its objects, that cannot be exhausted by treating every statement as though it occupied the same level.”

Raman smiled.

“Now you are beginning to ask a more difficult question.”

“Which is?”

“Whether knowing the truth is the same thing as knowing what it means to be a knower.”

VII. The Black Hole and the Witness

That evening Ananya went to the Yamuna.

The river was not flooded.

Plastic bags had collected against a stone embankment. A stray dog was sleeping beneath a discarded advertisement. Across the water, a construction crane moved slowly over an unfinished building.

There was nothing particularly metaphysical about the scene.

A man was washing utensils at the water’s edge.

Two boys were arguing over a cricket ball.

An elderly woman was feeding small pieces of bread to the fish.

Ananya sat beneath a peepal tree.

She had brought the notebook in which she had written epistemic black hole.

She opened it and read the sentence again.

This sentence is false.

It had lost none of its power.

If true, false.

If false, true.

The logical problem remained, as irritating and beautiful as ever.

But something about her relationship to it had changed.

She had once imagined the ancient Greeks as men who had discovered an abyss beneath language. She still thought the image appropriate. Their intellectual descendants had spent more than two thousand years constructing bridges across that abyss, and no bridge had commanded universal acceptance.

Yet she now saw another possibility.

Perhaps the terror came partly from demanding too much of language.

Language was extraordinarily powerful. It allowed human beings to describe absent things, reconstruct the past, anticipate the future, imagine alternative worlds, establish laws, prove theorems, and communicate across generations.

It had enabled Eubulides to formulate a paradox that could trouble a student more than two millennia later.

But perhaps language was not entitled to the last word about everything it made possible.

The two Vedic birds returned to her.

One ate the fruit.

The other watched.

She wondered whether the eating bird might be compared to the mind as it operated through distinctions: true and false, pleasure and pain, success and failure, self and other.

The watching bird suggested a different question, one that did not begin by examining another proposition but by turning attention toward the fact of awareness itself.

This was not a discovery that rendered logic unnecessary.

Quite the opposite.

Logic remained indispensable wherever human beings made claims about the world. Rivers did not part for contradictory propositions in ordinary life, and no government, scientist, or parent could responsibly excuse a false statement by announcing that it had been uttered from a higher plane of consciousness.

The distinction between truth and falsehood was not something wisdom abolished.

It was something wisdom learned to use without imagining that it exhausted reality.

Ananya thought again of Krishna.

What had seemed like a sleight of hand now looked like an unusually sophisticated piece of storytelling.

The Gopīs had demanded that language obey the meanings supplied by immediate experience.

Krishna and Durvāsā had invited them to reconsider what they meant by the person who experienced.

The trick did not make a contradictory proposition logically consistent.

It changed the question.

And perhaps that was the point.

The liar’s paradox had shown that unrestricted self-reference could entangle language in an endless oscillation.

The two birds suggested that the self-referential habits of the human mind need not exhaust the nature of awareness.

One was a problem in semantics.

The other was an invitation to investigate being.

They were not the same problem, but their juxtaposition revealed something Ananya had missed.

The discovery of a limit need not be the discovery of a prison.

She looked toward the river.

For a moment, she imagined the Gopīs standing where she sat, carrying their empty vessels, furious with two men who appeared to have made nonsense of truth.

And she imagined Lalitā, who had been more courageous than the others in questioning Krishna, demanding one final clarification.

“Tell me, Krishna, if the witness does not eat and does not lie, what does it do?”

And Krishna, instead of answering, might have pointed toward the woman asking the question.

Lalitā would have been irritated.

She would have accused him of another evasion.

But perhaps, somewhere between her anger and her awareness of being angry, she would have encountered what his explanation could only point toward.

Not another word.

Not another proposition.

Not a solution that could be written on a slate.

Something that made the asking of questions possible in the first place.

Ananya closed her notebook.

The river flowed on.

She did not ask it to part.

She had discovered something more useful than a miracle: she could live with a question without demanding that the question surrender immediately to an answer.

She was beginning to understand why the ancient sages had chosen two birds rather than a thousand propositions.

The bird that ate the fruit had not been wrong to eat.

The bird that watched had not been superior merely because it abstained.

Both belonged to the same tree.

The mistake would be to imagine that the eater was all there was.

And perhaps the corresponding mistake of philosophers was to imagine that the failure of a sentence to settle its own truth meant the failure of reality to possess any truth at all.

She remembered something Raman had said.

“A black hole marks a limit to what can escape from it. It does not establish that the universe ends there.”

The liar’s paradox was still a black hole in the landscape of language.

But there were other ways of exploring the landscape.

The Greeks had taught her to question the sentence.

The Vedic seers had taught her to question the questioner.

And Krishna, that most troublesome of teachers, had offered a third lesson: sometimes the most difficult river to cross is the one between what we experience and what we think we are.

As the sun disappeared behind the unfinished buildings, Ananya wrote a final sentence:

Perhaps the most important discovery made possible by language is the discovery that language is not the whole of reality.

Then she hesitated.

She read it once more.

Could she prove it?

Not yet.

She smiled.

For the first time, that did not trouble her.

Somewhere above her, hidden among the leaves of the peepal tree, a bird began to sing.

Another remained silent.

Neither needed the other to stop.

Write your own name, your team number, and your group name (A or B) to identify your notebook, and then use the syllabi for the two courses to work on the listed individual and team-based activities.

Surati and Heather had been sent to collect the notebooks for their teams.

It should have taken three minutes. Professor Sihag’s office, however, had an unfortunate tendency to turn errands into conversations. Some wondered if that exactly was the purpose!

It was not a particularly impressive office. There was a desk large enough to carry the weight of his position, though the Professor himself was quite indifferent to these differentiating accoutrements. Books placed on the top of the cabinets as bookshelves were not provided in the offices, and the process of getting them was so circuitous that it betrayed the priority of the private universities in India. The French window behind Professor’s chair was lined with a creeper plant with violet color leaves and many succulents. The white board was filled with mathematics written in Greek letters. A framed print of the “Maheshwar Sutrani”--a set of 16 sutras to understand the mysteries of the universe and yet it was rare to find Indians, inescapably caught up in the cauldron of the politics engendered by caste, class, and religion, aware of the power of these sutras--was there near the white board.

The creeper had claimed one corner of the room and was steadily making its way toward the ceiling, winding itself around a दण्ड (daṇḍa)—a stick planted there for the express purpose of disappearing beneath its foliage—and then along a wire, with the quiet confidence of something that had never attended a faculty meetings in India, often populated by people who had spent years cultivating ambitions for power by devoting inordinate number of years for the preparation of UPSC, only to find themselves entrusted with a responsibility whose first prerequisite was precisely what their ambitions had taught them to neglect: a deeply cultivated humility.

The Professor loved the creeper and the hidden ‘danda’; this was not quite well-known. He sometimes interrupted conversations to hide the दण्ड (daṇḍa) a little more by twisting the outgrowth of the creeper around it.

Surati was standing beside it when the discussion began.

The subject was mental health. Most of the psychology students were about to begin the afternoon with various events organized for three days for the World Mental Health Days. Heather wanted to hear Prof. Sihag’s perspective on a question—Why do we hide the things that hurt us? The professor loved the idea; he was serious about making mental health stigma go away. He would always say, “People are way too invested in and defined by their understanding of their body and their minds being themselves, while it is the capacity to experience that is the real essence.” Surati could sense the import of what Prof. Sihag used to repeat often about the stigma around mental health being the key stumbling block in creating a better society. She had started to realize that universities were very good at announcing mental-health initiatives and not always as good at creating conditions in which a person could say, without acquiring an identity from the statement, “I am not doing well”; to say that one suffered from mental health should have been as easy as sharing that one’s car had some issues because of which it was not running properly.

Professor Sihag had a dislike for nouns that swallowed people. Depressive. Schizophrenic. Failure. Topper. Introvert. Problem student.

He preferred sentences.

A sentence allowed movement.

“I am depressed,” he once told a class, was already slightly more merciful than “I am a depressive,” because the first left open the possibility of a tomorrow in which the verb might change.

Surati agreed with nearly everything he said that afternoon, she listened to him intently. She had just turned eighteen, at that difficult age when other people still called you young but the consequences of being alive had begun arriving with adult invoices. She had a quick face, by which the Professor meant that her expressions arrived before she could censor them. Amusement, contempt, fear, tenderness—each crossed her features with the efficiency of trains passing through a station where none intended to stop for long. In class she was made to sit with her team, otherwise she would have preferred to sit at a place where it was easier to pose questions.

She was an excellent student in the particular way that made grades almost irrelevant. She noticed things. The Professor valued this more than intelligence, which he considered abundant and overrated and he often repeated: Consistency beat intelligence almost all the time.

Heather was different. She had the stillness of someone who had discovered early that being quiet caused other people to disclose themselves. In group discussions she rarely competed for the first word. By the time she spoke, however, everyone else’s words appeared to have been gathered, sorted, and returned in more useful order. The Professor had once described her as “a human margin”—the place where the interesting annotation occurred. She had smiled at the description, though he could not tell whether she liked it.

The two young women made an unlikely pair. Surati generated weather; Heather carried an umbrella.

That afternoon Surati had been arguing that the language of mental illness could itself become a prison.

“We have made every strange thing into a symptom,” she said.

“Not every strange thing.”

“Almost.”

“That sounds suspiciously like something strange people say.”

Heather laughed.

Surati did not.

She had been standing with her back against the wall. Now she shifted sideways and her shoulder touched the creeper.

Professor Sihag noticed.

He noticed most movements in his office. He had once told his class that a teacher possessed more eyes than students suspected.

“You see two,” he had said, pointing unnecessarily toward his face. “That is a serious undercount.”

The students had assumed this was another of his jokes.

Surati reached behind herself and pinched one of the creeper’s leaves between her fingers. Professor Sihag watched her. She watched him watching her. Then she plucked a leaf.

There are acts that become stranger precisely because all parties know they are occurring.

Surati folded the leaf once and placed it in her pocket.

A few seconds later she plucked another.

The Professor looked toward the plant.

Surati looked toward the Professor.

She plucked a third.

“Surati.”

“Yes, Professor?”

“My plant.”

She examined the creeper as though encountering it for the first time.

“Oh.”

“Your body is literally eating it by pulling out its leaves?”

Heather covered her mouth.

“No.”

“Then I am struggling to see the social benefit.”

Surati’s cheeks turned crimson. She pressed herself more firmly against the wall. Her fingers found another leaf.

“Don’t,” Heather whispered.

Surati plucked it.

For a moment, the embarrassment seemed almost physical, as though her body required the wall to remain upright.

Professor Sihag understood then that asking her to stop might make stopping harder.

So he turned away.

It was around this point that the fictional man entered the room.

“Sometimes,” Surati said, “girls make somebody up.”

The Professor turned back.

“Make what up?”

“A man.”

“A particular man?”

“Yes.”

Heather stared at Surati.

Surati avoided looking at either of them.

“A boyfriend?”

“No. That sounds stupid.”

“It sounds less stupid than ‘man.’”

“You create him.”

There was a pause.

“From what?” the Professor asked.

“Anything.”

“Give me ingredients.”

Surati smiled despite herself.

“You make him from people you know. People you don’t know. A voice you heard somewhere. Somebody’s hands. The way another person listens. A face from a movie, but not the whole face. Maybe only the eyes. Something somebody once said to you. And after some time he becomes…”

She stopped.

“Real?” Heather said.

Surati shook her head impatiently.

“No. Not real. That is exactly the problem with the language.”

Professor Sihag sat back.

“Surati, I have never heard of this expression—that young women concoct a fictitious man for themselves.”

“Not Indian women, Professor. Women. Everywhere.”

“A global industry?”

“It’s not funny.”

“I am not sure yet.”

“You think women sit around waiting for actual men?”

The Professor began to answer, reconsidered, and did not.

Surati’s embarrassment had vanished. Animation transformed her. Her hands moved now without approaching the creeper. The fictional man had rescued the real plant.

Professor Sihag’s first instinct was an embarrassingly predictable one. He wondered whether there was something specifically Indian about what she was describing. Perhaps in a society where intimacy was still heavily monitored, where young women received contradictory instructions—to be modern but not too modern, desirable but not desiring, socially accomplished but sexually unsuspected—the imagination supplied what the timetable prohibited.

Surati interrupted the thought before he had fully expressed it.

“Not India, Professor. It’s a global phenomenon.”

“I have never heard of such a phenomenon.”

“That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”

This was the kind of remark that pleased him when he made it and irritated him when students did.

The afternoon sun had shifted. A hard blade of light had crossed the room and now fell directly across Surati’s face. Professor Sihag stood and pulled down the screen.

The office softened.

Encouraged by this small act of protection, Surati continued.

“We are all schizophrenic, Professor.”

Heather exhaled.

Professor Sihag winced.

“No.”

“You know what I mean.”

“I know approximately what you mean, which is a dangerous level of knowing.”

He told them about Robert Sapolsky, the Stanford biologist whose lectures he had watched years earlier. Sapolsky had discussed schizotypal traits—unusual associations, magical thinking, forms of cognition that might exist in milder form outside severe psychiatric illness. The Professor remembered a scale, numbers, thresholds. He began confidently and then stopped.

“Actually,” he said, “I may be misremembering the numbers.”

Surati smiled.

It was a devastating smile.

“A professor admitting ignorance? Write down the date,” Surati said mischievously.

Heather pretended to open one of the notebooks.

“But,” the Professor continued, “there is something interesting in the larger idea. Traits can exist along continuums. Human categories often have blurry borders.”

Surati shook her head.

“That is exactly what I don’t like.”

“What?”

“You’re taking imagination and putting it on a road that ends at illness.”

He was surprised.

She had understood the weakness in his argument faster than he had.

“What if the road goes somewhere else?” she said.

“Where?”

Surati looked toward the drawn screen.

“Somewhere else.”

That evening Professor Sihag kept thinking about the fictional man.

He tried to explain ‘him’ to himself economically, which was the occupational hazard of economists. Scarcity produced substitutes. If companionship were scarce, imagination might generate a shadow price and then a shadow companion. A person deprived of something did not simply remain deprived; the mind manufactured approximations.

But this explanation was too neat.

He considered biology.

Late adolescence and early adulthood coincide with a period of heightened sexuality and pair-bonding impulses. One could construct an evolutionary story easily enough: bodies prepared themselves for intimacy long before modern institutions decided what young adults were permitted to do with the fact. Perhaps minds, confronted by the distance between ancient biology and contemporary social arrangements, improvised.

The Professor distrusted explanations that arrived too quickly, particularly evolutionary ones. Evolutionary stories possessed an alarming ability to make whatever had already happened appear inevitable.

He could already hear Surati objecting.

So women are biologically programmed to invent fictitious men? Wonderful, Professor. Should we put that in the syllabus?

No, he thought. That was not it.

Perhaps the important thing was not women.

Perhaps it was the gap.

The gap between desire and permission. Between the world one inhabited and the world one required.

Human beings were astonishingly accomplished builders in that gap. Religions had been built there. Nations. Novels. Revolutions. Marriages.

Why not a man?

A few days earlier Professor Sihag had listened to David Brooks speaking with the astrophysicist Priyamvada Natarajan about the universe. They had discussed the possibility of a multiverse: not one universe exhausted by one history but innumerable universes containing other possible arrangements of matter and event. Somewhere, if one allowed oneself the extravagance of infinity, things could be almost as they were here and yet slightly different. A different blouse. A different coat. A different conversation.

The idea had delighted him.

Not because he understood the physics well enough to have earned an opinion about it. He did not. What delighted him was the moral sensation produced by the thought. One life ceased to feel like a verdict. If reality itself might possess alternatives, perhaps contingency was not a flaw but a fundamental feature of existence.

He wondered whether this was what Surati meant.

Not schizophrenia.

Not delusion.

Multiplicity.

Could some people move among hypothetical lives more easily than others? Could the mind create parallel worlds not because it had lost reality but because reality, by itself, was sometimes unbearably narrow?

And why had Surati said women?

He fell asleep without an answer.

Heather arrived the next afternoon without a notebook.

This alone concerned him.

Students almost always carried something when approaching a professor: a laptop, a sheet requiring a signature, an assignment, an excuse.

Heather carried only herself.

“Do you have a minute?”

“Yes.”

She closed the door.

Professor Sihag gestured toward the chair, but she remained standing.

“It’s about Surati.”

Something in her voice caused him to become more careful.

“What about her?”

Heather sat.

For several seconds she said nothing.

People often imagine that openness is created by speaking. Professor Sihag had learned that sometimes openness was created by surviving silence without filling it.

He waited.

“She does strange things.”

He waited.

“Stranger than the plant?”

Heather looked up sharply.

Then she laughed, which seemed to embarrass her.

“Much stranger.”

And with that laugh something loosened.

The story came out not dramatically but in fragments, which is often how frightening things are first told.

Heather and Surati lived in the same student residence. They had become friends during their first semester, partly through accident, partly through the peculiar intimacy produced by proximity. Heather knew which foods Surati hated, which songs she played repeatedly for three days and then never again, which assignments she began too early, which she began at four in the morning. She knew that Surati could spend an hour arranging books by a system nobody else could decipher and then live for two weeks surrounded by clothes on the floor.

She also knew about the bathroom.

“What bathroom?” the Professor asked.

“Our bathroom.”

Surati sometimes entered it at night and remained there for hours.

“How many hours?”

“Two. Three. Once almost five.”

“Doing what?”

“I don’t know.”

“Have you asked?”

“Yes.”

“And?”

Heather looked toward the window.

“She says she travels.”

Professor Sihag felt the word arrive in the room.

“Travels where?”

“To other universes.”

Neither of them spoke.

Outside the office, students passed along the corridor, laughing at something that had already happened and would soon be forgotten.

Professor Sihag folded his hands.

“What exactly did she say?”

“That the bathroom is easiest.”

“Easiest for what?”

“Leaving.”

He disliked the word.

“Leaving how?”

“She says there are fewer interruptions there. No windows. No people. The fan makes the same sound. She turns off the light.”

Heather paused.

“She says if she sits long enough, this universe becomes less…sticky.”

Professor Sihag repeated the word silently.

Sticky. It was an excellent word. That made it worse.

Heather told him about the night she had looked through the keyhole.

At first Professor Sihag almost interrupted to say that one should not look through bathroom keyholes. The sentence arrived from some exhausted faculty handbook lodged inside his brain.

But Heather’s face stopped him.

Surati had been inside for more than three hours. Heather had knocked repeatedly.

No answer.

She had called Surati’s phone.

It rang inside.

She had knocked harder.

Finally, frightened, Heather knelt and looked through the keyhole.

“What did you see?”

“Nothing.”

“Dark?”

“No. The light was on by then. Maybe she had turned it on.”

“And?”

“I could see the floor. The sink. Part of the wall.”

“Could she have been outside your line of sight?”

“Yes.”

Heather said this quickly.

Too quickly.

“Of course she could have been.”

The Professor nodded.

Bathrooms contained corners.

Physics remained undefeated.

Heather continued.

“But I stayed there.”

“How long?”

“I don’t know. A minute.”

“That’s a long time to look through a keyhole.”

“I know.”

“You never saw her?”

“No.”

“Then?”

“I stood up. I called her name.”

Heather’s hands were clasped tightly now.

“She answered from inside.”

Professor Sihag waited.

“What did she say?”

“She said, ‘One minute, Heather. I’m coming back.’”

A ridiculous chill moved across his arms.

He resented it.

“And she came out?”

“About ten minutes later.”

“Was she all right?”

“She looked…”

Heather searched for a word.

“Happy.”

That was not the word he had expected.

“Happy?”

“Peaceful. More peaceful than I have ever seen her.”

“What did she tell you?”

Heather’s eyes filled suddenly with tears.

Professor Sihag understood that the tears were not proof of anything except Heather’s love for her friend.

“She said, ‘You should come sometime.’”

There are moments in a teacher’s life when the position becomes unbearably fraudulent.

Students imagine, despite considerable evidence, that age contains answers. They carry their bewilderment toward you as though years automatically accumulate wisdom rather than simply adding evidence to the mystery.

Professor Sihag had spent decades turning uncertainty into lectures. Now Heather sat across from him asking, without explicitly asking, whether her friend was ill.

He did not know. He knew enough to know that he must not improvise a diagnosis out of anecdotes and astrophysics.

“Has she talked about hurting herself?”

“No.”

“Hurting anyone else?”

“No.”

“Does she seem frightened by these experiences?”

“No.”

“Are they interfering with her classes? Eating? Sleeping?”

“Sometimes she doesn’t sleep much.”

“Does she want help?”

“I don’t know.”

This was the problem. Help is one of those words whose generosity can conceal violence. Sometimes we help people toward themselves. Sometimes we help them toward our preferred version of them.

Professor Sihag thought again of Surati objecting to his road from imagination to pathology.

He also thought of the bathroom door.

Destigmatizing mental illness, he realized, could not mean romanticizing suffering. One could reject shame without rejecting care. One could resist labels without pretending that minds never became places from which their owners needed assistance returning.

“Heather,” he said, “we don’t have to decide what this means before we take it seriously.”

She looked at him.

It was perhaps the most useful sentence he spoke that week.

Surati returned two days later.

Alone.

She entered without knocking, which was how Professor Sihag knew she was nervous.

“Did Heather come here?”

The Professor considered lying.

“Yes.”

Surati stared at him.

“She shouldn’t have.”

“She was worried.”

“People make worry sound virtuous.”

“Sometimes it is.”

“Sometimes it’s surveillance.”

“That too.”

This answer disarmed her slightly.

She stood near the creeper.

Professor Sihag pointed toward it.

“Please choose another emotional-support object.”

Surati laughed.

She sat.

For a while they said nothing.

Finally the Professor asked, “Tell me about him.”

“Who?”

“The fictional man.”

Something changed in her face.

“He doesn’t exist.”

“I gathered.”

“Then why do you want to know?”

“Because yesterday I realized that perhaps I misunderstood the interesting part.”

Surati waited.

“I thought the question was why someone would invent a man.”

“And now?”

“Now I wonder what the invented man allows her to become.”

Surati looked down.

Outside, a bird struck briefly against the window and corrected its flight.

“He listens,” she said.

Professor Sihag nodded.

“That sounds expensive.”

“What?”

“Actual men are not always known for it.”

She smiled.

“He never interrupts because he’s waiting to speak. He doesn’t solve things unless I ask. He remembers things.”

“What things?”

“Small things.”

She looked embarrassed again, though differently.

“If I say I saw a yellow butterfly in the morning, three weeks later he might ask if I’ve seen another one.”

Professor Sihag felt something inside him soften.

“Does he have a face?”

“Sometimes.”

“A name?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“If I name him, he becomes too much like one person.”

That answer stayed with him.

“He changes?”

“Yes.”

“So he is not really a fictional man.”

“What is he?”

“A capacity.”

Surati frowned.

The Professor continued.

“Perhaps you have built a person out of qualities you want to encounter.”

“That sounds very professor-like.”

“It is an occupational disease.”

She looked toward the bookshelves.

“Sometimes I think he is building me.”

The Professor said nothing.

“Is that crazy?”

“No.”

“You answered too fast.”

“Yes.”

They both laughed.

Then she became serious.

“I know he isn’t here, Professor.”

The words were precise.

“I know which universe I am in.”

He nodded.

“But sometimes knowing that isn’t the same as wanting to remain only here.”

There it was.

The sentence beneath everything.

Not a desire to die.

Not, necessarily, a loss of reality.

A dissatisfaction with reality’s monopoly.

Professor Sihag thought of Natarajan describing the intellectual spaciousness of multiple possible universes. Physicists could contemplate infinity and be called profound. A young approaching twenty-something woman imagined another world and immediately everyone reached for pathology.

Still, metaphor had limits.

Cosmology could not certify whatever happened behind a locked bathroom door.

“Why the bathroom?” he asked.

Surati smiled.

“You too?”

“I’m curious.”

“It has a lock.”

“That cannot be the whole answer.”

“No.”

She thought.

“Everywhere else, I am visible.”

The Professor remembered his joke about having many eyes.

He suddenly regretted it.

“In class, someone sees you. In the hostel, someone sees you. At home, someone calls. Online, somebody knows whether you read the message. Your phone knows where you are. Cameras know. Attendance knows. Friends know whether you look sad. Professors know whether you plucked a leaf.”

She glanced at the creeper.

“In the bathroom, I can disappear.”

The word landed differently when she said it.

“Not die,” she added quickly. “Disappear.”

“For how long?”

“Long enough to not be anybody.”

Professor Sihag felt the whole conversation reorganize itself. Perhaps the fictional man was not about a man. Perhaps he was a country whose immigration rules existed entirely in the imagination.

A place where Surati did not have to perform daughter, student, friend, woman, promising young person, unstable young person, clever young person, any person at all.

“And the other universes?” he asked.

She shrugged.

“What about them?”

“Do you believe you literally travel there?”

She studied him.

“Would your answer change if I said yes?”

“Yes.”

“At least you admit it.”

“I am trying to learn honesty before retirement.”

She smiled.

Then she looked toward the pulled-down screen.

“No,” she said eventually. “And yes.”

“That is inconvenient.”

“Reality is inconvenient.”

He waited.

“When I was little,” she said, “I could spend hours pretending. Nobody worried. A bedsheet was a house. A staircase was a mountain. A cousin was a queen. Then at some age everyone decides imagination is supposed to become decorative. You can watch movies. Read novels. Write poems if they don’t interfere with your placement.”

She turned toward him.

“But you are no longer allowed to enter the world yourself.”

Professor Sihag thought of adulthood as a gradual policing of imagination.

Children were praised for worlds adults would later medicate them for describing too vividly.

“And the man?”

“He lives in some of them.”

“Does Heather?”

Surati looked surprised.

“Yes.”

“Am I there?”

“No.”

“Cruel.”

“You’re too irritating.”

He accepted this.

After a moment Surati added, “Sometimes you are there.”

“As what?”

“As a creative writing mentor.”

He felt strangely pleased.

Weeks passed.

There was no dramatic cure because there had been no agreed-upon disease.

There was, instead, negotiation.

Surati agreed to speak with a counsellor—not because Heather or Professor Sihag had convinced her that her universes were symptoms, but because the hours disappearing into them had begun stealing sleep from this one.

Heather agreed not to monitor the bathroom door unless she had a concrete reason to fear for Surati’s safety.

Professor Sihag agreed to stop diagnosing students from lectures he half remembered.

This proved the hardest intervention.

The fictional man remained.

Professor Sihag occasionally asked about him.

“He’s annoying today,” Surati would say.

Or, “We aren’t speaking.”

Once she announced that he had become interested in classical music.

“How can an imaginary person develop interests independently of you?” the Professor asked.

“That’s exactly what actual people say about God.”

He decided not to pursue it.

Then, near the end of the semester, the notebooks returned.

Sixty-four of them, swollen with handwriting, receipts, diagrams, newspaper clippings, questions, arrows, arguments, coffee stains, and the general debris produced when young people are given permission to take curiosity seriously.

Professor Sihag spent an evening reading them.

In one notebook he found a pressed green leaf.

He knew immediately where it had come from.

Underneath it Surati had written:

Question: If something imaginary changes something real, in what sense is it imaginary?

Below that, in Heather’s handwriting:

Counter-question: If something feels real, does that give it the right to govern us?

And beneath both, squeezed into the remaining space:

Maybe mental health begins when we can ask both questions without shame.

Professor Sihag carried the notebook to the window.

The creeper had recovered from Surati’s assault. New leaves occupied the places where old ones had been removed. Plants, unlike professors, appeared to understand replacement without philosophical difficulty.

He raised the screen.

Late-afternoon light entered the room.

For a moment he thought of the fictional man—not as a hallucination, not as a boyfriend manufactured to compensate for missing romance, not as evidence for some evolutionary theory about young women and fertility, though perhaps bodies and histories had contributed their quiet pressures. He thought instead of the human mind as an animal that refused confinement.

When a door was locked, it imagined a window.

When there was no window, it invented a universe.

And sometimes, perhaps, when the universe became too lonely, it invented someone waiting there.

The Professor looked again at the pressed leaf. There was something he had not noticed before. Beside it, faint enough that he nearly missed it, Surati had drawn a small doorway.

Nothing waited on the other side. No man. No stars. No parallel Earth. Only a white rectangle.

An opening.

Professor Sihag smiled; then, he did what teachers so often fail to do when confronted with an unanswered question.

He left it unanswered.

For a long time, however, he thought of Tara only as a woman with unusually large eyes.

They were not beautiful in the conventional way, or perhaps they were and that was the problem. They gave the impression of having continued to look at you after you had turned away. In the middle of her forehead she wore a large maroon dot. Anil knew it was probably a bindi, though it did not strike him as one. A bindi was decoration. This seemed grammatical. A full stop placed between the eyebrows.

The first time they were formally introduced, Tara looked at him long enough that he finally turned toward the window.

Outside his office, gulmohar trees lined the boulevard. Their flowers had begun to fall, and from the fourth floor the road appeared to have been scattered with small pieces of fire.

Over the following weeks he noticed Tara passing the glass wall of his office with surprising frequency. She worked in one of the science laboratories on the other side of the building. There were shorter routes.

Anil taught economics and research methods, and he had spent enough of his career insisting that behavior revealed preference to find the matter mildly amusing. Tara was a scientist. Scientists, he liked to believe, did not repeatedly choose inefficient paths without reasons.

He did not ask.

Anil had cultivated, over the years, a philosophy of letting things pass.

It was partly temperament and partly self-preservation. Questions, he believed, were useful only when one was prepared for their answers.

Then, one afternoon, Tara knocked on his door.

“I read your LinkedIn post,” she said.

This did not immediately distinguish her from several hundred other people who sometimes told him the same thing.

“The one about meditation.”

“That narrows it down.”

“Do you still meditate?”

“Yes. Not as much.”

“Why?”

Anil leaned back.

“Meditation can become addictive.”

She smiled.

“That is a strange thing for a meditator to say.”

“Anything that makes you prefer a particular mental state to reality can become addictive.”

Tara remained standing.

“I used to meditate,” she said.

“Used to?”

“I stopped after my cat died.”

There was a small opening in the sentence. Anil saw it and, as was his habit, did not enter. He could have asked the cat’s name, how long she had had it, whether its death had been sudden. Instead, he nodded toward the electric kettle.

“Tea?”

“No.”

And the cat disappeared from the conversation.

Or seemed to.

A few weeks later Anil saw Tara near the campus swimming pool.

It was winter, though winter in Greater Noida was a negotiable condition, particularly in the afternoons. The sun lay pleasantly against the concrete steps around the pool. Tara was sitting cross-legged on the far side, her palms resting on her knees.

Anil had come for no purpose more spiritual than vitamin D.

He climbed several rows above her, removed his T-shirt, folded it beneath his head, and lay down with his chest toward the sun. He closed his eyes.

He remembered counting his breaths.

One.

Two.

At eleven, memory ended.

When he became conscious again, someone was shouting his name.

“Prof. Anil. Open your eyes. Open your eyes.”

His heels were striking the concrete.

His hands had stiffened. His jaw hurt. His body appeared to be shaking with a determination of its own.

Tara stood over him holding her phone.

“I’m calling the wellness centre.”

He opened his eyes.

“What happened?”

She stared at him.

“You tell me what happened.”

He sat up slowly. His body felt strangely refreshed.

“Nothing.”

“Your entire body was shaking.”

“That happens sometimes.”

Her expression changed.

“That happens sometimes?”

Anil pulled on his T-shirt.

“My father used to go into trances.”

She lowered the phone but did not put it away.

“What kind of trances?”

“Usually while praying. Sometimes if he heard certain devotional songs. He would shake for a few minutes and then become perfectly normal.”

“And you think this is inherited?”

“I have inherited worse things from him.”

She did not laugh.

“Who did your father worship?”

“Shiva, mostly.”

“Mostly?”

“There was one form he was especially devoted to.”

“Which?”

“Kaal Bhairav.”

Something happened to Tara’s face. It was slight, but unmistakable. Until then Anil had thought of her eyes as incapable of becoming any larger.

“I’m going to give you a book,” she said.

“About epilepsy?”

“No.”

“About what?”

“How not to succumb to Kaal Bhairav’s stratagems.”

Anil almost laughed.

But she was not joking.

So, he did what he generally did when reality presented him with something for which he had no appropriate category.

He let it pass.

Later, alone in his office, he typed the name into a search box.

Kaal Bhairav.

He had grown up with those two words without ever feeling any obligation to understand them.

His father had kept a small black image in the corner of their prayer room. Every morning before sunrise he lit mustard-oil lamps before it. On certain days he fed the neighborhood dogs. Whenever the family travelled, he murmured something under his breath before locking the front door.

As a boy, Anil had placed all these things inside the enormous cupboard called religion, where Indian families stored practices that no one was expected to explain and that children were discouraged from examining too closely.

Now, for the first time, he began to read.

Bhairava appeared on his screen in several contradictory forms, though contradiction, Anil discovered, seemed to trouble the tradition less than it troubled academics. He was Shiva and not Shiva, terror and protection, destruction and guardianship. He inhabited thresholds, crossroads, cremation grounds, the outskirts of ordinary order. He appeared with dogs and skulls, weapons and flames.

Kāla: time.

Kāla: death.

Kāla: blackness.

Bhairava: the terrible one.

In Varanasi, Anil read, Kaal Bhairav was sometimes called the city’s kotwal, its guardian and keeper of accounts. The term amused him. He pictured a divine station house, celestial paperwork, the dead waiting with documents in triplicate.

The images were less amusing.

Matted hair. A garland of skulls. A dog. A face that seemed not enraged so much as incapable of reassurance.

He resisted interpreting any of it.

Interpretation, Anil knew from academia, was often the quickest method of domesticating whatever disturbed you. Give a thing a symbolic meaning and it stopped being a thing. It became an argument, which meant one could cite it, disagree with it and, eventually, forget it.

That evening Tara appeared at his office.

“So?”

“So what?”

“You searched.”

“How do you know?”

“You have the face.”

“What face?”

“The face people have after Googling Kaal Bhairav.”

Anil closed his laptop.

“You people have created quite a character.”

“You people?”

“The human species.”

“You think human beings created Bhairav?”

“I have no evidence for the reverse proposition.”

She sat down opposite him.

“And yet you meditate.”

“Meditation requires no supernatural proposition.”

“Meditation without an iṣṭa-devatā is dangerous.”

“Why?”

“Because you open a door without knowing whom you are opening it for.”

Anil laughed.

“That is excellent theology and terrible neuroscience.”

“I’m serious.”

“So am I. What exactly is an iṣṭa-devatā?”

“The form of the divine toward which you have a natural affinity. Krishna for one person, Kali for another. Shiva, Devi, Rama. A form around which the inner life can organize itself.”

“And if I don’t believe in any of them?”

“Belief may be less important than relationship.”

“That is suspiciously convenient.”

Tara leaned forward.

“Suppose you keep travelling inward. What makes you think every state you encounter deserves your trust?”

“My reason.”

“Your reason disappears in deep meditation.”

“Then why meditate?”

“Because reason is not the whole of you.”

“No,” Anil said. “But neither is bliss.”

For a moment she said nothing.

He continued.

“That is my problem with a certain kind of meditation. People close their eyes, discover a pleasant mental state, and decide they have encountered the truth. Meditation without questions can become a bliss-suffused prison. You feel peaceful, so you stop asking whether the stories you tell yourself are true.”

Tara studied him.

“And questions without silence?”

“What about them?”

“They can become another prison.”

“How?”

“You keep producing questions because you are frightened that an answer might ask something of you.”

For several seconds neither spoke.

Outside, someone pushed a trolley down the corridor. One of its wheels squeaked at regular intervals.

Anil smiled.

“Now that was good.”

“I know.”

That night he searched for Tara.

Nothing.

No papers under the version of her name he knew. No Facebook page. No Instagram. No LinkedIn profile. No conference videos. Stranger still, she did not appear on the university website.

He tried adding the department.

Nothing.

He tried spelling variations.

Nothing.

A scientist with no online presence was not impossible. But a scientist with no online presence at a university where even laboratory assistants appeared smiling in photographs from faculty-development programs was at least statistically interesting.

The following morning, he nearly asked her.

Then he decided against it.

He let it pass.

Several weeks later she arrived carrying her handbag.

“Come.”

“Where?”

“I’m taking you for an experiment.”

“That sentence has historically ended badly for human subjects.”

“An aura-reading centre.”

“No.”

“You haven’t heard what they do.”

“I know enough.”

“No, you don’t.”

“Auras. Energy fields. Cameras photographing souls. Three thousand rupees disappearing from my bank account.”

“Two thousand five hundred.”

“Even worse.”

Tara folded her arms.

“You teach research methods?”

“Yes.”

“You tell students not to reject hypotheses before testing them?”

“Within reason.”

“You tell them observations matter when they surprise us?”

“Yes.”

“You tell them there is a difference between ‘I don’t believe this’ and ‘I have evidence against this’?”

Anil looked at her.

“This is emotional blackmail using Karl Popper.”

“It’s working.”

“I also teach placebo effects, confirmation bias, measurement error and charlatans.”

“Excellent. Bring all four.”

He laughed.

“Fine.”

The aura centre was on the second floor of a building above a pharmacy.

This seemed to Anil appropriate. One floor sold substances whose effects had been tested in randomized clinical trials; the other sold colors around the human body.

A young man asked him to place his palms on two metal sensors. In front of him stood a device that resembled the offspring of a webcam and a blood-pressure monitor. Numbers appeared on a screen. Then colors bloomed around the crude outline of a human figure.

Anil watched with the distant amusement he reserved for newspaper astrology.

Until the operator frowned.

“Interesting.”

“That,” Anil said, “is what people say immediately before recommending an expensive remedy.”

Tara ignored him.

“What?”

The operator enlarged an area of the screen.

“There is a very strong dark field around him.”

“So I’m evil?”

“No, sir.”

“Good. That would complicate my annual appraisal.”

The operator said something about force, heat, dominance, instability, aggression, protective energies.

Then he mentioned Bhairav.

Tara straightened.

“Kaal Bhairav?”

“Something of that nature.”

She turned toward Anil.

“You have to stop eating non-vegetarian food.”

“What?”

“You won’t be able to control your anger otherwise.”

“My anger has survived several dietary regimes.”

“Do you have an anger problem?”

Anil shrugged.

“Yes. But mostly when I have to deal with sheer idiots.”

“We are all idiots, Prof. Anil.”

“That seems statistically unlikely.”

“Some of us know that we are. Others don’t.”

The operator looked down at his desk.

Tara continued.

“Other people’s stupidity does not give you permission to put anyone under the shadow of fear.”

The sentence irritated Anil immediately, largely because it contained something he recognized.

“Can we return to the pseudoscience?”

“No.”

“You dragged me here in the name of experimentation.”

“And the experiment generated an observation you don’t like.”

“It generated colored pixels.”

“You’re angry already.”

Anil looked away.

Her preachiness was infuriating, though strangely intimate.

He had begun to feel something developing between them that he was reluctant to name because naming would make it seem ordinary: part argument, part curiosity, part attraction, part warning. Tara had found a door into him, and unlike most people she did not seem especially interested in knocking.

Outside the centre, he finally asked the question he had been postponing.

“How does a scientist end up in this world?”

“What world?”

“Tantra. Auras. Bhairav. All this.”

Tara stopped walking.

For the first time since he had known her, Anil saw her large eyes become small.

Not physically.

Something withdrew behind them.

“Soham,” she said.

Soham had introduced her to meditation.

He was, Tara said, the gentlest person she had ever known.

This was what had made what happened almost impossible for her mind to contain.

They had been in love.

He had become fascinated with Kaal Bhairav after a trip to Varanasi. At first the fascination seemed harmless and then, to Tara, beautiful. He meditated late into the night. He read about cremation grounds, fearlessness, time, the destruction of attachment. He spoke of these things with the excitement of someone who believes he has discovered a secret and the humility of someone who has not yet realized he intends to become its owner.

Then the language changed.

“Bhairav takes away everything you cling to,” he would say.

Or:

“If you love something too much, prepare to lose it.”

One night they had been drinking Red Bull mixed with Jägermeister. Soham spent almost an hour describing a meditation he had performed on Kaal Bhairav.

Tara remembered feeling unusually dizzy.

After that, nothing.

She woke in severe pain.

At the hospital the event acquired words.

This, too, was a kind of violence: the conversion of something the mind could not yet comprehend into nouns that other people already understood.

She was found unconscious.

Anil did not interrupt.

“I did nothing,” Tara said.

He waited.

“No police. No complaint. Nothing.”

“Why?”

She looked out toward the road.

“Because my mind couldn’t hold both facts.”

“What facts?”

“That Soham was the sweetest person I knew.”

She paused.

She wiped her eyes with an impatient movement, as if tears were merely another argument she had no time for.

“I kept waiting for one fact to destroy the other.”

“Did you confront him?”

“No, no one knew where to find him. He had disappeared.”

“Had you met him what, you think, he would have said?”

She looked at Anil. Her voice changed slightly as she imitated him.

“It was Kaal Bhairav. He is driving me away from everything I love and care for.”

Anil felt something cold move through him.

“That is not mysticism,” he said. “That is cowardice.”

“I know.”

“No god gets to be someone’s alibi.”

“I know.”

“He did it.”

“I know.”

“Not Bhairav.”

“I know, Prof. Anil.”

By then she was crying.

Anil stopped.

He suddenly understood that he had taken her pain and converted it into a proposition. Propositions were manageable. You could examine their assumptions. You could test them for internal consistency. You could show where causality had been falsely assigned.

A proposition did not sit opposite you wiping tears from its face.

After a while Tara said, “That’s why I told you about the iṣṭa-devatā.”

“I don’t understand.”

“You need a relationship with the divine that makes you more responsible, not less.”

She looked at him.

“If your spiritual practice allows you to say, ‘The god made me do it,’ you are not becoming free. You are becoming possessed by your own excuses.”

Anil had no counterargument. This happened rarely enough that he noticed.

Six months earlier Anil’s father had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

By the time the doctors found it, it had spread.

They spoke in the managerial language of modern medicine: months, probabilities, lines of treatment, response rates, pain management. The sentences were precise, though their precision provided little comfort.

His father listened politely.

Then he asked the oncologist, “How long will my son have to keep coming home?”

The doctor looked confused.

Anil did not.

“Papa, don’t start.”

“You have work.”

“I have a father.”

“You also have a life.”

“Those aren’t mutually exclusive.”

His father smiled.

“In economics perhaps.”

The illness reduced him quickly.

First the broadness left his shoulders. Then his appetite disappeared. Then sleep. Pain entered the house and began rearranging everyone’s timetable around itself.

Anil cancelled lectures, conferences, meetings. He travelled back and forth between the university and home. Each departure produced guilt. Each arrival produced anxiety about everything accumulating elsewhere.

One evening his father called him into the prayer room.

The small black figure of Kaal Bhairav stood where it had always stood.

“I’ve asked him to hurry,” his father said.

Anil stared at him.

“Asked whom?”

His father pointed toward the image.

“Don’t talk nonsense.”

“You think death should wait because you aren’t ready?”

“I think you should stop talking about dying.”

“The body is already talking about it.”

“Bodies say all kinds of things. Doctors say all kinds of things.”

His father smiled.

“You’re angry.”

“Yes.”

“Good. Bhairav likes honesty.”

“I don’t care what Bhairav likes.”

“You will.”

Anil stood.

His father caught his wrist.

The hand felt strangely light.

“Listen. A father must know when his presence becomes his son’s prison.”

“Your presence is not a prison.”

“No. But your fear of losing me is becoming one.”

Anil pulled his wrist away.

“I’m not discussing this.”

“I don’t want you organizing your life around my dying.”

“Then don’t die.”

For a moment the old man laughed with such force that the laugh became a cough. Anil reached instinctively for the glass of water beside him.

When the coughing subsided, his father said, very quietly, “Kaal means time, Anil.”

“I know.”

“No, you don’t.”

His father looked at the black figure.

“Nobody defeats time by refusing to look at the clock.”

There was one ritual his father kept even when the cancer made walking difficult.

Before sunrise he went outside carrying biscuits for the neighborhood dogs.

The family objected.

He insisted.

“They accompany Bhairav.”

Anil, visiting one weekend, said, “Does Bhairav not provide breakfast?”

His father smiled.

“Sometimes gods outsource.”

It became one of the last jokes Anil remembered clearly.

Then came the morning call.

He was at the university.

His mother was so incoherent that for several seconds he could not understand what had happened.

Neighbors had found his father beyond the last row of houses, near an empty plot.

There had been stray dogs.

Many of them.

The rest remained uncertain.

Perhaps his father had collapsed first. Perhaps the animals became frightened. Perhaps one attacked and the others followed. Perhaps his weakened body simply could not defend itself.

The violence was sufficient that the family was advised not to see him immediately.

Anil saw him anyway.

For years afterward he would wish he had not.

At the cremation ground one thought kept returning with an insistence he found obscene.

Dogs.

Of all creatures.

Dogs.

His father had fed them.

His father had worshipped Kaal Bhairav.

His father had asked Bhairav to hurry.

And Bhairav’s traditional companion was a dog.

It was an absurd chain of associations.

Anil knew this.

He knew about apophenia, confirmation bias, selective attention, the brain’s appetite for causality. Grief, he knew, intensified pattern recognition. Coincidences multiplied when the mind began searching for them.

He could have given a lecture on the subject.

Lectures were not especially useful at three in the morning.

For weeks he dreamed of his father walking ahead of a black dog.

Sometimes the animal followed the old man.

Sometimes the old man followed the animal.

He told no one.

Except Tara.

She listened without interrupting.

When he finished, she said, “Don’t romanticize his death.”

Anil looked at her.

“I thought you’d say Bhairav came for him.”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because that would turn your father’s suffering into theatre.”

She moved closer.

“Your father had cancer. His body was dying. Dogs attacked him. Those are facts.”

“And the rest?”

“I don’t know.”

Anil looked up.

In all the conversations they had had about auras, gods, meditation, Tantra and invisible forces, this was the first time he remembered hearing her say those words.

“I don’t know,” she repeated.

The phrase sounded different coming from her. Almost devotional.

“Maybe the universe speaks through coincidences,” she said. “Maybe we are pattern-hungry animals. Maybe both things are true in ways we don’t understand.”

Anil closed his eyes.

“He wanted to leave quickly.”

“Yes.”

“He kept saying I needed to go back to my career. My life.”

Tara was silent for a moment.

“Maybe his last act of fatherhood was to stop allowing you to make him the reason for postponing yourself.”

“That sounds cruel.”

“Love can be cruel when time becomes short.”

Anil felt his eyes fill.

“I should have been there.”

“And then?”

“What?”

“If you had been there that morning, what would you have changed?”

“I don’t know.”

“You might have saved him.”

“Yes.”

“For how long?”

Anil did not answer.

“A week? A month? Three months of more pain?”

“Stop.”

She stopped.

The silence between them became large enough to contain both of them.

Finally she said, “Your father was a devotee of time. Perhaps he understood something before you did.”

“What?”

“That love cannot demand indefinite time from a body that has none left.”

Anil turned toward the window.

The gulmohars had begun shedding their flowers again.

He had cried at the funeral. He had cried when arranging documents. Once, inexplicably, he had cried while looking for one of his father’s old shirts.

But those tears had felt administrative, part of the work that death assigned to the living.

Now he cried without understanding what the tears were for.

For once, he allowed himself not to investigate.

Several months passed before Tara mentioned Bhairav again.

By then Anil had returned fully to his lectures. He travelled. He published. He attended meetings whose participants used words such as transformative and ecosystem often enough that his old irritability returned.

He even became angry at idiots again.

Though occasionally, just before the anger reached his mouth, Tara’s sentence appeared.

We are all idiots. Some of us know it.

One Sunday morning she drove him to a gaushala outside the city.

The air was unusually clean.

“Why are we here?”

“To meet someone.”

“You’ve finally arranged my marriage?”

“Something more useful.”

They walked past rows of cows until they reached a large white bull beneath a neem tree.

Grey patches marked his neck. His horns curved gently upward. Flies moved around his eyes. Calves pulled against ropes nearby. Birds landed and left. Workers shouted to one another.

The bull remained still.

“This,” Tara said, “is Nandi.”

“The Nandi?”

“The local representative.”

Anil laughed.

A caretaker came over.

“People ride him?” Anil asked.

“Sometimes.”

Before he could object, Tara handed the man a thousand rupees, placed one foot on a wooden support and climbed onto the bull.

Nandi barely responded.

Tara sat on his back for perhaps twenty seconds with her eyes closed.

When she descended, she looked at Anil.

“Your turn.”

“Absolutely not.”

“You went to an aura centre.”

“Under coercion.”

“You meditate until your body frightens strangers.”

“That is different.”

“You argue with dead gods.”

“Intellectually.”

“And you’re afraid of a vegetarian?”

“He weighs eight hundred kilos.”

“Closer to six hundred,” the caretaker said.

“Excellent. Practically a rabbit.”

Eventually Anil climbed.

The bull’s back was broader than he had expected. Beneath him he felt not softness but an immense compacted strength, as though the animal contained within itself a force it saw no immediate reason to demonstrate.

When Anil climbed down, he asked, “Why Nandi?”

Tara ran her hand across the animal’s forehead.

“People say he is Shiva’s vehicle.”

“Isn’t he?”

“Vāhana is richer than transport. Nandi is attendant, guardian, devotee. In temples he sits facing the liṅga.”

“Waiting?”

“Watching.”

“For eternity?”

“Maybe listening.”

She pointed toward the bull.

“Look at the paradox.”

“Which one?”

“Shiva is the wild ascetic. Mountains, cremation grounds, matted hair, dissolution. But Shiva is also married. He loves Parvati. He has children. He belongs to a household.”

“And the bull solves this?”

“In a way.”

Tara rested her palm on Nandi’s enormous neck.

“Strength that becomes service. Sexual power that becomes steadiness. Animal force that doesn’t need to destroy whatever is near it.”

Anil looked at her.

“Now you’re decoding iconography.”

“Today you’re ready.”

“And Bhairav?”

“Also Shiva.”

“Then why bring me here instead of to a Bhairav temple?”

Tara looked at him.

“Because you already know enough about destruction.”

The sentence seemed to surprise her as much as it did him.

Then she took his hand.

It was the first deliberate touch between them.

Anil looked down at their hands with an anthropologist’s curiosity, as though observing a ritual whose meaning he might later reconstruct.

“Welcome,” Tara said, “to the world of Shiva.”

“I thought I entered through Bhairav.”

“No.”

Her fingers tightened slightly around his.

“You entered through death.”

“And now?”

“Now meet the householder.”

Anil looked again at Nandi.

For most of his life he had imagined renunciation as subtraction.

One left desire.

One left anger.

One left attachment.

One left the world.

His father’s death had strengthened the logic. Everything went. Parents, animals, lovers, institutions, bodies, reputations, certainties. Time had no difficulty with any of them.

But the Shiva whom Tara was describing seemed to propose something more troublesome than escape.

To love what time would take.

To build what time would dismantle.

To marry while knowing separation.

To raise children while knowing death.

To work without pretending work could save you.

To meditate without turning silence into an escape.

To ask questions without using questions as protection against wonder.

The bull exhaled.

Anil thought of his father.

And for the first time in a long while, the image that came to him was not the body he had seen after the dogs.

It was an earlier winter morning.

His father was standing in the courtyard in a shawl, breaking biscuits into smaller pieces.

There were more dogs than biscuits.

“Why don’t you throw the whole packet?” twelve-year-old Anil had asked.

His father shook his head.

“Then the strongest one will eat everything.”

“So?”

His father looked at him, mildly surprised by the question.

“So strength shouldn’t decide who gets fed.”

A black dog was waiting at the edge of the group.

The larger dogs had pushed it away.

His father walked over and carried a biscuit to it.

Anil had forgotten the morning for thirty years.

Now it returned with humiliating completeness: the shawl, the fog, the biscuit crumbs in his father’s palm, the impatience with which Anil had been waiting to go back indoors.

Memory, he thought, was an incompetent archivist and a superb dramatist.

It lost entire decades and then, without warning, returned a biscuit.

He closed his eyes.

When he opened them, Tara was looking at him.

“What?” he said.

“Nothing.”

“You’re staring.”

“I know.”

“Why?”

She smiled.

“Some questions don’t need immediate answers.”

Anil laughed.

“Now you’re stealing my philosophy.”

“No.”

“My philosophy was exactly that.”

“Your philosophy was to let things pass.”

“And yours?”

“To let them arrive.”

They walked toward the car.

At the gate Anil stopped.

On the other side of the road sat a black dog.

He felt Tara’s hand tighten around his.

The dog looked at him.

Anil looked back.

Nothing happened.

This lasted several seconds.

Then the animal stood, stretched with the luxurious indifference of creatures that do not know they are symbols, and disappeared behind a tea stall.

Tara waited.

“Well?”

“Well what?”

“You saw it.”

“A dog.”

“Only a dog?”

Anil considered this.

There had been a time when he would have felt obliged to choose between two answers.

It was Kaal Bhairav.

Or it was only a dog.

He now suspected there was vanity in both positions.

Why should reality be required to become simple merely because the human mind preferred mutually exclusive categories?

His father’s god had been the god of time.

Cancer had taught Anil that time was not, finally, the neutral dimension represented by t in an equation. Time ate muscle. It loosened skin. It removed appetite and sleep. It altered the relationship between fathers and sons. It made every attachment a temporary arrangement.

Tara had taught him something else.

Gods became dangerous when they relieved human beings of responsibility.

Soham had invoked Bhairav to escape the horror of what he had done.

His father had invoked Bhairav to accept what was happening to him.

The same god had served as an alibi in one life and a discipline in another.

Perhaps gods were like ideas in this respect. Their moral character depended partly on the people carrying them.

He remembered what Tara had said months earlier.

Never open the door without knowing whom you are opening it for.

He still did not accept her theology.

But he understood the warning differently now.

Perhaps the danger was not that some supernatural entity might enter during meditation.

Perhaps the danger was that Anil himself might enter. His fear. His vanity. His anger. His grief. His hunger. His desire. And, finding no witness inside, declare himself divine.

Perhaps this was what an iṣṭa-devatā was for.

Not necessarily an invisible person somewhere beyond the universe, monitoring one’s dietary habits and career choices.

Perhaps a person needed an image of perfection before which the mind could not so easily crown itself king.

Nandi for strength that served.

Shiva for the ascetic who nevertheless came home.

Bhairav for the knowledge that time would spare nothing.

Perhaps worship had never been primarily about persuading these beings to interfere with the world. Perhaps it was about preventing oneself from forgetting what they represented when the world interfered with you.

“Only a dog?” Tara asked again.

Anil continued looking at the empty spot beside the tea stall.

“I don’t know.”

Tara smiled.

There were, Anil realized, worse answers.

They got into the car.

“Lunch?” she said.

“Yes.”

“Vegetarian?”

He looked at her.

“Don’t push it.”

She laughed.

They drove away from the gaushala. The neem trees vanished behind them. Then the gate. Then the road curved, and the place was gone altogether.

Somewhere beyond the trees a temple bell rang.

Neither of them could see a temple.

Anil almost asked Tara whether she had heard it.

The question reached his lips and stopped.

For years, at moments like this, he had relied on the same instruction.

Let it pass.

He smiled.

“No,” he said aloud.

Tara glanced at him.

“What?”

“Nothing.”

He lowered the window.

Cold air entered the car, carrying dust, the smell of smoke, and something faintly sweet from a field he could not see.

For once, Anil decided, he would let it arrive.

The person walking with me was talking about our great epics—not as repositories of perfect moral examples, but as carefully constructed worlds of contradiction. His intuition was arresting: perhaps these ambiguities were not flaws in the stories at all. Perhaps they were pedagogical devices. Perhaps our ancestors understood that a civilization does not become intellectually alive by giving people answers; it becomes alive by giving them contradictions powerful enough to compel generations to ask questions.

The Mahabharata almost seems designed for this purpose. Yudhishthira is Dharmaraja, the king associated more closely than almost anyone else with dharma, yet he accepts the game of dice, loses his kingdom, his brothers and himself, and then stakes Draupadi. Draupadi responds not merely with outrage but with jurisprudence: if Yudhishthira had already lost himself, did he still possess the authority to wager her? The assembly contains some of the wisest men of the age, yet they struggle to answer.

Bhishma himself is a magnificent contradiction. He gives up kingship, marriage and descendants through one of literature’s most fearsome vows, apparently for the sake of his father and the stability of the kingdom. Yet that very vow becomes entangled with the dynastic instability that eventually consumes the Kuru house. He becomes a towering authority on righteous conduct, yet in Draupadi’s hour of humiliation his moral authority does not produce decisive action.

The great epic refuses to make dharma easy. Indeed, scholarship on the Mahabharata has drawn attention to its recurring notion of sūkṣma dharma—the subtlety of dharma, especially when principles conflict and circumstances make the right course difficult to determine. Yudhishthira himself is portrayed as wrestling with whether dharma can ever be known completely when texts, duties and circumstances point in different directions.

Krishna presents another difficulty. The teacher of the Bhagavad Gita asks Arjuna to rise above attachment and perform his dharma, yet during the war Krishna repeatedly sanctions actions that strain ordinary notions of fair combat. Yudhishthira, renowned for truthfulness, participates in the deceptive announcement concerning Ashwatthama. Karna is among the most generous figures in the epic and also participates in acts we find morally indefensible.

Virtue and vice stubbornly refuse to organize themselves into separate camps.

The Ramayana is equally demanding. Rama is Maryada Purushottama, the exemplar of restraint and righteous kingship, yet the treatment of Sita remains one of the most troubling moral questions in the tradition.

Consider the almost unbearable juxtaposition. Sita survives captivity under Ravana without surrendering herself. Later, despite Rama’s own acknowledgment of her innocence, public suspicion becomes powerful enough for him to abandon her. In the Uttara Kanda, when another public vindication is required, Sita invokes the Earth as witness to her fidelity and is received back into it. It would be inaccurate to call this suicide: the text depicts the Earth goddess receiving Sita. But morally the juxtaposition remains devastating—the woman whom Ravana could not break is ultimately required by the society to which she returns to prove herself again.

That was when a sentence flashed through my mind:

What if contradictions are invitations?

And then, almost without warning, Gandhi entered the conversation in my head.

My Falling Out with Gandhi

For several years I had been moving away from Gandhi.

The more I thought about him, the more impatient I became. I began to suspect that his account of nonviolence had not sufficiently confronted the ontic and epistemic conditions that make violence possible.

Violence is not only the policeman’s lathi or the soldier’s bullet. Institutions can become violent through indifference, opacity, delay, humiliation and the normalization of powerlessness. A society can speak endlessly of ahimsa while making ordinary people endure forms of institutional helplessness that slowly damage human dignity.

Then there was an episode I found almost impossible to assimilate: Gandhi’s late-life experiments with brahmacharya.

In 1946, in his seventies, Gandhi undertook an experiment that included sleeping naked with his young grandniece Manu Gandhi as a test of what he understood as perfect brahmacharya. The episode was deeply controversial even among people close to him. Manu’s diaries record her participation in what Gandhi conceived as his final yajna, while contemporary associates expressed serious unease about the experiment. Scholars continue to debate its ethical, psychological and spiritual meaning.

Whenever I viewed Gandhi’s experiment through Kant’s principle of universalization—asking whether I could reasonably will the same principle to govern everyone’s conduct—I found it impossible to defend morally.

Imagine every political leader, spiritual teacher or university head claiming the right to conduct such an experiment with a much younger person living under his or her enormous moral authority.

Would we accept it? Should we? The asymmetry of power alone should make us uneasy.

Greatness cannot exempt anyone from scrutiny. If anything, greatness should intensify scrutiny.

For a long time, this episode became a lens through which I judged the man.

And then the Sanskrit letter क — ka came to Gandhi’s rescue from my moral grandstanding.

Ka: The Civilization of the Question

Consider the family of Sanskrit interrogatives:

कः — kaḥ — who?
किम् — kim — what?
कुत्र — kutra — where?
कुतः — kutaḥ — from where? why?
कदा — kadā — when?
कथम् — katham — how?

Again and again, Sanskrit returns us to the interrogative stem ka-.

I do not mean that philology can demonstrate some ancient strategy to encode a philosophy of questioning into Sanskrit grammar. But as a civilizational metaphor, I find it irresistible. It is as though language itself whispers:

Before you become certain, ask.

Ka.

What?

Who?

Why?

How?

What if the intellectual inheritance of India was never intended to be merely a warehouse of answers? What if it was designed to train minds to remain alive in the presence of contradictions?

The Upanishadic world proceeds through questions. Nachiketa interrogates Yama about death. Gargi questions Yajnavalkya in a royal assembly. Arjuna’s collapse becomes the occasion for the Gita because he refuses simply to proceed when his moral universe has become incoherent. Draupadi turns humiliation into jurisprudence by asking a question that an assembly of powerful men cannot comfortably answer.

Perhaps the purpose of a great civilization is not to eliminate moral ambiguity.

Perhaps it is to cultivate human beings capable of inhabiting ambiguity without surrendering either judgment or humility: To live meaningfully is to live with questions, to live with ka.

That possibility changed the way I returned to Gandhi.

Gandhi as an Experiment

I recently heard Prashant Kishore make an observation whose gist stayed with me: when one finds oneself casually dismissing someone of Gandhi’s magnitude, it may be useful first to entertain the possibility that one’s own understanding is incomplete.

Initially, I pooh-poohed the thought. It sounded to me like political reverence dressed up as humility. After that walk, it landed differently.

Gandhi did something rare among political leaders: he made experiment itself part of his public identity. He did something so scandalous and unacceptable that he forced us to question him.

His autobiography was not called My Truth. It was called The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

That distinction suddenly seemed profound. An experiment can fail. Indeed, the possibility of failure is precisely what distinguishes an experiment from a demonstration. None of this absolves Gandhi. But it changes the relationship we ought to have with him.

We should neither canonize Gandhi nor cancel him. We should interrogate him.

The more unsettling question then occurred to me: could Gandhi have understood that his own life would have to remain interrogable?

Here I must distinguish historical evidence from philosophical speculation. I have found no historical basis for claiming that Gandhi undertook his controversial brahmacharya experiments deliberately so that future generations would condemn him, question him and reconstruct his philosophy.

His stated concerns involved brahmacharya, self-purification, mastery over desire and his conviction that his capacity for nonviolence was connected with mastery over himself.

To claim anything more would turn my intuition into historical fact. But another proposition seems much more defensible. Gandhi’s conception of truth made permanent self-certainty difficult. He did not describe himself as the owner of Truth but as someone conducting experiments with it.

And at the end of his autobiography, after discussing the extraordinary difficulty of self-purification, he writes:

“I must reduce myself to zero.”

Elsewhere he made the image even more beautiful: if one wishes to swim upon the ocean of Truth, one must reduce oneself to zero.

Zero

Not infallibility.

Not sainthood.

Not: I have arrived.

Zero.

What could it mean for a person possessing immense moral authority to aspire to become zero? At minimum, it means refusing to make one’s ego the measure of truth. It means acknowledging that the seeker may have to disappear before what is being sought.

And suddenly I could see my own error. I had taken one of Gandhi’s contradictions and used it to close the case.

The epics might have asked me to do precisely the opposite:

Use the contradiction to open the inquiry.

That does not require sanitizing Gandhi’s brahmacharya experiment.

We should ask difficult questions about consent, authority, gender, age and the moral psychology of charismatic leadership. We should ask whether one person’s pursuit of self-mastery can ethically involve another human being. We should ask whether the language of spiritual experimentation can sometimes obscure inequalities of power.

Gandhi deserves no exemption from these questions.

But neither does one disturbing episode entitle us to stop thinking about everything else he discovered.

This was, after all, the man who helped transform nonviolence from a private moral virtue into a technology of collective political action.

And its influence traveled far beyond India. Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly described the Gandhian method of nonviolence as the method of social reform he had been seeking; Gandhian thought became central to King’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance during the American civil-rights movement.

Gandhi lived through an age in which industrialized warfare revealed humanity’s terrifying capacity to weaponize intelligence. His contribution was not to solve the human propensity for violence. It was to demonstrate that political courage need not always imitate the violence of one’s opponent.

Gandhi Became a Question Again

I had once thought my task was to question Gandhi, and mistakenly I had started to dismiss not just him but his whole philosophy.

That night I began to suspect that I was utterly wrong.

The more interesting question became:

What kind of mind does Gandhi force us to develop?

A mind capable of admiring without worshipping; condemning without becoming self-righteous; holding contradiction without rushing toward intellectual escape; and asking whether the flaw we see in another is also exposing a limitation in our own framework of judgment.

That is what ka returned to me.

Our civilization has preserved extraordinary stories whose greatest characters are deeply human—capable of wisdom, courage, error, contradiction, and moral failure.

Yudhishthira fails. Bhishma hesitates. Rama wounds the person he loves. Arjuna collapses. Krishna unsettles conventional morality. Sita refuses to let society have the final word on her integrity. Draupadi transforms humiliation into a question that an entire assembly of powerful men cannot answer.

Perhaps their contradictions survived because questions are more durable than answers. And perhaps that is how Gandhi should survive too. Not as the Mahatma frozen in stone. Not as the villain demolished on social media.

But as a human being who placed his body, politics, morality, failures and experiments into history—and therefore into the realm of interrogation.

The phrase “My life is my message” is usually heard as an invitation to imitate Gandhi. I now hear it differently:

Examine the life. Test the message. Find the contradiction. Ask what survives.

Ka? What? Why? How? And then ask again.

In that sense, a single akshara helped me recover the respect I had lost for Gandhi—not by asking me to forgive everything he did, and certainly not by asking me to suspend moral judgment.

Quite the opposite.

It reminded me that respect at its deepest may mean taking someone seriously enough to continue questioning him—refusing both worship and dismissal.

Perhaps that is also part of what Gandhi meant by becoming zero. The moment I entertained that possibility, my eyes welled up.

I had spent years standing in judgment over Gandhi. That evening, Gandhi became a question again.

++++++

Please feel free to share candid and critical feedback on the argument, framing, and overall content. I would especially value comments that challenge the underlying assumptions and help sharpen this essay.

Read more

“What is the most powerful letter in the Sanskrit alphabet?”

The students usually searched for grand answers. Some chose Om, imagining sacred vibrations. Others suggested the first letter, arguing that all beginnings must possess power. A few remained silent, wary of walking into one of Shyam’s pedagogical traps.

That morning, he gave them a clue.

“It appears in nearly every interrogative word. It is the sound with which curiosity enters the world.”

The answer he was looking for was ka—the root of what, who, where, when, and why in Sanskrit and several Indian languages. To Shyam, the letter represented inquiry itself. Civilisations declined, he often told his students, not when they ran out of answers, but when they lost the courage to ask questions.

Most of the class was thinking seriously. One student in the back row, who had not been listening, suddenly looked up and said:

“Kabootar?”

The class erupted in laughter.

Shyam smiled, corrected him, and continued with the lecture. Yet the word remained with him.

Kabootar (Pigeon).

By evening, the accidental answer had begun to acquire a strange significance.

For several weeks, Shyam had been reminding Anoop, the campus admin head, that bird nets were urgently needed on the two balconies of his university apartment. During the ten days that Shyam had been away, pigeons had taken almost complete possession of them.

They nested on the air-conditioner ledges, rested on the railings, and sat comfortably on the blades of two old ceiling fans. The floor was covered with layers of grey-white droppings. Feathers floated into the rooms whenever the balcony doors were opened. Dust gathered in the corners. The place had begun to smell less like an apartment and more like an abandoned loft.

Shyam had read enough about the possible health hazards associated with accumulated pigeon droppings. Once dried, they could turn into fine biological dust. Cleaning them without protection could release particles into the air. For the elderly, the immunocompromised, or those with respiratory problems, prolonged exposure could become dangerous.

He therefore saw the bird nets as a simple and rational intervention.

There was a problem. A solution existed. The university had workers, tools, money, and administrative machinery. Yet for weeks nothing happened.

This, Shyam often felt, was one of India’s recurring tragedies. The country did not always lack resources. More often, its resources refused to assemble themselves into action.

Anoop, however, had recently surprised him.

The university’s senior administrators ate breakfast in the guest-house dining hall each morning. Afterwards, they had to telephone repeatedly for an electric vehicle to take them to their offices. It was a small inconvenience, but a daily one—the kind of friction that everyone complained about and no one removed.

Anoop changed the arrangement. Between 9:30 and 10:30 each morning, he instructed an electric vehicle to remain stationed near the dining hall.

Nothing revolutionary had happened. No committee had met. No policy paper had been circulated. One person had noticed a recurring problem and rearranged an existing resource.

Life became easier.

That small act gave Shyam confidence that the bird nets, too, might finally appear.

And they did.

Two carpenters arrived one afternoon with drills, ropes, plastic fasteners, and rolled bundles of netting. They leaned dangerously over the balconies, balancing on narrow ledges while drilling holes into the concrete.

Each time one of them stretched outside the railing, a chill passed through Shyam.

He wanted to speak to them about safety harnesses, risk perception, and the terrifying informality with which Indian workers negotiated death. But they were already halfway through the job. A lecture from a safe distance would have been an obscenity.

So he remained silent.

The pigeons came and went throughout the installation.

They would approach the balcony in confident arcs, slow themselves in the air, and then suddenly encounter the unfamiliar black mesh. Some hovered for a second, beating their wings furiously. Others landed on the outer railing and tilted their heads, examining the obstruction with one bright eye and then the other.

The carpenters laughed.

“They will understand in a day or two, sir.”

When the work was complete, Shyam afraid that the support staffs would leave behind all the garbage, requested to clean the floors, fans, window ledges, exhaust outlets, and air-conditioner units. It took them hours. Beneath the droppings, the original colour of the tiles slowly reappeared.

Shyam offered each worker five hundred rupees. The carpenters refused, saying they had merely done their assigned work.

By evening, the balconies looked new.

Shyam walked through the apartment with the satisfaction of someone entering a house for the first time. The rooms appeared larger. The air seemed lighter. Order had returned.

That afternoon, he came across a line on social media: even when no guest is expected, one should keep one’s home ready to receive one.

It reminded him of his mother.

“Lakshmi does not stay in an unclean house,” she used to say.

Shyam stood at the balcony door and admired the polished floor.

Then three pigeons arrived.

They circled once and landed on the ledge beyond the net. One of them repeatedly moved towards the place where an opening had once been. It stepped sideways, returned, and tried again.

Another pigeon flew to the opposite balcony and did the same.

They did not behave like casual visitors searching for a convenient perch. There was intention in their movements. They knew the turns of the building. They knew the railings. They knew the exact corners where the fans cast shade in the afternoon.

They had not discovered the balconies.

They had returned to them.

For the first time, Shyam wondered whether some of the pigeons had been born there.

Had eggs once rested behind the air-conditioner? Had young birds learned to balance on those fan blades? Had pairs returned season after season, carrying twigs into the same corners?

He had thought of the balconies as his property. The pigeons had probably thought of them as geography.

The net had converted one species’ home into another species’ protected territory.

For a moment, guilt entered him.

He resisted it with reason.

Animals adapted quickly, he told himself. The pigeons would find another balcony, another ledge, another building. Their memories could not possibly resemble human memories. They would not spend their evenings grieving over lost real estate.

Besides, what alternative did he have? Was he expected to surrender his lungs, furniture, and living space to birds?

The action was necessary.

Yet as he watched the pigeons searching for an entrance that no longer existed, he realised that necessity did not eliminate tragedy. It merely made tragedy defensible.

The following morning, two pigeons were waiting on the staircase.

They stood several steps above him, unusually still.

Shyam clapped his hands.

“Shoo!”

They did not move.

He climbed another step. One pigeon spread its wings but remained in place. The other lowered its head and made a deep, vibrating sound.

Shyam waved his arm.

Suddenly, one of them launched itself towards him.

Its wing struck the back of his leg with surprising force. A claw grazed his calf. Blood appeared in a thin red line. Shyam lost his balance and fell forward, hitting both knees against the sharp edge of the stairs.

The pigeons flew upwards through the stairwell.

For several minutes, he remained seated, stunned less by the pain than by the apparent deliberateness of the attack.

That evening, he told himself it had been an accident.

A frightened bird had misjudged its direction. Human beings were story-making creatures. They assigned motives to randomness and intentions to collisions. It was absurd to imagine a pigeon taking revenge.

Still, the next time he entered the staircase, he looked up before climbing.

The birds continued to visit.

They sat outside the nets, sometimes singly, sometimes in pairs. One pigeon would peck the mesh three times, pause, and peck twice more. Another would press its body against the net and release a low call.

Shyam began to notice patterns.

Three pecks.

A pause.

Two pecks.

A circling flight.

A return to the same corner.

He knew it was dangerous to translate animal behaviour too quickly into human language. Pigeons did not submit petitions or organise demonstrations. Their world was made of orientation, hunger, nesting, danger, light, magnetic fields, and remembered routes.

But perhaps communication did not require grammar.

Perhaps repetition itself could become testimony.

The birds seemed to be saying:

We returned.

The place remembered by our bodies is no longer open.

Something has happened here.

Several days later, Shyam returned to his apartment unexpectedly before lunch. A few pigeons were perched on the outer railing. As he approached the balcony, they flew away, except for one.

It was trapped in the net.

One wing had passed through a loose section of mesh. The more the pigeon struggled, the tighter the strands wrapped around its feathers and feet. Its body twisted helplessly. Its chest moved rapidly.

Shyam opened the balcony door.

The pigeon thrashed violently.

He stopped.

He remembered the scratch on his calf and the stories he had read about pathogens associated with birds. He fetched a thin towel and wrapped it around his hands. Standing carefully near the net, he tried to hold the pigeon still, but it struck at him with its beak.

He withdrew.

“Wait,” he said, as though the bird understood. “I am trying to help.”

The pigeon continued struggling.

Unable to free it safely, Shyam telephoned Anil, one of the residential caretakers.

“There is a pigeon caught in the net,” he said. “Please come quickly. We need to release it.”

Anil arrived carrying a small pair of scissors.

He worked more confidently than Shyam. Holding the bird firmly behind the wings, he cut through the tangled mesh. Within minutes, the pigeon was free.

Its wing appeared injured. It could not fly.

“What should we do?” Shyam asked.

“I will take care of it, sir,” Anil replied.

“Keep it somewhere safe. Give it some water. Once it recovers, release it.”

“Yes, sir.”

Anil placed the pigeon inside a cloth bag and carried it away.

Shyam felt relieved. The immediate moral burden had passed into competent hands. He returned to his work and thought little more about it.

The following evening, while walking past the staff quarters, he saw Anil sitting outside his room with two other men. A bottle stood between them. On a steel plate lay small roasted pieces of meat, dark with spices.

Anil called out cheerfully.

“Sir, come! Have something.”

Shyam smiled and declined.

Then he noticed several grey feathers near the drain.

For a moment, he did not understand.

His eyes moved from the feathers to the plate, from the plate to Anil’s face.

“What happened to the pigeon?” he asked.

Anil lifted a piece of meat.

“This is the pigeon, sir.”

Shyam stared at him.

“You ate it?”

“It could not fly. A cat would have eaten it anyway.”

“But I told you to care for it.”

“I did, sir.” Anil laughed, believing he had made a joke. “I took care of it.”

The other men laughed with him.

Shyam walked away without speaking.

That night, he could not sleep.

The event unsettled him because no one involved believed he had acted cruelly.

Shyam had installed the nets to protect his health.

The carpenters had done their job.

The cleaners had restored hygiene.

Anil had taken home a bird that, in his judgement, would not survive.

Every human action possessed a reason.

Yet the pigeon was dead.

This, Shyam realised, was how many conflicts unfolded between humans and other species. There was rarely a declaration of war. No parliament announced the removal of sparrows, vultures, owls, insects, or pigeons. No army advanced.

A light was installed here.

A tree was cut there.

A glass tower appeared along an ancient flight path.

A wetland became a housing colony.

A balcony was sealed.

Each decision was local, rational, and often necessary. But together they formed an invisible campaign against beings that had no representatives in planning meetings.

The pigeons returned the next morning.

There were more of them than usual.

They lined the parapet opposite Shyam’s apartment. Perhaps twelve, perhaps fifteen. They were not silent, but their calls were subdued. No bird attempted to enter the balcony.

One pigeon flew close to the net and released something from its beak.

A small grey feather floated down and caught in the mesh.

Then another pigeon approached and did the same.

A feather.

Then a dry twig.

Then a thin piece of straw.

Shyam stood behind the glass door, motionless.

He knew there could be ordinary explanations. Birds carried nesting material. Feathers fell naturally. The gathering might be accidental.

But the arrangement continued.

A pigeon would approach the net, release something, and fly away.

By afternoon, the mesh held several feathers and twigs. They formed no symbol recognisable to a human eye, yet the net no longer looked empty.

It looked inscribed.

The pigeons could not write an accusation. They could not describe the trapped wing, the cloth bag, the spices, or the evening drink.

They could only return to the place where one of them had vanished.

They could leave behind fragments of what made a pigeon’s life: a feather, a twig, a strand of grass, the memory of an entrance.

Shyam opened the balcony door.

The birds flew back but did not leave.

“I did not know,” he said.

It was an inadequate sentence.

He had known that pigeons occupied the balconies. He had known that the nets would exclude them. He had known that one had become trapped. What he had not known was how one reasonable action could travel through a chain of other reasonable actions and arrive at death.

He looked at the net.

Protection had become a trap because one section had been installed poorly. The problem was not necessarily the decision to separate human and avian spaces. The problem was that the separation had been designed only from the human side.

The following day, he called the carpenters back.

He asked them to tighten the loose mesh, seal every dangerous fold, and create a smooth outer surface so that no bird could become entangled. He also requested two wooden nesting boxes to be placed on a shaded wall beyond the residential block, away from windows and ventilation systems.

Anoop was puzzled.

“Sir, first you wanted the pigeons removed. Now you want houses built for them?”

“I do not want them inside my house,” Shyam replied. “That does not mean I want them to have no house.”

The arrangement was imperfect. Some pigeons ignored the boxes. Others returned stubbornly to the balconies. Droppings continued to appear on the outer ledges. The conflict did not disappear.

But its nature changed.

Shyam no longer imagined that cleanliness required indifference, or that compassion required surrendering his home. Between domination and helplessness lay design—the difficult art of recognising that another creature’s needs remained real even when they conflicted with one’s own.

A week later, he returned to class.

He wrote a single letter on the board:

क

“What is the most powerful letter?” he asked.

This time, the student in the back row was attentive.

“Ka,” he said confidently. “Because it begins the questions.”

Shyam nodded.

Then the student grinned.

“Although, sir, it also begins kabootar.”

The class laughed again.

Shyam looked through the window. On the parapet of the adjoining building, three pigeons sat facing the classroom.

“Yes,” he said. “Perhaps that was the better answer.”

He turned back to the board.

“The most powerful letter is the one that allows the unheard to place a question before us.”

Outside, one of the pigeons rose into the air. It circled the building once and returned to the parapet.

Shyam watched it carefully.

It carried nothing in its beak.

It did not strike the window or approach the balcony.

It merely returned.

And, for the first time, Shyam understood the message.

We are still here.

“Imagine yourself ten years from today,” the facilitator said, walking slowly between the circular tables arranged across the seminar hall. “Describe the life you would like to be living. Then work backwards and identify the steps required to reach it.”

The participants in the Faculty Development Programme bent over their worksheets. Some began writing immediately. Pens moved with the confidence that often accompanies imagined futures. One participant saw herself becoming a dean. Another wanted to publish three books. Someone planned to establish a research centre. Someone else wished to leave academia altogether and become a consultant.

At Radha’s table, everyone was busy except Radha.

She sat with her pen resting between her fingers, looking at the empty page as though it had asked her a question she did not consider worth answering.

Mohan noticed first.

“You haven’t written anything,” he said.

Radha smiled.

“I have nothing to write.”

The others looked up. Her response unsettled them. In a room devoted to strategic planning, ambition was not merely expected; it was almost a moral requirement. An empty worksheet appeared less like indecision and more like an act of rebellion.

“Nothing?” one of the younger faculty members asked. “Not even one goal?”

Radha shook her head.

“Where do you see yourself ten years from now?” Mohan persisted, though without the interrogative sharpness of the facilitator. His question carried genuine curiosity.

Radha looked towards the window. Outside, the university lawns were burning beneath the June sun. A gardener was pulling a hose across the grass. The water rose briefly in the air and fell in a fine silver arc.

“In my cottage in Kashauli,” she said.

“Kasauli?” Mohan asked.

“Yes, Kasauli. Though my grandmother always called it Kashauli.”

“What will you do there?”

“Nothing.”

The answer produced laughter around the table, but Radha did not laugh.

“I will wake up when I wake up. I will drink tea on the veranda. I will read. Perhaps I will grow apricots. I will watch the mist come and go. That is enough.”

The others returned to their worksheets, satisfied that Radha’s refusal to plan was itself a kind of plan. But Mohan remained arrested by the word.

Kasauli.

He had heard the name before—or rather, he had seen it. It belonged to the misty landscapes of 1942: A Love Story, a film that had entered his imagination in his youth and remained there like a song whose lyrics one remembers only in fragments.

That evening, after the FDP sessions ended, Mohan searched for scenes from the film. He watched narrow mountain roads, colonial houses, pine-covered slopes and clouds drifting through valleys. He listened again to music that seemed to belong not merely to a film but to an India that was always receding into memory.

Then the number caught his attention.

The 42 of 1942

Forty-two.

When he first watched the film, he had known nothing of Douglas Adams or of the number forty-two as the answer to life, the universe and everything. Now the coincidence delighted him. Only in India, he thought, could the year of a gargantuan historical event—the Quit India Movement—become entangled, however accidentally, with the cosmic absurdity of forty-two.

History, cinema, rebellion, love and the meaning of existence—all compressed into a number.

He sent Radha a message.

“When are you going to Kasauli?”

She replied several minutes later.

“I didn’t say I was going now. I said ten years from now.”

“Why wait ten years?”

Radha stared at the message longer than she later admitted. Something in Mohan’s excitement had disturbed the careful stillness she had created around her dream. Until that afternoon, the cottage had existed as a distant refuge, protected by postponement. To visit it now would mean allowing life to enter it.

Mohan sent another message.

“I have wanted to live in Kasauli for at least a week since I saw 1942: A Love Story. I had forgotten the wish. You reminded me.”

The dormant desire, once named, grew wings.

Over the next few days, Mohan spoke of little else. He investigated routes, rainfall patterns, nearby forests, old churches and walking trails. He read about the cantonment, the orchards, the breweries and the narrow pathways from which the plains could sometimes be seen spreading into the distance.

His excitement began to excite Radha too.

“You may stay in the cottage,” she finally told him. “I haven’t been there in more than two years. It will be good if someone opens the windows and lets the house breathe.”

When Radha mentioned the arrangement to her corporate friend, Nandita, the response was immediate.

“You are letting him stay there for free?”

“Yes.”

“For how long?”

“A week, perhaps ten days.”

Nandita frowned with the grave concern of someone who believed that every asset must justify itself through revenue.

“Radha, that cottage could earn a substantial amount during the monsoon. People pay ridiculous prices for mountain properties. At least charge him something.”

“He is a friend.”

“That is precisely why you should be clear. Friendship and property should never be mixed.”

Radha laughed.

“You make it sound as though he is acquiring the cottage.”

“People take advantage of generosity. You are too trusting.”

“Mohan is not like that.”

Everyone said this about people shortly before discovering that they were exactly like that, Nandita thought. But she did not say it aloud.

“Does he at least understand the value of what you are giving him?”

Radha looked away.

Mohan had a peculiar relationship with value. He understood the value of things that could not be priced and frequently overlooked the price of things everyone else considered valuable. He could spend an entire afternoon listening to an old craftsman explain the geometry of a wooden window, yet forget to negotiate the fare with a taxi driver. He would travel hundreds of kilometres to meet a village teacher who had planted a library in an abandoned grain store, but could postpone for months the repair of his own leaking ceiling.

He was not careless in the ordinary sense. His attention was simply governed by a different hierarchy.

He believed India had become invisible not because there was nothing to see, but because Indians had forgotten how to show it.

“A country is not experienced through monuments alone,” he often said. “It is experienced through conversations, courtyards, recipes, silences, local jokes, neglected ponds, family stories, trees whose names no one remembers, and people who have never appeared in a guidebook.”

He dreamed of making the world experience India—not the polished India assembled for official delegations, nor the picturesque poverty photographed by hurried tourists, but the dense, bewildering, contradictory civilisation hidden inside ordinary lives.

Whenever he entered a new place, he asked questions others considered strange.

Who was the oldest person in the neighbourhood?

Which tree flowered first?

Where did people sit before television entered their homes?

Which local word had no adequate translation?

What did children fear?

What food was prepared when someone returned after a long absence?

Which building had disappeared but remained alive in memory?

Mohan believed that every locality required a context expert: someone who could introduce a visitor not merely to its roads, but to its inner weather.

He had an almost dangerous empathy. Suffering did not remain outside him. A child selling balloons at a traffic signal could alter the course of his day. The sight of an old man eating alone at a railway platform could haunt him for weeks. He was incapable of classifying human misery as background scenery.

People occasionally found this exhausting.

“You cannot carry the whole world,” his friends warned him.

“I know,” he would reply. “But the world becomes lighter when someone attempts to lift even one corner.”

He began the journey to Kasauli on a grey July morning, driving an ageing white car whose air-conditioning worked only when the vehicle was moving at a respectable speed. The monsoon had just reached northern India. Delhi and its surrounding cities had spent weeks waiting for rain and complaining about heat; now that the rain had arrived, they complained about waterlogging.

The city loosened its grip slowly. Concrete walls gave way to warehouses, petrol pumps, roadside eateries and fields washed into improbable shades of green. Buffaloes stood in pools of rainwater with only their heads visible. Egrets followed tractors through wet soil. Vendors covered stacks of fruit with blue plastic sheets.

Mohan stopped at a roadside stall for tea. The stall owner poured the liquid into a small paper cup and apologised for the rain as though responsible for the monsoon.

“Where are you going, sahib?”

“Kasauli.”

“For work?”

“For nothing.”

The man laughed. “Then it must be important.”

Mohan liked the answer so much that he wrote it in his notebook.

The highway gradually tilted upwards. The air changed before the landscape did. It carried the smell of wet stone and leaves. Hills appeared in the distance, first as faint shadows, then as immense folded presences.

Drizzle touched the windscreen. The wipers began their uneven labour.

Near the foothills, traffic slowed. A truck had broken down at a narrow turn, and vehicles accumulated on both sides. Drivers stepped out to assess the obstruction, each offering a theory and none offering a solution. A bus conductor waved his arms with the authority of a field marshal. Motorcyclists attempted impossible passages between vehicles. A dog slept beneath the truck, indifferent to collective agitation.

Mohan did not mind.

He watched rainwater move along the side of the road, carrying pine needles, wrappers and fragments of red earth. On the slope above, a woman in a green shawl climbed steadily with a basket secured to her back. She moved with greater ease than the cars.

When the jam cleared, Mohan continued north, but instead of turning directly towards Kasauli, he took the road towards Shimla and then climbed towards Mashobra.

Radha had laughed when he told her about the detour.

“Mashobra is not on the way to Kasauli.”

“Everything is on the way to somewhere.”

“That sentence explains most of your life.”

He had first encountered the name Mashobra in the books of the Indian writer, Pankaj Mishra. The word had stayed with him. He wanted to see whether a place carried the memory of its most famous seasonal inhabitant.

By the time he reached Mashobra, the drizzle had become a fine mountain rain. Clouds had descended into the deodar forests. They moved between the trees like pale animals. The road narrowed and curved around slopes dense with oak, pine and cedar. Moss climbed stone walls. Tin roofs shone under the rain.

Mohan parked near a small tea shop overlooking a valley that was mostly hidden by mist.

The shop was run by an elderly woman named Shanta Devi and her grandson, who was doing his mathematics homework beside a jar of glucose biscuits.

“What can one see from here?” Mohan asked.

Shanta Devi looked into the whiteness.

“Today? Nothing.”

“And when the weather is clear?”

“Too much.”

Mohan smiled.

He ordered tea and pakoras. The boy’s notebook contained fractions. Mohan asked if he liked mathematics.

“No.”

“Why?”

“It gives the same answer to everyone.”

Mohan considered this.

“That is exactly why some people love it.”

The boy remained unconvinced.

They spoke for nearly an hour. Shanta Devi told him about winters when snow once remained for weeks, about apple harvests becoming less predictable, about monkeys learning to open windows, about young people leaving for Chandigarh and Delhi, and about tourists who demanded mountain silence while playing music from portable speakers.

Before departing, Mohan asked the boy to show him one place in Mashobra that no tourist knew.

The boy led him down a wet path behind the shop to a small clearing. There stood a deodar tree split by lightning many years ago. Its trunk had opened into two dark columns, but green branches continued growing from both halves.

“It died,” the boy said, “but it didn’t stop.”

Mohan photographed nothing. He stood before the tree for several minutes.

Some sights, he believed, were diminished by proof.

He reached Kasauli after sunset.

Radha’s cottage stood on a slope below a narrow road, partially concealed by pine trees and overgrown hydrangeas. Its green roof was slick with rain. A stone staircase descended towards the veranda. When Mohan unlocked the door, the house exhaled the odour of wood, dust, old books and rooms that had waited too long.

He opened every window.

Mist entered first.

The cottage contained two bedrooms, a small kitchen and a sitting room with a fireplace. On one wall hung a fading photograph of Radha’s parents. Her father was wearing a coat too large for him; her mother stood beside him, unsmiling but radiant.

Mohan sent Radha a message.

“The cottage is alive.”

She responded:

“It is probably full of damp.”

“Damp is one form of memory.”

“Please don’t romanticise the fungus. There is bleach under the kitchen sink.”

The next morning, Mohan woke before sunrise to the sound of rain dripping from the roof. The valley beyond the veranda was invisible. Pine trunks rose from the mist and vanished into it.

He made tea and sat outside wrapped in a shawl he found inside a cupboard.

Nothing happened.

Radha had promised him exactly this, and he found it magnificent.

During the following days, Mohan walked everywhere. He visited the old church, spoke to shopkeepers, followed footpaths that seemed to lead nowhere and returned by roads he had not intended to take. He met a retired army officer who could identify birds by their shadows, a baker who claimed his sourdough starter was older than his marriage, and two schoolgirls who were documenting local medicinal plants for a science project.

He asked everyone what Kasauli should show the world.

The answers varied.

Its silence.

Its sunsets.

Its discipline.

Its ghosts.

Its old houses.

Its disappearing trees.

A taxi driver said, “Show them nothing. Once you show people something, they build a café there.”

Each evening Mohan returned to the cottage and wrote. He wrote about Mashobra’s lightning-struck tree. He wrote about Shanta Devi’s distinction between seeing nothing and seeing too much. He wrote about the mountains as an archive of patience.

He also began arranging years of unfinished work.

His laptop contained essays, fragments, proposals, stories, field notes and improbable plans. There were documents about neighbourhood museums, travelling classrooms, mathematical festivals, village libraries, heritage walks and a platform through which Indian families could host visitors from other states and countries.

His friend’s daughter, Vaishnavi, had often asked to read his work.

She was twenty-two, impatient with ceremonial wisdom, and possessed the rare ability to ask questions without pretending to know their answers. Mohan trusted her judgement because she was not easily impressed by him.

On the final night of his stay, rain struck the cottage roof with such force that conversation required raised voices, even though Mohan was alone.

The electricity failed shortly after ten.

He lit two candles, placed his laptop on the dining table and called Vaishnavi.

“I am sending you a folder,” he said.

“What folder?”

“Everything.”

“What does everything mean?”

“All my writing. Or almost all of it.”

There was a pause.

“Why are you sending it to me?”

“Because you will read it.”

“You have many senior friends. Scholars, editors, people with experience.”

“They will read what I have written. You may understand what I was trying to write.”

“That sounds suspiciously like responsibility.”

“It is.”

Outside, thunder rolled across the valley.

“Are you all right?” Vaishnavi asked.

“Perfectly.”

“You sound strange.”

“I have always sounded strange.”

“No, stranger than usual.”

He laughed.

They spoke for nearly two hours. Mohan described the journey, the traffic jam, Mashobra, the split deodar and the cottage surrounded by rain. He told her that India did not require more tourists as much as it required better hosts.

“A host does not merely provide a room,” he said. “A host rearranges the world so that a stranger can enter it without fear.”

Vaishnavi was silent.

“Write that down,” he told her.

“You write it down.”

“I already have.”

Before ending the call, he said something that she would revisit hundreds of times.

“Do not let the unfinishedness of the work make you think it was unsuccessful.”

“What does that mean?”

“All meaningful work is inherited in an unfinished state.”

“Mohan Uncle, you are talking like someone in the last scene of a film.”

“Then let us hope the film is not badly reviewed.”

He sent the folder at 12:42 a.m.

Vaishnavi noticed the time only later.

Forty-two again.

The next morning, the rain intensified.

Water rushed down the slope behind the cottage, carving channels through the soil. Small stones began collecting near the staircase. The pine trees swayed in the wind, their upper branches disappearing into cloud.

Radha called.

“You should leave today. The weather department has issued a warning.”

“I was planning to.”

“Not planning. Leave.”

“I will pack after breakfast.”

“Mohan.”

“Yes?”

“Please do not stop anywhere to talk to strangers.”

“That condition makes travel meaningless.”

“Just come down safely.”

He promised.

At about nine, he packed his clothes, closed the windows and placed the used bedsheets beside the washing machine. He cleaned the kitchen, perhaps because he knew Radha would notice. His suitcase waited near the front door.

But before leaving, he stepped onto the veranda for one final look.

The rain had erased the valley. The world had been reduced to the cottage, the trees and a few feet of trembling earth.

There was a deep sound beneath him.

Not thunder.

Something older and closer.

The ground shifted.

At first, it moved almost gently, as though the mountain were adjusting itself in sleep. Then the retaining wall below the cottage cracked. Stones slipped. A section of the garden folded downward.

Mohan turned towards the door.

The earth opened.

Later, those who reconstructed the event would say that the slope had become saturated after continuous rainfall. The soil had lost cohesion. Drainage channels were blocked. The foundation had weakened over time.

They had technical language for everything.

But Radha, when she saw the place, remembered the Ramayana.

Sita, exhausted by the world’s demands for proof, had asked the earth to receive her. Mother Earth had opened and taken her daughter home.

Here, too, the ground had opened.

But this time, it had taken Mohan.

Perhaps the world was not yet ready for a man who felt every wound as his own, who believed strangers could be turned into guests, and who travelled through India asking trees, children, shopkeepers and forgotten buildings to reveal their secret lives.

Perhaps the earth, more compassionate than the world, had pulled him into herself.

The rescue teams worked through rain and mud. By evening, the cottage had tilted dangerously. One side of the veranda was gone. Mohan’s car remained parked near the road, its doors locked, the keys later found inside the house.

His suitcase stood beside the entrance.

Radha arrived the following afternoon.

Nandita came with her.

Neither spoke about rent.

For several hours, Radha stood beneath an umbrella and watched workers remove stones, branches and broken sections of the retaining wall. She remembered the blank worksheet at the FDP.

Where do you see yourself ten years from now?

In my cottage in Kashauli.

What will you do there?

Nothing.

The future, she realised, is not an empty space waiting to be filled with plans. It is a living terrain beneath our feet—beautiful, unstable and indifferent to our diagrams.

Three days later, Vaishnavi called Radha.

“He sent me his writing the night before it happened.”

“All of it?”

“He said it was everything.”

Radha sat down.

“Did he know?”

“I don’t know.”

Premonition is a word invented after an event, when ordinary gestures begin to glow with retrospective significance. A folder sent at midnight becomes a testament. A strange sentence becomes a farewell. A joke becomes an omen.

Perhaps Mohan had sensed something.

Perhaps the mountain rain had awakened in him an awareness that is always present but usually buried: that time is not an account with a known balance.

Or perhaps he had simply trusted Vaishnavi.

Months later, she began organising the files.

There were thousands of pages. Some were polished essays; others were little more than sentences waiting for a world to gather around them. She found notes from railway stations, villages, classrooms and roadside tea shops. She found plans for projects no institution had approved. She found letters never sent.

In one document, titled “How to Help the World Experience India,” Mohan had written:

Begin with one place. Learn it deeply enough to introduce it honestly. Do not hide its wounds. Do not reduce it to its wounds. Find the people who carry its memory. Help them become hosts. Let every visitor leave with a relationship, not merely a photograph.

At the bottom of the page was another line:

The world does not need to arrive in India all at once. It may enter through one open door.

Vaishnavi sent the passage to Radha.

The following monsoon, Radha returned to Kasauli.

The damaged cottage had been declared unsafe and was eventually dismantled. Only part of the stone staircase remained. Wild grass had reclaimed the garden. Hydrangeas grew near the edge of the repaired slope.

Radha carried a small wooden board. On it were painted the words:

Mohan’s Door

She placed it where the veranda had once stood.

There was no house and no door, only an opening between two pine trees through which one could see the valley when the mist lifted.

Radha sat on a stone and waited.

For a long time, nothing happened.

Then the clouds parted.

Below her, the hills unfolded in shades of green and blue. Far beyond them, the plains shimmered beneath the monsoon light. A bird called from somewhere inside the forest. Water dripped from the pines.

A young couple walking along the road noticed the sign and came down the steps.

“What is Mohan’s Door?” the woman asked.

Radha looked at the valley.

“It is a way of entering India.”

The couple waited for an explanation.

Radha smiled.

Then, slowly, she began telling them about a man who believed that every place contained a universe, that every stranger might become a guest, and that the world could be made lighter if someone attempted to lift even one corner.

As she spoke, the mist returned.

It moved gently between the trees, crossed the ruined garden and gathered around the place where the cottage had once stood.

For a moment, Radha felt that Mohan had not disappeared into the earth at all.

He had merely entered the country he had spent his life trying to reveal.

Perhaps it was her smell.

Perhaps it was not even her smell, but the idea of her smell, planted inside him by his mother long before he had ever seen her.

His mother had served her to him without knowing what she was doing. She had not known that this flower, this fallen sweetness of the forest, would one day colonize her son’s mind. She had not known that mahua would sit quietly inside him for years, waiting for the right hour, the right hunger, the right accident.

And the accident came in the most unlikely place: inside a Subway sandwich shop on campus.

That afternoon, Madan had gone there for an oatmeal raisin cookie and a can of Thums Up. It was not hunger exactly that had taken him there. It was restlessness. The kind that does not know whether it wants sugar, carbonation, conversation, or destiny. He stood there, watching the boy behind the counter slide bread into the small glowing oven. The dough went in pale and soft. It came out warm, browned, and transformed.

Something in that little oven disturbed him.

He looked at it the way an early human must have looked at fire.

“Can I bring my own dough and bake bread here?” he asked the boy at the counter.

The boy looked up, unsure whether this was a serious question or a joke made by a professor who had drunk too much Thums Up.

“Sir?” he said.

“My own dough,” Madan repeated. “If I bring it, will you bake it?”

The boy smiled nervously. “Sir, I don’t think we are allowed.”

Madan nodded. He did not argue. The answer did not matter. The oven had already done its work. It had unlocked a door inside him.

The very next day, the air in his office carried a musty smell. It was not unpleasant. It was the smell of something damp, hidden, waiting. It made him pause. Then, suddenly, he remembered the brown bag.

Inside that brown bag, wrapped carefully in blue satin given by Aman, lay mahua.

Aman had brought it from the depths of some forest in Maharashtra, where he had been running his NGO. He had not demanded much in return for leaving her with Madan. Perhaps Aman knew that some gifts should not be explained. They should simply be handed over and allowed to ripen in another person’s fate.

Meeting with Aman was destined. He had come to attend Unconference that Madan had organized; he knew little that the event was just an excuse for mahua to finally enter inside him after he had been fancying her more than a few years by now. One day when Madan was talking to Aman, Aman asked him if he wanted to buy all his leftover mahua flower and he was willing to sell at a throw away price as he was not going to carry it back with him.

Madan had thought he would use all the mahua flowers much earlier. Many times, he had taken the blue satin out, opened it gently, and nibbled a tiny bit of her. But who can stop the march of kaal? Mahua had waited. Madan had waited. Desire had waited.

And now the room itself seemed to be calling him.

He pulled the bag from the corner, loosened the satin, and looked at the flowers. They had travelled a long way to reach his room. They had fallen from trees he had never seen, been gathered by hands he did not know, dried under a sun he had not stood beneath, and arrived now like a message from a country older than memory.

It was the day before an extraordinary event was about to unfold in the sky. The moon was going to pass directly in front of Venus, making the brilliant planet vanish and then reappear in the afternoon sky. How could something extraordinary not happen on the eve of such an astronomical event? How could the sky prepare such theatre and leave Madan untouched?

That morning, mahua gave in to his passion.

Or perhaps he gave in to hers.

He took the flowers to the cook at the guesthouse.

“Can you make rotis with this?” Madan asked.

The cook took the flowers in his hand, smelled them, turned them over, and looked at Madan with the mild suspicion that cooks reserve for educated men who suddenly discover ingredients their grandmothers had always known.

“Mahua?” the cook asked.

“Yes,” Madan said, almost shyly.

The cook smiled. “Ho jayega.”

It will be done.

Those three words felt like a blessing.

Until then, mahua had been memory, story, possibility. Now she was about to enter flour, water, fire, and salt. She was about to become food.

Madan returned to his room and waited. His mind went back to his mother. After her brain stroke, she had often spoken of mahua. Again and again, she had remembered how, before dawn, she would leave the house with her elder brother to pick choowa-hua (dropped from trees under the force of gravity) mahua flowers. Other girls in the village would still be asleep, dreaming perhaps of husbands, bangles, festivals, or futures already arranged by others. But his mother would be out under the dim sky, gathering fallen sweetness from the earth.

She had told the story so many times that even without ever seeing mahua in those days, Madan had begun to see it. He could imagine the ground scattered with flowers. He could imagine the coolness before sunrise. He could imagine the slight bend of the body, the cloth bag, the fingers moving quickly, the intimacy between tree and child, hunger and forest, poverty and abundance.

Mahua was not merely a flower. It was an archive. It carried the labour of women, the taste of villages, the intelligence of forests, the smell of early morning, the sorrow of neglected abundance.

Madan had first felt this madness of unlocking value after reading the autobiographical account of Margaret Wade and her work with hibiscus flowers for farmers in Ivory Coast. The story had made his mind go berserk. If hibiscus could be seen anew, if kokum could be revived, if flowers and spices could be rescued from the prison of local invisibility and taken into the world with dignity, then how many such treasures in India were still waiting? How many flowers, seeds, fruits, grains, oils, leaves, and roots were lying quietly in villages and forests, their value locked not because they lacked worth, but because the educated had forgotten how to see?

Hibiscus had opened one window. Kokum had opened another. But mahua did something else. Mahua did not merely open a window. Mahua opened a wound.

When the rotis finally arrived on his plate, they looked modest, almost shy. Nothing in their appearance announced revelation. They were not polished, not plated for a restaurant, not decorated for a camera. They were rotis, slightly darkened, uneven, warm, carrying within them the crushed memory of flowers.

Then the smell rose.

It was raw. Earthy. Wild. It had the dampness of soil, the fatigue of forests, the sweetness of fallen things, the musk of old villages, the innocence of hunger, and the ache of mothers who had woken before dawn. The smell did not enter him through the nose alone. It entered through the skin, the chest, the back of the eyes.

A moist feeling descended all over time.

Not over him.

Over time.

For a few seconds, the present lost its hard edges. His mother as a young girl was there. The forest in Maharashtra was there. Aman was there with his blue satin. The Subway oven was there. The boy at the counter was there, saying, “Sir, I don’t think we are allowed.” Margaret Wade was there with hibiscus. Kokum was there. The moon was approaching Venus. The sky was preparing its disappearance and return.

And on Madan’s plate, India was doing the same.

Vanishing.

Reappearing.

He tore a piece of the mahua roti and put it in his mouth.

It was not sweet in the ordinary sense. It was deeper than sweetness. It tasted like something that had survived neglect. It tasted like a civilization hiding in the kitchen because the seminar rooms had failed to invite it. It tasted like a mother’s story becoming edible after decades. It tasted like the possibility that India did not need to invent everything anew; it needed to remember with intelligence.

He sat quietly.

The roti cooled.

The smell remained.

And in that guesthouse room, on the eve of the moon covering Venus, Madan understood that love sometimes arrives not as a person, not as an idea, not even as beauty, but as a forgotten flower folded into dough and returned to fire.

Mahua, my love, he thought.

You were never absent.

We had simply forgotten how to bake you back into our lives.

Then the sky changed.

Clouds rolled in with unusual speed, thick and charcoal-colored, swallowing the sunlight. Within minutes the brightness of the afternoon dimmed into something resembling dusk.

Anil had wished for it.

And nature had delivered.

He stood outside the auditorium where a corporate “unboxing event” had just concluded—a spectacle designed to manage perceptions. Executives had smiled, photographers had clicked, and buzzwords had floated through the air like confetti.

He stepped outside and noticed a fellow writer walking toward the parking lot.

Anil approached him quickly.

“You write sci-fi, don’t you?”

The writer paused.

“Yes, I do.”

“I have been dreaming about someone who has managed to find a warm-hole. Can you believe that?”

The writer smiled faintly.

“Yes, I can. I write sci-fi novels.”

“Yes, you do,” Anil said eagerly. “Won’t you ask me what the character in my dream does with the warm-hole?”

The writer checked his watch.

“I have to pick up my daughter. I will indulge you some other time.”

He walked away before Anil could reply.

Anil watched him leave and smiled to himself.

The fellow writer, Anil knew, would not be able to go far. The cloud had already appeared on the horizon. Soon the entire campus would be enveloped in a darkness so strange that people would stop their routines and look up in confusion.

A rupture was necessary before repair could begin.

And Anil knew that the process of repair had already started.

The Portal

The next morning Anil performed the ritual again. He closed the door of his small study, drew the curtains, and placed his palm on the faintly shimmering circle that hovered above his desk.

It looked deceptively simple. A soft distortion in the air—like heat waves rising from a summer road.

But it was no ordinary phenomenon. It was a warm-hole.

Not a wormhole—the violent cosmic tunnels physicists theorized about. Wormholes ripped spacetime open like wounds.

This was something gentler. A warm-hole did not tear reality apart. It connected it softly.

Anil inhaled deeply. The portal opened. A faint wind flowed out of it. The air smelled impossibly pure—like forests after rain, like oceans untouched by industry, like the first morning of the Earth. He breathed in. Then he leaned forward and exhaled into the atmosphere of India.

It was a strange act, almost comical if someone had witnessed it: a man standing before a shimmering distortion and breathing.

But Anil knew what he was doing.

Air carried chemistry. Chemistry shaped biology. Biology shaped mood. Mood shaped societies.

And societies shaped the destiny of civilizations. Small interventions could ripple outward in unimaginable ways.

The Discovery

Anil had discovered the warm-hole months earlier. It had begun with an intellectual obsession. Many a times he felt as if the earth was a prison for some advanced civilization in some other galaxy. The recent news about the earth being trapped inside a cosmic black hole had started make his intuition a little less outlandish.

The news had made him think about dimensions. In school he had learned the simple story: three dimensions of space and one of time. But Anil had always suspected the world was arranged differently. He scribbled equations on notebooks, drawing diagrams of dimensional hierarchies.

One idea kept returning.

At lower dimensions things become connected. At higher dimensions things become disaggregated.

A sheet of paper could fold two distant points together. A map could compress continents. A dream could collapse years into seconds. Perhaps reality itself contained folds—places where the vast complexity of the universe simplified into intimate connections.

One evening, while thinking about this possibility, Anil felt something strange. The air in his study trembled. A circular ripple appeared above his desk. At first he thought he was hallucinating.

But when he touched it, his hand passed through a space that was not there.

And on the other side he glimpsed another sky.

The Other Galaxy

The first time he opened the portal fully, Anil nearly fainted. The sky on the other side was violet. A distant sun glowed turquoise. The landscape looked calm, fertile, and untouched by the frantic machinery of human civilization.

He had not dared step through. Instead he had simply breathed. The air was astonishingly clean. It felt alive. Anil realized something profound in that moment.

The warm-hole was not meant for travel. It was meant for exchange.

Ideas.

Air.

Energy.

Consciousness.

Tiny currents could flow through it and alter entire worlds.

The Experiment

For weeks Anil experimented quietly. Each morning he opened the portal. He inhaled the air from the other galaxy. Then he exhaled it into Earth’s atmosphere. At first nothing happened. Then small changes appeared. The smog in the city thinned slightly. Students on campus seemed calmer. Arguments dissolved more easily. Even birds returned to areas where they had disappeared years ago.

It was subtle. But undeniable. Anil began to suspect something extraordinary. Perhaps the air from the other galaxy carried more than oxygen. Perhaps it carried a different equilibrium of life. A balance Earth had once possessed but gradually lost.

The Philosophy of Repair

Anil spent long nights thinking about what he was doing. The modern world was obsessed with massive solutions—huge technologies, sweeping policies, grand revolutions. But nature rarely worked that way. Nature repaired itself slowly. Through small feedback loops. Through tiny adjustments repeated millions of times. A forest did not regenerate through a single heroic act. It regenerated through seeds.

Perhaps civilization could be repaired the same way.

Not through force. But through gentle exchanges. The warm-hole allowed exactly that. It allowed a quiet dialogue between worlds.

The Rupture

The strange darkness that fell over the campus had not been an accident. Anil had triggered it. Opening the portal repeatedly had begun altering atmospheric currents. Clouds gathered more easily. Rain patterns shifted. The rupture had been necessary.

Nature sometimes required a moment of imbalance before finding a better equilibrium. But the rupture carried a cost. Every portal had two sides. Something could enter as well as leave.

Raja Bali

One evening, while Anil meditated near the portal, he felt a presence. A consciousness moved through the warm-hole. Not hostile. But powerful. The figure emerged slowly.

Tall. Calm. Radiating ancient authority.

Anil recognized him immediately.

Raja Bali. The legendary king of Indian mythology. A ruler of immense generosity.

But also an asura—a being of enormous ambition.

Anil felt a chill. He remembered the ancient story. Bali had ruled the universe so successfully that even the gods became uneasy. Vishnu had descended as Vamana to limit his power. Now Bali stood before him again.

“Who opened the passage?” Bali asked.

Anil swallowed.

“I did.”

Bali examined the portal thoughtfully.

“You are exchanging worlds.”

“Yes.”

“For what purpose?”

“To repair my world.”

Bali smiled faintly.

“A noble ambition.”

Then he added quietly:

“Dangerous as well.”

The Trade-off

Anil realized something unsettling. Nature never offered gifts without conditions. The warm-hole allowed Earth to receive healing currents from another galaxy. But it also allowed powerful beings to enter.

Balance demanded it.

Cleaner air.

Better ecosystems.

Happier societies.

But also the arrival of minds capable of reshaping destiny.

Anil asked carefully,

“Why have you come?”

Bali answered calmly.

“Your world is wounded. But it is also full of potential.”

“And you wish to rule it?”

Bali shook his head.

“I wish to test it.”

The Debate

For weeks Anil and Bali spoke. They debated the future of humanity. Bali believed civilization needed strong leadership. Humans were too easily distracted, too easily manipulated by trivialities.

Anil believed something different. He believed happiness emerged from distributed intelligence. From communities learning slowly.

From individuals discovering meaning.

“Your world is chaotic,” Bali said.

“Yes,” Anil replied.

“But chaos contains creativity.”

“Creativity without discipline becomes decay.”

“Discipline without freedom becomes tyranny.”

The conversations continued long into the night.

The Second Discovery

During one of these discussions Anil realized something profound. The warm-hole did not merely connect galaxies. It connected states of consciousness.

If a being filled with ambition entered Earth, ambition would spread. If someone filled with compassion used the portal, compassion would spread.

The portal amplified inner states. It was not simply a physical phenomenon. It was a psychological multiplier. That realization frightened Anil. It also gave him hope.

The Decision

Anil changed his daily ritual. Instead of merely breathing air from the other galaxy, he began meditating before opening the portal.

He focused on gratitude.

On humility.

On the simple wish that people might live with less fear. When he opened the portal afterward, the wind that flowed through it felt warmer.

Softer.

Bali watched silently.

“You are attempting something unusual,” he said.

“Yes.”

“You believe happiness can spread like air.”

“I believe consciousness can.”

Bali smiled again.

“Then let us see whose vision shapes this world.”

The Quiet Transformation

Months passed. Small changes multiplied. Students on campus began organizing unexpected collaborations. Cities experimented with green spaces. Strangers helped each other more often.

Nothing dramatic.

But enough to shift the emotional temperature of society.

Even Bali seemed intrigued.

“This world resists domination,” he observed.

“Perhaps it does not need one ruler,” Anil replied.

“Perhaps it needs millions of small awakenings.”

Bali laughed softly.

“You may be right.”

The Future

One evening the sky turned violet—the same color as the distant galaxy beyond the portal. Anil stood beside Bali watching the sunset.

“Will you stay?” Anil asked.

“For a while,” Bali said.

“And after that?”

“Your world must decide its own fate.”

Anil looked at the warm-hole shimmering quietly in the air. A simple circle. A gentle bridge between worlds. He realized something extraordinary.

The portal had never been the true miracle.

The miracle was the realization that small acts—breathing, thinking, caring—could ripple outward through invisible dimensions.

Repair did not require force. Repair required connection.

Anil closed the portal for the night. Tomorrow, he would open it again. And somewhere, perhaps in another galaxy, another person might do the same. And slowly, almost imperceptibly, the universe might grow a little happier.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

A Shivaratri Reflection on Authenticity, Questions, and the Flow of Consciousness

Let me place this question at the outset — an invitation offered without much context:

Just imagine that Earth is a prison created by some advanced civilization, and we are programmed never to realize it. How would your understanding of the world change if you truly knew this?

There are days in the civilizational imagination when time seems to pause, when the rhythms of the universe become audible to the attentive mind. Mahāshivaratri is one such day — a night when the world is believed to slip into cosmic alignment, when silence deepens, and when the cost of authenticity comes down heavily for those who dare to look inward. It is a night not merely of ritual but of ontological invitation: an invitation to see ourselves as more than habit, more than impulse, more than the stories we keep repeating to reassure ourselves that we know what love is.

Pause and think about the meaning of the word ‘Shiva’: One Who Is Not!

I had hesitated to write this reflection. Perhaps because speaking about love always risks misunderstanding. Yet my hesitation dissolved when I realized the quiet symbolism of the calendar itself: the Day of Shiva arrives just after the Day of Love. This sequence is not accidental in spirit. Valentine’s Day celebrates longing, attraction, and relational celebration — the outward blossoming of human affection. Shivaratri, however, invites another movement altogether: the inward turning by which longing itself is transformed.

Only when we cease to remain bound by the compulsions of procreational energy does the possibility of real love begin to emerge. Shiva represents precisely this movement — the stillness that does not reject life but transcends its compulsions. If Shiva stands for anything, it is the possibility of loving the whole creation by stepping beyond narrow self-definition. On this night, one is gently pushed toward the state of guṇātīta — beyond the three gunas, for an attentive practitioner, beyond the restless fluctuations of nature. And only from that freedom does the full intensity of love become possible.

Love and the Forgotten Question

What humans often fail to understand about love is that love has everything to do with questions and almost nothing to do with the transmuted procreational energy we commonly mistake it for. What we name love is often only attachment interpreted by the mind — a narrative created to keep us secure within familiar chains.

Only a free person can truly love.
And only those who live with questions can taste freedom.

The mind seeks certainty because certainty feels safe. Yet the tragedy of human life is that we can remain imprisoned without even knowing we are imprisoned. Can one imagine a more pitiable condition — to live in ignorance while believing oneself free? Much of what passes as love is precisely this: a psychological arrangement that protects us from the discomfort of existential uncertainty.

Real love begins where certainty ends and one gets coaxed to redefine oneself to become all inclusive…and then one becomes love.

The Symbolism of Krishna and Radha

No story better illustrates this paradox than the story of Krishna and Radha — not as historical personalities alone, but as archetypes of consciousness. Their love is not defined by possession, nor by social completion, nor by ordinary fulfilment. Instead, it is a dance of longing that refuses closure.

When one learns to live with unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions, life enters a profound darkness — not the darkness of despair, but of depth. In that darkness, one becomes dark like Krishna: playful with mystery, intimate with paradox, capable of holding contradictions without anxiety.

Living with unanswerable questions transforms existence into a constant source of vismaya — awe. And it is this awe, and the piecemeal satiation of it, that becomes the deepest source of ānanda. Love then ceases to be an emotion alone; it becomes a way of perceiving.

When awe becomes continuous, something else happens silently within us. The energy that once flowed outward in restless desire begins to rise upward toward awareness. The inner current changes direction.

And then:

धारा (Dhārā) metamorphoses into राधा (Rādhā).

The flow reverses. The ordinary stream of instinct turns into the river of devotion. What was once movement toward possession becomes movement toward surrender.

The “Ka” of Krishna: Living with Questions

At times, I deliberately tell students something shocking: one cannot experience even the full intensity of sexual love without learning to live meaningfully with deep existential questions. Questions such as:

• From where has this world arisen?

• What is the nature of my particular experience of life?

• From where does consciousness emerge?

These are not abstract philosophical puzzles meant for classrooms alone. They are the foundations of intimacy itself. Without such inquiry, desire remains merely biological; with inquiry, desire becomes a doorway to wonder.

Without the “Ka” — the question — of Krishna, authentic love remains impossible. The capacity to live with questions brings humility, and humility dissolves egoic certainty. This is why deep love and inquiry are inseparable.

The Roots of Fundamentalism

The inability to live with questions lies at the heart of every form of fundamentalism. Humans, frightened by uncertainty, attempt to forge certainty amid a vast sea of ignorance. We clutch beliefs not because they are true but because they spare us the discomfort of not knowing.

Both liberal and conservative worldviews, at their best, arise from attempts to answer profound human questions. Yet what often happens is that answers harden, while the questions that gave birth to them are forgotten. The result is dogma without depth — certainty without humility.

Love cannot survive in such an environment.

To love deeply is to remain porous to mystery. It is to accept that the unknown is not a threat but a companion.

Shivaratri and the Cost of Authenticity

Why does authenticity feel costly? Because authenticity demands that we relinquish the comforts of borrowed identities. Shivaratri symbolizes this stripping away. Shiva sits in stillness, adorned not by possessions but by emptiness — ashes, silence, and awareness.

On this night, one feels the convergence of energies — not merely astronomical or ritualistic, but psychological and spiritual. The mind becomes aware of the possibility that life could be lived differently: less as acquisition, more as witness; less as craving, more as participation in a cosmic rhythm.

To become guṇātīta is not to abandon the world but to engage it without being enslaved by its compulsions. From such a state, love ceases to be selective. It expands — from person to person, from person to creation.

The Joy of a Changed Perspective

Investing in this perspective transforms life at a foundational level. Joy no longer depends on outcomes. Love no longer depends on reciprocation. Authenticity no longer feels like a burden but like a release.

Life becomes a constant source of possibility because one is no longer trying to close the questions that animate existence. Instead, one learns to dwell inside them.

Perhaps this is why Shivaratri follows the Day of Love. The first reminds us of longing; the second invites us to transcend longing without losing its beauty. One celebrates relationship; the other reveals the ground from which all relationships emerge.

Shivaratri invites us to step into that threshold. It asks us to sit still enough to notice the flows within us — desire, fear, longing, curiosity — and to watch as they gradually align with a deeper rhythm.

When authenticity becomes possible, when one stops performing and begins witnessing, a subtle shift happens: life itself begins to feel whole.

From that wholeness, love emerges — not as craving, but as presence; not as possession, but as participation.

And perhaps that is the deepest teaching of this night:

Only those who live courageously with unanswerable questions taste pūrṇatā.
Only those who taste pūrṇatā can know the full intensity of love.

Everything else is rehearsal.

And so tonight, as the world once again is reminded quietly of the cosmic rhythm, perhaps the invitation is simple: to allow the flow within us to reverse, to let Dhārā become Rādhā, and to discover that love begins not when questions end — but when we finally learn to live with them.

[Based on this note]

Characters

• Sanjeev (S) — a seeker speaking from lived experience.

• Interlocutor (I) — a reflective companion who asks and tests.

I. On Being Understood

I: Tell me, Sanjeev, when you ask about your capacity to love, what troubles you most — fear of loving too little, or of being misunderstood?

S: Neither exactly. I am troubled when people feel certain about me without truly exploring my perspective. I recoil not from being understood, but from being closed over by another’s certainty.

I: So, you seek not agreement, but shared inquiry?

S: Yes. I can love those who ask, search, and wonder with me. I lose respect only for those who have stopped questioning life.

II. On What Makes You Come Alive

I: And when you meet such questioning people, how do you feel?

S: More excited, more alive — as if my inner world has more room to breathe.

I: Then your openness depends not on reassurance, but on aliveness in the other?

S: Precisely. Depth awakens depth.

III. On Vulnerability as a Doorway

I: You have said you are always vulnerable to others. Why is that?

S: Because without vulnerability, no one can enter the universe we each carry within ourselves. Openness is the condition of genuine relation.

I: But does that not expose you to harm?

S: It does — transiently. Yet that very risk gives me the courage to go deeper within myself. The inner journey can be unsettling, but with persistence fear loosens its grip.

I: Then vulnerability is not weakness but a discipline?

S: Exactly — a gateway inward.

IV. The Paradox of Love and Invulnerability

I: You then made a striking claim. Will you restate it?

S: Only the invulnerable can truly love — and only those willing to be vulnerable can taste invulnerability.

I: This sounds paradoxical. What do you mean by invulnerability?

S: Not armor against others, but freedom from inner fear. A steadiness born of seeing clearly.

I: And love in this state?

S: Love is no longer chosen; it is how the world appears when fear has fallen away.

V. Containing One Another

I: You also said something unusual: that you feel so close to others that you contain them and they contain you. Is this merging?

S: No. I remain distinct, yet the boundary feels porous. We appear within the same field of awareness.

I: So closeness is not loss of self but shared interiority?

S: Yes — mutual presence, not fusion.

VI. Beyond Choice

I: Earlier I spoke of “choosing whom to love.” You resisted that. Why?

S: Because in true invulnerability there is no chooser. There is only witnessing.

I: Witnessing of what?

S: The unfolding of the world — including others — within a spacious awareness.

I: So selection belongs to a fearful self that feels separate?

S: Precisely. When separateness softens, choice about love dissolves.

VII. Spacious Yet Caring

I: How does this witnessing feel to you? Detached or tender?

S: Both at once — spacious and deeply caring.

I: Explain this union.

S: Spaciousness allows everything to appear without grasping. Care arises because nothing is defended. Detachment becomes tenderness; tenderness rests in space.

VIII. What Love Becomes

I: Then, in your view, what is love?

S: Not an act performed by a person, but a quality of reality when fear is absent. It is ontological, not strategic.

I: And vulnerability?

S: The path inward.

I: And invulnerability?

S: The clarity that remains.

IX. Closing Insight

I: If you were to speak your position in one line?

S: Vulnerability opens the door inward; invulnerability stabilizes spacious seeing; in that seeing, care naturally arises as witnessing.

I: Then your capacity to love is not measured by emotion, but by the depth of awareness you inhabit?

S: Yes — love follows clarity, not preference.

(End of dialogue)

The early morning actions by the United States—swift, decisive, technocratically justified—made me think of Shukracharya from Indian cosmology.

Shukracharya, the teacher of the Asuras, is often misunderstood as someone who merely chose the “wrong side.” But his choice was not idiosyncratic, nor was it motivated by personal preference. He aligned himself with forces out of tune with the prevailing cosmic order precisely to maintain balance. His role was not to ensure the victory of one side, but to prevent the collapse of the larger moral and metaphysical ecosystem. Without such counterweights, dominance becomes tyranny, and order becomes brittle.

Seen through that lens, what has been done to Venezuela appears less as an act of moral correction and more as an assertion of unilateral coherence: a demand that the world move in one direction, at one speed, under one set of assumptions. The tragedy is that such interventions rarely end with the stated objective of human flourishing. Instead, they fracture something far more precious and far harder to rebuild—people’s trust in themselves.

When external pressure systematically undermines a society’s institutions, economy, and leadership—however flawed those institutions may be—the eventual casualty is not merely a government, but collective self-belief. Once people begin to see their own destiny as externally scripted, agency erodes. And when faith in collective agency disappears, no one truly wins.

Flowing Against the Current

Many Latin American countries carry a persistent desire to do what they feel is right for their people, even when that desire runs counter to dominant global expectations. This impulse—to define development on one’s own terms—is often framed as irrational, populist, or irresponsible. But from within these societies, it is experienced as an assertion of dignity.

Yet this desire goes against a deeply embedded propensity in the larger geopolitical ecosystem. The current flows in a particular direction: toward market liberalization of a specific kind, toward political arrangements legible to Western institutions, toward economic policies that privilege global capital mobility over local resilience. To resist this flow is akin to swimming upstream.

History shows us how often such contrarian positions have been thwarted. Chile in the 1970s, Nicaragua in the 1980s, Cuba for decades, and now Venezuela—each case different, yet bound by a recurring pattern. When deviation becomes too pronounced, correction follows. Sometimes it comes through overt force, sometimes through economic strangulation, sometimes through subtler forms of delegitimization. The methods change; the impulse does not.

What, then, can we learn from these repeated failures? Not merely that resistance is costly, but that the global system itself has a low tolerance for plural developmental pathways. The problem is not that alternative models always fail on their own terms; it is that they are rarely allowed to fail—or succeed—without interference.

Intentions and Outcomes

I have no doubt that Steinbeck’s character didn’t want to kill the mice. The tragedy of Of Mice and Men lies precisely in the gap between intention and outcome. Care, when mediated through power without self-awareness, can become destructive. This is an uncomfortable analogy, but a necessary one.

America is often sincere in its desire to make the lives of average Venezuelans better. Many policymakers, analysts, and citizens genuinely believe that sanctions, pressure, and regime change are unfortunate but necessary tools to liberate people from misrule. To dismiss this sincerity would be intellectually dishonest.

But sincerity is not the same as competence, and moral certainty is not the same as moral clarity. The more important question is not whether America means well, but whether such efforts have actually succeeded in contexts similar to Venezuela.

Supporters of intervention often point to Germany and Japan after World War II, or South Korea during the Cold War, as evidence that external pressure and restructuring can work. And they are right—up to a point. These are genuine examples of post-conflict transformation supported by American power.

But analogies are only as good as the histories they respect.

The Weight of History

Germany and Japan were defeated industrial powers with high levels of social cohesion, strong state capacity, and relatively homogeneous national identities. Their pre-war institutions, though militarized, were administratively sophisticated. Moreover, their reconstruction occurred in a global context defined by existential ideological competition, where long-term investment was seen as strategically necessary.

Latin America’s history is of a different kind altogether. Colonial extraction, racialized inequality, land concentration, repeated external interference, and cycles of debt dependency have left scars that are not easily erased by policy prescriptions imported from elsewhere. The state in many Latin American countries has long been experienced not as a neutral arbiter, but as an instrument captured by elites or external interests.

In such contexts, sudden economic shocks—especially sanctions that collapse currencies, restrict imports, and destroy livelihoods—do not produce democratic awakening. They produce survival anxiety. And survival anxiety is fertile ground not for liberal institutions, but for cynicism, black markets, and authoritarian reflexes.

To expect Venezuela to respond to pressure the way post-war Japan did is to ignore the accumulated asymmetries of history. It is to assume that all societies start from the same baseline of trust, institutional memory, and social capital. They do not.

The Desire to Win

At its core, what drives American engagement with Venezuela is not merely concern for human rights or democracy. It is the desire to win—to ensure that no alternative vision of sovereignty, resource control, or political economy appears viable within its sphere of influence.

Winning, in this sense, is not about defeating an enemy, but about preventing deviation. It is about maintaining narrative dominance: that there is only one credible path to prosperity, only one legitimate form of political organization, only one acceptable relationship between state, market, and society.

But ecosystems—whether biological, cultural, or political—do not flourish under monocultures. They require diversity, experimentation, and even failure. Shukracharya understood this intuitively. Balance is not achieved by eliminating opposing forces, but by allowing them to exist within a broader moral order.

When the United States acts in ways that break a society’s trust in itself, it may achieve short-term compliance, but it undermines long-term legitimacy. People may change governments, but they also internalize the lesson that sovereignty is conditional and dignity negotiable.

Who Ultimately Loses?

The immediate losers are, of course, ordinary Venezuelans: those who struggle with inflation, shortages, migration, and the quiet erosion of hope. But the loss does not stop there.

America, too, loses something intangible yet vital—the ability to be seen as a force that enlarges human possibility rather than constrains it. Power that cannot tolerate difference eventually finds itself isolated, not because others oppose it, but because they no longer trust it.

And the world loses an opportunity to learn. Venezuela’s failures could have been studied as endogenous failures—lessons about governance, populism, and resource dependence. Instead, they are entangled with exogenous pressure, making it impossible to disentangle what failed from what was suffocated.

Toward a Different Ethic of Power

If there is a lesson here, it is not that Venezuela was right or that America was wrong in any simplistic sense. It is that the desire to win, when untempered by humility, becomes self-defeating.

A more mature exercise of power would allow societies to make mistakes without being crushed by them. It would prioritize trust-building over compliance, accompaniment over coercion. It would recognize that flourishing cannot be imposed, only cultivated.

Shukracharya did not seek victory; he sought continuity. In a fractured world, that may be the harder—and more necessary—virtue.

And until global power learns to value continuity over conquest and dignity over dominance, we will continue to repeat the same tragedies—each time convinced, sincerely, that this intervention will be different.

But sincerity, as history keeps reminding us, is not enough.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance. Nothing I have written here is set in stone. I am putting these ideas to start a conversation, to bring people to talk, discuss, and debate the issues captured here. Give me feedback, and it will help me learn, and I will keep updating this article.

[This reflection is inspired by a recent episode of the Hyper Quest podcast with Ashish Naredi—a conversation that does not offer easy answers, but instead compels us to question first principles, sit comfortably with paradox, and examine the invisible abstractions that quietly structure our lives. In the spirit of that dialogue, this note explores one such abstraction we take for granted: how we measure time, and what it means to re-situate human life not inside self-constructed systems, but within the larger rhythms of nature and the cosmos.]

For how long will we continue to indulge in this calendric comedy of errors?

The first time I became conscious of it, my mind went—not to religion or tradition—but to Frederic Gauss of the Gaussian distribution fame in Statistics (this connection is for some other note). The knowledge shocked me that the elegance of calendric numbers does not automatically align with the rhythms of the cosmos. Calendars, I learned, are not innocent tools. They are models—approximations, compromises, and sometimes distortions. Like all models, they work until they quietly don’t.

When I encountered this dissonance again, years later, the question returned in a different garb. This time, not as a mathematical curiosity but as a civilizational unease. I floated, half-playfully and half-seriously, the idea of celebrating our students’ birthdays not on arbitrary Gregorian dates, but on their birth tithis—with full fanfare. What would it mean, I wondered, for a child to grow up knowing that their arrival into the world was marked not by a bureaucratic date, but by a specific relationship between the Moon, the Earth, and the Sun?

That question lingers.

As Ashish Naredi probes in the Hyper Quest conversation: What invisible assumptions structure our lives so completely that we stop seeing them? The calendar is one such assumption. Perhaps the most pervasive one.

The Great Uprooting

The global adoption of the Gregorian calendar was not merely an administrative reform. It was a cosmological rupture.

In standardizing time for commerce, empire, and coordination, we quietly uprooted humanity from the universe. We replaced celestial rhythms with mechanical regularity. The sky was dethroned; the clock ascended. Time was no longer something we participated in, but something we managed.

The Gregorian calendar is solar, yes—but it is indifferent to lived cycles. It does not care about:

• the phases of the Moon,

• the ebb and flow of agricultural rhythms,

• or the embodied sense of renewal that comes from alignment rather than convention.

In doing so, humanity was forced to create its own artificial universe, sealed off from the one that actually sustains it.

Rhythm Lost, Ritual Emptied

Consider the irony: we celebrate New Year’s Day with fireworks, resolutions, and declarations of renewal—on a day when, cosmically speaking, nothing new is beginning.

No new cycle.

No fresh alignment.

No threshold crossed in the natural order.

It is renewal by proclamation alone.

This is not a harmless symbolic error. Over time, such dissonance accumulates. When rituals lose their grounding in reality, they hollow out. When time is no longer rhythmic but linear and segmented, human psychology fractures. We feel perpetually rushed, perpetually late, perpetually misaligned.

As Hyper Quest podcast repeatedly surfaces: systems collapse not when they are evil, but when they become unmoored from feedback. Nature provides feedback. Calendric abstraction does not.

Putting Humanity Back into Orbit

What would it mean to put humanity back into orbit?

Not a rejection of modernity—but a correction of its arrogance.

To recognize that:

• Time is not merely a coordinate.

• Birthdays are not just anniversaries.

• New years are not administrative resets.

  

They are relational events, emerging from the dance of celestial bodies in which we are already participants.

Celebrating a birthday by tithi is not nostalgia. It is pedagogy. It teaches the child—quietly but profoundly—that their life is embedded in a larger order, that existence is not isolated but synchronized.

Similarly, recognizing the true beginning of the year is not ritualism. It is re-entrainment—bringing human culture back into resonance with natural cycles.

The Cost of Continuing the Error

By continuing to celebrate the new year on a day when a new year is not beginning, we are not just mistaken—we are training ourselves in disconnection.

• Disconnection from nature

• Disconnection from embodied time

• Disconnection from awe

And as you have often observed elsewhere, when awe disappears, ethics thins, aesthetics collapses, and public life becomes merely functional.

The calendric comedy of errors, then, is not comic at all. It is tragic in slow motion.

The Question We Need to Ask

Perhaps the real question is not Which calendar is correct?

But the one Ashish Naredi might ask:

What kind of human being is produced by the way we measure time?

A being in rhythm with the cosmos—or one forever out of sync, celebrating beginnings that have not yet begun?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

In Indian philosophical traditions, śhūnya is never nihilistic absence. Whether in Buddhist śhūnyatā or in the more ancient Vedic intuitions, emptiness signifies potential for fullness, a state of openness, relationality, and generative potential. It is a clearing in which form arises. Crucially, śhūnya is always held within a larger metaphysical grammar that includes pūrṇatā—plenitude, wholeness, and completeness. The Iśā Upaniṣad expresses this paradox succinctly: “That is whole; this is whole. From wholeness, wholeness emerges; when wholeness is taken from wholeness, wholeness still remains.” Emptiness and fullness are not opposites; they are mutually sustaining conditions of reality.

When ideas travel across civilizations, however, they rarely carry their entire ontological ecosystem with them. As Indian mathematical and metaphysical ideas moved westward—through Islamic intermediaries and into Renaissance Europe—they were progressively stripped of their cosmological and spiritual contexts. Zero became a mere number; emptiness became a technical abstraction; infinity became a mathematical limit. What was lost in translation was the lived experience of fullness that gave these concepts existential balance. Śhūnya arrived, but pūrṇatā did not.

Dürer’s magic square in Melencolia I makes this civilizational imbalance visible. The square itself is an object of deep beauty and order, originating in Indian cosmological traditions where such numerical forms were embedded in temples and yantras as expressions of sacred harmony. In Dürer’s engraving, the square remains perfectly constructed, yet it hangs above a scene of psychic desolation. Order is present, but meaning is absent. Structure survives; spirit withdraws. This is śhūnya severed from pūrṇatā.

The melancholic genius of Dürer’s image is burdened not by ignorance but by excess cognition without integration. The tools of measurement lie unused. Geometry does not liberate; it weighs down. Time itself—symbolized by the hourglass—drips away without fulfillment. The Western creative mind, as Dürer portrays it, stands at the threshold of modernity: empowered by analytical capacity yet haunted by an inner void it cannot name.

This condition intensifies as Western society progresses. Scientific rationality, technological mastery, and institutional efficiency expand dramatically, but they do so atop an increasingly fragile existential foundation. When emptiness is understood only as lack—rather than as fertile openness—societies attempt to fill it compulsively. Consumption replaces contemplation. Accumulation substitutes for meaning. Productivity becomes a moral imperative. The result is not fullness but chronic dissatisfaction, anxiety, and a deepening sense of alienation.

The price of this oversight is immense. Modern Western societies exhibit extraordinary external control alongside profound internal unrest. Depression, loneliness, and burnout are not marginal pathologies; they are structural features of a civilization that knows how to analyze everything except its own longing for wholeness. The sacred dimension of creativity—understood in India as participation in cosmic order—becomes, in the West, a solitary struggle against meaninglessness. Genius turns inward and collapses into melancholy.

By contrast, Indian traditions did not isolate creativity from the sacred. Art, mathematics, architecture, and philosophy were modes of alignment with ṛta—the underlying order of the cosmos. The experience of awe and shraddha were not emotional luxuries but civilizational necessities. To encounter emptiness without terror required a parallel cultivation of fullness: ritual, beauty, devotion, and an embodied sense of belonging to a larger whole.

Dürer’s Melencolia I thus stands as a quiet warning. It shows what happens when civilizations inherit powerful abstractions without the ethical, aesthetic, and spiritual disciplines needed to live with them. Śhūnya without pūrṇatā does not lead to liberation; it leads to exhaustion. The Western world, having mastered emptiness as technique, now struggles to rediscover fullness as experience.

Revisiting Indian metaphysical insights today is not an exercise in nostalgia or cultural reversal. It is an invitation to re-balance a fractured inheritance. The task is not to reject reason or abandon modernity, but to re-situate creativity within a larger horizon of meaning—where emptiness opens into plenitude, and genius finds rest not in paralysis, but in participation.

In this sense, Dürer’s melancholic angel still waits. Surrounded by tools, gazing into the void, it invites a question that modernity has postponed for too long: What would it mean to recover fullness without surrendering clarity? Until that question is taken seriously, the price of forgetting pūrṇatā will continue to be paid—in restlessness, in fragmentation, and in the quiet sorrow of a civilization rich in means but poor in meaning.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

At first, this may sound esoteric. What does awe have to do with GDP, governance, innovation, or national power? Quite a lot, if one looks closely at India’s unique constraints and opportunities. Because what worked for a largely homogeneous country like China—centralized direction, uniform imagination, and singular narrative—cannot work for India, a civilisation whose strength has always come from managing differences rather than erasing them.

India Is Not a Problem to Be Controlled; It Is a Multitude to Be Awakened

China built its miracle by engineering the kind of alignment that only China could have done—of language, identity, behaviour, and aspirations. A single cadence of modernisation was pushed across society. But India is not built on sameness; its historical privilege is asymmetry—thousands of groups (can’t bring myself to use the word ‘castes’), dozens of languages, a rotating kaleidoscope of deities, billion plus idiosyncratic worlds, cuisines, and moral universes. Our challenge is not to make India uniform, but to make India awake.

This requires a psychological shift, not an administrative one. When citizens are pushed into fear, conformity, and narrowness, the result is bitterness and withdrawal. But when they are invited into vismaya—the wonder that arises when one sees life as larger than oneself—they begin to loosen the grip of insecurity. A person who stands in awe does not cling; they expand. They do not impose sameness; they allow plurality.

For a country as complex as India, awe is not a luxury emotion. It is a stabilizing force.

Ghar Vapsi: Not Homeland, but Home Within

Our civilizational texts have long used the language of “returning home”—Ghar Vapsi—but not in the political sense we hear today. Real Ghar Vapsi is not about helping other into their homes or bringing someone else into your home but returning yourself to your real home.

And what is this real home? It is the place within oneself where plurality becomes bearable, where identity is not fragile, where one can hold contradictions without collapsing. To live in this home is to discover that “you contains all, and all contains you.”

This is the Indian insight: When a human being becomes inwardly vast, the outer diversity is no longer a threat.

Awe makes this inner vastness possible. When one sees the world as miraculous—its forests, its languages, its mathematics, its rituals, its logic systems—one stops trying to control everything. One seeks instead to understand. And understanding, not control, is the root of all genuine inquiry, innovation, and governance.

The ubiquitousness and unprecedented accessibility of generative AI have made something copiously clear: what was once subtle, almost hidden in the shadows of our educational and societal structures, now stands fully illuminated. In a world where information can be produced, summarized, reorganized, and even “generated” at will, it is no longer the possession of knowledge that distinguishes successful societies from the struggling ones—it is the quality of their questions.

Generative AI has quietly but decisively shifted the centre of gravity of human capability. The premium has moved away from recall and routine problem-solving—skills machines now perform with unequalled speed—and toward the distinctively human ability to frame, reframe, probe, doubt, wonder, and notice the unnoticed. What we traditionally called intelligence is now bifurcated: computation is externalised, but curiosity cannot be outsourced; content can be auto-completed, but inquiry cannot be automated.

Thus, the decisive differentiator of future-ready societies—and the students, institutions, and leaders within them—will not be how much they know, but how deeply, courageously, and imaginatively they can inquire. The societies that flourish will be those that cultivate habits of questioning as shared cultural capital: classrooms where uncertainty is welcomed; public discourse where dissent is not feared; research ecosystems where anomalies are embraced; and civic spaces where individuals have the confidence to ask why, why not, and what if.

In this sense, generative AI did not create a new world; it revealed the one we were always meant to build. It showed us that the real bottleneck was never access to information but access to insight, and that insight emerges not from answers but from better, sharper, more original questions.

As India stands at an inflection point—demographically young, technologically ambitious, civilizationally rich—the challenge and opportunity converge: to become a society of profound inquiry. For if AI provides answers at scale, then the only meaningful human advantage is the courage and craft to ask questions that matter. And that will be the true marker of whether we evolve into a successful society or remain a merely surviving one.

The Error of Believing That the Key Lies Abroad

There is a growing belief among urban Indians that those living abroad hold the keys to India’s future—that exposure to foreign systems automatically confers superior insight. But to think that the answer lies with expatriates is to mistake the finger for the moon. Their achievements are admirable, but they do not hold the missing piece of India’s development puzzle.

The key is already here, embedded in India’s social psychology.

The men and women living abroad are successful within their systems—not necessarily in deciphering the Indian system. If anything, the key lies in understanding what only India can teach: how to build thriving social, economic, and moral orders without requiring sameness.

The world today is fracturing along lines of identity. India has lived with multiplicity for millennia. But to activate this gift, India must invest not merely in infrastructure, but in inner infrastructure—the mental architecture that allows 1.4 billion people to breathe, think, imagine, and be different without tearing apart.

Awe as the Engine of Inquiry and Development

Awe does something rare: it softens the ego and sharpens curiosity simultaneously. When citizens slip into awe, three developmental shifts occur:

1. They stop obsessing about controlling others.

This is foundational in a country where competing identities can easily devolve into dominance contests.

2. They begin to ask questions instead of issuing claims.

Inquiry, not ideology, is the engine of innovation. Cultures that encourage questioning advance faster and more sustainably.

3. They experience belonging without exclusion.

Awe dissolves the fear that someone else’s flourishing diminishes one’s own. It becomes easier to let others live where they are, without demanding that they resemble oneself.

In such an ecosystem, development becomes bottom-up, experimental, and deeply contextual—not forced top-down in the hope that people will follow a singular blueprint.

Why India’s Next Leap Must Be Psychological

We are building expressways, digital platforms, AI systems, and educational frameworks at historic speed. But speed alone will not help if the mind of the citizen remains wounded, fearful, or small. India cannot borrow China’s social software because our hardware—the society—is too different.

India’s leap will come when its inhabitants rediscover their capacity for wonder. The classroom that evokes awe, the public space that inspires dignity, the policies that spark curiosity rather than fear—these will shape India’s trajectory far more profoundly than any imported development model.

Conclusion: Awe as Civilizational Currency

India’s greatest project today is not modernization, nor even nation-building—it is consciousness-building. If India can help its inhabitants come home to themselves, slip into vismaya, and hold plurality with ease, then inquiry will flourish, empathy will deepen, and development will emerge organically from within.

Then, and only then, will India stop looking at the fingers and finally see the moon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

In India, we have not been as fortunate.

We possess some of the most profound philosophical traditions—the Upanishads, the Ashtavakra Gita, the Bhagavad Gita, the Yogasutras—yet we struggle to integrate their intellectual power into modern education without either mystifying them or reducing them to slogans. The result: our heritage remains either locked inside spiritual circles or flattened into motivational clichés.

Over the last year, I have been trying to do something different.

Instead of invoking ancient names, I have attempted to extract their intellectual kernels and reframe them in contemporary terms. This is the foundation of my new course at Bennett University, The Art and Science of Inquiry. At its heart is a belief our ancient masters understood better than we do today: that life is shaped not by the answers we possess, but by the quality of questions we can live with.

We endlessly chant that the “ultimate question is ‘Who am I?’”—but rarely ask:
Why does this question matter in the first place?
What is the intellectual substratum that gives this question force?
Why should anyone, especially a young mind, care about it?

Modern spiritual teachers often jump too quickly to the “big question,” without constructing the scaffolding that makes such a question meaningful. Without context, even the deepest inquiry becomes a hollow ritual.

This is where contemporary India must rethink its educational project.

The Causal Gap in Indian Thinking

Yesterday, in a conversation with economist Subhashish Gangopadhyay, we returned to a concern I hear repeatedly: Indians struggle to step back, isolate one variable, and understand how it causally shapes the world around them.
This is not a trivial gap—it affects everything from policy design to entrepreneurship to everyday decision-making.

Knowledge, at its core, is the ability to understand causal relationships.
Yet our schooling still evaluates recall, not reasoning; compliance, not curiosity. As a result, our students often lack the mental habit of asking:
What causes what?
What changes when this changes?
What lever truly moves the system?

This is not merely a pedagogical concern but a civilizational one.

A Randomized Revolution in Higher Education

At Bennett University, we recently undertook an experiment on a scale rarely seen anywhere in the world. Nearly 4,000 first-year students were randomly assigned to two super-groups, then to eight classrooms each, and finally into 20–25 teams per classroom. Each team had 10 students drawn from different schools—engineering, design, management, media.

This is interdisciplinarity not as a slogan but as a structural fact.

It is the Wright Brothers’ wind tunnel moment for higher education.
This randomized architecture allows us to observe how team composition, diversity, and collaboration shape learning outcomes. Not through anecdotes—but through anonymized data, rigorously collected.

Such an attempt required months of 12-hour workdays, endless design iterations, and intuitive leaps. Yet now, having built the prototype, I see the possibility of scaling this to Bihar, and eventually to all of India.
If we do it right, we can reduce the cost of quality higher education dramatically—by redesigning how students learn, not by cutting corners.

And in the next iteration, we will move from structural innovation to explicit educational interventions, informed by real-world data.

India’s Ancient Future

The irony is this:
Our civilisation once specialised in inquiry—anvikshiki—the disciplined art of questioning. Yet modern India has lost this inheritance even as the world rediscovers it.

What we need today is not nostalgia for ancient wisdom, but translation—turning profound ideas into accessible intellectual tools for young minds.

The Ashtavakra Gita can help us think about epistemic humility.
The Upanishads offer lessons in perspective-taking and selfhood.
Nyaya logic can illuminate causal reasoning better than many modern textbooks.

But none of this will matter unless we find a language that speaks to the contemporary learner—without Sanskritised intimidation or spiritual romanticism.

The task before us is clear:
To merge the rigor of modern science with the depth of ancient inquiry, and to build an Indian pedagogy that teaches students not just what to think, but how to wonder.

The future of Indian higher education—and perhaps India itself—depends on our ability to create this bridge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

It was lying crooked on the metal shelf of the campus library—slim, sea–blue, almost shy among the fat textbooks on data structures and macroeconomics. She picked it up because it looked short. Her brain had not been cooperating with anything long for months now. Depression did that: it took your attention, your curiosity, your sense of continuity, and put them in a locked drawer somewhere slightly out of reach.

She flipped it open without much hope and saw the first line about an old man who had gone eighty–four days without taking a fish.

“Must be nice,” she murmured. “To have just one problem.”

She almost kept walking.
Then she thought of Som.

That afternoon in class, Som had started with logistics, as usual.

“On Friday, a film director will talk to all of you,” he said, standing in front of the whiteboard, marker poised like an unused oar. “My niece is getting married, so I’ll be off for a week. Monday, someone from Applied Sciences. Wednesday, the Dean of Design.”

His voice had that unhurried cadence that made it sound as if he was never in a rush to finish a sentence. Anu, sitting in the third row, had tried to copy that calmness into her notebook. It never quite transferred.

“Now,” he said, tapping the board gently, “we talk about questions. The New Yorker article I shared with you—the one on artificial intelligence. Who read it?”

Silence. Someone coughed. A chair scraped.

“Group A?” he asked. “Anyone?”

Guneet stared fixedly at her water bottle. Nisha raised her hand halfway.

“I read one page,” Nisha confessed.

“Why only one?” Som’s tone didn’t change; it wasn’t scolding, just curious.

“It’s… long,” she said, shrinking a little. A few students laughed.

Som smiled faintly. “Length is a poor excuse for hunger. When you are hungry, even a long roti is not a problem.”

The class chuckled again. Anu did not. The word “hunger” sat oddly in her chest. She could still feel the shape of hunger—but it was for sleep, for oblivion, not for questions.

“Okay,” he went on. “So what’s the article about? Not the details. The question. What does it mean for AI to have an inner life? Can it?”

He let the question hang in the air like a kite whose string had slipped from someone’s hand. No one reached for it.

“This is the difference,” he said finally, “between Eastern and Western ways of seeing. In much of the West, after the scientific revolution, they say: matter came first. Matter bumped into matter and somehow, at some point, something called ‘experience’ popped out like a surprise toy from a cereal box. Inner life is an accident of atoms.

“In India, we said something else. We said: the capacity to experience is the foundational reality. That is first. Matter comes later.”

He looked around the room, eyes resting briefly on each student. When his gaze crossed Anu’s face, she looked away. The word “experience” felt dangerous. She had been trying to experience less for months.

“So,” he said, “who are you when you can no longer experience? If I drop dead here”—a few students gasped and then laughed nervously— “Som’s body will be here, but Som will not. What is that Som?” He tapped his chest lightly. “That question is what knowledge meant in India. Not just skills. Skills a good robot can do.”

He wrote on the board in big letters:

Object + Awareness = Experience

“This is the equation of life,” he said. “You are all objects in this room right now. I am also one. But if your awareness is in your phone, or in your fight with your roommate, you are not here. You are sleepwalking.”

Anu thought: I am not even sleepwalking. I’m just lying down somewhere inside myself, face to the wall.

Som continued, weaving metaphors the way other people scrolled Instagram: effortlessly, compulsively.

He told them about the clay pot and the clay, about how the pot lives in terror of cracking until it realizes it is clay and cannot be destroyed. He told them about dots—how in India, a single dot had come to stand for that capacity to experience. He told them that India had somehow learned to run 1.5 billion people with far fewer prisoners per million than America, not because of better cameras or taller walls, but because of a different inner grammar of value.

“Your life,” he said quietly, “is worth more than any GDP. If you realized that, you would stop driving your scooter like a Bollywood stuntman.”

Students laughed again. Anu did not.
She wasn’t sure her life was worth much at all.

“And questions,” he said, returning to the New Yorker article, “questions are how you drill into your own inner life. If you don’t have questions, you are like a zombie. You move, you eat, you go to class, but you have not started living. Most people on earth are like that. Sleepwalking.”

He paused.

“Some of you,” he added, “are sitting in front of me right now.”

Anu felt her throat tighten. She started, guiltily, to doodle waves in the margin of her notebook.

Later in the lecture he drifted, as he often did, into a story.

“I was in Miami once,” he said, “eating at some small restaurant. A stranger heard I had come from Pennsylvania. He said, ‘If you’re already here, why aren’t you going to Key West?’ I’d never heard of it. It was just three hours’ drive, he said. So I went.”

He smiled to himself, as if replaying the route.

“That trip changed my life. At Key West I ended up at Ernest Hemingway’s house. By then, the most powerful story I had read was The Old Man and the Sea. In that book, there is hardly any plot in the usual sense—just an old man, a boy, a fish, and the sea. Yet it got the Nobel Prize. Why? Because Hemingway was mining his own memory.”

He looked directly at them now.

“Since that time, I have been very conscious about my memories. You say one word, I can make a story out of it—because I have trained myself to see my memories as a mine, not as junk.” He tapped the side of his head. “Your memories are the stairs you can use to climb out of your depression—or the chains that keep you inside it. It depends on whether you ask questions of them.”

The word “depression” made Anu’s breath stutter. She wondered if anyone had noticed.

“Most of you,” he went on, “are not reading much. That means your inner life is… shallow.” He didn’t say it unkindly. It was a diagnosis, not an insult. “When you read, you are training your mind to turn lines on a flat page into a three–dimensional world. It’s like building muscles in a gym you can’t see.”

He smiled.

“Without that training, you live other people’s dramas. Your inner life becomes Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi reruns. With that training, you can live your own, unique, absurdly magical life—even when it is painful. Especially when it is painful.”

He capped the marker.

“This course,” he said, “is about helping you ask better questions so that your inner life becomes richer. Only then can you handle AI, or anything else, without becoming a robot yourself.”

The bell rang. Students sprang up like marionettes whose strings had been yanked.

Anu closed her notebook carefully. The doodled waves looked slightly more turbulent than usual.

That night, she opened The Old Man and the Sea in her hostel room mostly out of guilt. Som was going to be gone next week for his niece’s wedding. It felt wrong to let his absence be as invisible as she usually made herself.

The story began simply.
An old man. A boy. A boat. The sea.

As she read, the hostel noises faded: the metallic shriek of buckets in the bathroom, the shrill arc of someone’s laughter in the corridor, the muffled music bleeding through walls. Page after page, she followed the old man out into the water.

He called the sea la mar, as people do in Spanish when they love the sea. He spoke to his hands when they cramped. He spoke to the fish he could not yet see. He spoke to himself about the boy.

It was the boy who hooked her. The old man thought of him when he was alone, the way people think of a missing limb. The boy had been forbidden to sail with him—it had been too long since the old man had caught a fish—but the old man’s inner life was threaded through with the boy’s presence.

Anu read about the giant marlin drawing the boat further and further from shore, turning the rope into a burning line across the old man’s shoulders. She read how the old man, exhausted, still spoke respectfully to the fish, telling it that he loved it, telling it that he must kill it anyway.

And somewhere between those lines, something rearranged itself inside her.

She stopped, book open in her lap, and heard Som’s voice in her head:

“As soon as the clay pot realizes it is clay, it stops living in fear of breaking.”

What if she was not her brokenness? What if she was not just the days she couldn’t get out of bed, the semesters she had barely passed, the conversations she had avoided until they evaporated?

What if she was clay?

She shook her head, irritated. Her mind had been doing this lately—splicing Som into everything. The way he said “awareness” with that slight raising of his eyebrows. The way he told them their lives were worth more than four trillion dollars and somehow made it feel… not ridiculous.

She looked back down at the page.

The fish was dragging the old man further and further from land. The shore was disappearing. The boy was not with him.

Anu remembered a line from class:

“If you don’t have questions, you are like a zombie.”

Hemingway’s old man had questions. He asked the sea. He asked the fish. He asked his own hands when they cramped. Not abstract, philosophical questions—just small, stubborn ones:

Can I hold on?
Can I endure this pain?
Can I respect what I must destroy?

Anu realized, with a small shock, that she hadn’t asked herself a genuine question in months. She had asked, What’s the point? and Why bother? but those were not questions; they were verdicts.

She closed her eyes and tried, very softly, to ask: What is happening to me?
Not as accusation. As curiosity.

What came up first were fragments: her parents’ voices on a crackling video call, trying not to look worried; the empty chair next to her in class that used to belong to a friend who had changed sections; the way the sky over campus sometimes turned a purple so bruised it made her chest ache.

Memories, rising one after another, like steps.

Som had said, Your memories can be the stairs you climb out on. She had thought that was just one of his poetic lines, the kind that sounded profound and disappeared after the bell. Now, in the small square of hostel light, it felt less like poetry and more like instructions.

She opened the book again.

As the old man spoke to the fish, Anu found herself beginning to speak to someone, too.

Som, she thought, awkwardly. If you were here, what would you ask me?

She could almost hear his reply: not a direct answer, but a question tossed back like a ball.

“What is it that is experiencing this sadness for you?” he would probably say, half–smiling. “Who is the ‘you’ that is tired? Is that you the same as your marks? Your major? Your diagnosis?”

She exhaled. It sounded very much like him. Annoyingly so.

In the book, the old man wished the boy were with him. Not to carry the load, but to witness it.

“If the boy were here,” the old man thought, “what would he say?”

Anu knew what the boy would say. He would say, You are not alone. I’m here. I see you.

And suddenly, as strange as it sounded even inside her own head, she realized she had started to see Som as her Hemingway—rough–edged, stubbornly hopeful, endlessly mining his own memories for stories to feed his students. And herself as the boy the old man missed: not the hero, not the one pulling the boat, but the one watching, learning how to suffer without surrendering.

The thought startled her so much that she sat back and laughed out loud, a small, surprised burst. Her roommate, scrolling on her phone, looked up.

“What happened?” she asked.

“Nothing,” Anu said quickly, wiping her eyes. “Just… the book.”

“Must be funny,” her roommate muttered, and went back to her reel.

Anu looked at the thin volume in her hands. It was not funny. But something about realizing that her teacher had become, in her mind, a fictional old fisherman, and that she had given herself the role of the boy, made the world tilt just enough to let in a thin sliver of humor.

Not happiness, she remembered Som saying once in class, when someone had asked about jokes. Humor comes when something unexpected shows up in your experience.

This was definitely unexpected.

She turned back to the story. The old man was losing his strength. Sharks were coming. The fish that he had killed with so much reverence was being eaten piece by piece.

So this is what life does, she thought. You fight for something, you suffer for it, and then other things come and eat it.

The old man, though, did not collapse into despair. He cursed the sharks, yes. He fought them until his hands bled. But even as the marlin was eaten, he held onto something else.

In the end, he returned to shore with nothing but the skeleton. People measured it, marveled at it. The boy cried when he saw the old man’s hands.

The old man slept.

What impressed Anu was not the victory—the fish was gone—but the staying with the experience. The old man did not say, halfway through, “What’s the point?” and let go of the line. He held on, even when nothing made sense.

She touched the edge of the page.

Can I do that? she asked herself. Not kill a fish, not sail a boat—those weren’t her battles. But could she hold on to the question Who is this ‘I’ that is so tired? without turning it into an accusation?

The calm that followed wasn’t dramatic. No sudden enlightenment, no cinematic swell of music in the corridor. Just a small loosening, like the first notch in a tightly wound belt.

She picked up her notebook and, for the first time in months, began to write—not bullet points, not to-do lists, but sentences.

Today I realized that maybe I am not a broken pot, but clay that has forgotten it is clay. Som went to Hemingway’s house. Hemingway mined his memories. Maybe I can mine mine. Maybe questions are the line I hold on to when the fish pulls me away from shore.

Her handwriting was uneven, letters bumping into one another. It didn’t matter.

Outside, the campus was a grid of yellow windows and dark trees. Somewhere in one of those windows, she imagined Som packing for his niece’s wedding, telling some other story to some other group of people. The thought no longer made her feel abandoned. It made her feel… connected. Like she had become, quietly, part of a larger story.

She looked down at The Old Man and the Sea again.

“Okay,” she whispered to the page, to Hemingway, to Som, to herself. “Let’s try this. Object plus awareness equals experience. My memories are objects. Let me bring awareness to them. Let me see what experience comes.”

For the first time in a long while, Anu did not dread the next day. Not because she expected it to be easy. Because she had, in her hands and in her head, a thin book, a stubborn teacher–Hemingway, a missing–boy–self, and a question that refused to let go.

And that, she realized, was the beginning of magic. Not the kind that made everything better at once, but the quieter kind: the magic of becoming, slowly, less of a robot and more of a person who knew—at least—a little of who was experiencing this strange, painful, dazzling world through her eyes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The story is based on the transcript of one of my lectures for the course, The Art and Science of Inquiry (with Numbers), at Bennett University.

Disclaimer: AI tools were used in curating this content, with human oversight to ensure rigor and contextual relevance.

From eight thousand miles and a dozen years away, I still hear his voice cutting through the low thunder of the Hudson outside my window: “Why you are late? Five minutes late?” In Delhi it had been a laugh line, a nudge. In New York, on the thirty-ninth floor of the glass hive my team calls the Nest, it rings like a tuning fork. It’s 8:05 a.m.; the board meets at nine. The city is a braided network of steam and light, the river a recursive mirror. I take another bite of a Subway footlong—yes, Subway, don’t judge—and the brine of pickled jalapeños detonates a memory of that classroom where we were told that what we are is not just what we are, but who we are with.

Diamond and graphite. Same carbon, different structure. Hardness and clearness—those weren’t properties of atoms, he said; they were properties of the arrangement. Topology. Back then the word had sounded like an expensive spice. Now it’s the spine of a company with a twelve-figure valuation whose entire reason to exist is to rearrange human arrangements so that meaning can happen.

We called it Satiris—born from a classroom joke about “ceteris paribus” that half of us mispronounced and the other half misunderstood. Ceteris: hold other things constant so you can change what matters. Satiris: hold other things with care so you can change who matters. That was the promise we sold to governments, universities, and cities: not more content, not more noise—better structure. Replace a thousand screaming incentives with a few quiet rules. Nudge a network, and properties change.

A Slack ping tics the air behind me. It’s Mei in Shenzhen sending the overnight metrics: peer-mentor interactions up forty-one percent in Seoul; relapse after grief-trigger down twelve percent in São Paulo; Go Clubs forming in twenty-seven new campuses across India. “Atari and ko trending,” she writes, as if she too had been there when our professor placed that smooth black stone on the corner star and told us the first rule is to learn the rules.

I swallow and, because ritual is meaning, lay out the morning like he taught us to lay out a sentence: subject, verb, object, cadence. First, the Board. Then the launch. After lunch, the Charter Room with the mayor, where we’ll test New York’s first neighborhood constitution—a set of rules written on paper, posted in bodegas and barber shops, binding because we agree they are. By evening I’ll be in Queens, at our pilot “Roots Walk,” guiding teenagers past the fanning tracks of Sunnyside Yard to a mural they pass daily but never read.

But for five minutes more, I sit with the lecture. In my mind the rows reset: A group here, B group there, a survey link flitting from phone to phone like a school of fish. We were told to name a classmate we’d befriended in the first week. So plain a question. So loaded a matrix. He called it an “adjacency matrix,” mangling the word because some truths are truer when they don’t try to be perfect. Back then, I smirked. Today, I sign eight-figure checks to engineers who convert lives into matrices so we can see the lonely before loneliness kills.

He told us about the doctor at Yale who became a sociologist after watching old couples die in succession, grief rippling like contagion. I didn’t know the man’s name then. I know it now. We built our earliest models on his papers, with his blessing and co-authorship, and I made sure his wife got flowers on the twentieth anniversary of his first book.

A gull wheels past the window, flicking a shadow across the table where I’ve laid my notes. On the first page is a doodle a designer made for me: a bus. I hear the professor again: “How does the bus work?” We didn’t know, and yet we sat in it. Because to live is to delegate intelligently. Because to trust is to travel. Because every day we hand our bodies to pilots and our money to bankers and our attention to algorithms and call it Tuesday. Back then it was a parable. Now it’s a compliance stack, an ethics committee, and a thousand-page product design document titled “The Ladder,” a nod to his other parable: language as ladder, each rung a word you have to learn in order to climb.

He used to tell us how he forced himself to memorize ten words a day, how he trawled Daryaganj for two-rupee paperbacks and ate books like medicine. We laughed. Then, in my first winter in New York, when the loneliness came like weather and work was a wall I couldn’t scale, I made the same vow. Ten words a day. I sampled books on my phone the way he sampled Kindle—twenty pages here, thirty there—until cadence came and sentences began to breathe. Sometimes I still hear him when I write: “There should be lyricism,” he’d say, “you won’t enjoy writing if you don’t make a sound you yourself want to hear.”

The Board wants sound bites, of course. We sell meaning at scale: “societal operating systems,” “evidence-based awe,” “Rootedness Journeys.” I invented those phrases, but I know their seed. He said the old challenge was access—libraries, lecturers, repositories; the new challenge is understanding. Same knowledge for all, different understandings for each. That’s the gap we built a bridge over: courses that hook into your social network, trips that hack your attention, daily micro-rituals that stitch habit to identity. We don’t rank you. We rewire you—gently, by invitation—toward others.

My phone buzzes again: a push notification from our Rock-Paper-Scissors experiment. Kids in five countries will play thirty-one rounds today; the app will learn their patterns and then get beaten by them on purpose, teaching victory and humility in alternating bites. We stole that, too—not stole, borrowed. He’d told us how a father used the game to split ice cream among three kids. “See how neuroscientists use simple games to see the mind,” he’d said, and I, who had never won anything, started to notice that winning is sometimes just seeing.

Go changed me more. In the lecture he had held up his phone and demanded we download Badukpop, an app none of us had heard of. “Atari,” he said, “Ko rule.” We grumbled, we contested the silly stones, and then the grid took us; the ancient sky of nineteen by nineteen taught us that influence is liquid and boundaries are courteous and victory is a soft accrual rather than a kill. When we built the company, one of our first interventions was the Go League. Not chess. Go. We put boards in break rooms and bus depots and barracks. We taught the ko rule to probation officers and community college librarians. We didn’t call it wellness. We called it a game. Games are how you teach minds to see the other mind.

A calendar tile gleams: “Charter Room – 1 p.m.” We stole that from him, too. “What does it mean to be ruled by a constitution?” he’d asked us, then asked us to write one for our classroom. In the beginning, we joked about uniform dress codes to save decision time; by the end, we had hammered out rules about listening. We brought that idea here. Every neighborhood that uses our platform writes its own small constitution—noise hours, shared gardens, grievance rituals—then votes it into existence. We avoid the dreary word “compliance.” We call it “we.” The city calls it peace.

The Board will ask me, as they always do, why it works. I will say: because of topology. Because if you reshape the mesh—mentor here, peer there, elder in the corner, idols replaced with neighbors—properties appear from thin air: calm, belonging, curiosity. I will say: because meaning doesn’t reside in the individual. It shows up in the space between. Because diamond is diamond only when the carbon holds hands a certain way.

I scroll my notes again. “Wason Selection Task – red/even cards.” He had insisted we flip the right cards. The trick, he’d said, was to seek disconfirming evidence. Where everyone else looked for confirmation, he wanted contradiction. We built that into the product. Whenever a community drafts a rule, the system asks them to test it against its opposite. No late noise becomes a “silent night”; what about a “loud hour” once a month? Dress codes to reduce distraction; what about a “uniform day” once a week and freedom the rest? We learned to flip the right cards. People began to argue better.

Someone knocks. It’s Talia, my chief of staff, bearing the pre-read and a smile that, even in this winter’s light, feels like Diwali. “You’re good?” she asks. “As good as one gets,” I say. “Got your footlong?” she adds, peeking at the wrapper. “Don’t judge,” I repeat. She doesn’t. She’s too young to remember, but I tell her anyway: once, in a campus in Greater Noida, a Subway sandwich broke open a wormhole to Vermont in a professor’s mind, and he wrote a story that changed a student who would one day found a company that would change the arrangement of a million lives. She nods, a little puzzled, but she has learned to trust my geology of gratitude.

Last night, as a private ritual, I reread the outline of a book we built together in those days—Forging New India. We were children, really, talking about civilization like carpenters talk about oak. He had invited us to write from our own knowing: failure and fear, corruption and forgiveness, risk and the American case study of apology. The outline is a clumsy garden now; we composted it into better things. But the smell of the soil is still there. It reminds me of Chandni Chowk, which he said is a history book written in stone. He promised a trip. We went. We stood in front of the Gurudwara with our borrowed headscarves and heard about Nadir Shah and the caravans of camels. Delhi’s air was a palimpsest of smoke and sweetness. I remember thinking that the city was a Go board, too: each bazaar a group, each lane a ladder, a thousand captured and recaptured liberties humming in the stones.

I crack the window, and New York answers with sirens and laughter. Across the river, a billboard argues with the sky. It says: “Just Do It.” In a lecture about the art and science of asking questions, he once told us to notice how a sentence can become a spell. We like to think our code is different, but I have learned to be humble. A sentence changed me. Sentences are prosthetics for the soul. So, we smuggle better sentences into our product: “Tell me you’re tired and I’ll sit beside you,” “You should learn to forgive yourself first,” “Are you ready to see from the other side?” We don’t gamify grief. We neighbor it.

The Board room is a glass bowl. When I enter, the skyline slides inside with me. They’re already seated: Carlo from Milan, Nkoya from Nairobi, Mr. Alvarez from Bogotá. They have read the deck. They want proof that meaning scales. I start, and as always, I start with a story.

“I was a poor student,” I say. “And then someone told me I wasn’t just a poor student. I was a node in a frayed network. Change the network, change the node. So we built Satiris, which doesn’t tell you what to think; it rearranges who you think with. We measure topology. We curate adjacency. We notice when a kid who always sits alone lists nobody on the first-week survey, and we put someone in her row. We make Go boards appear in prisons. We teach the Wason Selection Task to city councils. We ask neighborhoods to write charters and then we test them against their contraries. We refund, redesign, repent, repeat. Our users do not become better atoms. They become better arrangements. That’s why it scales.”

There are numbers, of course. Mei’s charts on grief relapse and mentor interactions. A randomized trial out of São Paulo. A CII case study that starts with a field trip to a ridge and ends with a cohort of kids who talk about geology like poets. But what holds them is a small slide at the end: a photograph of a classroom with A on this side and B on that, a man in a well-worn blazer saying, “Download this app and learn Go by the fourth.” Underneath, my caption: “Origin Story.”

We break. There’s applause the way there is when money feels noble. At lunch I slip away to my office where the sunlight has braided itself into a lattice on the floor. I sit inside the lattice the way a carbon atom might, hoping for diamond.

The afternoon Charter Room hums with the friction of democracy: a deli owner who wants earlier quiet hours; a drummer who needs midnight to be midnight; a nurse who asks for a bright-light block face to cut assault. We write it down. We let them argue. We show the “loud hour” alternative, the “silent night” compromise. The bus parable returns: none of them fully knows how the city works, but all of them have been passengers their whole lives. At the end, when they vote, there is a softness in the room that wasn’t there at the start. Meaning is a muscle that fatigues into strength.

Evening throws a copper shawl over Queens. The Roots Walk starts at 5:30, a dozen teenagers with earbuds dangling, their faces bright and bored. I point at a cracking mural: a woman holding a book, her sari flamed into birds. “Constitution,” I say, “means we agree to be ruled by what we wrote together.” I tell them about a man named Buddha and a thing called a Sangha. I tell them about a fort by the Yamuna and a shah who stole Delhi’s gold. I tell them that every city is a classroom and every classroom is a constitution. They look at me the way I looked at him, which is to say: with a stubborn mixture of skepticism and surrender.

Back home, the Nest is quiet. The river is a long breath. I sit to write the day’s ten words and a small story, because in that lecture he showed us how to use a machine—ChatGPT, he said, with the conspiratorial pride of a man showing off a new hammer—to turn notes into narrative. I resisted then. Now I’m complicit. I type, the cursor blinking like a metronome. I write about Vermont because he did, about the way certain trees look like mathematics, about Subway because I want to be honest, about how to forgive yourself first because otherwise nothing moves. The story is clumsy and true. I upload it to our internal forum where junior designers and senior sociologists and one retired bus driver read and comment. Someone adds a sentence that sings. I let it be.

At 10:30, New York is a nebula. Across the world, in a different time zone, it is morning and some student is five minutes late. Maybe a professor is asking why. Maybe someone is mapping friendships with shaky hands. Maybe a kid who hates reading is memorizing ten words because someone he trusts said cadence matters. Maybe a Go board is opening like a night sky. Maybe a city is drafting a constitution written not to constrain but to cohere. Maybe an arrangement is about to become a property.

I send one last message before sleep.

“Sir,” I type, because I will always call him that, even in New York, even at the top of a ladder he made me see, “the Go league hit a million players today. We’re putting boards in every railway station in Bihar by spring. We’re funding an MA in History in your city where every thesis is a company. We named the fund Gulel, and every share is a pebble. The charter project is live in the Bronx; kids wrote a dress code and then rewrote it. We turned your Wason rant into a civic ritual. We build adjacency matrices for grief and friendship. We’re trying, Sir, to be diamond. Thank you for the bus. Also, sorry I was late.”

I hit send. Outside, the river is black and patient. Inside, the room is a graph. Somewhere in it, a human sits, held by many quiet lines.

++++

Prompt: Using this transcript, craft a 1,500-word short story about a former student—now leading a multi-billion-dollar company in New York City—reflecting on the transformative lecture that shaped his vision of helping humanity live a more meaningful life.