Books I've read in the recent past

Post Harry Potter (I hated the last one), I've stuck to reading non-fiction (with one exception).

• India After Gandhi -- Ramchandra Guha. Chronicle of the post independence history of India. Reading it is also a "project" in itself :-). IMO, a must-read for all Indians.

• Parva -- S L Bhyrappa. The story of the Mahabharat retold, minus the magic. Vivid descriptions of what war actually is, as opposed to glossed over content of bravery and cowardice. The English translation leaves a lot to be desired, but the content is awesome. Highly recommended.

• The God Delusion -- Richard Dawkins.Worth reading  for the horrors of organized religion that it highlights. 

• Leaving Microsoft to Change the World -- John Wood. Interesting read, if a bit too full of "fluff".

• The Enemy At Home -- Dinesh D'Souza. This book is written in typical right-wing American style -- full of half truths and lots of stretches that leave one totally incredulous. A book I regret reading.

• Outliers -- Malcolm Gladwell. One of his best, if you can discount the fact that he comes up with theories from his armchair, without having experts in the field even *read* them once. As I mentioned in another blog post, I read his books for the facts he puts together, not the theories he weaves.

• What The Dog Saw -- Malcolm Gladwell. See above.

• Nickolas and Alexandra -- Robert Massie. The life and times of the last czar or Russia. Very touching. Recommended.

Currently reading "Emperors of the Peacock Throne" by Abraham Eraly and "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson.

Recommendations?

My Musical Journey

My relationship with classical music has come a long way. What I used to consider elevator music is now something that I actively seek out and listen to. I go for concerts, search for it online, buy CD's and am constantly trying add to my collection.

When I was in the "elevator music" stage, I never actively sought it and tuned off quite soon whenever I encountered it. It was only once I started learning (from my current and 4th music teacher :-P) that I really started appreciating it. Now, when someone sings a taan, I am able to understand and admire it. I am beginning to spot techniques such as using the beat to drop a few words from the phrase and intersperse with the sound of instruments. I can now "immerse" myself in the beauty of classical music.

The reason is simple. My teacher is an *awesome* singer himself -- the link to his music is about 7 years old, and his voice and technique are like wine. He is teaching me ground up and focuses extensively on technique. And works *very* hard to correct flaws (just today he pointed out that my talking and singing voices were sounding different and they shouldn't, apart from the fact that I was being nasal :-P). A good teacher opens the floodgates of knowledge in the subject of his expertise. Apart from gaining knowledge, one also begins to appreciate the subject and enjoy it.

Which brings me to another point. Now that I have begun to appreciate the "pure" Hindustani classical genre of music, I have begun to move away from "fusion" music like this. Of course, people say that this is one of the ways of keeping our musical tradition "alive", but to me it seems like an apology of a life. Maybe people like the earlier me will not reject this music, but it just doesn't have the beauty and depth of classical music.

A better way to keep our musical tradition alive (and thriving) is to expose our children to the beauty of classical music early. Children who are young enough have no pre-concieved notions of classical music being un-cool. They are like sponges and absorb beauty when they encounter it.

Urged by a friend (thanks for the good counsel :-)), I introduced my son to classical music about a year ago. He was happy to begin his lessons since he saw me doing the same. He is fortunate to be learning from such a wonderful teacher, and he is not yet 7.

I take him for as many music concerts as I can, with a book or two so he can switch between active and passive listening at will. I put him to bed with a CD of classical music (we call them "night" CD's) of his choice, and wake him up with a CD of mine. I usually have some music playing in the background even when we are doing other things.


This is my way blunting the effect of "MTV" which will no doubt seem much "cooler" when he is closer to his teens. At that point, even if he walks away from classical music, I will not mind, knowing that he has a base to which he can and will return once his rebellious years are over.

I hope to let the tradition of Hindustani classical music live on, at least in *my* family :-).

Summer breaks are far too long

It's that dreaded time of the year again when school will be out for *two* months. Summer.

Most parents scramble around at this time of the year to find summer "camps" for children. Places that will keep children out of the house for atleast 3 hours, if not more, preferably with transport provided.


Why? A number of reasons. First, a lot of moms work, and no corporate job gives you two months off in summer. Even school teacher moms in private schools get just one month off, and have to plan for the second month for their own children. Second, even if mom stays home, people now mostly live in nuclear families in apartments. It's hard to keep a child busy at home without him gravitating to the television or PC. Invariably mom and child will spend some time EACH day negotiating time for one or both. Third, most families have fewer children (or just one), and it's hard to keep planning playdates (particularly if mom works). Children need the company of their own age group and summer camps are seen as a way of achieving that.

Summer camps exist by the dozen, so it should just be a matter of choosing the one with activities that appeal to your child, right? In practice, however, it rarely works out that way. Summer camps are rarely run by people who do it for the love of children or their trade/craft. More often than not, organizers see camps as a way to make a quick buck from working parents who really have little choice. Rates per week can be as high as Rs 1500 for a child for a few hours away from home. Most often, at best they are summer nannies, at worst, they could even turn out to hurt your child (physically or otherwise).

Summer camps exist to solve a problem. The problem is that of a two month school vacation. Why, in today's day and age, do schools need to break for two months in summer? Do children really need two months of "unwinding"? From what? Their air conditioned classrooms?

My experience with summer break has been that it totally kills routines, apart from making the child "forget" what he has worked so hard to learn the entire school year. So there is the usual mom-child tug of war of doing *some* "holiday homework" just to reinforce lessons learnt. Some educators also feel that long summer breaks hamper learning.

There is another (weird) fall-out of such long vacations. Schools these days have a packed curriculum in order to appeal to today's "go-getter" parents. Now, the curriculum is *so* packed, and given that summer break is *so* sacrosanct, children end up going to school on Saturdays in order to "complete". Even in grade 1.

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely believe that children *need* unstructured time to potter around, get bored, find ways to amuse themselves. But *two* months is totally excessive.


Isn't this a completely solvable problem?

Here's my solution. Shorten summer break to three weeks. Add two of those five weeks left over to the school year to ensure that there is no school on Saturday. That leaves us with three weeks. Use those three weeks for activities that parents normally look for in summer camps. Puppetry, woodwork, speech, drama, skating, swimming, basketball, cricket, ... the list is endless.

This, IMO, would make for a truly well-rounded school curriculum and also make a world of difference to working parents.

Views?

Why *I* cook

I seem to be part of a fast disappearing breed of (working) women, who not only cooks herself, but also cuts, chops and does dough and chapattis without the help of a maid.

Here's why.

When I cook myself, after mastering a recipe, I enjoy tweaking it to get it to taste different. This is particularly important if one is vegetarian -- after all there are only so many veggies and it is nice to get a different taste with minimal extra effort.


Cooking is a "critical-path" item. Lunch has to be packed and if the help fails to show up on a certain morning, life can turn topsy-turvy if cooking food is outsourced to her. Some people "solve" the problem by cooking the previous day, but I am always suspicious of putting anything other than fresh food in a child's lunch box.


My gas bills are extremely low because *I* am the only one who handles the gas. Unlike maids, who I see turn on the gas first and then go around looking for a pan to place on it.

The quantity of oil and spice can be easily controlled. I have often seen maids dunk food in oil because it cooks faster that way.

My chapattis have been turning out much better since I started kneading dough myself -- because I "knead". I mean -- really knead, not just gather up the powdered flour into a lump.

Last, but probably the most important, I am much more adventurous with food, given that I have the liberty of slicing and dicing the way *I* want. I am not limited to the skill set of the maid. Cooking is a creative activity. Also a great stress-buster. What could be nicer than sitting down to eat a well cooked meal where a new (or long forgotten) dish has been tried?

:-)