Copyright@shravancharitymission

Copyright@shravancharitymission

Copyright@shravancharitymission
WHAT DO YOU DO? HOW DO YOU DO?
Kamlesh Tripathi
At a party in an upscale housing society, a Page 3 socialite cornered me with the confidence of a customs officer examining a suspicious passport.
“What do you do?” he asked, looking me up and down.
“I did many things in the past,” I replied cheerfully, “but now I do nothing. So, mostly, I dwell on my past.”
He looked puzzled. Perhaps doing nothing was not listed among the respectable professions in his social directory.
“And where are you from?” came his next question.
“I am very much from this place,” I said, “though I have been around the world.”
“Really? And where do you stay?”
“Currently, I stay in a house of my own, just behind that pond you can see.” I pointed towards it. “But during my career, I have stayed in more than three dozen houses.”
“Good heavens! Why so many?”
“Because I always lived in rented accommodation in different cities. My career demanded mobility, while my salary discouraged property ownership.”
For the first time, he smiled. I suspected he had mistaken my explanation for an investment strategy.
“But what is your introduction?” he asked, looking increasingly uncomfortable.
“Well, I have a retired face, a retired figure, and a retired walk, as you can see. I also possess an Aadhaar card, a PAN card, a voter ID card, and a house number. What more does a citizen need to establish his identity?”
He stared at me as though I had just applied for membership of the United Nations.
“Nice to meet youuu…?”
“Samarth,” I replied. “And what about you?”
He straightened his designer jacket. “I am in the corporate world.”
“Wonderful! Which planet?”
He ignored the question. “Which department were you in, Samarth?”
“Several, at different times. I moved from one department to another, met hundreds of people, attended countless meetings, and filled in enough forms to qualify for a post in bureaucracy.”
“And what was your designation?”
“That depended on whom I was talking to. To my boss, I was a subordinate. To my colleagues, I was a colleague. To my juniors, I was a senior. At home, I was simply the man who had forgotten to bring vegetables.”
He laughed politely, although I could tell he was wondering whether I had ever occupied a respectable position.
“And now?” he persisted.
“Now I occupy a sofa, occasionally an armchair, and sometimes a chair at the dining table. I am enjoying the most senior position of my life: nobody can transfer me.”
By then, a few guests had gathered around us. The socialite, however, was not ready to surrender.
“So, how do you spend your time?”
“I read, write, observe people, and attend parties like this. They provide excellent material for my next article.”
He suddenly became alert. “You write?”
“Occasionally.”
“Anything published?”
“Yes. Some of my articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines.”
His expression changed instantly. The retired gentleman had acquired professional relevance.
“Splendid! We must keep in touch. Here is my card. Do call me sometime.”
I accepted it graciously.
As he moved away, another guest approached me with the inevitable question.
“What do you do?”
I smiled.
“Before I answer, may I ask you something?”
“Certainly.”
“How do you do?”
He looked startled. “I beg your pardon?”
“Exactly!” I said. “That is what I have been trying to discover all evening. Everyone wants to know what everybody does, but hardly anyone asks how anybody does.”
The man blinked, then burst out laughing.
Perhaps that was the first honest introduction of the evening.
After all, ‘What do you do?’ asks about your occupation; ‘How do you do?’ ought to ask about your well-being. Unfortunately, at modern parties, your occupation often matters more than your condition.
And if you happen to be retired, be prepared: you may have to introduce your entire past before anyone permits you to enjoy your present.
kamleshsujata@yahoo.com
Copyright@shravncharitymission
https://epaper.theshillongtimes.com/news-item/164314/15/9-55-484-1460

Copyright@shravancharitymission
Checking Favorites status
Author: Franz Kafka
Genre: Letters, intimate correspondence, literary nonfiction
Published posthumously in 1952
Letters to Milena is a deeply personal collection of letters that reveals Kafka’s emotional vulnerability, his longing for love, and his struggle between intimacy and isolation.
Letters to Milena is a collection of correspondence written by Franz Kafka to Milena Jesenská, a Czech journalist, translator, and writer. Their relationship began when Milena translated some of Kafka’s works into Czech. Although both were married to other people at different points in their lives, they developed a profound emotional connection through their letters.
What begins as an exchange about literature gradually becomes an intense exploration of love, fear, loneliness, insecurity, and the human desire to be understood.
Kafka expresses his admiration for Milena with extraordinary tenderness. He sees her as someone capable of understanding the most private and troubled parts of his mind. Through his letters, he reveals his anxieties, his physical and emotional fragility, and his persistent feeling of being an outsider in the world.
Yet their relationship is complicated by distance, circumstances, and Kafka’s own inner conflicts. He longs for closeness but is also frightened by the demands of intimacy. His letters often move between passionate declarations of affection and painful reflections on why love seems so difficult to sustain.
Milena occupies a unique place in Kafka’s life because she appears to understand him in ways that few others can. Nevertheless, their connection cannot fully overcome the obstacles separating them. The correspondence becomes a record of a love that is emotionally powerful but never settles into an uncomplicated, lasting partnership.
Rather than following a conventional plot, the book unfolds through changing emotions, confessions, misunderstandings, and moments of extraordinary insight. It offers readers a rare glimpse into the private world of a writer whose fiction often explored alienation, helplessness, and the difficulty of human relationships.
1. Love and longing
Kafka’s letters portray love as both a source of profound happiness and an experience that intensifies vulnerability. He longs to be close to Milena, yet the very depth of his feelings makes him anxious.
2. Loneliness and isolation
Despite his connection with Milena, Kafka remains painfully conscious of his separation from other people. The letters reveal his desire to escape this isolation through a relationship in which he can be understood.
3. Fear of intimacy
One of the central tensions in the correspondence is Kafka’s simultaneous desire for closeness and fear of what closeness might demand of him. Love promises connection but also exposes his deepest insecurities.
4. The power of writing
Letters become more than a means of communication. They are the space in which Kafka can express feelings that might be difficult to articulate face-to-face. Writing allows intimacy across distance, even as it reminds him of that distance.
5. Emotional vulnerability
Kafka reveals himself without the protective distance of fiction. His confessions expose the uncertainty, self-doubt, and emotional intensity behind his literary persona.
Unlike a conventional love story, Letters to Milena does not present love as a simple journey toward happiness. Instead, it explores the contradictions of loving someone deeply while struggling to accept oneself.
The book is especially moving because Kafka’s letters combine intellectual reflection with raw emotional honesty. He can be tender, fearful, passionate, contradictory, and self-critical, sometimes within the same letter.
Milena is not merely the recipient of his affection; she represents the possibility of being truly seen and understood. Their correspondence therefore raises a question that extends beyond their particular relationship: Can another person truly understand us, and can that understanding overcome our deepest fears?
Letters to Milena is a portrait of a love shaped by longing, distance, and emotional uncertainty. It reveals the intimate human being behind Kafka’s often unsettling fiction and shows how the desire for connection can coexist with an equally powerful fear of being known.
The central message: Sometimes, the deepest relationships are not defined by whether two people can remain together, but by how profoundly they touch and reveal each other.
Copyright@shravancharitymission







Copyright@shravancharitymission
CORPORATE ATTIRE: WHEN DID THE SUIT BECOME MORE INDIAN THAN THE KURTA?
Kamlesh Tripathi
Walk into an Indian corporate office and look around. The dress code may appear modern, global and professional: shirts, trousers, jackets, suits and, occasionally, ties. Yet there is something curious about what Indian corporate culture has traditionally accepted as “formal Indian wear.”
The sari has long been accepted as respectable office attire for women. The salwar kameez too has gradually become part of the corporate wardrobe. But for men, the kurta-pyjama and dhoti have often been treated as too casual, too traditional or simply “not professional enough.” Why?
Was the kurta-pyjama considered unsmart? Was the dhoti regarded as unsuitable for the workplace? Were these clothes too closely associated with politicians, rural India or traditional society? Or did we inherit a colonial idea that Western clothing represented modernity, efficiency and professional competence? Even after independence, the Indian corporate world has been sleeping over this aspect of dressing up.
The question is not entirely imaginary. Emma Tarlo’s Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India examines precisely how clothing in India became entangled with caste, education, urbanisation, status and ideas of Indian identity. Her research shows that clothes have historically been used not merely to cover the body but to assert power, challenge authority and negotiate social identity.
Literature provides an intriguing illustration. Rabindranath Tagore’s family itself experimented with the question of what an Indian should wear. His brother Jyotirindranath Tagore attempted to create a national costume combining Indian and European elements. The problem was that the dhoti was considered insufficiently “business-like”, while trousers appeared too foreign. The resulting compromise tried to combine both worlds.
We may laugh at the awkwardness of this nineteenth-century sartorial experiment, but the dilemma survives in the twenty-first-century corporate office. We have become comfortable with the idea that Western trousers and a shirt constitute “professional attire”, while a kurta-pyjama requires some explanation.
Gandhi turned this hierarchy upside down. In 1921, Mahatma Gandhi deliberately abandoned much of his conventional clothing and adopted the simple dhoti and shawl as a political and social statement. His decision was rooted in his desire to identify himself with India’s poor. The dhoti was no longer merely clothing; it became a statement of solidarity, self-respect and resistance to foreign clothes.
Indeed, Gandhi’s clothing became so powerful a political symbol that his apparently simple attire could carry greater political meaning than the most elaborate suit. Clothing, in his case, became a language. So then why did the Indian corporate world not inherit this confidence in Indian attire?
Perhaps the answer lies partly in history. During the colonial rule, Western dress became associated with education, employment and social advancement. A striking example cited in discussions of Indian clothing history is that a young man wearing European dress could gain access to government employment, while a candidate appearing in a dhoti could be treated as inadequately dressed.
The irony is that independent India subsequently produced leaders who deliberately rejected European dress. Jawaharlal Nehru made the kurta-pyjama, sherwani and Nehru jacket part of his public identity. Indian national dress was no longer necessarily a rejection of modernity; it could represent modern India itself.
There is also a gender question here. If a woman can walk into a boardroom wearing an elegant sari and be considered perfectly professional, why should a man in an equally well-tailored kurta-pyjama automatically appear less professional? Is the difference really about the garment—or about the assumptions attached to it?
And then comes an amusing contemporary twist. When temperatures rise dramatically in Britain, office dress codes can suddenly become flexible. During recent heatwaves, British workplaces have debated whether shorts should be acceptable office wear, with some employers relaxing traditional dress expectations. Indian corporate offices, meanwhile, have traditionally regarded shorts as almost unthinkable in formal workplaces.
So perhaps the next corporate revolution will not be about artificial intelligence, hybrid working or the four-day week. It might simply be about what we wear. If a temperature of 40 degrees can make shorts respectable in a London office, could an Indian summer make the kurta-pyjama respectable in a Mumbai or Delhi boardroom?
Perhaps it is time to stop asking whether Indian clothes look “corporate” and start asking whether our definition of corporate clothing is unnecessarily Western. After all, professionalism is ultimately a quality of the person—not a property of the trousers.
A well-cut kurta does not make an employee less efficient. A dhoti does not make a manager less capable. And a tie does not automatically make an executive more intelligent.
Perhaps the real dress code should be simple when you think of global warming. If you want to reduce contributors to global warming, if not fully eliminate them, Indian dresses can come in handy with reduced air-conditioning. Indian HR needs to wake up.
Dress appropriately. Work professionally. And let competence—not clothing—make the impression.
Written and posted by Kamlesh Tripathi
Author, Poet, & Columnist
*
https://kamleshsujata.wordpress.com
*
Like it and Share it
*
Shravan Charity Mission is an NGO that works for poor children suffering from life-threatening diseases, especially cancer. Our posts are meant for our readers, including children and adults, and have a wide variety of content. We also accept donations for our mission. Should you wish to donate to the cause of cancer, please do so. The bank details are given below:
NAME OF ACCOUNT: SHRAVAN CHARITY MISSION
Account no: 680510110004635 (BANK OF INDIA)
IFSC code: BKID0006805
***
Copyright@shravancharitymission
PARALLELS BETWEEN RAINER MARIA RILKE’S GEOGRAPHY OF SOLITUDE AND ANCIENT INDIAN TEXTS
Kamlesh Tripathi
There are thematic parallels between Austrian poet Rainer Maria Rilke and ancient Indian philosophical texts, especially the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, and some later spiritual traditions. However, it is better to call them resonances rather than direct influence.
Rilke repeatedly encourages the individual to turn inward rather than seek answers entirely in the external world. In his book Letters to a Young Poet, he advises the young military officer Kappus to “go into yourself” to examine the questions in your life. This strongly resonates with the Upanishadic movement from the outer world to the inner Self. The Chandogya Upanishad declares: “Tat tvam asi” — “That thou art.” The basic spiritual movement is similar: what we are seeking outside may ultimately have to be discovered within. Let’s not forget Rumi’s quote here ‘What you seek is seeking you” Reciprocal attraction.
For Rilke, solitude is not simply loneliness. It is a necessary condition for becoming oneself. The Katha Upanishad describes the wise person as one who turns inward and discovers the Self rather than remaining absorbed in external objects. Rilke calls it solitude; the Indian sage calls it inwardness.
Rilke’s central concern is discovering one’s authentic inner being. He asks the individual not to live according to society’s expectations but to discover what is genuinely alive within. The Upanishadic tradition goes further: the deepest Self (Atman) is not merely one’s personality, ego or psychological identity. It is connected with ultimate reality, Brahman. Thus there is an important distinction: Rilke’s inward journey is psychological, artistic and spiritual; the Upanishadic journey ultimately becomes metaphysical.
One of the most appropriate similarities is Rilke’s attitude toward uncertainty. Rather than demanding immediate answers, he encourages Kappus to “live the questions.” A question needs to mature before its answer becomes possible, akin to the Shakespearean phrase ‘the why and the wherefore,’ used in The Comedy of Errors. This has an Indian parallel in the Upanishadic method of inquiry. The seeker repeatedly asks: Who am I? What is reality? What is the Self? What happens after death? (as Nachiketa asked). The Kena Upanishad, for example, investigates the mysterious power behind the mind, speech, sight and hearing. In both traditions, wonder precedes wisdom.
Rilke’s spirituality is deeply connected with silence. When external noise disappears, the individual can hear something deeper. The Indian spiritual tradition places enormous importance on mauna—silence—and meditation. The famous Upanishadic formulation is particularly striking: “Yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha” —“From where words return, together with the mind, not having reached it.” The idea is that ultimate reality cannot simply be captured by ordinary language. That is very close to Rilke’s poetic intuition: some truths must be experienced rather than explained.
Rilke does not advise us simply to escape suffering. He asks us to allow suffering to transform us. The Bhagavad Gita does not promise Arjun a life free of pain, conflict or uncertainty. Instead, it teaches him how to act without being psychologically destroyed by the results of action. Rilke’s idea could therefore be expressed as: Do not merely endure suffering; allow it to deepen you.
Rilke warns against being controlled by external pressures and encourages an inwardly grounded life. The Bhagavad Gita repeatedly emphasises mastery and steadiness of mind. Rilke does not advocate simply abandoning the world. He wants the individual to experience life deeply while maintaining an inner independence. This resembles the Gita’s concept of detached action—nishkama karma. One participates fully in life without becoming completely enslaved to its rewards and disappointments.
Rilke’s conception of love is unusually modern. He believes two people should preserve their individuality. Love should allow each person to grow rather than become an attempt to possess another. This can be compared with the broader Indian distinction between love (prema) and attachment (moha). The Gita particularly warns against attachment because attachment can generate desire, frustration and confusion.
Rilke was not a conventional religious thinker. He travelled a lot. His spirituality was personal, mystical and sometimes deliberately uncertain. He was fascinated by God, angels, death, beauty and transcendence, but did not always approach them through orthodox religious doctrine. Death is not merely an interruption in Rilke’s thought. It is intimately connected with existence. This also resonates strongly with Indian scriptures. The Bhagavad Gita presents death as part of the transformation of embodied existence: “Jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur”
“For one who is born, death is certain.”
Written and posted by Kamlesh Tripathi
Author, Poet, & Columnist
*
https://kamleshsujata.wordpress.com
*
Like it and Share it
*
Shravan Charity Mission is an NGO that works for poor children suffering from life-threatening diseases, especially cancer. Our posts are meant for our readers, including children and adults, and have a huge variety of content. We also accept donations for our mission. Should you wish to donate to the cause of cancer? The bank details are given below:
NAME OF ACCOUNT: SHRAVAN CHARITY MISSION
Account no: 680510110004635 (BANK OF INDIA)
IFSC code: BKID0006805
***