1. The India Today–C-Voter Survey

The latest India Today–C-Voter Mood of the Nation survey has produced a rather surprising result.

When people were asked who they preferred as the next Prime Minister, Narendra Modi was far ahead with 48.7%, followed by Rahul Gandhi with 27.1%. What is surprising is that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay, a relatively new entrant into electoral politics, came third with 9.2%.

Vijay has therefore jumped ahead of several experienced national politicians.

This made me think about something I had recently read in Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene—his famous explanation of Hawk, Dove and Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS).

Could this idea help us understand a new style of Indian politics?

—

2. How is Modi different from many earlier Prime Ministers?

There is a noticeable difference between Narendra Modi’s communication style and that of several earlier Prime Ministers.

Earlier Prime Ministers such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Manmohan Singh were much more comfortable with the traditional relationship between the Prime Minister and the press. They regularly interacted with journalists, explained government policies and answered questions.

Modi has followed a different path.

He generally does not feel compelled to answer every criticism, give interviews on every issue or personally defend every government decision before the press.

But there is an interesting contrast.

When elections arrive, Modi becomes extremely vocal and aggressive.

He campaigns intensely, attacks his opponents and communicates directly with the electorate.

In simple terms:

«Silence during ordinary political times; aggression when the battle really matters.»

This has been a remarkably successful political strategy for more than a decade.

—

3. Vijay appears to be following a remarkably similar path

What is interesting is that Vijay appears to be adopting a somewhat similar communication style.

He has not tried to remain in the news every day.

He has not responded to every criticism.

He has not given his opinion on every political controversy.

He appears to be allowing his political presence to grow without constantly talking.

This is particularly interesting because Vijay already had enormous public recognition through cinema.

He did not need to introduce himself to the public.

And the recent survey shows how quickly his political popularity has risen: 9.2% nationally and third place in the PM preference question.

Of course, we cannot say that his silence caused this popularity. The novelty of a new political leader, his enormous existing fan base, youth appeal and several other factors may also be responsible.

But the similarity in communication strategy is certainly worth observing.

—

4. Dawkins’ Hawk and Dove: Vocal aggression versus strategic silence

Dawkins gives a very simple example.

Imagine two animals fighting for food.

The Hawk fights aggressively.

The Dove does not want to fight and usually gives way.

If a Hawk meets a Dove, the Hawk generally wins.

But if a Hawk meets another Hawk, they fight each other. Both may suffer injury.

Therefore, being aggressive is not always the best strategy.

The important lesson is:

«The success of a strategy depends upon what the other players are doing.»

Now let us bring this idea into politics.

Imagine that most politicians are constantly attacking each other, giving interviews, holding press conferences and responding to every criticism.

They are all acting like political Hawks.

Now imagine another politician who does something different.

He remains quiet.

He does not answer every attack.

He chooses his battles.

He speaks only when he thinks speaking will help him.

He is not necessarily a Dove.

He may actually be a Silent Hawk.

His aggression is not absent.

It is simply controlled and selective.

—

5. How can the “Dove” or Silent Hawk win when most others are Hawks?

Suppose ten politicians are constantly fighting with one another.

Every day there is an accusation.

Every day there is a counter-accusation.

Every day there is a press conference.

The public eventually becomes tired of the noise.

Now imagine the eleventh politician remains relatively silent.

Suddenly, his silence becomes noticeable.

The others are shouting.

He is not.

The others are explaining themselves.

He is not.

The others are attacking him.

He does not immediately respond.

People may begin to think:

«”Why is he not bothered? Is he confident? Does he have a larger plan?”»

His silence may therefore create an impression of strength.

This is the interesting political equivalent of the Hawk-Dove idea.

When everybody is fighting, refusing to fight every battle can itself become an advantage.

That is what I call the Silent Hawk strategy.

—

6. But what happens when everybody starts becoming a Silent Hawk?

Now comes the most interesting part of Dawkins’ argument.

Suppose the Silent Hawk becomes successful.

Other politicians notice it.

They also stop giving interviews.

They also stop responding to every criticism.

They also start speaking selectively.

Soon, everybody becomes relatively silent.

What happens then?

Silence loses its special value.

When everybody is quiet, the politician who suddenly speaks loudly becomes noticeable again.

His speech attracts attention because everybody else is silent.

Thus the advantage changes sides.

The strategy that worked yesterday may not work tomorrow.

—

7. Conclusion: There is no permanently winning strategy

This, to me, is the most beautiful lesson from Dawkins’ Hawk-Dove example.

There is no strategy that remains permanently successful.

When most politicians are aggressive and vocal, strategic silence may become powerful.

When most politicians become strategically silent, being vocal may once again become powerful.

Therefore, the real political skill may not be simply knowing whether to be a Hawk or a Dove.

It may be knowing:

«”What is everybody else doing—and what should I do differently?”»

This may explain why Modi’s communication strategy has been so effective for so long, and why Vijay’s similar approach is now attracting attention.

Perhaps the real lesson is not “silence is better than aggression.”

It is:

«When everybody is shouting, silence can become powerful. When everybody becomes silent, the voice becomes powerful again.»

That is the fascinating connection between Richard Dawkins’ Evolutionarily Stable Strategy and the changing language of Indian politics.

A lesson from Dawkins’ Hawks and Doves for Modi, Vijay and Indian politics:

A recent India Today–C-Voter Mood of the Nation survey has thrown up an intriguing political surprise. Narendra Modi remains the overwhelming first choice for Prime Minister at 48.7%, followed by Rahul Gandhi at 27.1%. But Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has emerged third, with 9.2%—ahead of several far more experienced national political leaders.

What makes Vijay’s rise particularly interesting is not merely his popularity, but his style of communication.

He appears to have adopted a strategy that is quite different from that of the conventional politician: he does not speak on everything.

This immediately reminded me of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, particularly his explanation of the Hawk-Dove game and the idea of an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS).

Modi’s unusual communication style

For much of India’s political history, Prime Ministers have maintained a fairly active relationship with the press. Leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Manmohan Singh regularly interacted with journalists, explained government policies and answered questions on matters of public importance.

Narendra Modi has followed a noticeably different path.

He does not appear to feel compelled to respond personally to every criticism, explain every government decision to the press or answer every political controversy through conventional media interactions.

Yet when elections arrive, the picture changes dramatically.

Modi becomes highly vocal and aggressive on the campaign trail.

In simple terms, his strategy appears to be:

relative silence during routine political periods; maximum aggression when the electoral battle begins.

Is Vijay following the same path?

Vijay appears to be adopting a remarkably similar approach.

Despite being a new entrant to electoral politics, he has generally avoided the temptation to comment on every political issue or engage in a daily war of words with his opponents.

This is particularly interesting because Vijay does not need to introduce himself to the public. His long career in cinema has already given him enormous name recognition.

His recent 9.2% national rating does not, of course, prove that silence has caused his popularity. His celebrity, youth appeal, novelty and several other factors could all be contributing to it.

But the similarity in communication strategy is striking.

And this is where Dawkins’ Hawks and Doves become interesting.

Hawk versus Dove

Imagine two animals competing for food.

The Hawk is aggressive. It fights when challenged.

The Dove avoids fighting and generally gives way.

If a Hawk meets a Dove, the Hawk has an easy advantage.

But if Hawks become too numerous, they begin fighting other Hawks. Fighting has a cost: both can be injured.

So being aggressive is not always the best strategy.

The important lesson is this:

The success of a strategy depends upon what everybody else is doing.

Now translate this simple idea into politics.

Imagine that most politicians are constantly attacking one another, giving interviews, holding press conferences and responding to every criticism.

They are all behaving like political Hawks.

Then imagine one politician who does something different.

He remains quiet.

He does not answer every attack.

He chooses his battles.

He speaks only when he believes speaking is useful.

He is not really a Dove. He may be better described as a Silent Hawk—aggressive in his objectives, but selective in displaying that aggression.

Why can silence win?

When everybody is shouting, the person who remains silent can become noticeable.

When everybody is explaining themselves, the person who refuses to explain everything may appear confident.

When everybody is fighting every battle, the politician who chooses only important battles may conserve his political energy.

In other words:

When everybody is behaving like a Hawk, strategic silence can become an advantage.

This may partly explain why a politician does not necessarily have to respond to every provocation.

Silence can sometimes convey:

“I will decide which battles deserve my attention.”

But what happens when everybody becomes silent?

This is where Dawkins’ idea becomes even more interesting.

Suppose the Silent Hawk strategy becomes successful.

Other politicians notice it.

They too stop giving interviews on every subject.

They too stop responding to every criticism.

They too begin speaking only when necessary.

Soon, everyone becomes relatively silent.

What happens then?

Silence loses its special value.

If everybody is silent, the politician who suddenly speaks loudly becomes noticeable.

The advantage shifts again.

The very strategy that was successful when it was unusual becomes less successful when everybody adopts it.

The larger lesson

This, perhaps, is the most interesting lesson that Dawkins’ Hawk-Dove example offers Indian politics.

There is no permanently successful political strategy.

When most politicians are vocal and aggressive, strategic silence can become powerful.

But when most politicians become strategically silent, being vocal can once again become powerful.

Therefore, perhaps the real political skill is not simply knowing whether to be a Hawk or a Dove.

It is knowing what everybody else is doing—and when to do something different.

That may be the fascinating common thread between Modi’s long political career and Vijay’s emerging political style.

And perhaps the simplest way to put it is:

When everybody is shouting, silence can become powerful. When everybody becomes silent, the voice becomes powerful again.

That is not merely a lesson from Dawkins’ animal kingdom.

It may also be a lesson in the ever-changing game of Indian politics.

Strategically yours,

Ramu, (9884384425)

Chennai

August 26, 2026

N. Ramaswamy (59),
Chennai.

Dear Mrs. Manil Suri Larry,

I have just finished reading your extraordinary and deeply unsettling memoir, A Room in Bombay.

I can easily vouch that it is a memoir that can stand alongside Gandhi’s Experiments with Truth in terms of honesty and transparency. It is also one of the rare memoirs that has been written with the flow and engagement of a novel.

I sometimes wished it had been a fictional novel, since it would not have bothered me as much as it did when I realized that it was a true memoir and that its characters possessed bones and flesh.

This memoir has allowed me to witness how the life journey of “Manil Suri, a selfish teenage boy, who had primarily focused on his career and finding a suitable gay partner,” ultimately evolved into that of one of the proudest and most lovable sons, who completed his unflinching duty to his most lovable mother on this earth.

Since you are a mathematician, I am intrigued to imagine how Manil Suri’s actions towards his parents, especially towards his mother, might have been different if he had been born with siblings, as well as how his life might have evolved had he entered into a conventional marriage and had children.

I was also stupefied to understand Bombay’s draconian Rental Act from the 1940s to 2005 or so, and how it had acted not only as a physical prison within their dwelling but also as a mental shackle in the minds of its dwellers.

Frankly speaking, since you have been an award-winning novelist as well as a Mathematics Professor at the University of Maryland, I was particularly eager to understand the lived experience of a gay man through the eyes of someone who had experienced it himself, and you have more than justified my expectations.

While reading your memoir, my mind has shuttled between how my wife and I are going to conduct ourselves as parents while our single daughter, who too has been living in the US, has been undergoing repeated bouts of turmoil over her US Green Card.

At the same time, I have been contemplating how we are going to conduct ourselves as I am the eldest son of three siblings with aged parents to look after, and my wife is the eldest daughter of her family, with her own responsibility towards her ageing mother.

The irony of your novel-memoir is that while it started with Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic experiments, it ended with the Bhagavad Gita—Arjun’s conundrum of what his Dharma should be: should he be loving and merciful, or should he remain duty-bound?

Through the above, you have touched upon one of the conflicts in everyone’s mind:

“Was my dharma to devote myself more fully to an ageing, dementia-suffering mother, or to spend more time pursuing the goals I’d set up for my own life?”

I can certainly say that it is one of the most nerve-wracking memoirs I have ever read, offering plenty of life perspectives to contemplate.

I thank you, Mrs. Suri, wholeheartedly for offering us the opportunity to read the real-time accounts of your life with such extraordinary honesty.

I am eager to meet you when I have a chance to visit Baltimore, US.

Thank you, and signing off.

Thankfully yours,
Ramu

Business Acumen and Business Failures — No Correlation?
— Ramu, 24/8/2026

I have never tried dragon fruit so far.

This morning, on my usual walking path, I saw a boy of just 10 years old sitting behind a table that was stacked only with dragon fruits.

I asked him whether he could give me half of one for sampling. He searched for the best one and offered me the whole fruit for free.

I hesitated to take it for free, since he was just a 10-year-old school-going boy, and insisted that he take some money.

I was astonished when he told me:

«“No issues, sir. If it’s tasty, you are directly going to come here. So, you please… take it without any guilt.”»

I wondered: Isn’t this exactly what is taught in all the IIMs and Harvard’s entrepreneurship courses — delayed gratification, long-term thinking, honesty, genuine interest in customers, etc.?

This small boy was probably just a stop-gap arrangement for his father, relieving him for his breakfast/lunch break. Yet he possessed this much business acumen. That was the reason for my wonderment.

I have observed similar qualities in my wife too. She has been selling items through YouTube and WhatsApp, and, in terms of the number of items sold, perhaps even more than Amazon!

Then I started brooding over one of the long-unresolved conflicts in my mind:

“90% of businesses fail before completing one year.”

                 **Vs.**

These young boys, and people like my wife, who do not formally qualify in business, but demonstrate enormous business prowess.

So, what is my conclusion?

Trading and doing business have been ingrained in the human blood since they constitute one of the two oldest professions — guess what the other one is? — and have existed even before the invention of language, money, etc., since humans evolved.

Then why and how are businesses failing?

Probably, business failures are not because of a lack of business acumen or marketing skills — hunting for clients, attracting them and retaining them.

But maybe they are because of human greed, FOMO, short-term thinking, the desire to make quick money, Ponzi schemes, partnership conflicts, etc.

In my view, as Mahatma Gandhi is famously quoted as saying:

«“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”»

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Ramu

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a8b05d7e6608191a2183f5413223f43

AI > GOD ?? — Ramu, 20/8/2026

Let us first understand how AI is different from previous traditional softwares:

First one should throw away the misconceprion that since AI is made of software, should behave like other softwares.

Traditional software is Predictable, reliable, and follows a strict set of Rules.

– AI, is anything and everything BUT Predictable and reliable.

If Traditional softwares are built properly and debugged, it yields the same outcomes every time.

– AI can surprise us with novel solutions, forget its own abilities, and hallucinate incorrect answers.

We know what a traditional software program does, how it does it and why it does it.

– With AI, we are often left in dark.
– If we ask how or why it made a particular  decision, it fabricates an answer rather than reflecting on its own processes.
– It is mainly because, it doesn’t have processes to reflect on in the same way humans do.

Finally, traditional software comes with an operating manual or a tutorial.

– AI lacks such instruction. There’s no definitive guide on how to use AI in our organization.

Regular softwares runs based on code.

– AI should be learnt by experimenting, sharing prompts as if it were magical incantations.

Now, I leave it to the readers to decide Whether AI > GOD? Or AI = GOD?

Artificially yours,
Ramu

*Cutest Mamitha Baiju: Viswanathan & Sons: Movie Review*
– Ramu, 19/8/2026

Disclaimer 1: Nowadays, most of my post viewers (not readers) do not even care to look at it since they presume that it is AI-generated.

Disclaimer 2: So, it is a challenge that has been thrown at me to make it more personalised, rather than deliberately planting grammatical errors or constructing poor sentences to prove my genuineness.

Disclaimer 3: So, I have been forced to write a funny article that AI cannot generate on its own by giving ordinary prompts.

Movie Review: I have personally felt that it is a boring one, despite the movie having been successful. Still, I have not regretted watching it, since whenever Mamitha Baiju appears, the frame turns out to be the cutest one.

The readers have no need to consider that I am ogling or leering at her, since such kinds of portrayal shall enthuse any age group of people, having such a girl can be a daughter, wife, cousin, etc.

To make it more vivid, I can give two examples from two generations of movies that can match the performance of Mamitha Baiju, viz… (1) Moondram Pirai Sridevi (not all Sridevi) (2) Ghajini Asin (not all Asin).

During 1984–85, I might have watched Moondram Pirai (Sadma – Hindi) “n” number of times for the cutest actions from Sridevi.

During 2000, Asin did the equivalent role in Ghajini (in Hindi, Aamir Khan enacted it), though I watched it once in the theatre, but watched a few scenes an infinite number of times on YouTube.

A similar performance is offered by Mamitha, without an iota of erotic scenes, but cutest to watch ever.

My grave concern, after watching this movie, is:

I have quite a number of 30+ friends who are yet to be married and are looking for matching the girl that they have already perceived in their minds.

If they watch this movie, their bride hunt may extend another couple of years, since their minds would overwrite the earlier figures with Mamitha Baiju kinds…

Thank you.

Ramu

Why should Rajinikanth, even at 74, continue to act only in ₹100+ crore films?

Why should Vijay leave cinema, where he is #1, and enter politics?

Why should Bill Gates free himself from the company he himself founded?

Why should Rajinikanth, even at 74, continue to act only in ₹100+ crore films?

Why should Vijay leave cinema, where he is #1, and enter politics?

— Ramu, 12/8/2026

These three questions have been lying unanswered in one corner of my mind for a long time.

After connecting what I understood from the latest book I read on medical science with what I had already learned and thought about earlier, I think I have finally found an answer that satisfies me, at least.

What does medical science say?

If we want to remain healthy, energetic and mentally fresh until the end of our lives, medical science says that we should regularly challenge both our body and our brain.

We should spend at least some time every week doing activities that are challenging to our muscles as well as to our brain.

For the body, it could be cardio and strength training.

For the brain, it could be learning something new.

The important point is that we should move away from our routine and do something that challenges us. Sometimes, we should even push ourselves to the point of mild frustration.

In simple words, our body and brain should not be allowed to become inactive.

Regular physical activity and mental challenges can help us remain active and reduce the risk of several problems associated with ageing, such as depression, cognitive decline, dementia and stroke.

What does Indian philosophy say?

Indian philosophy looks at the pleasures and tendencies of the human mind and body through three broad qualities:

Tamas, Rajas and Sattva.

Our body and mind naturally tend to choose the easiest path.

Sitting idle, wasting time, eating whatever we like, doing only comfortable and routine work, endlessly scrolling through Facebook or WhatsApp, watching television, etc., are all examples of this tendency.

This is Tamas.

There is little challenge, little growth and little effort.

In a sense,

Tamas is dying while still being alive.

On the other hand, people who work hard to succeed in their chosen profession, business, sport, music, acting or any other field, who want to become #1, achieve something and earn the respect of others, are enjoying what can be called Rajas.

Rajas has energy.

Rajas has ambition.

Rajas has challenge.

Rajas has achievement.

But Rajas also has a trap.

Comparison. Competition. Winning. Being #1.

Once we win one race, we want to win the next one.

Once we become #1, we want to remain #1.

And therefore, Rajas can keep us energetic and active, but it can also keep us permanently trapped in the rat race.

Then what is Sattva?

This is where I had some confusion earlier.

At first glance, there may not appear to be much difference between Tamas and Sattva.

In both cases, a person may have withdrawn from competition.

But there is a fundamental difference.

In Tamas, you give up the challenge itself.

In Sattva, you give up only the need to compete and win.

This distinction is very important.

The journey from Tamas to Rajas is:

EMBRACING THE WINNING ATTITUDE.

You move from inactivity and comfort towards ambition, discipline, challenge, achievement and growth.

But the journey from Rajas to Sattva is:

QUITTING ONLY THE WINNING ATTITUDE, WHILE KEEPING THE OTHER WINNING ATTRIBUTES INTACT.

You give up the need to defeat others, the need to be #1 and the need for comparison.

But you do not give up curiosity, discipline, learning, hard work, physical activity, creativity or the desire to contribute.

This is where I find the pole-vault analogy useful.

Rajas is like the pole used in pole vaulting.

You need the pole to cross the height.

But after using it to propel yourself upward, you have to let go of the pole.

That is Sattva.

But if, after letting go of the pole, you simply lie down on the ground and stop moving, that is not Sattva.

That is Tamas.

Now Bill Gates makes sense to me

Bill Gates is an example of someone who has, in a sense, let go of the pole.

He moved away from the company he founded and from the intense competition for #1 position.

But he did not become inactive.

He did not give up his curiosity, learning, challenges or purposeful work.

He moved from the rat race to philanthropy.

He travels to places such as Kenya and other parts of Africa and engages himself with problems of the developing world.

He continues to challenge his brain and remain physically and mentally active.

So, what did he actually give up?

He gave up the comparison game and the race for #1.

He did not give up activity.

He did not give up challenges.

He did not give up learning.

He did not give up purpose.

In simple terms:

He left the pole, but he did not stop running.

That, to me, is the difference between Rajas and Sattva.

If, after leaving the pole, you become inactive and settle into a completely comfortable routine, you have not reached Sattva.

You have moved into Tamas.

And what about Rajinikanth?

Perhaps this also gives me an answer to my question about Rajinikanth.

At 74, if a person continues to chase ₹100+ crore films and the status, success and recognition that come with them, he is still playing the Rajas game.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But there can come a point when the desire to remain #1, to maintain one’s position and to continue winning becomes a burden.

The same Rajas that once gave a person enormous energy can eventually make him a prisoner of the winning game.

Perhaps that is what I mean when I say that some people become “sick” in Rajas.

The problem is not activity.

The problem is becoming addicted to winning.

And Vijay?

The same framework also makes me look at Vijay’s move from cinema to politics differently.

Why should someone who is already #1 in cinema leave that position and enter a completely uncertain and difficult field like politics?

Perhaps because he is leaving one winning game and embracing another challenge.

That is certainly not Sattva by itself.

It is still Rajas if the objective remains power, position, #1 status and defeating others.

But if, at some stage, the person moves beyond the need to win and begins to work mainly for a larger purpose, then perhaps that journey can eventually move towards Sattva.

So, in very simple terms

I would now describe the three stages like this:

Tamas → Rajas

“I don’t want to struggle.”

becomes

“I want to win.”

And:

Rajas → Sattva

“I want to win.”

becomes

“I don’t need to win anymore. But I will continue to learn, work, create, challenge myself and contribute.”

Therefore:

The journey from Tamas to Rajas is embracing the winning attitude.

The journey from Rajas to Sattva is quitting only the winning attitude while retaining the other winning attributes.

This is perhaps why I now see the distinction this way:

Tamas — being alive, but slowly becoming dead inside.

Sattva — remaining alive, curious and purposeful until the end.

Our ordinary worldly life naturally pulls us towards Tamas.

To come out of Tamas, we need Rajas.

But after Rajas has taken us forward, there comes a time when we have to let go of the winning game.

**Let go of the pole.

But don’t stop running.**

Thank you.

Ramu

(1) பில் கேட்ஸ் தான் ஆரம்பித்த நிறுவனத்தில் இருந்து ஏன் தன்னை விடுவித்துக் கொள்ளவேண்டும்?

(2) ரஜினிகாந்த் ஏன் 74 வயதிலும் 100+ கோடி படத்தில் மட்டுமே நடிக்கவேண்டும்?

(3) விஜய் ஏன் #1 ஆக சினிமாவில் இருந்தும் அரசியலுக்கு வரவேண்டும்?
– ராமு, 12/8/2026

மேற்கூறிய கேள்விகள் நீண்ட நாட்களாக என் மூளையில் (ஒரு மூலையில்) பதில் கிடைக்காமல் உறங்கிகொண்டிருப்பவை.

கடைசியாக நான் படித்த மருத்துவ விஞ்ஞானம் சார்ந்த புத்தகமும் பிற முந்திய அறிவுடன் இணைத்து என்னை மட்டுமாவது திருப்திபடுத்திக்கொள்ளும் ஒரு விடையை கண்டடைந்து இருக்கிறேன்.

இறக்கும் வரை ஆரோக்கியமான, புத்துணர்ச்சியுடன் வாழ்வதற்கு மருத்துவம் சார்ந்த விஞ்ஞானம் சொல்வது:

உடலையும், மூளையையும் வாரம் இரண்டு மணி நேரமாவது “high intensity” பயிற்சிக்கு உட்படுத்தவேண்டும்.

அதாவது உடல் தசைகளுக்கும், மூளைக்கும் சவால் தரக்கூடிய செயலில் ஈடுபடச் செய்யவேண்டும்.

Routine இல் இருந்து மாறுபடவேண்டும். கிட்டத்திட்ட Frustration நிலைமைக்கு 30 நிமிடங்களாவது தள்ளவேண்டும்.

எனவே உடலிற்கு cardio and strength பயிற்சி மற்றும் மூளைக்கு புதியன கற்றல் என்பது நம்மை depression, alzeimer, dementia, stroke, செயலின்மை போன்ற நோய்களுக்கு ஆட்படாமல் தடுக்கும் என்கிறது மருத்துவ விஞ்ஞானம்.

தத்துவ விஞ்ஞானம் சொல்வது:

நம் உடலும், மனமும் மூன்று வகையான இன்பங்களுக்கு ஆட்படவல்லது.

அதை “தமோ”, “ரஜோ” மற்றும் “சாத்வீகம்” சார்ந்து வகைப்படுத்துகிறார்கள்.

நம் உடலும், மனமும் சும்மா, வெட்டிப்பொழுதுகளில், விரும்பியதைச் சாப்பிடுவது, இலகுவான (routine) வேலையில் ஈடுபடுவது, FB, whatsapp போன்றவற்றில் பொழுதைக் கழிப்பது என்பதிலேயே ஈடுபட எத்தனிக்கும். இந்த வகையை “தமோ” இன்பம் என்கிறார்கள்.

தான் தேர்ந்தெடுத்த வேலை, தொழில், விளையாட்டு, இசை, நடிப்பு போன்ற துறைகளில் வெற்றி பெற்று #1 ஆக அல்லது அனைவரின் மதிப்பை பெறும் வகையில் உழைப்பவர்கள் “ரஜோ” வகையில் இன்பம் திளைப்பவர்கள்.

“சத்துவ” இன்பதிற்கும் “தமோ” இன்பத்திற்கும் அதிக வேறுபாடு இல்லாதது சராசரி மனிதனுக்கு தோன்றும்.

“தமோ”, வாழும் போதே இறத்தல் நிலை. “சத்துவ” இறக்கும் வரை வாழ்தல்.

நம் லோகீக வாழ்க்கை நம்மை “தமோ” நோக்கி இழுக்கும். ஆனால் “சத்துவத்திற்கு” செல்ல “ராஜோ” வழியாகத்தான் முடியும்.

ரஜோ என்பது “போல்வால்ட்” குச்சி போன்றது. சத்துவம் என்பது போல்வல்ட் குச்சியைக் கை விடுவது.

Bilgates போன்றவர்கள் போல்வால்ட் குச்சியை கை விட்டவர்கள்.

நம் ரஜினிகாந்த் போன்றவர்கள் “ரஜோ” வில் “sick” ஆகிப்போனவர்கள்.

நன்றி.

ராமு


I missed one thing to explain. Bill gates kind of people have just left the pole only on rat race, comparison game.

The important point to be noted here, is Bill Gates kind simply do not fall into INACTIVE or ROUTINE mode.

Still he challenges his brain and physique by releasing from rat race to philonthraphy by travelling to kenya, africa kinds of third world countries.

After having left pole, and become inactive, you are into “Thamo” not “sathva”.

Thank you for seeking clarification.


To simply put it:

Travel from “Thamo” to “Rajo” is EMBRACING WINNING ATTITUE.

Travel from “Rajo” to “Sathvik” is QUITTING only the WINNING ATTITUDE, but keeping other winning attributes INTACT.

Dear Ashish Thaker,

I am glad to know that you are going to retire, and I hope this new phase will give you the freedom to explore and express the creativity, enthusiasm and many other dimensions of your personality that may not always have found sufficient space in a demanding government career.

I have always felt that, for most of us, a long association with a particular profession and organisation gradually creates a kind of professional identity around us. Sometimes, that identity becomes so strong that we ourselves may wonder, “Is this really who I am?” Retirement, therefore, can also be an opportunity to rediscover and express the person beyond the profession.

Until the second semester of our NMP, my impression of you was that of a very serious and disciplined government officer. You carried such a stern and official demeanour that I would even hesitate before entering your room!

But then, quite unexpectedly, you topped the Macroeconomics subject under Prof. Dahia. That was when I began to notice another side of you — your sharpness, analytical ability and intellectual depth.

I also felt that, around that time, you gradually became a little more relaxed and accessible with many of us. I remember visiting you personally during our EI workshop, and I felt that we were getting to know more of the person behind the professional persona.

Earlier, your interactions seemed to be naturally closer with Raja and our late Ajey, perhaps because of your HR orientation, and with a few of our BSNL colleagues through your professional association. I also noticed that you have generally expressed yourself rather sparingly in our WhatsApp group. Perhaps your position and association with the Central Government and Ministry-level responsibilities naturally made you more measured and cautious in what you shared.

I still have with me the feedback letter that you had specially written for me after the EI workshop. I value it even today, because it reflected the thoughtful and perceptive side of you that I had come to appreciate.

Now that you are entering a new chapter, I sincerely hope you will have the freedom to bring out all those extraordinary skills, creativity and enthusiasm without the professional constraints that may have held them back earlier. I also look forward to seeing you participate more actively in our group, express yourself more freely and allow all of us to know and interact with the person beyond the government officer we have known.

I wish that your post-retirement years will be filled with far more fun, frolic, freedom, creativity and enthusiasm than even your professional years.

May this new phase of life be a wonderful opportunity to discover many more dimensions of yourself.

With warm wishes and affection,

Lovingly yours,
Ramu