Understanding the Villain – Part I

The world hates the villain, probably much more than it loves the hero.

I often wonder about, where do villains come from? How does a person become a villain? Are villains any good to the society?

And in this series of posts I try to answer these questions.

Let me first begin with my definition of the villain in literature.

Villain (in literature): A character that is physically and /or intellectually superior to the rest and dominates 95% of the plot, until (s)he is reformed, tamed or killed in the last 5% of the narrative primarily because the author – in order to please the world – betrays him/her.

However, hence forth the emphasis will more on real life villains  (if we may call them so).

The origin

I have not encountered a villain who is not extraordinary in at least one way – physically, intellectually, ambition wise or even spiritually. I would compare it with a over grown fruit in a bunch of average sized fruits. Only that unlike a human being, a fruit is not an aware about its oddity.

So the credit or the blame of the origin can be fixed primarily on genes.

The first check

But there are people who are suppressed by their oddity without realizing its potential and are rendered useless or rather harmless. Thus the life conditions, nurture, company determine whether an individual realizes the potential inherent in his/her anomaly. This is the first check.

 The second check

Once that potential is sensed, it is tested at rudimentary level and the individual realises the devastating potential.

This is the second check where the individual under the burden of the acquired ethics may abort the journey to become a full blown villain.

Once an individual realizes the potential and is unapologetic about exploiting it to explore the extent of devastation it can cause, he is on course to metamorphose into a real villain.

But what are the factors that make some cross the second check?

This I will answer in the next post.

A Better World!

If all the men in this world asked the women, important in their lives, the question “do you believe that I truly respect you?” , and if all the women answered “yes I do”….this world would be a better place to live.

Claiming an Education: Adrienne Rich’s Spectacular 1977 Commencement Address


This is a wonderfully enlightening talk.

Excerpt: ” The first thing I want to say to you who are students, is that you cannot afford to think of being here to receive an education: you will do much better to think of being here to claim one. One of the dictionary definitions of the verb “to claim” is: to take as the rightful owner; to assert in the face of possible contradiction. “To receive” is to come into possession of: to act as receptacle or container for; to accept as authoritative or true. The difference is that between acting and being acted-upon, and for women it can literally mean the difference between life and death.”

For full article:


View original post

Keep Jumping!!!

As a kid when I used to visit any temple, the biggest fun would be to jump and ring the bells… especially the ones at a slightly unreachable height. The joy of striking a bell after multiple efforts was immense. What I didn’t know was that it was a lesson for life. Anything worth achieving in the world is always at a height – seemingly unreachable. Someone who won’t jump at all or someone who would give up easily will not get it. Only the ones with a kid like enthusiasm of jumping again, again and yet again can and will strike the bell of success. So guys, keep on jumping.

Why is Political Discourse getting nastier?


Political discourse and election speeches these days have almost become synonymous with scathing and scandalous personal attacks on political opponents.

In fact the language being used by the top most politicians has started resembling the lexicon and tone of the common people chatting frivolously.

It is easy to just scorn at the nasty election speeches and move on. But just like any social phenomenon, this one should also point towards some basic reasons.

  • Does it indicate the desperation for and the pressure of the high stakes?
  • Does it indicate the hunger to stay in the headlines?
  • Or does it indicate crumbling of ethical edifice of the society?

I think that it is a combination of all the three aspects.

Desperation for and the pressure of sky high stakes.

Politics has always been a money spinner. But in today’s era of globalisation, stakes have reached a mind boggling level. Political power is a highly potent ground for wind falls. Spurred by technological innovation, businesses are growing faster than ever. Big businesses are finding it more difficult than ever to sustain themselves. Each buck of the disposable income is sought like the last drop of water falling from bottle in a desert. In such a scenario, companies are willing to do anything to surge and remain ahead. They don’t mind breaking a rule or two and love to have rules mended and bended in their favour.

In such a scenario, politicians –   MPs, MLAs, Senators, Congressmen – assume importance to an extent that would be unthinkable a few decades ago. Corporations use lobbying in the US to ensure that favourable bills are introduced and passed and the unfavourable ones killed. In India, although lobbying is not legal, big money changes hands for the same reasons.

Can you imagine the desperation among the contenders for the post of the CEO of Microsoft? Well, by political standards that job is peanuts.

The political discourse in such a high stake scenario cannot be anything but nasty, aggressive and incisive. It’s better to rant and prevail than restrain and perish.

Hunger to stay in the headlines

Technological revolution has had one more major impact. It has resulted in the contraction of the time span to what remains on the top of the memory. It has also reduced the concentration time span of most of the people.

People these days don’t seem to bother much about the events happening around them. This is because there is a lot that is happening and they can neither afford nor seem to bother about keeping track of these events.

News about good deeds has almost lost its ability to make inroads to the top of the memory and also to grab any concentration. News about catastrophes, scandals, insults is far more effective in grabbing eye-balls. For an example, try answering the following questions:

Can you tell me one view of Donald Sterling?

Give me one reason why you remember Bill Clinton.

What is second name that comes to your mind when I say John F Kennedy?

What is the first thing about Lady Diana that comes to your mind?

Who is the most talked about political figure from the World War II?

What do you know about Tiger Woods apart from the fact that he is a top Golf Player?

What is Lance Armstrong famous for?

In politics if you praise your opponent or mention him/her in a matter-of-fact manner your are very much likely to miss the headlines but if you denigrate a mighty opponent you will almost definitely make it to the headlines and finally to the coveted top of the memory slot. And if you want to win elections this slot is the sine qua non.

Thus political discourse tends to tickle the basic instincts by getting nasty.

Crumbling of ethical edifice of the society

Ethics have evolved. Much that a few decades ago would have drawn censure on account of being unethical is worth only a shrug today. Drinking, smoking, porn, promiscuity, voyeurism, violence have already pervaded the society while the weed is on its way. In fact they have also been glamorised to the extent that non users fear ostracization. Death Race, Hunger games, Game of Thrones epitomize public choice today.

People won’t mind a death race in the political arena too. They seem to enjoy one vicious verbal blow after another. No wonder that political biggies are not leaving any stone unturned in lending edge to their political discourse. No communication can be effective if it is not in the language of the audience. So using the language (even if it is nasty), which is used by the common man has become acceptable, desirable and immune to ethical censure (unless ironically done by another politician).

During elections, politicians become gladiators and the globalised world becomes one big Colosseum.

And offensive and nasty discourse seems to be an indispensible weapon they can wield.

The day we parted

the opiniator


We will never meet again was the promise

And the promise be broken was the hope.

The day we parted

Your smile said ‘oh you can live without me’

But your eyes betrayed ‘I know you cannot cope’

The day we parted

“Even if I am not visible” I said

“You’ll find me whenever you grope”

The day we parted

We started a journey to discover

That love is freedom and not a rope

The day we parted

View original post