“We Are Not Us” eBook now available!

Wake up. Eat. Excrete. Sleep. Repeat. Day in, day out. Reproduce. Grow. Age. Die. Another life begins. Another cycle continues.
But have you ever wondered why we live this way? What’s driving these endless loops of existence? Is it for us? Or could there be a hidden beneficiary?
I say yes – but not in the way you might think. The real winners of this cyclical life are the microbial passengers within us. The tiny life forms that silently shape, sustain, and direct our lives in ways we rarely consider. They aren’t just along for the ride; they are the ride. They are everything.
Indeed, we are not us.
Join me on a mind-bending journey to uncover how microbial life forms the foundation of everything we do, feel, and become. In my book, We Are Not Us, I delve deep into the invisible forces that govern our lives, exploring how these hidden allies shape our cycles, our health, and even our purpose.
Textbooks often lag decades behind the latest breakthroughs in science, leaving curious minds craving more. Thats why I’ve done the heavy lifting – synthesizing insights from hundreds of cutting-edge research articles in top journals to bring you a fresh perspective on life and the world around us.
In this book, I’ve worked hard to bridge the gap, presenting complex science in an accessible, engaging way for anyone curious about the deeper workings of existence. Whether you’re a science enthusiast or just someone with a thirst for knowledge, this book is designed to enlighten, inspire, and spark curiosity.
The journey starts now. Currently available exclusively as an eBook on Amazon; grab your copy and explore the world in a whole new light!

Waking up on a sewing machine: How your brain’s weird dreams keep you smart

There’s an old Hindi proverb, “Jo sovat hai, so khovat hai” he who sleeps, loses. But I’ve always felt the opposite is true: “Jo sovat hai, so paavat hai” he who sleeps, gains. And sometimes, what you gain is a front-row seat to the cricket match of your dreams.

Back in the day, cricket wasn’t something you watched; it was something you built in your mind. The crackling voices of commentators like Sushil Doshi were the architects, and our imaginations were the construction crew. They’d paint a picture of Wankhede Stadium, and we’d fill in the roaring crowds, the green grass, and the thwack of the bat. School was an unwelcome interruption. During class, we’d be lost in a fog, wondering about the score. Recess meant a mad dash to a nearby house with a radio, just to catch a few precious minutes of commentary.

To see a match live? That was a fantasy beyond our wildest dreams.

Which is why it was so incredible when I found myself there. The stadium was “khachakhach bhara” – packed to the gills. The air electric. I was watching India vs. the West Indies. The legendary B.S. Chandrasekhar was at the crease, facing down the terrifying Andy Roberts. And then, it happened. Chandra, a bowler not known for his batting, leaned into a shot a textbook straight drive that rocketed to the boundary.

Yes, Chandrasekhar!

I leaped to my feet, hands in the air, roaring with the crowd. As I did, my seat wobbled violently, and I felt myself pitching forward. The stadium dissolved. The roar faded.

I blinked, my heart hammering. I was in my own room, in the dead of night, perched precariously on the hard, curved cover of my mother’s sewing machine. How I had sleepwalked from my bed to that spot, I had no earthly idea.

My midnight adventure was more than just a funny story; it was a glimpse into a profound biological mystery. That bizarre experience acting out a dream because my brain momentarily forgot to paralyze my body during REM sleep begs a bigger question: Why do we dream in the first place?

We know sleep itself is the brain’s essential maintenance crew. While we’re out, it’s busy taking out the toxic trash, consolidating the day’s lessons, and wiping the synaptic whiteboard clean to make space for tomorrow’s learning.

But dreams are the wild card. They aren’t neat and tidy; they’re chaotic, surreal, and often, downright weird. Why?

Neuroscientist Erik Hoel has a fascinating hypothesis that finds genius in this weirdness. To understand it, let’s talk about something we all deal with today: the algorithm.

Think about your social media feed. The algorithm notices you like posts about, say, baking sourdough. So it shows you more sourdough. Soon, your entire feed is a glut of starters, scoring techniques, and crusty loaves. It shoves you down a rabbit hole of specialization, assuming that what you liked yesterday is all you’ll ever want to see again. In the world of AI, this is called “overfitting” – getting so good at recognizing a specific set of data that you become useless at handling anything new.

Now, imagine if your brain worked that way.

Suppose on your morning walk you pause to look at a dead bird, curious about what happened. If your brain overfitted to that one data point, and nature played along, you might spot three dead birds the very next day. The day after, ten. Your reality would become a warped, repetitive echo of your recent experiences. You’d stop learning, because your brain would be convinced it already knows what the world looks like based on a tiny, biased sample.

This is where dreams come in, says Hoel. They are the brain’s secret weapon against overfitting.

Dreams are purposefully bizarre. They are the glorious, unpredictable chaos your brain injects into its own system. They throw random, nonsensical, and novel scenarios at you like a tail-ender hitting a boundary against a pace legend to force your mind out of its rut. They are the built-in mechanism that says, “Hey, don’t get too comfortable! The world is much stranger and more varied than your last 16 hours of input.”

By serving up this nightly dose of weirdness, dreams keep our minds flexible, creative, and ready to generalize from new information. They prevent us from becoming walking caricatures of our daily routines.

Whether Hoel’s theory is the final word on the matter remains to be seen. But as I recall that feeling of falling from a stadium seat only to find myself on a sewing machine, it feels brilliantly true. My brain wasn’t just dreaming; it was shaking things up, ensuring I was ready for whatever strange new thing the next day might bring. And that is a gain worth sleeping for.

Reference:
Hoel, E. (2021). The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization. Patterns, 2(5), 100244.

Cancer wordcloud

cancer_wordcloud

Cancer: The ancient ghost in our genes

Cancer is not an invader. It’s a traitor. It’s a civil war that erupts within the silent, trillion-celled republic of our own bodies. While most diseases attack from the outside or cause our cells to wither and die, cancer does the opposite. It whispers a terrible, seductive secret to our cells: proliferate. And they listen.

This is why our fight against it has been so brutal. We’re not trying to heal cells; we’re trying to kill them. For decades, our primary strategy has been a medieval-sounding gauntlet of “slash, poison, and burn” surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Despite pouring unprecedented fortunes into research, a true cure remains elusive. The frustration is palpable. Visionary specialists like Azra Raza argue were stuck in a loop, focused on killing the monster after its already grown, instead of figuring out how to stop it from being born in the first place.

To find the solution, we must find the root cause. And to do that, we might need to look not just under a microscope, but deep into the past. Are we even on the right track?

What if cancer isn’t a modern malfunction, but an ancient echo?

This is the mind-bending idea from physicist and biologist Paul Davies and his team. They suggest that cancer is a ghost in our genetic attic – the reactivation of a 600-million-year-old program from the very dawn of multicellular life. Back then, life wasn’t a sophisticated orchestra of specialized tissues. It was more like a loose, tumour-like colony of cells, all focused on one thing: relentless proliferation. The genes for that ruthless growth are still buried deep within our DNA, like dormant code from a prehistoric operating system.

Eucalyptus sprouts on burnt tree

Davies’ atavistic model proposes that cancer is what happens when this ancient code reboots. It’s a rising from the dead. I’ve seen this kind of impossible revival with my own eyes in the eucalypt forests of Australia. After the 2020 bushfires left a landscape of charred, skeletal trees, vibrant green sprouts erupted directly from the blackened trunks life reasserting its most primal, stubborn will to exist.

If this is true, then our strategy is all wrong. Instead of just poisoning the runaway cells, perhaps we should be targeting the conditions that awaken these ancient genes in the first place.

The clues to an ancient crime

Once you start looking for it, evidence for this “deep time” theory of cancer is everywhere.

One of the first clues is how cancer cells breathe or rather, how they don’t. Our cells generate energy using oxygen in a highly efficient process called cellular respiration. But 600 million years ago, Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor. Life ran on a cruder, more primitive pathway: fermentation. Cancer cells, mysteriously, often abandon efficient respiration and revert to this ancient fermentation pathway, even when oxygen is available. This is the famous “Warburg effect.” It’s as if they’re trying to recreate the prehistoric conditions they were born in. This has led to an obvious, if difficult, treatment idea: flood the tumour with oxygen and force it back into the modern world.

But the plot thickens around the cells’ powerhouses: the mitochondria.

For years, we thought the switch to fermentation was because the mitochondria in cancer cells were broken. But that’s too simple. We now know that many tumours need healthy, functioning mitochondria to grow. Some of the most aggressive, drug-resistant cancer stem cells are completely dependent on normal respiration. Mitochondria, it seems, are not just victims in this story; they are conflicted, and perhaps central, players.

The mystery deepens in diseases like colorectal cancer. Here, we find a “broken bridge.” The carrier that escorts the main fuel (pyruvate) into the mitochondria is missing. The primary fuel line is cut. But the cell doesn’t die. The mitochondria simply switch to a backup generator, running on fatty acids instead. It’s a deliberate, strategic rewiring. This break, some researchers believe, might be the critical event that kicks off the cancer cascade.

Normal (blue) and cancer (red) cell energy generation

Then there’s the truly weird clue: cancer’s uncanny resemblance to sex. Bizarrely, cancer cells often switch on genes that should only ever be active in the testis, genes related to the formation of sperm and eggs. It’s as if these renegade somatic cells are trying to become immortal germline cells, blurring the fundamental line between the body and the seed of the next generation.

And perhaps most critically, cancer sabotages the brakes. In a healthy cell, theres a crucial “Go/No-Go” checkpoint (the G1/S checkpoint) before it divides. The cell takes stock, checks for nutrients, and ensures everything is in order. In many cancers, this checkpoint is disabled. The cell is locked in a permanent “Go” mode. And what controls this master switch? In many organisms, it’s the mitochondria, which form a giant, super-charged network precisely at this moment of decision. What are the mitochondria doing during this stage in a cancer cell? That’s a billion-dollar question.

Following the trail to the source

All these clues – the ancient metabolism, the broken bridges, the echoes of sex, the sabotaged brakes – point toward the mitochondria. Could the root cause of cancer lie not in the cell’s main genetic library (the nucleus), but in the tiny, separate instruction manual inside its power plants the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)?

The evidence is mounting. Cancer cells often have fewer copies of mtDNA. We find fragments of mtDNA that have escaped and embedded themselves in the nuclear DNA, potentially triggering chaos. And the mtDNA in tumors is often riddled with mutations. Some blame cancer on “bad luck” random mutations in nuclear DNA from a lifetime of cell divisions. But I believe the root cause lies a level deeper.

It comes down to a process I’ve studied for years: mitochondrial quality control. Healthy mitochondria are constantly fusing and dividing, a dynamic dance that allows them to weed out and destroy damaged segments carrying mutations. This self-cleaning process is called mitophagy.

Does mitophagy have a bearing on cancer? You bet it does. There is indeed a connection.

But that’s a story for next time.

References:

  1. Araki, R., Hoki, Y., Suga, T. et al. Genetic aberrations in iPSCs are introduced by a transient G1/S cell cycle checkpoint deficiency. Nat Commun 11, 197 (2020).
  2. Bensard, C. L., Wisidagama, D. R., Olson, K. A., Berg, J. A., Krah, N. M., Schell, J. C., … & Rutter, J. (2020). Regulation of tumor initiation by the mitochondrial pyruvate carrier. Cell metabolism, 31(2), 284-300.
  3. Bloom JC, Schimenti JC. Sexually dimorphic DNA damage responses and mutation avoidance in the mouse germline. Genes Dev. 2020 Dec 1;34(23-24):1637-1649. doi: 10.1101/gad.341602.120.
  4. Bruggeman, J. W., Koster, J., Lodder, P., Repping, S., & Hamer, G. (2018). Massive expression of germ cell-specific genes is a hallmark of cancer and a potential target for novel treatment development. Oncogene, 37(42), 5694-5700.
  5. Chatre, L., & Ricchetti, M. (2011). Nuclear mitochondrial DNA activates replication in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS One, 6(3), e17235.
  6. Coku, J., Booth, D. M., Skoda, J., Pedrotty, M. C., Vogel, J., Liu, K., … & Hogarty, M. D. (2022). Reduced ER-mitochondria connectivity promotes neuroblastoma multidrug resistance.The EMBO Journal, 41(8), e108272.
  7. Davies PC, Lineweaver CH. Cancer tumors as Metazoa 1.0: tapping genes of ancient ancestors. Phys Biol. 2011 Feb;8(1):015001. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/8/1/015001.
  8. DeBerardinis RJ, Chandel NS. Fundamentals of cancer metabolism. Sci Adv. 2016;2(5):e1600200.
  9. Deonath, A. (2021). Evolution of eukaryotes as a story of survival and growth of mitochondrial DNA over two billion years. Biosystems, 206, 104426.
  10. Feichtinger, J., Larcombe, L., McFarlane, R.J. (2014) Meta-analysis of expression of l(3)mbt tumor-associated germline genes supports the model that a soma-to-germline transition is a hallmark of human cancers. International journal of cancer. 134(10):2359-65.
  11. Liberti MV, Locasale JW. The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells? Trends Biochem Sci. 2016 Mar;41(3):211-218.
  12. Lineweaver, C. H., Davies, P. C., & Vincent, M. D. (2014). Targeting cancer’s weaknesses (not its strengths): Therapeutic strategies suggested by the atavistic model.BioEssays, 36(9), 827-835.
  13. Mandal S, Guptan P, Owusu-Ansah E, Banerjee U (2005) Mitochondrial regulation of cell cycle progression during development as revealed by the tenured mutation in Drosophila. Dev Cell 9:843-854.
  14. McFarlane, R. J., & Wakeman, J. A. (2017). Meiosis-like Functions in Oncogenesis: A New View of Cancer. Cancer research, 77(21), 5712-5716.
  15. Mitra K, Wunder C, Roysam B, Lin G, Lippincott-Schwartz J (2009) A hyperfused mitochondrial state achieved at G1-S regulates cyclin E buildup and entry into S phase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:11960-11965.
  16. Molinari M. Cell cycle checkpoints and their inactivation in human cancer. Cell Prolif. 2000 Oct;33(5):261-74.
  17. Puertas, M. J., & Gonzalez-Sanchez, M. (2020). Insertions of mitochondrial DNA into the nucleus: effects and role in cell evolution. Genome, 63(8), 365-374.
  18. Raza, A. (2019). The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last. Basic Books.
  19. Reznik E, Miller ML, ?enbabao?lu Y, Riaz N, Sarungbam J, Tickoo SK, Al-Ahmadie HA, Lee W, Seshan VE, Hakimi AA, Sander C. Mitochondrial DNA copy number variation across human cancers. Elife. 2016 Feb 22;5:e10769.
  20. Salmina, K., Huna, A., Kalejs, M., Pjanova, D., Scherthan, H., Cragg, M. S., & Erenpreisa, J. (2019). The cancer aneuploidy paradox: In the light of evolution. Genes, 10(2), 83.
  21. Sarosiek KA, Ni Chonghaile T, Letai A (2013) Mitochondria: gatekeepers of response to chemotherapy. Trends Cell Biol23:612-619
  22. Tomasetti, C., & Vogelstein, B. (2015). Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science, 347(6217), 78-81.
  23. Trigos AS, Pearson RB, Papenfuss AT, Goode DL (2017) Altered interactions between unicellular and multicellular genes drive hallmarks of transformation in a diverse range of solid tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:6406-6411.
  24. Viale, Corti and Draetta (2015) Tumors and mitochondrial respiration: a neglected connection. Cancer Research 75(18).
  25. Wallace, D. C. (2012). Mitochondria and cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer, 12(10), 685-698.

झूला

कह दो भला मुझसे क्यों इतने मौन हो तुम
सुकूं दे दो ये बताकर कि मेरे कौन हो तुम

लिखाते रहते हो मुझसे हमेशा बात अपनी ही
फिर क्यों माँग लेते हो कलम क्या द्रोण हो तुम?

दूर हो मगर ख़याल तो है मेरे डीएनए का
दहकता सूरज है ज़माना और ओज़ोन हो तुम

चक्रव्यूह सी दुनिया है, भँवर के बीच अभिजित
सरल रेखा सा मेरा जीवन जिसका कोण हो तुम

The bad habit I gave my daughter before she was born?

Parenting is a masterclass in paradox. You spend years trying to teach your children not to be you. You watch, horrified, as they pick up the very habits you fought to overcome, the very quirks you hoped would die with your generation.

For me, that moment of horror and fascination came when I saw my daughter sucking her lower lip.

It was a ghost of my own childhood. That same habit had defined my youth, subtly reshaping my jaw and dental structure in ways I’d regret for decades. I didn’t inherit it; it was a nervous tic I acquired all on my own, one that stubbornly stuck around long after it was cute. Now, watching my daughter, I felt the familiar parental dread: Please don’t repeat my mistakes.

Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics
Photo by Isaac Quesada onUnsplash

But a different part of me, the scientist, leaned in closer. A wild thought sparked. What if this wasn’t a coincidence? What if this was living proof of a theory long dead and buried?

What if this was the ghost of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, come back to haunt me?

The knockout blow that killed a beautiful idea

Two centuries ago, Lamarck proposed an elegant and intuitive theory of evolution. He suggested that the things an organism learns or acquires during its lifetime could be passed down to its children. The classic example is the giraffe: as it stretched its neck to reach higher leaves, that “acquired” length was inherited, leading to the magnificent creatures we see today. It’s a lovely idea. It’s also one that was famously demolished.

The man who delivered the knockout blow was August Weismann. He drew a hard, clear line in the biological sand. He argued that from the earliest moments of an embryo’s development, the body creates a set of protected, “forbidden” cells the germ cells (sperm and eggs). These are the immortal lineage, the precious cargo of heredity. Everything else – your muscles, your brain, your skin – are just somatic cells. They are the disposable vehicle.

Weismann’s logic was ironclad: The experiences of your life the muscles you build, the anxieties you harbor, the bad habits you pick up can only affect your somatic cells. They can’t rewrite the information sealed away in the germ cells. This concept became known as the Weismann barrier, an impenetrable fortress separating your life from your legacy. And with that, Lamarck was thrown out of the biology textbooks, a cautionary tale of a good idea gone wrong.

Or so we thought.

The comeback of the century

For over a hundred years, the Weismann barrier stood tall. But in the new millennium, scientists started finding cracks in the fortress. They discovered something that changes everything: epigenetics.

Think of your DNA as a massive, intricate cookbook. The recipes – your genes – are fixed. But epigenetics is like a set of sticky notes and highlights left by a chef. A note might say, “Make a lot of this recipe!” or “Ignore this one completely.” These chemical tags don’t change the recipe itself, but they control which ones get read and when.

And here’s the bombshell: your life experiences – your diet, your stress levels, your exposure to toxins – are constantly writing and rewriting these epigenetic notes.

For a long time, it was believed that when a sperm and egg fuse, all these notes were wiped clean, giving the new embryo an “epigenetic blank slate.” But we now know this erasure is incomplete. Some of the sticky notes survive. Some of the lessons learned in one generations life can be passed down to the next.

The implications are staggering. Consider a pregnant mother who smokes. The toxins affect her (generation one), her developing fetus (generation two), and, crucially, the fetus’s own germ cells – the seeds of her future grandchildren (generation three). One environmental exposure, three generations impacted. The fortress wasn’t so impenetrable after all.

Furthermore, we’ve learned that Weismann’s clean line between germ and somatic cells was a bit too neat. In the very early stages of life, the cells that will eventually become germ cells spend a brief period living a “somatic” life, exposed and impressionable, before they are locked away.

The Weismann barrier is crumbling. And with its fall, the ghost of Lamarck is walking in the halls of science once more.

So, did I pass my lip-sucking habit on to my daughter through some invisible, epigenetic echo? It’s a tantalizing thought for the scientist in me. But for the father in me, the verdict is still out. Until someone can map the exact mechanism from my childhood tic to the sticky notes on my genes that somehow survived to shape my daughters behaviour, I’m not pleading guilty.

But I’m also not ruling it out. The story of our lives may be written in a far more mysterious ink than we ever imagined.

References:

Koonin, EV. (2014) Calorie restriction ? Lamarck. Cell 158, 237-238.

Singer, Emily (2009) A comeback for Lamarckian evolution. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/02/04/216134/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/amp/

You’re hallucinating right now. (And that’s how you see.)

Take a look at this dog.

Instantly, you know what you’re looking at. A dog. A face. Fur, eyes, a nose. It seems effortless, as natural as breathing. We often think of our eyes as biological cameras, faithfully capturing the world and sending a perfect picture to our brain for inspection. Light enters the lens, hits the retina (the “film”), and presto an image appears.

That’s the simple story. It’s also where the analogy to a camera completely falls apart.

The camera doesn’t know it’s looking at a dog. It just captures pixels. To understand what those pixels mean, you have to use your brain. And what happens inside your skull in that split second of recognition is nothing short of a miracle.

The traditional view, which powers most of today’s Artificial Intelligence, is an “outside-in” process. It goes like this: electrical signals from your retina are sent to the brain, which acts like a master detective. It starts by identifying the basic lines and edges of the dog’s face. That information is passed to another layer, which assembles those edges into shapes. Layer by layer, the complexity builds, until finally, your brain matches the finished puzzle with its vast library of past experiences. “Aha!” it concludes, “I’ve seen millions of these patterns before. That’s a dog.”

This model has been incredibly successful, launching the deep learning revolution and making us feel like we’d finally cracked the code of consciousness. It makes perfect sense.

Right?

Wrong, says neuroscientist Anil Seth. In his groundbreaking book, Being You, he flips the entire model on its head. He argues that our brain doesn’t work from the outside-in. It works from the inside-out.

According to Seth, your brain is not a passive detective waiting for clues. It’s a proactive storyteller. At every moment of your waking life, your brain is already making its best guess about what’s out there. It’s generating its own reality based on a lifetime of experience and expectation.

In other words, your brain is constantly hallucinating.

So, what are your eyes for? They aren’t the filmmakers; they’re the fact-checkers. The sensory signals pouring in from the outside world don’t create the picture. Their job is to provide error correction. Your brain predicts “dog,” and the light hitting your retina sends back signals that essentially say, “Yep, that guess is pretty good, but maybe sharpen this ear,” or “Adjust the shadow under the chin.”

What you consciously experience as “seeing” is not the raw data from the outside world. It is your brain’s final, corrected, best-guess hallucination.

This “inside-out” model brilliantly explains so much about our experience. Ever wonder why we sometimes only see what we want to see? Its because our brain’s prediction is so strong that it can ignore the error signals coming from our senses. That sharp focus in the photograph of the dog is a perfect metaphor for what Seth calls “precision weighting.” Your brain is constantly deciding which sensory error signals are important enough to update its hallucination, and which can be ignored.

So, the next time you look at the world, remember that you are not simply seeing it. You are creating it. Your reality is a controlled hallucination, a masterpiece of prediction and correction painted by your brain, for your brain. And in that sense, believing isn’t just a consequence of seeing. Believing is seeing.

The weed, the goat, and the weight of a human brain

It was a quiet Sunday, the air still smelling of the previous day’s rain. The damp earth made for easy work, and I was on my knees, waging a quiet war against the weeds in my garden. My fingers closed around a tiny, sprawling plant, one that had woven itself through the decorative pebbles. I gave a gentle tug.

And then I stopped.

In my hand was not just a weed. It was a life. A tiny, tenacious being that had spent its entire existence pushing through soil, gathering nutrients, fixing carbon, and fighting for its little patch of sunlight. Its whole life’s work, its stubborn will to exist, was about to be erased by me in a single, thoughtless motion.

Why? Because it was a “weed.” Because it dared to disrupt my human-designed aesthetic. To nature, it was just another plant. To me, it was an intruder. And until that moment, I’d never felt the weight of that judgment.

“We should get goats,” I said aloud, to my daughter, who was weeding a few feet away. “I’d rather this thing become part of the food chain than just be thrown away.”

“Goats are good,” she agreed, not looking up. “A self-sustaining, organic mower.”

“And they give milk,” I added.

She paused. “Umm… I don’t like goat milk. Tastes weird.”

“It’s an acquired taste,” I countered. “Very nutritious.”

My wife, who had been quietly sowing seeds nearby, chimed in. “She’d have to give birth to make milk, you know.”

My daughter’s head shot up. “What? So we’d need male goats, too?”

“Not necessarily,” my wife said practically. “You could take her to a farm.”

“Or artificial insemination,” I offered, trying to problem-solve. “But we’d have to think it all through…”

I noticed my daughter had gone completely still. Her face was a mask of concentration.

“What’s wrong?” I asked.

Her voice was soft, but firm. “I don’t like this idea. Of creating babies just so we can have their mother’s milk.” She took a breath. “Babies that will probably be killed.”

“But… we drink milk now,” I said, a little stunned by the turn this had taken.

“I know,” she mumbled.

“So isn’t this just turning a blind eye?” I pressed, the philosopher in me now fully awake. “Pretending the milk just magically appears in the fridge, and we don’t have to know where it comes from? Or not caring even if we do?”

“Yes,” she said, looking down. “I know. Maybe… maybe it’s best to just be as sustainable as we can.”

“And what about this?” I held up the weed, desperate to drag the conversation back to its source. “Does this poor creature’s life not matter just because it doesn’t have a central nervous system to feel pain?”

She looked at the plant in my hand, then at the compost bin. “Well, we can put it in there. At least then its resources get reused.”

And with that practical answer, the conversation ended. But the one churning in my mind had just begun.

My daughter found a resolution in the compost bin. I found no such peace. Because it wasn’t just about my small patch of land. It was about the entire planet. We have remade the world in our image. We decide which species get to live and which are relegated to the status of “weed” or “pest.” Our artificial selection now rivals the force of natural selection itself. We move rivers, level mountains, and now, we are seriously casting our gaze to the stars.

We see ourselves as the only creatures with a truly global perspective. But this god-like power comes with a terrifying responsibility. We can no longer afford to be selfish, not even in the name of “benefiting humankind.” The recent pandemic cracked open our routines and showed us that other ways of living are possible.

Yes, as living beings, we must consume to survive. But what we consume, and how we choose to do it, is a choice we can no longer make on autopilot. We have to question the habits we perform without thinking.

Even an act as small as pulling a weed.

We were given this astonishingly large brain, this sprawling neocortex, for a reason. It wasn’t just to build cities and design gardens. It was for this. To pause, with a tiny life in our hands, and ask ourselves: what have we done, and what are we going to do next?

अपनी राखी

जिस दिन मिलेंगे हम उस दिन होगी अपनी राखी
सब पर्व एक हो जाएँगे विशु, नववर्ष औ बैसाखी
बस यही नहीं पता कि दिन और हैं कितने बाक़ी

सच का हिस्सा

बाहर का झूठ निभाना अगर मजबूरी है
अंतर के सच को ज़िंदा रखना भी ज़रूरी है
ना मिले या मिलते रहें यूँ ही हम यदा-कदा
तुम मेरे सच का हिस्सा हो और रहोगे सदा

कंकरीट में ढले और शीशे से सजे सब रिश्ते
मोल जिनका करे मांग-आपूर्ति की किश्तें
इनसे हटके है बहुत अपने सम्बंध की अदा
तुम मेरे सच का हिस्सा हो और रहोगे सदा

Oxygen: The poison we breathe to live

The pandemic reminded us of a humbling truth: we are not in charge. For a species that fancies itself the master of the planet, we were brought to our knees by a microscopic virus. We grudgingly acknowledge the power of earthquakes and cyclones, but we often forget that the most dominant forces on Earth are, and always have been, biological.

The numbers are staggering. In our own bodies, bacterial cells outnumber our own. Viruses are more widespread still. If Nature were a parent with a favorite child, it wouldn’t be us. It would be the microbes.

We saw, with horrifying clarity, how a shortage of oxygen can devastate human life. But what about the microbes? For them, the story of oxygen isn’t one of scarcity; it’s the story of a world-ending catastrophe they survived and then conquered.

The great poisoning

Picture Earth, three billion years ago. It’s a peaceful, alien world. The oceans and atmosphere are almost entirely free of a dangerous, reactive gas: oxygen. Life, in the form of simple bacteria, thrives on the deep ocean floor.

Then, some adventurous bacteria make a revolutionary discovery. They invent a machine that can harness the free, limitless energy of the sun. We call it photosynthesis. These pioneers, the cyanobacteria, learn to split water, use the hydrogen for energy, and toss away the leftover atom as waste.

That waste product was oxygen.

As this brilliant new technology went viral, the cyanobacteria flourished, dominating the oceans. And they began to fill the world with their toxic garbage. The atmosphere began to rust. This event, some 2.5 billion years ago, is now called the Great Oxygenation Event. It was the single greatest pollution event in our planet’s history.

For the existing life forms, it was a disaster. Oxygen is a chemical menace. It creates “reactive oxygen species” that tear apart DNA, the very blueprint of life. The world was being poisoned by its own success.

Life faced a dilemma. Shut down the incredibly efficient solar-powered factories? Or find a way to live with the poison?

The choice was clear. The energy was too good to give up. A challenge was issued to the biological world: solve the oxygen problem.

Turning a threat into an unbelievable opportunity

While the world’s best bacterial minds worked on a solution, photosynthesis continued its relentless march, pumping ever more oxygen into the system. The problem was becoming existential.

Fortunately, just in time, the solution arrived. And it was genius. Life has a knack for this, for turning its greatest threats into its greatest strengths. The engineers of this new world realized that oxygen’s greatest vice – its aggressive hunger for electrons – could also be its greatest virtue.

All life, at its core, runs on a principle like a hydroelectric dam. Cells build up a reservoir of protons on one side of a membrane and then let them flow through tiny turbines (called ATP synthase) to generate energy. To keep the reservoir full, they need to pump protons across the membrane. This is done by passing high-energy electrons down a chain of acceptor molecules, using the energy released at each step to power the pumps.

The early electron acceptors were decent, but oxygen was a game-changer. As the final electron acceptor in the chain, its ferocious appetite pulled electrons through the system with unparalleled efficiency. With oxygen, an organism could produce 15 times more energy from the same fuel source.

It was like switching from a water wheel to a nuclear reactor. Life had not just survived the poison; it had weaponized it.

An engine inside an engine

This new, super-charged energy system was perfected inside a specific type of free-living bacteria. Over time, these bacteria entered into a pact with larger cells, becoming permanent residents. We now know them as mitochondria the powerhouses of our cells. Our bodies, in essence, are just elaborate colonies built to house and serve these ancient bacterial engines.

When our animal ancestors crawled out of the water and onto land, they faced an atmosphere awash in this potent, dangerous fuel. Too much oxygen is like living inside a firecracker. So, life performed another engineering marvel. It built a sophisticated pressure-reduction system.

Think of the natural gas flowing to your home. It travels from a high-pressure plant through a series of regulators that drop the pressure at each step, so the flame in your stove is controlled and safe. Our bodies do the same with oxygen.

From the moment air enters our nose, its pressure is systematically lowered. It’s humidified, mixed with CO2 in the lungs, dissolved in blood, and diffused through tissues. By the time the oxygen finally reaches the mitochondria deep inside our cells, its pressure has dropped to a level that a free-living bacterium could handle. Our entire anatomy our lungs, our blood, our very cells is a multi-layered defence system, a buffer against the raw toxicity of the air we breathe, designed to deliver a perfectly calibrated dose of fuel to our mitochondrial guests.

At the heart of this architecture is a special material called sterol (like cholesterol), which strengthens our cell membranes. In yet another stroke of genius, sterols are made using oxygen, and they, in turn, help protect the cell from oxygen.

Life is endlessly clever. Deep inside large animals like cows, there are even oxygen-free chambers, tiny pockets of the ancient world recreated on land. Here, bacteria thrive using the old fermentation technology, producing methane as their waste. We, the oxygen-breathers, might complain about the smell, but it’s a living echo of a world before the great poisoning.

Our journey as a species has been a partnership. We animals and the plants have marched together, away from the oceans, conquering the continents. They give us oxygen; we give them CO2, disperse their seeds, and tend to their needs.

Or do we? As the pandemic’s harsh light begins to fade, it’s worth asking: have we been holding up our end of the bargain lately? Or have we become mere consumers, taking what is offered without thought? It’s something to ponder.

चंद्र माँ

तुम चाँद सी सरकती जाती हो
हौले हौले कि मुझे दूरी महसूस ना हो
मैं पृथ्वी सा अपनी धुन में
बल खाता, घूमता रहता हूँ

तुम चाँद सी सिकुड़ती जाती हो
आगामी पर सब न्योछावर कर
मैं पृथ्वी सा अपनी धुन में
ऊर्जा पाकर फूला नहीं समाता

तुम चाँद सी तकती रहती हो
हर पल मुझे आँखों में रखती हो
मैं पृथ्वी सा अपनी धुन में
सारा ब्रम्हाण्ड देखा करता हूँ

बल खाता, घूमता, फूलता, देखता
तारों में उलझा था इतने दिन
अब तुम पर नज़र आ टिकी है
अब समझ पा रहा हूँ तुम्हें
पर तुम इतनी दूर हो अब
चाँद जितना दूर है!
मैं भी चाँद बनकर एक पृथ्वी रचूँगा
और तुम्हारी तरह
उसे फलते देख
विलीन हो जाऊँगा शून्य में
इस तरह तुम्हारा ऋण मैं चुकाऊँगा
माँ

Competition is overrated

The world actually runs on cooperation. The scientific and technological advancement we humans have achieved is impossible without cooperation. We shared knowledge. We worked together on projects. Our organ cells work in sync with each other to achieve outcomes. An organ going selfish invites cancer. Why do we then celebrate competition which motivates selfish behaviour? I ask and explore in this article: The devil is in the headline

The immortal part of you (Hint: It’s not your soul)

“Thou’art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell…”

– John Donne, on Death

Our house is 35 years old, and it groans. Doors stick, the ceiling peels in thin, papery layers, and a stubborn draft whispers that the insulation has given up the ghost. It’s no longer energy efficient; it’s a tired old structure. We talk about what to do. I mention the nuclear option: demolish it and build anew.

The thought brings a flicker of sadness. We have memories here. This is our home. But the house is inanimate. It has never loved us back. And so, the idea of its end, while poignant, doesn’t shatter us.

But when a living being dies, even a beloved pet, surrendering peacefully to old age, it is a different universe of loss altogether.

Death is the great certainty that terrifies us. As the biochemist Nick Lane writes, it is “programmed into the very fabric of life.” We know it’s coming for us all. Yet this certainty is wrapped in mystery. What happens, really, when we die? Where, precisely, does life go? And what is the root cause of this inevitable end?

Lets dare to look closer.

Part 1: The great deconstruction

What happens to a body after death? It’s a question that often makes us flinch, but the process is not one of horror; it is one of return.

When life stops, the body’s bustling metropolis of systems shuts down. The heart, that relentless pump, ceases its hard work. Without circulation, the body’s warmth begins to seep away, bleeding into the ambient air until it reaches room temperature. Breathing stops. No more oxygen comes in. The energy currency of our cells, ATP, can no longer be minted.

Without energy, the muscles, which need power to relax, lock into a final, silent protest: rigor mortis. When they eventually release, the last vestiges of the body’s waste are expelled. The skin, no longer flushed with blood, grows pale and shrinks.

And then, the second life begins. Our bodies are not just ours; they are home to trillions of bacteria, ancient tenants residing mostly in our gut. While we live, our immune system keeps them in check. When we die, the resistance ends. The tenants take over the house. They begin to consume the body’s organic resources, releasing gases as they work. This odour is a dinner bell, summoning a host of scavengers to a final, riotous party. What’s left is slowly broken down, until only the hard parts bones and teeth remain for a slower, more patient decay.

The body is unmade. But has life truly left?

Part 2: The decider

If a cell is the fundamental unit of life, then surely death is not a single moment, but a cascade of tiny deaths. This is where the story gets truly profound. Billions of our cells are born and die every day, even before we are born. The very spaces between our fingers and toes were carved out in the womb by cells programmed to die.

So when does life finally move out? Perhaps when the very last cell dies.

To understand this, we need to understand how a cell dies. Most cells don’t just break down; they undergo a “controlled demolition.” Inside each cell is a demolition crew, a family of enzymes called caspases. When activated, they dismantle the cell from the inside out, neatly and without disturbing the neighbours.

But who gives the order? Who pushes the plunger on the dynamite?

The order comes from the cell’s power plants: the mitochondria. When a cell is under stress, its mitochondria release a protein called cytochrome c. Inside the mitochondria, this protein is a loyal worker, essential for generating energy. But once it escapes into the cells cytoplasm, it becomes a messenger of death, activating the caspase crew.

The mitochondrion, it seems, not only decides how energetically a cell lives, but also precisely when it must die.

Part 3: The ghost in the machine

If death is programmed into us, what good does it do? Why would nature build such a self-destruct sequence into its creations?

One powerful idea is that death is a feature, not a bug. It’s a mechanism for scheduled obsolescence. An organism’s primary purpose, from an evolutionary perspective, is to reproduce. Once that job is done, the body’s warranty expires. Gerontologists call this the “essential lifespan”; for humans, it’s around 45 years. Beyond this, we begin a progressive decline.

The diseases of old age, Nick Lane argues, are not the real disease. They are merely symptoms of the underlying condition: ageing itself. And the root cause of ageing, many believe, is the slow, inexorable decay of our mitochondria. The “wear and tear” of life is the accumulation of damage in these ancient powerhouses. As they falter, they leak more and more “reactive oxygen species” sparks flying from an overloaded engine. These sparks damage our DNA, leading to a system-wide failure that we call old age.

And what is cancer, one of our most feared killers? It is the opposite of this elegant, programmed death. Cancer is a cell that has ripped up the self-destruct memo and is screaming, “I will not die!” Its a rebellion against the mitochondrial order.

The life that never ends

We come back, again and again, to the mitochondria. In death, our bodies are unmade, the great house of our life demolished. Through reproduction, we pass on a new blueprint – half of our nuclear genes from each parent.

But something else is passed on, something more ancient and unbroken. A mother passes her mitochondrial DNA to all her children, whole and intact. It is a thread of life that has been passed down in a continuous, direct line from the very dawn of complex life.

Your body will die. But the mitochondria inside you are part of a lineage that may be billions of years old. They are the true survivors. As the poet Rabindranath Tagore wrote, they exist “jibon moroner simana chharaye” beyond the bounds of life and death.

Perhaps this is what John Donne foresaw centuries ago. Perhaps, in the eternal life of our mitochondria, we see the very thing that makes “Death… die.”

কুয়াশা

না বললে দোষ আমার হবে
বললে যে অত্যাচার হবে
এই দ্বিধায় সময় ফুরোলো
আসছে বছর আবার হবে

Building Myself from Scratch

I was watching a sixties movie last week. Halfway through the black-and-white classic I remembered having heard from my father’s mouth that this was an outstanding movie. I was surprised that I had that insignificant and meaningless (to me then) one sentence film review in my memory because I must have been under 10 then. The movie really was very well made. It wasn’t a popular movie then and isn’t remembered much now either. It suited my taste and style though. I asked myself if I had acquired that taste from my father. This could be my wishful thinking. Yet it always amazes me to think how that half set of genes of each of my parents eventually shaped me to this day. How this 60+ kilos of my body with all its fully functioning organs emerged from that single tiny cell formed about 38 weeks before my birth? Read on …

दस्तक

कहीं से उठकर फिर एक दिन चला आता है
रिवाज़ों को गोद लिए पलछिन चला आता है

इस उम्र में अच्छा नहीं लगता है जो दस्तूर
न जाने क्योंकर भला तुम बिन चला आता है

बड़ा हो गया हूँ अब तारीख दस्तक नहीं देते
दुआ बूँद में भर आँसू लेकिन चला आता है

छुप जाती हो तुम फिर कभी न आने के लिए
औ’ बचपन मेरा दस तक गिन चला आता है

Post-COVID-19 World: Is De-urbanisation on the Cards?

Cities emerged most likely as a consequence of the mankind’s shift to agriculture as the dominant occupation. Unprecedented urbanisation happened as an aftermath of the industrial revolution. So it’s basically the economic need that drove us here. Social needs hardly require us to live amidst hundreds of thousands of other people around. Now with internet connecting us without the need to be physically connected, it’s time we questioned the old, and still very much in vogue, model of city based services. Do we continue to allow the megacity dinosaur grow or let the small town/village birds fly? Here in this article I compare evolution of civilisation with evolution of life. Read on…

The Loan of Water

We animals are, in a way, freeloaders. Plants do primary production and we consume. However we owe plants some favour in return. Here in my interdisciplinary take on animal-plant interactions and the water scenario I try to explain the give-and-take relationship. A bit of philosophy too is thrown in the mix. I find the overlapping boundaries of different scientific disciplines most interesting. 5 minutes read…

The Bright Side of Viruses

It’s natural to think of viruses as enemies of mankind. More so when we are in the middle of a pandemic. But things aren’t quite that bad when we extrapolate the impact to all living beings throughout the history of life. I wrote this short article where I tried to explain one benefit of viruses which has had a huge impact on who we are. There is also a high level overview of how viruses operate. Please read if you are interested. If the topic fires your curiosity, Carl Zimmer’s ‘A Planet of Viruses’ is a good beginners level book and the book referenced in the article is a pretty detailed take on the science of viruses.

Lovelock Writes at 100

We are the “highest” species on the Earth, at least in our anthropocentric view. Would we continue to dominate in future? No, says the visionary James Lovelock. Who then is going to take over? When? Are we going to continue or become extinct? Read on… only 3 minutes long…

मारके टिंग

मैं परेशान हूँ। रेस्तराँ चेन का धंधा है। अच्छा चल रहा है।ऊँहु… ‘है’ नहीं ‘था’। जब से ये कल्पित आया है…

वैसे कल्पित से मुझे कोई व्यक्तिगत शिकायत नहीं है। दिल का हीरा है वह। उसका पिता – आदर्श – एक ज़माने में मेरा सहपाठी हुआ करता था। बड़ी इज़्ज़त करता था मैं आदर्श की। बड़ा ही नेक बंदा था। बरसों बाद जब व्हाट्सऐप ग्रूप के माध्यम से आदर्श से फिर बातचीत होती थी तो पुराने दिन लौट आते थे। फिर एक दिन पता चला कि आदर्श अचानक इस दुनिया से चल बसा। बहुत सूनापन महसूस किया था तब। धीरे धीरे तमाम व्यस्तताओं में उलझ व्हाट्सऐप ग्रूप भी कब छोड़ दिया था, पता ही ना चला।

आदर्श के देहांत के क़रीब दो साल बाद कल्पित का एक ईमेल आया था। उसे काम की तलाश थी। जो बात मुझे भली लगी थी वो यह कि उस ईमेल में किसी तरह का कोई दबाव नहीं था। ना उसमें अपने बुरे दिन का बढ़ा-चढ़ाकर बखान था और ना ही जज़्बाती ब्लैक्मेल। उलटे उसने मेरे सहायता न कर पाने की स्थिति में भी बुरा ना मानने की बात कही थी। मुझे अच्छा लगा था। आदर्श की छवि एक बार फिर उभरकर सामने आ गयी थी। मैंने बातचीत आगे बढ़ाई।

ग़नीमत से वह उसी शहर में रहता था जहाँ मुझे अपने चेन की रेस्तराँ खोलनी थी। सो मैंने काफ़ी समझा-बुझाकर उसे ये ज़िम्मेदारी सौंपी। रेस्तराँ बिज़्नेस के कुछ नुस्ख़े बताएँ और एक विश्वसनीय शेफ़ उसे दिया।

शुरुआत बड़ी अच्छी रही। एक बार उसके शहर दौरे पर गया था। रेस्तराँ की तरक़्क़ी देखकर मुझे बड़ी ख़ुशी हुई। बाहर निकलते समय मेरी आँख काँच के दरवाज़े पर टिक गयी। अंदर की ओर से दरवाज़े पर PUSH लिखा हुआ था। कल्पित ने दरवाज़े को हल्के से धकेला और अपने बायें हाथ से मेरी ओर कृतज्ञता भरे भाव से इशारा किया। बाहर निकल मैंने नज़र घुमाई और देखा बाहर से उसी दरवाज़े पर PULL लिखा हुआ था। मैंने कल्पित के काँधे पर हाथ रखा। उसे दरवाज़े पर लिखे शब्द दिखाए। वह समझा नहीं।

मैंने कहा, “देखो बुरा मत मानना। ये वैसे कोई बड़ी बात नहीं। पर बात एटिट्यूड की होती है। अगर आप कस्टमर चाहते हो तो आप उनका अंदर आना आसान करोगे और बाहर निकलना मुश्किल। आई बात समझ में? अगली बार मुझे यह सही नज़र आना चाहिए।”

उसे गम्भीर होते देख मैं मुस्कुरा दिया।

आठ महीने बाद मैं दूसरी बार वहाँ पहुँचा। गरमी का मौसम था। हर दुकान की तरह उस रेस्तराँ में भी कम लोग मौजूद थे। रेस्तराँ में क़दम रखते ही बाहरी दरवाज़े पर PUSH लिखा देखकर मुझे ख़ुशी हुई। मैंने उससे हालचाल पूछा। उसने बताया कि उसके पुराने ग्राहक अब भी आते हैं, पर नए ग्राहक कुछ ख़ास नहीं आ रहे हैं। मैंने उसे कुछ स्ट्रटीजिक क़दम उठाने को कहा।

मैंने कहा, “तुम्हें क्या करना है, तुम ख़ुद सोच कर निकालो। पढ़े लिखे हो, जवान हो। इस एज की डिमांड तुम्हीं को बेहतर पता है। मैं प्रोग्रेस मॉनिटर करूँगा।”

सुनते ही उसने बड़े जोश से बोलना शुरू किया, “सर मैं भी सोच रहा था कि कुछ पहल करना ज़रूरी है। दरअसल मैंने कुछ सोच भी रखा है। अगर बुरा न माने तो अपना आइडिया बताऊँ? कोई ज़रूरी नहीं कि आपको अच्छा लगे। आप सुन लीजिए। फिर आप कुछ और चाहे तो ठीक है।”

“अच्छा बोलो।”

“सर पाँच इन्द्रिय जो है हमारे? फ़ाइव सेन्सेज़, इनमें स्वाद, गंध और दृष्टि को तो हम तृप्त करते ही हैं…”

मैं मन ही मन उसकी शुद्ध हिंदी पर हँस रहा था। शायद उसने मेरे कौतुक का कारण भाँप लिया था। वह बोले जा रहा था, “हमारे डिशेज़ की क्वालिटी और प्रेज़ेंटेशन हमेशा टॉप क्लास होते हैं। मैं सोच रहा था कि जो दो और सेन्सेज़ हैं – टच और हियरिंग – इनको लेकर कुछ किया जाय। शायद एक डिस्टिंक्ट इमेज बन जाए अपने रेस्टोरेंट की।”

उसका ‘रेस्टोरेंट’ कहना मुझे ज़रा चुभ गया। मैंने कहा, “बहुत बहकी बहकी बातें करते हो यार। कुछ स्पेसिफ़िक प्लान बताओ। आजकल मार्केटिंग के नए नए टेक्नीक निकले हैं। चाहो तो किसी आइ टी एक्स्पर्ट को साथ ले लो।”

“सर एक बार ट्राई करते है। मुझे भरोसा है कुछ अच्छा होगा।”

“ठीक है, अगले हफ़्ते तक मुझे बताओ कि इग्ज़ैक्ट्ली क्या सोचा है।”

ठीक सातवें दिन उसका फ़ोन आया। हमेशा की तरह पंक्चुअल था बंदा।

“सर वो जो सेन्सेज़ की बात कर रहा था मैं। श्रवण और स्पर्श… आइ मीन हियरिंग और टच। हियरिंग तो सर मेलोडीयस गाने सुनाकर सैटिस्फ़ाई कर सकते है। म्यूज़िक तो बहुत सारे रेस्टोरेंट में चलता है। पर अपने यहाँ एकदम चुने हुए मोस्ट मेलोडीयस गाने ही बजेंगे। मैं ख़ुद चुनूँगा। धीरे धीरे लोग समझेंगे सॉफ़्ट मेलोडी के साथ ज़ायक़ेदार खाने का आनंद। ख़ैर ये तो एक प्लान है। पर इससे ज़बरदस्त प्लान है टच वाला। हमारे वाशरूम में सेन्सरी टैप्स लगाएँगे ताकि कस्टमर को नल छूना ना पड़े। और हर नाइफ़ और फ़ोर्क में सॉफ़्ट ग्रिप लगाएँगे। मतलब टोटल एक्स्पिरीयन्स सर। रेस्टोरेंट में क़दम रखते ही पकवान की सुगंध और मधुर गीतों से उनका स्वागत होगा। फिर जब विसुअली अपीलिंग डिशेज़ को सॉफ़्ट टच के सहारे मुँह में ले जाएँगे तो उसका स्वाद बाक़ी सेन्सेज़ के साथ मिलकर ज़बरदस्त सेन्सेशन पैदा करेगा दिमाग़ में। सारे बाहर आकर इसकी चर्चा करेंगे। तब मार्केट बढ़ेगा।”

“ख़र्चा कितना लगेगा?” मैंने निर्विकार भाव से पूछा।

“सर कुछ पाँच लाख वन टाइम पड़ेगा। और ऑपरेटिंग में समझिए १० पर्सेंट ज़्यादा। पर सर लॉंग टर्म में बहुत फ़ायदेमंद रहेगा।”

“यार पाँच लाख में तो कितने टारगेटेड ऐड बन जाते। फ़ेसबुक, व्हाट्सऐप, इंस्टाग्राम, यूट्यूब, वग़ैरा। इतना सब करने की क्या ज़रूरत है?”

“सर लॉंग टर्म में सब्सटांस ही मैटर करता है।वो सब कुछ दिन के लिए ठीक हैं।”

थोड़ी झिकझिक के बाद मैंने कुछ कम ख़र्च की मंज़ूरी दे दी थी।

*****

आज फ़ायनैन्शल अड्वाइज़र के साथ अपने बिज़्नेस का क्वॉर्टर्ली रिपोर्ट देखकर मन भारी हो गया। कहीं से कोई अच्छी ख़बर नहीं है। कल्पित का रेस्तराँ तो डूबने के कगार पर था। और उसी में सबसे ज़्यादा इन्वेस्टमेंट हुआ था। दूसरे दिन ही मैं वहाँ पहुँचा।

“अगर कुछ बेचना है तो इंसानों से उम्मीद मत रखो। आदमी लोग कुछ ख़रीदते नहीं। ख़रीदते वो हैं जिनके सेन्सेज़ नहीं होते। सीधे दिमाग़ पर जिनके असर होता है। अगर तुम्हारे पास बस इंसान आते हैं तो पहले उन सब को मारके टिंग बनाओ। उनके सारे सेन्सेज़? वो तुम क्या कहते हो, इन्द्रिय… हाँ उनके इन्द्रिय निष्क्रिय कर दो। ख़त्म कर दो उनके महसूस करने की ताक़त। फिर बेचो जो बेचना है। बिक जाएगा। मेरी गैरंटी है। वो क्या कहते है ना ‘कस्टमर इस किंग’? सब बकवास है। टिंग इस किंग। हाँ, सबको मारके टिंग बनाओ। और बंद करो तुम्हारी बकवास। कोई सेन्सरी सैटिस्फ़ैक्शन नहीं। उन्हें डोपामिन दो इंटर्नेट के ज़रिए, मोबाइल के ज़रिए। तुम सेन्सेज़ की बात करते हो? पहले अपने आँख-कान खोलो और देखो आसपास क्या हो रहा है। देखो इंफ़्लुएंसर लोगों को, नेताओं को, बड़े बड़े बिज़्नेस को। सब सपने बेच रहे हैं सपने। और सपने दिखाने के लिए पहले लोगों को सुलाना ज़रूरी है।”

एक साँस में मैं सब कह गया। और ग़ुस्से से उफ़नते हुए बाहर निकल गया। बाहर के दरवाज़े पर भीतर से PULL लिखा देखकर इस बार मैं खीज उठा। दरवाज़े को इतनी ज़ोर से खींचा कि कुछ देर तक वह पेंडुलम की तरह हिलता रहा।

*****

एक साल पहले की बात थी यह। आज वह रेस्तराँ शान है मेरे चेन की। सारे शहर में बड़ी चर्चा है। बस अफ़सोस इस बात का है कि कल्पित अब वहाँ नहीं है। मेरे उस लेक्चर के दूसरे दिन ही उसने इस्तीफ़ा दे दिया था। उसके बताए रास्ते पर चलकर शेफ़ ने बिज़्नेस जारी रखा। कितने घटिए तरीक़े से पेश आया था मैं उस दिन! और वो सलाह – इंसान को मारके टिंग बनाओ! भला ऐसी शिक्षा भी कोई अपने बच्चों को देता है? क्या सोचेंगे आजकल के नौजवान हम बड़ों के बारे में? वह मुझमें अपने पिता आदर्श को ढूँढता था। और मैं?

सपने के झरोखे से

बुलाया था कहाँ मैंने
मगर हो गया सामना
हज़ारों दस और जुड़े
बस इतनी सी कामना

The feeling machine: How your brain simulates the future to keep you safe

My phone is dying. The little battery icon in the corner is a stark reminder, glaring at me with its 30% charge. Soon, it will send me a frantic pop-up: Plug me in! If I ignore it, the phone will eventually give up and shut itself down. The only consequence is a minor inconvenience for me. I can afford to be lazy.

But my body? Thats an entirely different story.

When my body runs low on energy, it doesnt just flash an icon. It makes me feel. Hunger gnaws at me. Thirst makes my tongue feel thick. These are not polite suggestions; they are primal, visceral alerts from the most sophisticated machine on the planet. I cant ignore them for long.

These bodily sensations are part of a vast, intricate dashboard of feelings that govern our lives. Researchers in Finland have even mapped this landscape, showing how our 100 core feelings guide our actions. Think of it as an emotional weather forecast for your soul.

In the centre is homeostasis that calm, balanced state of just being. Veer down and to the left, and you enter the territory of physical malaise: sickness, fatigue, pain. These feelings are your body’s urgent command to stop, rest, and recover.

Swing up and to the right, and youre on a high. This is the zone of positive energy, motivation, and joy the feelings that tell you this is good, keep going. This is where the drive to thrive, to play, and to reproduce lives.

Flanking this central axis of bodily states are the more “mental” feelings. One quadrant is a storm of negative emotions fear, anxiety, shame. These are the powerful deterrents that scream, danger, turn back! Diagonally opposite lies the realm we humans pride ourselves on: cognition. This is the sunlit uplands of consciousness, reason, art, and science the world of ideas, creativity, and dreams.

For centuries, we believed these two worlds were separate. The deep, primitive brain handled the raw emotions, while the advanced neocortex handled the cool, detached logic.

But what if that’s completely wrong?

Enter the brilliant neuroscientist Antonio Damasio. He proposed a revolutionary idea that connects our highest thoughts to our most basic bodily feelings. His hypothesis is a game-changer but explaining it can be tricky. Let me try.

First, let’s go back to basics. An animal needs a drive to do things. A plant is rooted; it passively takes in nutrients. But an animal must get up and move. It needs motivation to hunt for food, seek out water, find a mate, or run from a predator. This basic operating system runs on hormones a chemical network that triggers hunger, thirst, and desire. Its the biological equivalent of my phones low-battery alert.

But for complex creatures like us, thats not enough. We don’t just survive; we explore, we innovate, we take risks. What happens when we encounter something new and unpredictable? My phone, if its screen gets scratched, is helpless. It has no feeling of being “hurt,” no motivation to find a repair shop. It depends entirely on me.

Nature, however, wants us to be self-sufficient. So it gave us a stunningly advanced upgrade.

Damasio called it the somatic marker hypothesis. Its the secret to how we “mind” our body. Heres how it works:

Your brain doesnt just create a map of your body’s current state. When you face a decision, it does something extraordinary: it runs a simulation. It creates “as-if” scenarios vivid, visceral images of how your body would feel in the future for each of your options.

Should I take that new job? Your brain doesn’t just list pros and cons. It generates a “somatic marker” a fleeting, physical ghost of a feeling. It gives you a taste of the pride and anxiety that would come with the new role.

Should I apologize to that friend? Your brain lets you feel a flicker of the shame of admitting you were wrong, followed by the profound relief of reconciliation.

These “gut feelings” are not mysterious whims. They are complex, neurological previews of future emotional states. Your conscious mind then uses these emotional snapshots to choose the outcome that feels the best. You are, in essence, feeling the future before it happens and choosing your path based on that emotional forecast.

This is how we make conscious decisions. Its not a battle between cold reason and hot emotion. It is a seamless collaboration. Our most rational thoughts are guided, shaped, and made meaningful by the feelings rooted deep in the state of our bodies. We dont just think our way through life. We feel our way through it.

References:

Nummenmaa, L. et al. (2018) Maps of subjective feelings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 115, 9198?9203.

Damasio, A. (1994)?Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam, New York.

 

The most important decision your mother ever made before you were born

Watch a tennis player before they serve. They’ll scoop up three balls, give them a quick, almost imperceptible once-over, and casually toss one away. It seems like a trivial tic, a mundane ritual lost in the larger drama of the match.

But this simple act of selection of creating a better outcome by rejecting a potential problem is a perfect mirror of one of the most crucial events in your own existence. It’s a game of statistics and survival played at a microscopic level, and the stakes are infinitely higher than a tennis match. It’s a game your mother played, and won, for you.

To understand it, we need to meet the players: the mitochondria.

The war of the mitochondria

You’ve probably heard of mitochondria as the “powerhouses” of our cells. But that’s like calling a smartphone a “calculator.” These tiny organelles are far more interesting. They are ancient bacteria, captured by our ancestors billions of years ago, and they’ve been living inside our cells as guests ever since. And here’s the kicker: they have their own DNA, completely separate from the main blueprint in our cell’s nucleus.

For most of your life, this is a peaceful arrangement. But everything changes at the moment of conception.

When a sperm cell fuses with an egg, it’s not just a meeting; it’s an invasion. The sperm brings its own nuclear DNA, which is welcome. But it also brings along its own crew of mitochondria. Suddenly, the newly formed cell has two competing mitochondrial populations: the mother’s (the residents) and the father’s (the intruders).

In the deep past, this may have sparked a microscopic civil war. But in higher animals like us, the process is brutally efficient. The mother’s egg cell identifies the sperm’s mitochondria, hunts them down, and systematically destroys them. Every single one.

The result is one of the most profound facts of human biology: every mitochondrion in your body came from your mother. You are, in a very real sense, a child of your mother, and your mother alone, on a mitochondrial level. Her lineage is the only one that survives.

The problem of genetic junk

So why does this matter? Because of a constant threat to life: accumulating mutations.

Think of your DNA as a perfect original document. Every time a cell divides, it has to make a copy. Now, imagine making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. Over generations, tiny errors and smudges start to build up. This is what happens with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This accumulating “genetic junk” can be disastrous, potentially leading to disease and, over time, the extinction of a species.

Life needed a way to clean up the copy, to reset the clock and get rid of the baggage. And the solution it came up with is nothing short of genius. It’s called the mitochondrial bottleneck.

The great purge

This is where we come back to the tennis player.

Inside your mother’s developing egg cells, a ruthless genetic cleanse takes place. The cell contains thousands of mitochondria, a mixed bag of perfect copies and ones carrying mutations. Instead of trying to painstakingly sort the good from the bad, the egg cell does something radical: it performs a “great purge,” destroying the vast majority of its own mitochondria.

Only a tiny, randomly selected handful are allowed to survive and repopulate the egg. This creates a “bottleneck.” Statistically, this small sample size is far more likely to be free of the accumulated “junk” mutations than the original, larger population. It’s a genetic lottery, and it’s brilliantly designed to give the next generation a fresh, clean start. The mother’s body purifies its own legacy before passing it on.

Mother’s Curse: The final twist

But Nature has one more trick up her sleeve, and for any men reading this, it might sting a little.

Since only daughters can pass on mitochondrial DNA, sons are a “genetic dead end” for this lineage. So, what does a mother’s body do? It subtly offloads more of the “bad” mtDNA mutations onto her male offspring. Her daughters, who will carry the sacred fire of the mitochondrial line forward, are given the cleaner set. Scientists call this phenomenon “Mother’s Curse.” It’s a powerful, pragmatic strategy to protect the integrity of the mitochondrial genome for future generations.

So the next time you see a tennis player casually tossing away a ball, give a silent nod of thanks. You’re witnessing a small echo of the ruthless, brilliant game your mother’s body played to give you the best possible start in life. It was game, set, and match to her, by design.

कलाई

घड़ी उतार दी थी एक बार
फिर कभी पहनी भी नहीं
सूनी हो गई थी कलाई
बात समय की नहीं रिश्तों की थी
आज भी सूनी ही है कलाई
हाँ उम्मीद ज़रूर है
कि बात रिश्ते की नहीं बस समय की है

मोती

तू याद तो आता है तमाम उलझनों के बीच
मोती सा बसा है दिल की धड़कनों के बीच

Needless grapes

It took nature more than a billion years since the Earth was born to devise a mechanism for trapping Sun’s energy. This made life in the ocean self-sufficient. Then around half a billion years ago, it delegated the responsibility to plants and animals to carry life forward. To uncharted territories. Plants marched towards the land. Animals came along.

Passing the baton from generation to generation, life kept on conquering territories. There was a big deterrent on land though. In water based plants, male sperms swim to meet the female egg for fertilization. The fertilized egg then needs water to germinate. Water wasn’t as readily available on land as in the ocean. The very core of life’s survival – reproduction – was under threat.

After struggling for another 100 million years, nature invented pollens that carried the male sperms to the female egg using the wind. A neat strategy to overcome dependence on water. Sperms in the pollen and egg fertilize to produce seed which then germinates into a new plant on wet ground.

Now what if there’s not enough wind to carry pollens? Nature looked around and saw insects. They were feeding on pollen-bearing organs with no apparent benefit to the plant. Why not use these freeloaders to carry pollens? But they needed to be tricked into doing so. Thus came about one of the most effective innovations of nature – a rare combination of beauty and utility – flowers. Their colours and fragrance attracted the insects. They found nectar in there which they fed on unaware that the plants quietly loaded pollens onto them while they were busy feeding. This was a huge relief. Plants no longer needed to depend on natural agents – water or wind – to transport sperms to eggs. Reproduction was back on in full swing.

With plants going to far away places via this newfound reproductive strategy, a new challenge surfaced. The seeds that were produced as a result of fertilization still needed water to germinate. How do you carry the seed to wet grounds?

The plants went for the tried-and-tested strategy. They added an enticing structure called fruit around the seed. Again, it was not just a marketing ploy full of colours and fragrance. It did have value proposition too in the form of food. Many birds and mammals fell for it and inadvertently participated in dispersal of seeds.

And then came to this world a bipedal animal with specially modified thumb to easily pick fruits. This gave him advantage over other creatures. He did not however stop at helping the cause of plants by dispersing the seeds. He used the advantageous grip to pick and throw stones and other tools at fellow animals. He then began consuming the seeds on a large scale. Worse, he even invented seedless grapes!

Why this sexpensive business?

Sex is expensive. At a minimum, it requires persons of opposite gender to come together. It may superficially seem to be a non-issue because for every female, there is a male around (well almost). But it does take quite a lot for a person from Venus and another from Mars to come to a meeting place on Earth. Yet getting together is just the beginning. They must then like each other to begin a meaningful conversation that could lead them further. Thereafter they need to love each other. It demands a lot of effort to impress one another. Too much energy goes in singing, dancing, feeding, eating, gift buying, villain-bashing, showing off beauty and strength, chatting (love letters in the past), and so on. All done. Then each of the lovers need to shun the competition. Because signalling does not discriminate between individuals of the opposite gender. Ask a plant which spends so much energy producing flowers with all their visual beauty and fragrance and then gets a bunch of freeloader insects who would not assist with pollination. Is it all worth it?

The above para was intended for fun. But there is a huge scientific cost too to this whole business of sex. Finding mates is a huge biological/ecological problem. Then there are costs associated with the fundamental sexual process of cell division – meiosis. Unlike mitosis (cloning) which finishes in under 2 hours usually, the sexual cell division of meiosis takes much longer to finish. If a female were to self-reproduce, she could pass all of her genetic material to the offspring and not just half. And then, ecologically speaking, half of the progeny in the form of males would not need to be produced at all. Why even bring these un(re)productive beings to life just to eat up resources?

What on Earth then are the benefits of sexual reproduction that the nature has preferred this mode over cloning? Well, that is one of the trickiest questions which the scientific world is yet to find a satisfactory answer to.

Cloning would produce the same individual every generation with the exception of cases affected by mutation. Does sexual reproduction enable life to stay ahead in the arms race with the villain who wants to disrupt life? By disturbing the pattern of life form just a little every generation? Making every eukaryotic individual unique? So that the villain cannot come up with a strategy based on its understanding of the earlier generation? And under this ever changing guise, life quietly goes a step further? But who is this ‘villain’? Even harder question is: who or what is this ‘life’?

With science, every answer leads to further questions, no?

Two sigmas ruin the bell curve

Campus of a premier national institute in India in the nineties. It was dark. Sounds of some people stomping next to the hostel building followed by glass shattering broke the eerie silence. There was a sudden surge of activity in the ground floor wing and everyone came out of their rooms. It was first year Science post-graduate students’ wing. Soon their seniors emerged from the upper floors. An extraordinary general meeting followed. It was a war-like situation. An Engineering graduate student had attacked the room of a Science post-graduate student.

It was not a personal feud. A full-blown inter-caste war it was. The echoes of which were felt decades later when the Engineering almuni left out the Science post-graduates from the celebration of 25 years of graduation. Such deep rooted was the strife.

Chevron fold at Ulverstone, Tasmania in December 2016

Superficial cause: Engineering students who held the majority decreed that a second year Engineering student was equivalent in ‘campus social status’ to a first year Science student. The right of ragging (hazing) a Science post-graduate fresher came with it.

Deep cause: An Engineering candidate was superior to a Science graduate because, ha, no brilliant student in his right senses would do a Science graduation ahead of Engineering and Medicine. So yeah, notwithstanding an altogether different discipline, Science graduates represented an inferior ‘caste’ and needed to be treated as such.

A classic case of conflict due to combined effects of majority-minority dichotomy and social stratification it was. One hopes the current generation is more sensible and that things are much better now.

Call it race, caste, tribe, religion, institutional loyalty, nationalistic pride, geographic superiority or “phylumbaazi” (a colloquial term frequently in use in the region) – excessive invocation by these groups of collective entitlement of their members render them nothing more than refuges of mediocrity. For people who do that are not contributors to the value of the group, but are exploiters of the current value. This applies as much to the “superior” group as to the “inferior” group. Fundamentally they are doing the same. One wants to continue to get the benefits by victimising others for the current perceived superiority of its group, and the other wants to continue to get the benefits of being the victim. None is bothered about the declining perceived value of their respective groups because of their frequent stake at entitlements.

True value-adders of either group do not need benefits of perception. On the other extreme, the bottom-dwellers of either group are content with what they have. It’s the mediocre people in the group who stake a claim to the cake without actually contributing to its making. Unfortunately, the statistical bell curve ensures that such mediocre people will be in the majority. So in the end whether this majority follow the value-adders or dictate their terms onto them determines the merits of the group. It’s not hard to see then why true value-adders sometime leave a group they naturally belong to.

We see people seeking entitlements for various reasons, often at the expense of true merit. One common scenario is: we stuffed it up and are now entitled to prevent others from stuffing it up further. Yet another: we once studied head-down-bum-up to acquire this highly coveted qualification or get into this universally revered institution and now will reap benefits for the rest of our lives. Or: we were treated unfairly when we were new and now that we have reached this position of dictating terms, why should the freshers have it easy? Or simply, we are the sons of the soil and therefore entitled to chew up all the resources here without being accountable to anyone. Whatever the cause, such claims of entitlements have one thing in common – the rhetoric usually comes from the mediocre in the business. And when they seek to extend such entitlements for their offspring, the caste comes in handy.