Showing posts with label railway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label railway. Show all posts

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Reay Road – Heritage Railway Station on Mumbai Harbour Line

MUMBAI MEMORIES

REAY ROAD
The Cutest Heritage Railway Station in Mumbai
by
VIKRAM KARVE  
 
Long back  maybe 15 years ago  on my way to the Lal Bahadur Shastri Nautical College (LBS CAMSAR) at Hay Bunder in Mumbai  I decided to go by train – so  I caught a harbour branch local train at CST Mumbai. 
 
After stopping at the Masjid, Sandhurst Road and Dockyard Road Railway Stations  the local train stopped at Reay Road – where I got down (or – "alighted from the train onto the platform"  as they say in Railway parlance).

Walking towards the exit of Reay Road Railway Station  I was spellbound by the exquisite beauty of the ancient station building, which stood like a sentinel above the railway lines which passed through beneath it. 

The most eye catching feature which adorned the building was the elegant clock in the centre which looked down like a beautiful vigilant eye  as if keeping an eagle eye from its towering position on the trains coming and going, rushing below, and the goings on and hustle bustle on the platforms . 
 
Many Mariners  in their younger days  would probably have passed through these magnificent portals of Reay Road Station without even giving it a second look. 
 
Reay Road is the cutest and most petite railway station I have ever seen.

Let me tell you a bit more about its heritage.
 
Did you know that Reay Road Railway Station  a prime landmark of Mumbai  is a 19th Century Heritage Grade I structure...? 
 
Surely you know CST (VT/Bori Bunder) and Churchgate are famous and celebrated Heritage Buildings. 

But – Dear Reader – did you even imagine in your wildest thoughts that Reay Road was an equally prestigious Heritage Structure embodying excellence in architectural style, design, building technology and material usage...?

Reay Road Railway Station, on the harbour branch railway line of the Central Railway, rises to the top of a road bridge whose span bestrides and overlaps the railway track underneath. The railway tracks tunnel through an arch on the southern side. 
 
The station superstructure, constructed of stone, atop the arch, has in its center a majestic clock overlooking the platforms and tracks as if keeping a benevolent and watchful eye on the goings on below. 
 
It is an elegant and unique example in compressed space utilization, a masterpiece  a true work of art. 
 
I have not seen a railway station like Reay Road anywhere else.

I think Reay Road is the only Heritage Railway Station on Mumbai's Harbour Line. 
 
The other heritage railway stations on Mumbai's suburban railway include Byculla on the Central Railway and Bandra on the Western Railway.
 
The next time you are in Mumbai  please catch a harbour branch local train and get down at Reay Road. 

Stand aside and let the commuters rush away  and then  look towards the southern side – and marvel at the adorable and captivating heritage masterpiece. 
 
Is Reay Road Railway Station still the same way as I described it...? 

Or – has it changed...? 

VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve 
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
1. This story is a fictional spoof, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. This story is a work of fiction. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.
Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved) 

Link to my source post in my Blog Academic and Creative Writing Journal Vikram Karve: http://karvediat.blogspot.com/2011/02/heritage-mumbai-reay-road-railway.html

© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Learning through Literature – Communcation Mismatch : A Malefactor by Anton Chekhov

Learning through Literature – Communcation Mismatch

A MALEFACTOR
A Classic Anton Chekhov Story
By
VIKRAM KARVE 

Here is a rather light-hearted and amusing story by Anton Chekhov – which is breathtaking in its simplicity – yet so insightful in its meaning. 

I used to always read out this story A MALEFACTOR to my students – in order to drive home the point that communication is a two-way process for which mutual understanding is essential. 

On many occasions when two persons interact  they may speak the same language  yet speak different “languages” – and this may lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings – a communiation gap. 

Even in relationships  personal and professional  all stakeholders must be on the “same page”  so to speak  and barriers to effective communication need to be removed  in order to understand each others’ points of view.  

The story has two principal characters: 

an illiterate peasant (who is accused of unscrewing a nut on the railway track, a vital nut which secures the rails to the sleepers) 

and 

a learned magistrate (before whom the peasant is brought for trial) 

The peasant does not comprehend the enormity and consequences of his action of removing the nut to use as sinker weight for bait for his fishing line. 

He does not realise the disaster it can cause. 

The simple illiterate peasant readily confesses to removing the nut from the railway track  because he wants to use the nut as a sinker weight for bait for his fishing line. 

As the flabbergasted magistrate questions him  the peasant keeps blabbering about fishing and types of fish. 

There is a total mismatch in communication between the peasant and the magistrate – which is beautifully portrayed by the witty dialogue. 

Anton Chekhov gives us an illuminating insight into the deep divide in Russian Society of his time.

I love reading this entertaining story again and again. 

This famous story by Anton Chekhov is freely available for reading online on the internet. 

Given below is a url link to A MALEFACTOR by Anton Chekhov  and – Dear Reader – for your convenience – I have posted the story from the url below – for you to read and enjoy.


The Malefactor
By
Anton Chekhov

An exceedingly lean little peasant, in a striped hempen shirt and patched drawers, stands facing the investigating magistrate. His face overgrown with hair and pitted with smallpox, and his eyes scarcely visible under thick, overhanging eyebrows have an expression of sullen moroseness. On his head there is a perfect mop of tangled, unkempt hair, which gives him an even more spider-like air of moroseness. He is barefooted.

"Denis Grigoryev!" the magistrate begins. "Come nearer, and answer my questions. On the seventh of this July the railway watchman, Ivan Semyonovitch Akinfov, going along the line in the morning, found you at the hundred-and-forty-first mile engaged in unscrewing a nut by which the rails are made fast to the sleepers. Here it is, the nut! . . . With the aforesaid nut he detained you. Was that so?"

"Wha-at?"

"Was this all as Akinfov states?"

"To be sure, it was."

"Very good; well, what were you unscrewing the nut for?"

"Wha-at?"

"Drop that 'wha-at' and answer the question; what were you unscrewing the nut for?"

"If I hadn't wanted it I shouldn't have unscrewed it," croaks Denis, looking at the ceiling.

"What did you want that nut for?"

"The nut? We make weights out of those nuts for our lines."

"Who is 'we'?"

"We, people. . . . The Klimovo peasants, that is."

"Listen, my man; don't play the idiot to me, but speak sensibly. It's no use telling lies here about weights!"

"I've never been a liar from a child, and now I'm telling lies . . ." mutters Denis, blinking. "But can you do without a weight, your honour? If you put live bait or maggots on a hook, would it go to the bottom without a w eight? . . . I am telling lies," grins Denis. . . . "What the devil is the use of the worm if it swims on the surface! The perch and the pike and the eel-pout always go to the bottom, and a bait on the surface is only taken by a shillisper, not very often then, and there are no shillispers in our river. . . . That fish likes plenty of room."

"Why are you telling me about shillispers?"

"Wha-at? Why, you asked me yourself! The gentry catch fish that way too in our parts. The silliest little boy would not try to catch a fish without a weight. Of course anyone who did not understand might go to fish without a weight. There is no rule for a fool."

"So you say you unscrewed this nut to make a weight for your fishing line out of it?"

"What else for? It wasn't to play knuckle-bones with!"

"But you might have taken lead, a bullet . . . a nail of some sort. . . ."

"You don't pick up lead in the road, you have to buy it, and a nail's no good. You can't find anything better than a nut. . . . It's heavy, and there's a hole in it."

"He keeps pretending to be a fool! as though he'd been born yesterday or dropped from heaven! Don't you understand, you blockhead, what unscrewing these nuts leads to? If the watchman had not noticed it the train might have run off the rails, people would have been killed -- you would have killed people."

"God forbid, your honour! What should I kill them for? Are we heathens or wicked people? Thank God, good gentlemen, we have lived all our lives without ever dreaming of such a thing. . . . Save, and have mercy on us, Queen of Heaven! . . . What are you saying?"

"And what do you suppose railway accidents do come from? Unscrew two or three nuts and you have an accident."

Denis grins, and screws up his eye at the magistrate incredulously.

"Why! how many years have we all in the village been unscrewing nuts, and the Lord has been merciful; and you talk of accidents, killing people. If I had carried away a rail or put a log across the line, say, then maybe it might have upset the train, but. . . pouf! a nut!"

"But you must understand that the nut holds the rail fast to the sleepers!"

"We understand that. . . . We don't unscrew them all . . . we leave some. . . . We don't do it thoughtlessly . . . we understand. . . ."

Denis yawns and makes the sign of the cross over his mouth.

"Last year the train went off the rails here," says the magistrate. "Now I see why!"

"What do you say, your honour?"

"I am telling you that now I see why the train went off the rails last year. . . . I understand!"

"That's what you are educated people for, to understand, you kind gentlemen. The Lord knows to whom to give understanding. . . . Here you have reasoned how and what, but the watchman, a peasant like ourselves, with no understanding at all, catches one by the collar and hauls one along. . . . You should reason first and then haul me off. It's a saying that a peasant has a peasant's wit. . . . Write down, too, your honour, that he hit me twice -- in the jaw and in the chest."

"When your hut was searched they found another nut. . . . At what spot did you unscrew that, and when?"

"You mean the nut which lay under the red box?"

"I don't know where it was lying, only it was found. When did you unscrew it?"

"I didn't unscrew it; Ignashka, the son of one-eyed Semyon, gave it me. I mean the one which was under the box, but the one which was in the sledge in the yard Mitrofan and I unscrewed together."

"What Mitrofan?"

"Mitrofan Petrov. . . . Haven't you heard of him? He makes nets in our village and sells them to the gentry. He needs a lot of those nuts. Reckon a matter of ten for each net."

"Listen. Article 1081 of the Penal Code lays down that every wilful damage of the railway line committed when it can expose the traffic on that line to danger, and the guilty party knows that an accident must be caused by it . . . (Do you understand? Knows! And you could not help knowing what this unscrewing would lead to . . .) is liable to penal servitude."

"Of course, you know best. . . . We are ignorant people. . . . What do we understand?"

"You understand all about it! You are lying, shamming!"

"What should I lie for? Ask in the village if you don't believe me. Only a bleak is caught without a weight, and there is no fish worse than a gudgeon, yet even that won't bite without a weight."

"You'd better tell me about the shillisper next," said the magistrate, smiling.

"There are no shillispers in our parts. . . . We cast our line without a weight on the top of the water with a butterfly; a mullet may be caught that way, though that is not often."

"Come, hold your tongue."

A silence follows. Denis shifts from one foot to the other, looks at the table with the green cloth on it, and blinks his eyes violently as though what was before him was not the cloth but the sun. The magistrate writes rapidly.

"Can I go?" asks Denis after a long silence.

"No. I must take you under guard and send you to prison."

Denis leaves off blinking and, raising his thick eyebrows, looks inquiringly at the magistrate.

"How do you mean, to prison? Your honour! I have no time to spare, I must go to the fair; I must get three roubles from Yegor for some tallow! . . ."

"Hold your tongue; don't interrupt."

"To prison. . . . If there was something to go for, I'd go; but just to go for nothing! What for? I haven't stolen anything, I believe, and I've not been fighting. . . . If you are in doubt about the arrears, your honour, don't believe the elder. . . . You ask the agent . . . he's a regular heathen, the elder, you know."

"Hold your tongue."

I am holding my tongue, as it is," mutters Denis; "but that the elder has lied over the account, I'll take my oath for it. . . . There are three of us brothers: Kuzma Grigoryev, then Yegor Grigoryev, and me, Denis Grigoryev."

"You are hindering me. . . . Hey, Semyon," cries the magistrate, "take him away!"

"There are three of us brothers," mutters Denis, as two stalwart soldiers take him and lead him out of the room. "A brother is not responsible for a brother. Kuzma does not pay, so you, Denis, must answer for it. . . . Judges indeed! Our master the general is dead -- the Kingdom of Heaven be his -- or he would have shown you judges. . . . You ought to judge sensibly, not at random. . . . Flog if you like, but flog someone who deserves it, flog with conscience." 

--------------

Whenever I read this story  I appreciate why Anton Chekhov is known as a master storyteller – simple theme, uncomplicated plot, authentic setting, well-sketched characters, effortless narration, entertaining dialogue and a powerful message delivered with a sense of humour. 

The result: A Superb Story.

I trust you have read about all my favourite stories. 

In case you haven’t – do read them right here in my blog

Happy Reading 
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. All Stories in this Blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved) 
 


Thursday, August 31, 2017

“Sahayak” – a Colonial “Relic” of the Raj

Before 1947 – the British ruled India. 

Hence – British Officers – Civil, Police and Military – considered themselves are “Rulers” – and – British Officers treated the Indian Civilian Employees and Soldiers serving under them as their “Subjects”. 

I read somewhere that British Officers were called “Laat Sahab” (Indianised Version of “Lord Officer”

Since they were de facto “Lords” – British Officers – Civil, Police and Military – were given subordinate staff for their personal use. 

This personal staff (comprising Indian “subjects”) were called by various names in different civil services – “Orderly” “Attendant” “Bungalow Peon” Telephone Attendant cum Dak Khalasis (TADK)” “Household Staff” etc

A British Army Officer was provided a Soldier as a “Batman” 

Whatever the names given to the personal staff – they were basically personal servants of the civil, police and military officers.

(However – there was no such practice in the Navy and Air Force – probably because of their more egalitarian culture – though Admirals/Captains were provided Retinue/Stewards at Sea) 

India became independent in 1947 – but these “imperialistic” colonial practices of the British Raj continued – some even till today. 

(The Indian Army derived most of its customs and traditions from the British Army. I wonder whether the British Army still has the system of providing a “Batman” to an Officer)

This morning – I read news items about Army Structural Reforms and Chairman Railway Board ordering withdrawal of railwaymen engaged by officers as domestic staff at their residences

This reminded me of a spoof I had written a few years ago...

“SAHAYAK” 
(aka “Batman” aka “Orderly” aka “Attendant” aka “Runner”)
RELIC OF THE RAJ
A Fictional Spoof
By
VIKRAM KARVE

“SAHAYAK” 
(aka “Batman” aka “Orderly” aka “Attendant” aka “Runner”)

The CTC (Cost To Company) of an Army Officer is much higher than his equivalent Navy or Air Force Officer.

In addition to the pay and perks (which are roughly the same) 
 an Army Officer gets another “perk” called a “Sahayak” (aka “Batman” or “Orderly”).

Long back
 I was posted as faculty in a tri-service training institution.

On the faculty 
 there were officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force – and all officers did exactly the same job.

We were all instructors 
 and – whether you were in the Army, Navy or Air Force – the job was identical – to teach.

But 
– only the Army Officers had “Sahayaks”.

The presence of 
“Sahayaks” was starkly evident in the evenings  when we all went for long walks.

I had a pet dog.

My neighbour was a senior Air Force Officer 
– a Group Captain – who also had a pet dog.

We used to personally take our dogs for a walk in the evenings (and in the mornings too).

A number of Army Officers had pet dogs too.

But very few Army Officers would take their dogs for a walk. 


“Dogwalking” was the “duty” of the “Sahayak”.

Yes 
 walking the Sahib’s dog was the Sahayak’s job.

Maybe 
 it was “below the dignity” for an Army Officer to take his dog for a walk.

I noticed that the practice of 
“Sahayaks” walking Officers’ Dogs was quite a common sight in Army cantonments and tri-service institutions.

In fact 
 some of my Army friends used to leave their pet dogs with their Sahayaks when they went home on leave – or went outstation on courses.

One Army officer’s wife even commented that looking after their dog was the Sahayak’s job.

And 
– I observed that what she said was true – the “Sahayak” took full care of the dog – the dog’s food, the dog’s walks, the dog’s grooming, bath, everything...

In fact 
 the “Sahayak” was the de facto “Master” of the officer’s pet dog.

Every time a discussion on “sahayaks” comes up 
 most Army Officers are quick to defend this ancient practice saying that Sahayaks are required for Officers in the “field”.

Agreed. 


Army Officers may require Soldiers as “Sahayaks” in the “Field”.

But 
– how can you justify Soldiers being deputed as “Sahayaks in Peacetime Family Stations...?

Why must only Army Officers get “sahayaks” especially in inter-service establishments 
 where you have Navy and Air Force Officers doing exactly the same work as Army Officers...?

What rankles even more in inter-service training institutions is when some resourceful “student officers” from the Army manage to get their “Sahayaks” and flaunt them in front of senior Navy and Air Force Officers on the Staff. 


Is there any need for providing “Sahayaks” to Army Officers working in Headquarters in New Delhi – when their Navy and Air Force counterparts are able to do the same work without the assistance of “Sahayaks”. 


WHY DOES ONLY THE ARMY OFFICER NEED A SAHAYAK (BATMAN)...?

What is the genesis of this practice...? 


Why does an Army Officer need a “sahayak”...?

An old-timer Army Veteran once told me that a 
sahayak (batman) is not a private servant and he is not provided to an Army Officer to perform the duties of a domestic help.

The 
sahayak is not a domestic orderly.

The 
sahayak or batman is a combat soldier.

(The word “batman” is short form of “battle-man”)

The batman is actually a “runner” who always accompanies the officer in battle 
 and his primary duty in combat operations is to convey the orders of the officer to his subordinates – particularly when the wireless is not functioning.

Besides his primary task as a “runner
  the sahayak or batman is supposed to look after the officer’s needs, maintain his equipment and uniform, act as a bodyguard and protect the officer  and generally be his “buddy” – while the officer is engaged in combat operations.

Thus 
 the batman was the officer’s “battle-man” – his buddy in combat  and  there was no question of a batman being employed on any nature of domestic work  especially in peacetime family stations and in the homes of officers.

This is what the old-timer told me.

Unfortunately 
 the perception created in the minds of people is quite different.

It may not be entirely correct 
 but unfortunately  the general impression today is that  the sahayak or batman is a personal servant of the Army Officer and his Family.

Again I would like to say
  this may not be a correct picture.

But then 
 what will be the perception created in the minds of people when they observe Army Officers using their sahayaks to take their dogs for walks – or send them to the market for shopping – and to perform various types of domestic workmenial jobs and household chores...?

This is visible to everyone in peacetime stations and cantonments 
– sometimes even in civilian areas where Army Officers live.

A recently Retired Army Officer’s Wife told me that the one thing she misses the most is her “sahayak”.

Long back 
– I heard a bizarre story which may be apocryphal.

A “resourceful” Army Officer who was posted to a non-family field area “managed” to arrange a “sahayak” for his wife who was living in separated married quarters in a peace station.

The irony was that the smart “sahayak” turned out to be even more “resourceful” and was having a rolicking affair with the officer’s wife 
 stealing her affections – while the officer was slogging it out in the field.

The story may be apocryphal 
– but – it imparts a lesson – that  it can be hazardous to let a sahayak get too intimate with families  especially wives and daughters.

With the advent of Women Officers in the Army 
– I wonder if they too are provided male sahayaks.

Or 
– are Lady Army Officers provided female attendants...?

Do some resourceful Senior Army Officers “manage” to get uniformed 
sahayaks even after they retire from the Army...?

I do not think it is permitted 
 but someone once mentioned that some resourceful senior Army Officers do “manage” to get sahayaks even after retirement.

Another argument Army Officers use to justify the institution of sahayak is that even other Civilian Officers (IAS, IPS, Railways, PSUs, etc) have various government employees deputed as “attendants” in their homes for similar domestic duties. 


Two wrongs dont make a right

Does citing examples of Police/Civilian Officers misusing attendants” justify Army Officers misusing sahayaks...?

I wonder whether other modern Armies still provide “sahayaks” (batmen) to Officers...?

Do Civil-Service Officers, Diplomatic Officers and Police Officers of modern nations get “attendants” for their domestic work...?

Is it true that 
even Diplomats and IFS Officers are entitled to take “attendants” and servants on postings abroad...?

Well 
 it seems that we still remain a feudal society with the same old colonial culture  and  these “Relics of the Raj” are not going to go away in a hurry.

Is it possible to get rid of this colonial feudal practice of sahayaks in the Army and attendants in the Civil/Police Services...? 


Or – in the name of jointmanship – will this facility of sahayaksbe extended to Navy and Air Force Officers too...?

One can argue that when almost everyone at Officer Level 
 most Army Officers – and most Civilian/Police Officers – when all of them get sahayaks” or “attendants”  why leave out only the Navy and Air Force Officers...?

Yes 
 if the “powers-that-be want to continue providing Sahayaks/Attendants to Army/Police/Civilian Officers – then – will they consider providing “sahayaks” to Navy and Air Force Officers too...?

VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
1. This story is a fictional humorous spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the stories are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.

Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)
     
© vikram karve., all rights reserved. 


This is a revised repost of my fictional spoof posted online earlier at urls: http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-army-sahayak-batman-anachronism-or.html  and  http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2014/07/humor-in-uniform-sahayak-aka-batman-aka.html  and  https://www.quora.com/profile/Vikram-Karve/Writing-by-VIKRAM-KARVE/WHY-DOES-ONLY-THE-ARMY-OFFICER-NEED-A-SAHAYAK-BATMAN?srid=5Hkq&share=7a93e7d8 and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2017/01/the-sahayak-controversy.html and http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2017/03/if-navy-and-air-force-can-work-without.html etc