Sunday, November 1, 2026

The Probation of a Difficult Man


There are, as any student of the human animal will tell you, precisely four ways a friendship may begin: with a handshake, with a borrowed match, with a mutual enemy, or with a misdirected parcel. The fifth way was invented quite recently by the telephone companies, and it goes like this: a woman you have never stood within ten yards of sends you a song at ten minutes to seven in the morning, before she has so much as said good morning, and lets the tune do the talking, the way a shrewd merchant lets the silk sell itself.

The man who received this song was a writer, which is to say he was a fellow who earned his living, when he earned it at all, by noticing things and then complaining about them in a pleasing order. We shall not burden him with a name. Writers have too many names already: the one their mothers gave them, the one on their books, and the one their editors use behind their backs.

The woman’s name was Switlana.

He knew her as a man knows the weather from the morning paper: in bulletins. A photograph. A name. A voice note that broke off mid-laugh because she had pressed the wrong button, so that he possessed, for a whole week, exactly half of her merriment and had to imagine the rest.

“What does it mean?” he typed, of the song.

She explained, with the earnestness of a lawyer reading out a will, that it was about a friend who wishes to live in your heart. In the small things. The daily things. Even when you are not thinking of her.

Ambitious terms, thought the writer, for a contract not yet notarized beyond WhatsApp.

He told her the words were as fine as the melody. She agreed before he had finished typing, the way a man agrees to a raise in salary, without waiting to hear the conditions.

Now, every new acquaintance runs on some kind of currency, and theirs, in those early days, was a curious one. He paid in compliments; she gave change in exclamation marks. Neither of them kept books, and both of them, naturally, knew the balance to the last paisa.

By the afternoon they had wandered, as such conversations will, from music into that back room of talk where a person keeps the things they only say once they’ve decided a stranger won’t steal the furniture. Switlana told him of a boy she had once taught, a lad with a stammer, and the writer observed a peculiar thing. She did not say I loved teaching him. She said nothing of the kind. She simply kept returning to one small particular, the very word the boy could never quite bring to its finish, as though she were still holding it out for him, patient as a lamplighter, after all these years.

The writer had a theory, which he had stolen from somewhere and long since forgotten where, that you learn more about a person from where their attention snags than from any autobiography they recite. Switlana’s attention snagged on children. Every time. Like a sari on a nail.

She also disagreed with him on every conceivable subject, and did it so sunnily that a full hour passed before he noticed he was enjoying it.

“Women are better than men,” she announced, somewhere past noon, in the tone of a judge passing sentence on a pickpocket.

“Evidence?”

“Me.”

“One specimen is not a pattern.”

She returned a laughing emoji which managed, by some science unknown to the makers of the telephone, to look smug.

He let her win. Not because her case was sound (a first-year law clerk could have dismantled it before tiffin) but because he had begun to suspect that losing to this woman might become a habit, and a man ought to cultivate at least one harmless vice.

By evening the conversation had acquired a shadow, as conversations and Calcutta trams both do toward six o’clock.

There was a man, she said. He had deleted her number from his phone, though she still knew his by heart, a fact she reported as one reports the time of the last train, without much feeling either way. They were at war. She was not going to telephone first.

“Let him wait,” said the writer, who had never in his life been on the side of whoever telephoned first.

“I like that.”

“Will he call eventually?”

“The thirty-first of December,” she said. “Perhaps the thirtieth of June.”

She had, you perceive, already entered the precise dimensions of the man’s guilt into her calendar, the way a careful housewife enters the milkman’s dues.

“Does the gentleman work for the postal service?” the writer asked. “The delivery schedule is suggestive.”

She laughed. He could tell, even in text. Her punctuation loosened its collar.

And then, as a sort of footnote, she offered a fact about herself: that for the handful of people who truly mattered, she set her pride down eventually, the way one sets down a heavy bag at a railway platform.

“I am not built that way,” the writer replied, with the satisfaction of a man describing a fine old family failing. “Once a thing breaks between me and somebody, I let it lie broken. It makes me happy. Sometimes it gives me something to write.”

She thought this very funny. She had not yet learned, poor innocent, that a writer can spin a bruised ego into a whole chapter and then sulk because nobody stands up to applaud the bruise.

They spoke of friendship: how long it lasts, and how little notice it gives before it doesn’t.

Here the writer unveiled, with some pride, his System. Every new acquaintance, he explained, was placed on a probationary period of four months. Standard terms. No exceptions. He had devised it after enough disappointments that he had begun to treat people in the manner of a cautious bank treating a new clerk.

“And the verdict on us?” asked Aramita.

“The trial is over.”

“And?”

“I don’t know yet.”

She pushed. She always pushed, gently, the way one nudges a door one already suspects is unlocked.

Then she asked the question that really signified.

“Will we even talk this much if we meet in person?”

The writer sat with that one longer than he intended. They had grown skilled, alarmingly skilled, at a sort of intimacy that functioned only because it came furnished with an undo button. A silence was merely a silence. A clumsy sentence could be struck out before it ever reached her. But in a room, across a table, with an actual face opposite? There is no deleting a thing said in a room. It simply hangs there, like a calendar from a defunct shop, doing whatever mischief it was born to do.

“I might say something terrible,” he warned her. “Without meaning to. Enough to hurt you more than you’d expect.”

She laughed that off too, as a duchess laughs off a draught.

“I might not talk as much as I type,” she confessed instead. “I’m shy. Always was, as a girl. I’ve opened up a great deal since. But I was never one who talked easily.”

“Then I won’t push you, when we meet.”

“Bad idea.”

“I am very good at avoiding people.”

“Karke toh dekho,” she wrote. Go on, try it. I dare you.

It is a curious brand of courage, reader, that which keeps office hours only behind a screen. The bravest people in the world, nowadays, are all sitting in their nightclothes.

He told her of another friendship he had ended in just that fashion: a person he had admired without a single reservation, until one disagreement froze him solid for months. There had been apologies afterward. Tears, even. But the thing never set right again, like a cup that has been glued and will hold water but not tea.

“Would you do that to me?”

“I don’t know.”

“What have I done to deserve such a warning?”

He had no answer. It was growing harder, with each message, to keep up the handsome fiction of himself as a man difficult to reach. Fortresses are expensive to maintain, and his was beginning to show damp.

Presently she had to go and cook dinner. Her husband, she noted, did not. Before departing she sent him a quotation in which soulmates and one-night stands were filed under the same heading, like a careless clerk putting the marriage certificates and the parking tickets in a single drawer.

Within the hour they had found their way back, as people do once a conversation has become a room they keep wandering into for no reason they could give a magistrate.

She asked when he wrote.

“When I feel something.”

She told him she had gone back and reread a piece of his. Liked it better the second time.

He thanked her.

“No thanks. No sorry,” she wrote, and it took him one full heartbeat too long to recognize the line from a film he had, it seemed, forgotten he loved.

He apologized for forgetting. She almost certainly rolled her eyes. He was coming to understand that she did this often, just outside the frame, like a stagehand who is the real star of the production.

Then came the Arithmetic.

Some acquaintance had flung at the writer one of those problems beloved of schoolmasters: two persons, a piece of work, a differing number of days, and five hundred rupees riding on the answer. The writer did what any sensible man does with a problem he does not wish to solve. He handed it to somebody who would.

Switlana took it with a gravity he had not foreseen. She found a notebook. She found a pen. She worked it in her own hand and photographed the page for him, as though submitting it to an examiner of stern reputation.

“Understand any of it?”

“Not one line.”

“Then let me try properly.”

She got there. Ten days, and fifteen.

He told her she had won. She informed him, with the promptness of a moneylender, that winning meant he owed her a coffee.

He refused.

She insisted.

“I shall teach you to make it yourself,” he offered magnanimously. “Then you may imagine I bought it.”

Three rolling-eye emojis arrived by return post. He entered this in the ledger as a victory. Men who keep ledgers of that sort, you will observe, are seldom rich.

It was getting late. She talked of wanting to go home, of Rajasthan, of the price of onions and the quiet economics of pakodas. He mentioned that he had found onions cheaper somewhere.

“You certainly got a special rate,” she accused.

She was not wrong. She seldom was, which is a tiresome quality in a friend and an indispensable one in a mathematician.

And then, without so much as a knock, the conversation changed its shape.

“I’m upset,” she wrote.

“Why?”

“I don’t know.”

“I’m a good listener.”

“I know you are.”

People, she said, probably had a hundred reasons to go on living. She had only one.

My family, she wrote. Nothing after it. No emoji, this time. Only the white space, which is the loudest thing a telephone can say.

“Take ninety-nine more,” he told her. “Mine. You may have them.”

For a moment, nothing. Then the smallest curve of a smile, a single character, which said more than a page of the Times of India has managed in a decade.

He did not think much of that exchange at the time. Not because it was unimportant, but because he had not yet learned how little of a person’s true weather comes through a telephone, and how much Switlana had just handed across, without either of them putting a name to it.

They were still strangers by every measure a stranger can be measured: no shared room, no shared silence, only text on two screens in two houses. And yet, somewhere between a song and a sum and a woman typing my family into a telephone at eleven at night, they had begun to keep a small, unclaimed corner in each other’s days, the way two lodgers in a boarding house will keep a chair on the landing that belongs, by unspoken treaty, to neither of them and both.

Near midnight she asked whether he would remember to wish her a happy new year, a full month in advance, as though she had already taken his measure and found the hem wanting.

“I don’t know,” he said, honestly.

She laughed at that too, the way one laughs at someone one has already decided to forgive on credit.

They talked on: of age, of hormones, of coffee, of that peculiar human habit of coveting another’s life without the faintest notion of what it costs to keep it running.

“Sometimes the life you envy is harder than your own,” he told her.

“Then why envy it?”

He had no answer. Perhaps he was simply a man who liked wanting things. Perhaps he had not yet discovered that every life, inspected closely enough, turns out to be carrying its own unpaid bills in the inside pocket.

Then it was midnight, and November folded itself into December with no ceremony at all: no brass band, no telegram from heaven to say that something had just been quietly approved. Only a phone in his hand, going dark at the edges, and a woman on the other end of it to whom he owed a coffee.

He did not know, that night, that they would meet. He did not know what would be built afterward, or what would be misunderstood, or how much of two lives would end up folded into each other like letters in the wrong envelopes. He did not know that years later he would still be turning this one evening over in his hands, like a man examining a coin he suspects is foreign.

But here, reader, is the part that neither of them noticed when it happened.

At a quarter to eight, the writer had pronounced, with all the dignity of a High Court, that the trial was over. He had built his System, you will remember, so that no one should ever again get close enough to disappoint him without first serving four months’ probation under his supervision.

Switlana had told him, quite cheerfully, that she did not believe in trial periods at all.

“What flows, flows,” she wrote. “What crashes, crashes.”

He smiled at that, read it twice, and let the screen go dark, thinking she was talking about friendship.

It was years before he understood the arrangement. He had not been conducting a trial that evening. He had been undergoing one. The song at dawn, the dare, the arithmetic, the one reason and the ninety-nine he so grandly offered: these had been the examination papers, and she had been the examiner all along, marking him in a hand he could not read. The man who placed the whole world on probation had never once suspected that he was the clerk on approval, and that the fee for his confirmation in the post was exactly one cup of coffee.

He never paid it.

And whether the five hundred rupees were lost on the sum, or the friendship was lost on the coffee, or nothing at all was lost and everything merely flowed, the way she said it would, is a question this narrator leaves, as O. Henry left the Magi, to wiser men.

He only notes that the writer, who prided himself on letting broken things stay broken, has been trying to settle that one small account ever since.

Friday, October 30, 2026

Why Do Children Feel The Need to Look Bad to Fit in?

 

Few days back, my ten-year-old daughter showed me a WhatsApp group of her friends. Its name: ‘Badies’. I smiled and then paused. These are the same girls who greet every teacher in the corridor, who touch elders’ feet at festivals and who wish the neighbours every now and then. Why would such sincere children want to be called ‘Badies’?

18 and more years in classroom, and I have learnt that children rarely mean what the dictionary means.

I don’t remember the name, but first time I came across the word ‘NERD’ in a film. The ‘Nerdy’ character: the one with the big spectacles, the studious boy who spends more time in the library, who doesn’t waste his time, but who is good for nothing but books. He is the butt of every joke. That one character taught a whole generation that being sincere is boring. Today, I see the same lesson in a new dress. To be ‘bad’ is to be cool, and ‘Badie’ is not a confession, it is a badge.

Walk in our corridors and you will hear it. The F-word and the S-word come out as easily as ‘okay’ and ‘bro’. They are not abuses any more; they are just commas and full stops. And the child who speaks clean, proper English, without a single swear word: teachers respect him, but somehow he is not a part of the gang. A bad persona, it seems, has become the entry pass.

Pune saw this in public this year. During Ganeshotsav, Vidyanand Bapat spoke against DJs and loud sound systems in pure, standardised Marathi, with beautiful Sanskrit quotes. The media was impressed. Even the Chief Minister joked that he would need tuition to speak like him. And then? Within days, social media turned his language into memes and AI videos of him dancing on the same DJ beats he was opposing. Nobody discussed his argument; everybody laughed at his vocabulary.

But language has always travelled like this. Take the ‘backhand’. On a tennis court it is a shot played across the body, and we clap when a champion plays it well. The word left the court. A ‘backhanded comment’ became a remark that comes from the side, and a ‘backhanded compliment’, praise with a hidden sting. Nobody passed a rule for this; people used it, and it stayed.

So, should we panic? I don’t think so. But we must pay attention. Every generation takes the language and makes it its own. ‘Bad’ once meant bad; in my college days it meant brilliant; today ‘Badie’ means bold, confident, one of us. The words are not the problem. The problem starts when the price of belonging is giving up good language.

As teachers and parents, our job is not to police every new word. Our job is to make sure no child feels ashamed of speaking well. And to remind our little ‘Badies’ that being kind and sincere, the way they already are, is the coolest thing of all.

Monday, August 31, 2026

Baramati: A Road That Led Me to an Uncomfortable Question

 

The most unexpected thing I brought back from Baramati was not a memory. It was a question about how we judge political leadership.

For almost 40 years, Pune has been my home, yet Baramati—barely 100 kilometres away—remained a place I had never visited. I finally went there recently for a teacher-training programme, and what surprised me had nothing to do with the training. The moment I entered Baramati, I was struck by the roads, cleanliness and planning. In places, the road inside Baramati seemed better than the Pune-Solapur Highway that brought me there, and the comparison with the Pune-Mumbai Expressway did not seem exaggerated. There were well-maintained gardens, walking spaces, fountains and public bus stops that were better than many I have seen in Pune or Mumbai. What surprised me most was seeing children and young people using a dedicated skateboarding facility. For a moment, I genuinely wondered: Is this really India? I have visited Amanora and Magarpatta in Pune countless times, yet Baramati made me realise that good urban infrastructure and civic planning are not necessarily the monopoly of large metropolitan cities.



Naturally, I began asking the teachers I was training about the transformation I was seeing. Almost unanimously, the answer was, “Dada.” Ajit Pawar. They spoke of his intense involvement in Baramati's development and his insistence on personally keeping track of things. I cannot independently verify every story I heard, but I could see the outcome. And that forced me to confront something about my own perception of him. I have always liked his direct style of speaking, his ability to manage political conflicts and certain aspects of his political pragmatism. But my opinion of him had also been coloured by the controversies and allegations surrounding his political career. Then I saw Baramati—and suddenly my opinion became more complicated.

An uncomfortable thought crossed my mind: If a politician is involved in corruption but develops his constituency to this extent, does the development make the corruption less objectionable? My answer, intellectually, has to be no. Corruption cannot become acceptable because roads are built, gardens are created or infrastructure improves. Public money is public money, and accountability cannot be negotiated. But there is another equally uncomfortable question: what about politicians who neither govern effectively nor transform their constituencies, yet continue to receive our loyalty because of party, ideology, identity or rhetoric? Why do we judge politicians so often by what they say, what they are accused of or which party they represent, but so rarely by what has actually changed on the ground?

Baramati did not make me a supporter of Ajit Pawar, nor did it erase the questions surrounding him. It did something more important—it made me question my own certainty. Development deserves recognition; corruption deserves accountability. One cannot cancel the other. Perhaps that is how we should judge public leadership: not by admiration or hatred, not merely by allegations or political affiliations, but by evidence—what is legally established, what is actually delivered and what difference a leader makes to the lives of the people he represents. I went to Baramati for a professional assignment. I returned with a civic question—and perhaps with a slightly more informed, and certainly less certain, opinion.

IB DP English Paper 1: How to Write a Band 7 Guided Analysis (Structure, Criteria & Model Response)

IB DP English Paper 1 Model Analysis: IKEA "Couples Counsellors" Campaign

Course: IB DP English A: Language & Literature | Paper: Paper 1 (SL/HL Non-Literary Analysis)

Text Breakdown & Context



Text Type: Multimodal Print Advertisement / Commercial Campaign

Brand/Publisher: IKEA (Al-Futtaim, 2023)

Target Audience: Couples, cohabiting partners, and prospective home-makers undergoing home renovation/shopping.

Guiding Question: Discuss how textual and visual elements achieve the purpose.

Core Purpose: To advertise IKEA’s innovative in-store "Couples Counsellors" service by humorously acknowledging and resolving a relatable consumer pain point—domestic disputes triggered by furniture shopping.

Full Band 7 Model Response

Introduction

Produced by retail conglomerate Al-Futtaim in partnership with IKEA, this contemporary print advertisement promotes a bespoke in-store initiative: the provision of "Couples Counsellors" to facilitate stress-free furniture retail. Rather than relying on conventional commercial rhetoric that idealizes domestic bliss, the advertisement capitalizes on modern bathos and situational irony to target cohabiting couples and homeowners. Through stark visual minimalism, vibrant chromatic juxtaposition, and a sudden syntactic pivot in the headline, the campaign satirizes the universally recognized friction inherent in shared consumer decision-making. Consequently, IKEA rebrands ordinary furniture procurement from a source of domestic discord into a collaborative, supported experience, subtly presenting its commercial space as both an aesthetic marketplace and an emotional sanctuary.

Body Paragraph 1: Visual Composition and Chromatic Dissonance

The visual construction immediately engages the viewer through deliberate spatial isolation and high-contrast color choices. Set against an expanse of bubblegum pink negative space, a singular, bright yellow wingback armchair sits anchored in the lower-left quadrant. The absence of realistic domestic furnishings—such as living room carpets or ambient decor—strips away extraneous distractions, focusing immediate visual attention upon the product itself. Moreover, while yellow typically evokes warmth, optimism, and domestic comfort, its bold contrast against the neon-adjacent pink creates an energetic visual vibration that borders on tension. By isolating the single armchair within an overwhelming field of empty space, the layout subtly evokes individual solitary seating, visually hinting at domestic estrangement or the standoff between differing aesthetic tastes before any explicit body copy is processed.

Body Paragraph 2: Syntactic Subversion and Bathos in the Headline

Textually, the headline—"Available in grey, yellow, and why did I marry you?"—serves as the primary communicative pivot of the advertisement, exploiting tricolon structure and anti-climax. The sentence begins in the predictable, transactional register of catalogue product specifications ("Available in grey, yellow..."), establishing a mundane consumer expectation. However, the final element of the triad abruptly abandons standard inventory nomenclature, replacing it with an exasperated rhetorical question: "...and why did I marry you?" This deployment of bathos bridges the gap between commercial product options and authentic domestic confrontation. By parodying the disproportionate escalation common during marital arguments over mundane stylistic choices, the text evokes immediate humor and empathetic self-recognition from the audience, validating their shared frustrations while subverting corporate advertising conventions.

Body Paragraph 3: Direct Address, Anchoring Copy, and Call to Action

The resolution to this comedic crisis is strategically anchored at the bottom-left corner through concise expository copy and digital integration. Below the primary focal point, the explanatory text explicitly clarifies the value proposition: "IKEA is introducing Couples Counsellors to help foster better communication in relationships and find a much better shopping experience." Here, the declarative tone assumes a reassuring ethos, reframing the retailer as a mediator that actively improves relationship well-being. The prominent visual highlighting on "Couples Counsellors" functions as visual shorthand for the core service. Concurrently, the inclusion of a modern QR code paired with the urgent imperative "Book your appointment now" bridges the gap between passive reception and commercial action, turning an amusing observation into immediate online engagement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the IKEA advertisement achieves its persuasive purpose by rejecting sanitized corporate idealism in favor of candid cultural satire. Through the seamless synthesis of minimalist visual staging, vibrant chromatic tension, and bathetic syntactic subversion, the piece dismantles the emotional stress surrounding couple shopping. By acknowledging real-world interpersonal disputes and presenting an empathetic in-store solution, IKEA reinforces its brand identity as a modern, consumer-centric lifestyle brand attuned to the realities of contemporary domestic life.

Examiner Breakdown: Why This Essay Earns Band 7 (20/20)

Criterion A: Understanding and Interpretation (5/5)

The response avoids surface-level summary. It accurately interprets both the literal commercial function (booking a consultation) and the subtextual psychological insight (furniture shopping as a marital flashpoint).

Criterion B: Analysis and Evaluation (5/5)

Technical terminology (e.g., bathos, negative space, chromatic juxtaposition, tricolon, imperative mood) is applied with purpose and directly linked to audience psychology.

Criterion C: Focus and Organization (5/5)

The structure follows a logical thematic hierarchy: visual staging $\rightarrow$ rhetorical text structure $\rightarrow$ anchoring resolution and call-to-action.

Criterion D: Language (5/5)

The essay maintains a formal, precise, academic register with varied sentence complexity and zero casual vernacular.

Recommended IB DP English Study Materials:

Prepare for your IB English Language & Literature Paper 1 and IO examinations with solved past paper packs and writing guides:

View IB DP English Study Guides on Amazon →

The Probation of a Difficult Man

There are, as any student of the human animal will tell you, precisely four ways a friendship may begin: with a handshake, with a borrowed m...