A Chance Encounter

A Brief Meeting: A Chance Encounter

There was this person whom i met only once. It was a chance encounter. I was in high school then.

1994. Summer vacation. I was at my aunt's place. It was a lazy afternoon. Barring me, a cousin brother, and two elderly ladies were there. The latter were having siesta. We two were discussing rather seriously about the respective girls we were in love with.
The calling bell rang. We went downstairs. We saw a young man. I didn't know him. My cousin did. He said, hey, it's you, ...da! (I don't remember the name he took. Henceforth I would refer to this young man as Nemo) Your rehearsal would start at five. No one is here yet.

My aunt and her husband (my mesho, as we call in Bengali) were involved in group theatre. Their house was the official address of their group. And all rehearsals were held there. So Nemo belonged to the theatre group, I understood.

He nodded. Yes, I know. Had nothing to do and nowhere to go, so thought of coming here a bit early.

Nemo was five feet ten or eleven, heavy in built, dark complexioned, and looked like either a college student, or fresh out of college.

We led him to the room where we two were seated earlier. We sat together.

He looked at me. Said in Bengali, I think I have heard about you. Aren't you the boy who reads Probir Ghosh?

Probir Ghosh was a familiar name to me. He was the chief of Rationalists' Association, and wrote a series of books called Oloukik Noy, Loukik (Not Supernatural, Natural).

I asked, is reading Probir Ghosh a kind of occupation?

Nemo smiled embarrassedly. I mean you read Probir Ghosh, right?

I said, yes. Among other books.

What is your idea about Probir, Nemo asked.

Well, I follow him closely. I consider myself a rationalist.

So, you are an atheist.

Yes.

So you want to take away religion from people's lives?

Yes, why not? That's superstition, right? I mean all religions are superstitions.

No doubt. But why do people invent them?

Well, in ancient times, they didn't understand the world around them, so they invented God.

And why is God still there when we understand the world?

Probably most people following religion still don't understand the world around them.

I agree. Then they still need God. The people who still don't understand the world.

I didn't understand this time what he wanted to say. I asked him to elaborate.

See, kerosene lamps are primitive. They are bad for health too. They go back to a time when people knew lesser science. So you want to take the kerosene lamps away. But you must provide that person with electricity, or some other better equivalent of a lamp.

I was taken aback. No one spoke like that before. I knew atheists who were dogmatic God-haters and religion-haters and who hated anything that was not rational and logical (My English teacher, who was a local leader of Rationalists' Association once demanded that the local book fair should not have ghost stories and supernatural books for children as they spoil the young minds. He didn't demand a ban on religious books since that would not be possible. Children could be policed, for the adults it's a tad difficult. However the local CPM leaders who ran the fair rather 'irrationally' turned this demand down). On the other hand I had people who were God-fearing. They disliked atheists. What he was saying was new to me. That before taking away religion, we have its replacement at hand. New indeed.


He added, and don't think religion was just about explaining nature, world, universe. It was also a way of life. It still is. Something we call ethics. Religion tried to answer some basic questions about existence. Stuff like philosophy. See, a human being needs some faith in life. Those who are well-read, can afford to do without it. They will probably take culture and knowledge as religion substitute. Those extremely poor or extremely rich can do in life without values as well. The But most common people cannot lead their lives without some sense of well-being. They derive it from religion, or God, or spirituality. Give it a thought.

The time for rehearsal was drawing near. People started appearing. The calling bell rang frequently. My cousin brother went downstairs.

He got up. Nice meeting you. Remember, an equivalent of religion has to made. The onus lies on atheists. Instead of abusing people's faith, engage with that. Try to see what can replace religion for the ordinary men and women. Without studying religion that won't happen. And don't consider rationality to be supreme. Give some consideration to human feelings. Desires and wounds which part of our existence. See if you are able to address them. Reason does not address them, but religion does. May be in opium-like manner, but still does.



I wasn't able to talk to him again. I saw him a couple of times during the times of a few theatrical productions of my aunt's group. Once or twice I met him at the green room or backstage, and he always beamed and waved. Later he left the group I guess.

But he has been an instrumental influence on me. Within just, say, 30 minutes, what he taught me, I guess, professors are not able to teach in entire semesters. And he was not any big person. He was just a young man, if not a college student, then, by all likelihood, unemployed. There is a saying, one swallow does not make a spring. If Kolkata is culturally and intellectually vibrant, its not only because of a few great personalities we produced intermittently. It is because of innumerable intellectuals you can meet in this city, here and there, upon chance encounters.

What he talked of was taken up by Terry Eagleton in Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990) as logic vs. aesthetic conflict, but of course I don't think he read Eagleton.

I remember him, as one of the finest teachers I have ever had. And today when I look back, a very strange coincidence attracts my attention. 1994 was the year when Nabarun Bhattachary'a Herbert was to be awarded Sahitya Academy award. Herbert takes up these very issues. But then Herbert would require a separate discussion.

N.B. Those who are interested may read my note 'Quo Vadis Bengal', where I argue that Bengal's recent political change is about choosing aesthetic over logic.