I've always loved train journeys. Partly because of the chance encounters I have with interesting characters. On the one from New Delhi, I met Rahul. He's this guy from a lower middle class family and a master of emotions. He loves to love, he loves to fall in love, and then keeps groveling when he's in that love-sludge. We were discussing yesterday the two most important components for love. Since he's a technocrat, he prefers mathematical formulations. His theory is: love = attraction + respect/admiration + extreme fondness.
He also told me, like many others before him have, that I have no hope of falling in love with anyone because I cannot have all the three components satisfied for anyone. [No hope despite Barrack Obama being nobel-ed for his Hope Campaign and KCR going the Srimamulu way to get Telangana.]
On my train journey to New Delhi, I was left thinking about all this, and I delved deeper into Rahul's character. He's one of those crazy romantics, who may serve as the perfect mascot for popular cinema, especially the 90s cinema. I loved him in
Yes Boss and
Dil To Pagal Hai. But the one I'm referring to here is the spineless, obsessive and madcap in
Darr. He's not a practical lover (if ever there is such a thing) like his other school-friends, who would treat love as a decision, and once made, they'll consider it blasphemous and unbecoming - to change such a decision. Unless, of course, the decision involves changing to someone who's perhaps slightly more endowed in terms of finances, or has a relatively settled life/certain future. That is so true. Why would a person like Rahul's friend do anything about the love she has for an illiterate, poor person when a person with a lot of cash, a settled life who can afford a flamboyant lifestyle, is in love with her? Apart from nipping it in the bud, of course!
I can think of all this myself only when I'm in a small town - a town where leading life fruitfully (fruit=wealth) is all one must look for. I completely agree with such a point of view. I am convinced there is no such thing as love. Those three things can never come together, and even if they do, it's impossible that they'll last beyond a flash. Maybe that's why I'm always in love - I do find those three components very easily, but they never last. The third one is the one which lasts the longest and the second one is the one which flickers the most. But what does one do when there are second and third components on a sustained basis, but there is no amount of the first?
Then I remembered what Alan Shore said in Boston Legal:
"Life's hard, love's harder."
And I expanded it:
"Life's hard, love's harder;
Falling in love even harder, knowing that you are in love is the hardest."
Alternatively:
"Life's lovely, love's lovelier;
Falling in love even lovelier, and knowing that you've fallen in love is the loveliest."
It's not about cynicism, it's about pragmatism.