I am looking for an engaging book like this, i.e. something that details the prevalent culture, places, how they developed, what influenced it etc., but on Lucknow.
You know, something that is less about just rulers and more about life.
(Ofc, one on Goa is relatively more ecology-centric while Lucknow's might be less about that).
I was told that to have a few hours gap post-meal and a little even post-water intake before your meditation. But saw that David Lynch (one very prominent TM practitioner and promoter) does his post-coffee.
So was wondering if that "preferably not keep meditation soon after eating/drinking" advice isn't part of the general teaching. Any thoughts or corrections here?
Would definitely find it easier to have mine after my breakfast if it's not ill-advised.
I'm obviously in my initial days, as a club DJ playing house/disco/global grooves, and while I do okay with 3-band EQs (XDJs, older DJMs), a mixer with a 4-band EQ is throwing me off.
While in 3-band EQ, the low-end knob really holds back the impact so when you exchange the low EQ, it kind of acts like a drop and before it, there is no clash either... with the 4-band, I feel like as I am bringing up the low-mid knob, my bassline of the new track is kind of getting revealed already, so when I finally do bring in the low EQ for the "drop", the impact feels a lot less. Plus, sometimes just bringing in low-mid starts fighting with the low end of the first track, kind of like if you had two basslines going.
Any tips on what I need to do differently?
Have to play on a Xone 92 on Sunday.
I'm a fledgling house & global grooves DJ with a few club gigs under my belt, but I feel I mainly just transition using 3 techniques:
While I understand & agree that flow & energy matter more, but my sequencing is limited by what I am able to mix.
I want to learn what other transition methods I can have in my arsenal. More than where to learn, I want tips on what to learn next. Thanks!
From articles & history-based series to prominent ministers in parliamentary sessions & their supporters, the story gets peddled that 12 out of 15 Congress Committee members voted for Sardar Patel to be the Congress president in 1946 (who would de facto go on to become India's political leader post-Independence) and none voted for Nehru, but Gandhi publicly favoured Nehru and he overrode the committee's decision by asking Patel to withdraw his name.
(The story also gets stupidly repurposed to say that Patel would have been India's first PM were it not for Gandhi intervening, eventhough Patel passed away before India's first elections and was gravely ill by the time India became a republic.)
THE SOURCE OF THE MYTH(?)
The earliest source I could find of this story & also the one cited by articles that seem to propagate this story while being biased (we will see how) against Nehru seems to be Michael Brecher's biography on Nehru. Except, the 2 main sources for this story in the biography are: an unnamed interviewee and D.P. Tendulkar's 8-volume biography on Gandhi.
Michael Brecher's biography on Nehru: https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.507243/page/313/mode/2up
A BETTER SOURCE OF THE TRUTH (?)
The previously linked FirstPost article also cites Maulana Azad's autobiography India Wins Freedom before going on to narrate how Azad wanted himself re-elected, but this upset Gandhi who showed him newspaper clippings to discourage him and said he prefers Nehru for reasons he doesn't explain. It even narrates Nehru throwing a tantrum when asked to consider Patel over himself as the president.
Anyway, when we read Azad's autobiography, we finally see what probably really happened. Not the words of an unnamed interviewee but the first-hand account of someone who was actually involved:
>The situation had now returned to normal. The question naturally arose that there should be fresh Congress elections and a new President chosen. As soon as this was mooted in the press, a general demand arose that I should be reelected President for another term. The main argument in favour of my reelection was that I had been in charge of negotiations with Cripps, with Lord Wavell and at present with the Cabinet Mission. At the Simla Conference, I had for the first time succeeded in arriving at a successful solution of the political problem even though the Conference finally broke on the communal issue. There was a general feeling in Congress that since I had conducted the negotiations till now, I should be charged with the task of bringing them to a successful close and implementing them. Congress circles in Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bıhar and the UP openly expressed the opinion that I should be charged with the responsibility of launching free India in its course.
>I however sensed that there was some difference of opinion in the inner cırcles of the Congress High Command. I found that Sardar Patel and his friends wished that he should be elected President. It became for me a very delicate question and I could not at first make up my mind as to what I should do. I thought carefully over the matter and finally came to the conclusion that since I had been Presıdent for seven years from 1939 to 1946 I must now retire. I therefore decided that I should not permit my name to be proposed.
>The next point which I had to decide was about the choice of my successor. I was anxious that the next President should be one who agreed with my point of view and would carry out the same policy as I had pursued. After weighing the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that the election of Sardar Patel would not be desirable in the existing circumstances. Taking all facts into consideration, it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President. Accordingly, on 26 April 1946, I issued a statement proposing his name for the Presıdentship and appealing to Congressmen that they should elect Jawaharlal unanımously.
>I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life. I have regretted no action of mine so much as the decision to withdraw from the Presidentship of the Congress at this critical juncture. It was a mistake which I can describe in Gandhiji's words as one of Himalayan dimension.
>My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr Jinnah the opportunity of sabotaging the plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.*
>My statement caused a commotion among Congressmen all over the country. Several important leaders travelled from Calcutta, Bombay and Madras to persuade me to withdraw my statement and allow my name to be put up. Appeals in the press also appeared to the same effect. But I had already taken a decision and did not feel that I should change my view. One factor which gave greater strength to my decision was Gandhiji's view. He agreed with me that I should not continue as President but he was not wholly pleased that I had proposed that Jawaharlal should succeed me. Perhaps he was somewhat inclined towards Sardar Patel, but once I had proposed Jawaharlal's name, he gave no public indication of his views. Some people did propose the names of Sardar Patel and Acharya Kripalani, but in the end Jawaharlal was accepted unanimously.
Source: https://apnaorg.com/books/english/india-wins-freedom/india-wins-freedom.pdf