Fusion Music

Missing Squash practice for the first time in several weeks, I headed out of my apartment to watch Fareed Haque and the Flat Earth Ensemble perform at the Krannert Centre for Performing Arts. An extremely skillful Jazz guitarist, Fareed Haque is the lead player of the Flat Earth Ensemble, a highly acclaimed group that fuses Hindustani classical and Jazz music. Dressed in a T-shirt and a comfortable pair of jeans, I looked forward to an evening of relaxation as the hypnotic melodies of Hindustani classical music skillfully blended with elements of Jazz swamped my surroundings.
Almost everyone has an understanding of what Jazz music is. As a musical art form, Jazz originated in the Southern states from a confluence of African and European musical traditions. Since it almost entirely developed in the United States in the late 1800s, it can be described as American classical music. Although Jazz has several different forms and types, almost all forms share musical elements that are exclusive to Jazz. The elements that make Jazz unique are interpretation – the way a jazz player feels his music, improvisation – the ability of a jazz player to instantaneously compose, edit, revise and perform, rhythm – Jazz has a huge reliance on the use of accent and emphasis where it is least expected, and tempo – unlike other forms, Jazz has a steady tempo from start to end.
Hindustani classical music is the music of North India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and unlike Jazz, has much more ancient roots evolving around 12th century AD. The musical style uses Indian instruments like the Sitar (a string instrument similar to guitar but has a more “buzzy” sound) and Tablas (a set of two drums that require a lot of training to play and perfect) that create rich melodies that are unique to the Indian subcontinent. A performance usually begins with an elaboration of the melodic mode. Once the mode is established, the ornamentation becomes more rhythmical and gradually speeds up. Finally the Tablas join in, and set up the pattern for the song. The style involves a lot of improvisation on the part of the musicians. In fact, almost no song is sung the same way every time by the performers.
Fareed Haque, of Pakistani and Chilean descent, has made a career out of fusing Hindustani musical elements with Jazz. He has been voted as the “World’s Best Guitarist” by Guitar Player Magazine 2009. Haque’s viewpoint has been that both forms of music, Jazz and Hindustani, play the same role: They’re both high energy, hypnotic and charismatic. As a fusion artist, Haque explores his indigenous Hindustani musical roots while demonstrating his skill as a Jazz artist.
As I climbed the stairs leading to the Krannert Centre’s main entrance, a gathering of about thirty people seated around a dimly lit stage came into sight. The stage was complete with a drum kit and a piano as well as Indian musical instruments, the Sitar and Tablas. The stage backdrop was bathed in dim red colored lights. A bar serving a wide variety of wine was located right next to the stage that seemed to be extremely popular with multi-ethnic crowd assembled. The music lovers assembled ranged from young college students dressed in Halloween costumes to more mature adults sitting with their friends to enjoy a few drinks and an evening of good music. By the time Fareed Haque and his Flat Earth Ensemble were cheered on to the stage, the number of people had nearly doubled. With the low-key lighting, the eager audience and the wine, a perfect atmosphere was set for some great music to start playing.
As the band began their first performance, a number comprised of Jazz elements blended with the beats of the Tabla (played by Subrata Bhattacharya), the audience started to physically respond to the music. The effect the music created was immediate yet natural as the people started to dance to the steady tones of the guitar and the rhythmic beats of the Tabla. There were several cries of admiration as Haque mesmerized the crowd with swift hand and finger movements over his guitar.
As the Sitar (played by Indrajit Banerjee) started to come into play, the music became more rich and exotic. The music numbers started to integrate more Hindustani elements and the echo of the Sitar encompassed the entire lobby of the Krannert Centre. One outstanding piece involved Haque and Banerjee participating in what is called “jugalbandi” (meaning “entwined twins”). “Jugalbandi” is a performance in Hindustani classical music in which two musicians acts as lead players and a playful competition ensues. In the abovementioned piece, Haque’s fiery guitar stimulus was matched equally by Banerjee’s fervent sitar that created an exhilarating and unparalleled musical experience.
As Haque called upon Hindustani vocalist Soumendra Roy, a new dimension got introduced to the music. Roy’s excellent vocals blended with the instruments so perfectly, one began to wonder if he should have been called earlier. What followed was probably the highlight of the evening, an intense yet lighthearted contest between Roy’s vocals and Haque’s guitar. As Roy sang different “Swaras” (the seven notes of the scale) at a high speed, Haque tried to match it on his guitar.
Not a huge fan of Jazz music myself, I was rather unenthusiastic about attending the event. Moreover, being a Hindustani classical music enthusiast, I had begun to wonder how Jazz would alter Hindustani classical music. Whether fusion with Jazz would compromise the beauty of Hindustani music and conversely, whether fusion with Hindustani would spoil the experience of a genuine Jazz lover. In other words, does Haque’s fusion of Indian classical and Jazz do justice to the two musical styles involved? Does Haque’s fusion of Indian and Jazz really create magic?
Best way to understand this to analyze the basic elements of Jazz and Hindustani. A comparison of the two musical styles reflects many differences. Firstly, rhythm in Hindustani classical music is based on “tals” or cycles that does not conform to Jazz, which has an element of surprise. Secondly, Hindustani music uses far more scale possibilities that are absent in Jazz music. Thirdly, tempo in Hindustani music is slow at the start and gradually picks up pace whereas Jazz has a steady tempo throughout. Therefore, a truthful fusion of Jazz and Hindustani classical music should not be possible.
However, the two music styles are extremely similar in the most important elements – interpretation and improvisation. In Hindustani music, the performer finds inspiration within the melody and improvises during the performance. Interpretation and improvisation are hence, key elements of Hindustani music. These are also the most important elements of Jazz. Which means that a Jazz player can include Hindustani elements as part of his improvisation and vice versa, hence creating an obvious fusion of the two styles. And this is exactly what Haque’s Flat Earth Ensemble succeeds at. In fact, the “jugalbandi” between the guitar and the Tablas and Sitar creates a lighthearted competition between Jazz and Indian classical music.
Moreover, since the two music styles play the same role – both are high energy, hypnotic and charismatic – their fusion concocts a new flavor of music that any Jazz / Hindustani classical aficionado would enjoy. I personally found myself enjoying Jazz for the first time; the music at times sending shivers down my spine. Haque’s fusion was not only doing justice to both forms of music but was also succeeding in making a non-Jazz lover like me enjoy Jazz.
I believe that the purpose of music is to have an effect on its audience. The effect may be positive or negative but any effect fulfills the music’s and the musician’s intentions. Music is hence, more about the listeners than the musicians themselves. Whether the fusion of the musical styles is conforming to the obscure rules related to them is unimportant compared to whether the music is having a positive impact on its audience.
Ultimately, music is meant to trigger reactions, stir emotions, activate memories and touch the heart. Haque’s fusion of Jazz and Hindustani classical had this exact effect on me; the unique music completely penetrated my soul, the Indian melodies activated memories of my homeland and even made me cry. An evening of fusion music had transformed into an emotional and unforgettable experience for everyone. Several people seemed to have entered a state of trance, as they stood up and started swaying their bodies with the music, their eyes shut and cheeks moist with tears.
As the last song ended, the group received a standing ovation and several calls for encore. For the encore, the drummer set a pattern for the song and on Haque’s hinting gesture the crowd joined in and started clapping to the beats of the music. What resulted was a fast paced number with the focus swiftly alternating between Jazz and Hindustani that left the crowd awestruck. The group was awarded another standing ovation and a huge cheer.
As I got up from my chair, stepped out of Krannert Centre and walked into the night, relaxed and contented, I had just one thought in my mind – how music can be truly magical.

Mel Brooks classic

Film Review

Young Frankenstein

My Rating: 9 / 10

A dark, rainy, night, the sound of thunder, an old mansion and the camera focuses on the coffin of Baron Von Frankenstein. This seems like a typical scene from a 1930s horror film. It is hard to believe that this is the opening scene of one of the most hilarious films you would ever see. Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein is a warm and loving parody of Universal’s various adaptations of Mark Shelley’s classic novel, Frankenstein. Brooks, previously acclaimed for film parodies like Blazing Saddles, succeeds in guiding a brilliantly chosen cast through scene after scene hilarity. With a well-structured plot, brilliant acting and hilarious screenplay, Young Frankenstein is so superbly made that it is possible to forget that it is actually a parody.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) is a respected lecturer at a medical school who gets irritated whenever someone brings up the subject of his grandfather, the famous mad scientist. He even insists that his name is pronounced “Fraunk-en-steen” clearly embarrassed by his ancestry. The story begins when the doctor inherits his family estate in Transylvania where he discovers his grandfather’s secret laboratory, the truth and success of his experiments and that he wasn’t really a mad scientist. Dr. Frederick decides to continue his grandfather’s research, the reanimation of dead tissue. Assisting him is the hunchback Igor (Marty Feldman) and the buxom lab assistant Inga (Teri Garr). They succeed in reassembling and bringing a dead body to life only to see their plans go awry. The creature, accidently fitted with an abnormal brain, escapes and the stage is set for an entertaining revision of the Frankenstein legend.

Playing the lead character of Dr. Frederick Frankenstein, co-writer Gene Wilder delivers an outstanding performance. He plays the role of a scientist who goes through a transition from someone embarrassed of his family’s history to someone who is proud of being a Frankenstein to perfection. His brilliant comic timing makes him perfectly suited for the role. If Blazing Saddles had made him a star, Young Frankenstein would immortalize him as one of the funniest men ever to grace the silver screen. Among the rest of the cast, Marty Feldman, Teri Garr and Peter Boyle, who plays the monster, deliver memorable performances. Feldman, especially, is adorable as the hunchback lab assistant and with his amazing screen presence, almost steals the show from Wilder.

The film is full of numerous extremely funny scenes. For example, the scene in which the doctor, Igor and Inga are standing in front of the castle door that has huge knockers. The doctor comments, “What knockers!!” to which Inga replies, “Oh, thank you doctor” thinking he was referring to her breasts. In another scene when the doctor and Igor are exhuming the dead body, the doctor says, “What a filthy job…” Igor replies “It could be worse, it could be raining” and it immediately starts to pour. There are many other hilarious scenes like the ones with the revolving bookcase, the little girl, the blind hermit (Gene Hackman) and the heavily accented Inspector Kemp (Kenneth Mars). The writers’ hard work doesn’t go unnoticed as none of the scenes appear out of place. It is easy to get out of control when writing for a comedy, especially if you are spoofing. The writers’ seem to be in control throughout delivering hilarious moments scene after scene.

As a parody, Young Frankenstein makes references to almost every Frankenstein film released by Universal. The hunchback assistant and the scenes involving the stealing of the abnormal brain and the young girl are all from Frankenstein (1931). The abduction of Elizabeth and the scene with the blind hermit are from Bride of Frankenstein (1935). The main plot and the character of Inspector Kemp are picked up from the Son of Frankenstein (1939). The dancing sequence with the monster reminds you of a similar scene from King Kong (1933).

Filming the movie in black and white with 1930s-style opening credits, Brooks succeeds in giving the movie the look and feel of the original Frankenstein (1931). The use of old and outdated film scene transitions like wipes, box-outs etc and traditional filming techniques, like the use of a moving background instead of a moving camera in the train scene, recreates the 1930s film experience for the viewer. Brooks even goes to the extent of recreating the Frankenstein laboratory using the same equipment and the same sets as the original. The eerie violin music playing in the background, the continuous horse neighing when someone says “Frau Blucher” and the constant sound of thunder and lightning gives a real horror film experience. Clearly, Brooks leaves no stone unturned in creating the atmosphere of the horror film genre.

Unlike most parodies, the movie is more than just a bunch of funny gags weaved together scene after scene over a broad storyline. It transcends from the usual parody form and pays honest tribute to the original novel – it’s dismay, horror and sadness. The movie does not drift away from the fact that the monster is unloved not because of his actions but because of his appearance. In that sense Young Frankenstein could be described as a Gene Wilder-Mel Brooks interpretation of Mark Shelley’s novel.

Although slightly dragged in the ending sequences, the film was a highly entertaining watch. I am going with two thumbs up and nine out of ten for Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein. One should watch it for Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman’s brilliant performances, for the great camera work, brilliantly written script and of course for Mel Brooks, probably the best comedy film maker of all time.

In the name of god: that good feeling

Wat is it about the time we take out to remember god that makes us feel fresh, relaxed and contended afterwards.
not many would agree with me but you will if you observe it yourself. i see it myself every morning when my father comes downstairs to start the day after completing his prayers. no matter at what time he has gone to sleep, no matter how tired he is after getting up after his morning "sandhya" he is full of energy.
my mother and chachi and dadi perform "havan" daily. i used to perceive it as tiresome activity. getting up, taking path and going to the place built for the "havan" and speaking sanskrit hymns, a language they can read but don't understand. i saw it as completely pointless. but they too spend the day with great energy and positivity after the "havan".

i guess there were many reasons why i decided to join them for the "havan" a few days ago. Firstly, it guaranteed that i got up early, took bath and was ready. therefore, if some plans to go for a movie or lunch were made, i wasn't left behind. (it used to happen a lot of times, i was left behind coz i wasn't ready)
Secondly, it would make my mom, dad and everybody else in the family happy
Thirdly, i hav a lot of time to kill, spending it in the name of god seemed good.
and lastly, i wanted to experience the relaxation, the burst of energy, the positive vibes, the freshness the rest of my family seemed to experience after saying their prayers, or after performing "havan".

so on the first day i came all ready, showered and combed downstairs and announced my intentions. i was laughed at, more so as the "havan" was already over. i shrugged it off and made it clear that i really was going to come on time frm the next day. i have attended aily since that day and i too began feeling energetic the whole day, was it possible that sitting in front of the fire for half an hour, speaking a great language one couldn't understand and adding ghee and many other things into the fire reinvigorate you and energize you for the whole day, wasn't sitting in front of the fire in summers a self inflicted pain, doesn't sweating lead to discomfort and loss of energy, then how is it that i was feeling relaxed and comforted after performing the yajya.

i decided to observe the chain of thoughts that went through my mind while performing the "havan" to understand better how the ritual was affecting my thinking and thus me. the first day the only thought that ran through my mind was the thought that i had to observe my line of thoughts. observing my thoughts was making me think about observing my thoughts, it was as if the free thoughts were getting concious about the fact that they were being watched. i had to observe subconciously so that i knew yet i didi not know that my thoughts were under observation. this was surprisingly quite easy. my mind was doing three thing at a time, it was speaking the mantras from the book in front of me, it was allowing the thoughts to flow and it was observing these thoughts as well.

then i suddenly found the answer to all my dilemmas. i found myself thinking about all the things that i wished i paid more attention to, that were important to me, my life. i was thinking about all the important things i did not have time for, despite all the free time i am having nowadays. during the "havan" i lost myself, as if going into a trance moments where i stopped speaking the mantras, just a blank expression on my face, till awakened by my mom complaining that i wasn't speaking the mantras. i realized the source of my comfort in the fire's discomfort, the coolness despite the heat, the burst of energy depite the pool of sweat. the "havan" gave me moments to think about all the things i always wanted to think about but somehow never di. in that way the ritual was freeing me from the belief that i did not have time for myself. the havan thus left me feeling positive, relaxed and energetic even if the body had gone numb and drained of some energy. it was something similar to what we feel after exercising, physically drained yet that feeling of contentment and relaxation.

of course the reason why my mom or dad felt relaxed, after the time they devoted to god, can be very different from mine. in fact i think the reasons can not be te same. for mom, it is the feeling of contentment that the prayers she is saying will bring luck, happiness and love into the family, and its members. for dad it is the hapiness of carrying on the tradition his father had given him. Maybe later on, the reason why i enjoy that half an hour in the morning devoted god could develop into more selfless reasons like my mom or dad have. or are their reasons more selfish??

The Dilemma of Indian Vegetarians

Indians comprise of a fifth of the vegetarians in the world. Indian vegetarians are proud of being vegetarian and let's agree we even scorn at the ppl who are not vegetarians. but why exactly are such a large % of our population vegetarian.
Part of the reason is our history. lets go back a few 1000 years. The original inhabitants of India were the Dravidians, short black skinned people who were all vegetarian not due to any religious beliefs (although I am a firm believer that beliefs develop out of circumstances) but because they lived on land that hd the most fertile soil that can be found on the planet. The rivers of Ganga, Yamuna, Brahmaputra, Ghaghara, Kosi, Gomti, Mahanadi, Krishna , kaveri, Godavari, narmada as well as the five Punjab rivers: Beas, Satluj, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and of course Indus irrigated the whole country. Interesting thing is no other country has three different river systems in the same country, we hav the indus system, Ganga - Brahmaputra and the southern rivers. so never did the need arise to kill an animal for food. Eating vegetarian food was not a compulsion but a natural choice.
{I did not talk about the harappan civilization bcoz no one knows about wat the ppl of that civilization ate}
Then the Aryans, invaders from Central Asia, invaded the country. The Dravidians were pushed down to Southern States and even though some took to eating fish from the oceans which were readily available, Vegetarianism had entered their blood. Even today wen we think of eating at a vegetarian restaurant, a south indian restaurant pops into the mind.
Now, one may argue that why the Aryans who were naturally from meat eating lands of Central Asia developed the Hindu faith and its resolve against non vegetarian food. They probably gave up non veg after discovering the alluvial rich plains of northern india. Moreover, the meat source became the source of another resource. yes, i am talking about cows and buffalos and they became the source of milk, cheese and saturated oil or ghee. one can reflect upon the importance of these products in the aryan society from the Vedic texts. i myself have read numerous vedic mantras and have come across many which depict the importance of a certain "soma rasa" a favorite drink of the aryans ade fro milk, ghee and an unknown now extinct plant. i feel importance of anything in a society can be seen from what they offer to god. The Christians offer bread and wine which is of importance to them, we hindus in yajyas offer dhrit (ghee) and milk. the yajyas were first performed by the aryans so naturally it was very important to them. Moreover, indian cows have and probably had in those times also, the least production of milk per annum. i still remember the class 8 biology chapter, Swiss Cow: 16000 L/anum, Indian Cow: 1500L/anum. so when i think of it if i like milk and the cow produce very low amount i would want it to live longer and not kill her for meat (Indian cows have a very low meat content also). So that is how cows became holy in fact meat eating became impure or unholy. Only the lower castes and the poor who could not afford breeding cattle or farming ate meat, that is how the divide untouchables got created, meat eaters were considered unclean, and untouchable. As i said earlier, beliefs develop from the society's choices and circumstances, meat eating was unclean therefore being a vegetarian started being considered pure, holy, divine, the vedas advocated vegetarian way of life.
if today you come across a vegetarian in say USA, there is a higher chance that he will say i am a vegetarian because i am an animal lover or that i am vegetarian on ethical grounds. it is the best argument for vegetarianism. when the US constitution was created, it stated that all men were born equal, good statement right, NO it actually meant only men. Women were not included and nor were the blacks, slaves and native american Indians. But then, they did not consider women, blacks and natives equal to men. Civil wars followed, organisations like Ku Klux Klan were set up. but 150 years later women and blacks etc were considered equal and got equal rights. What i am saying is that our society now grants (not fully implements but grants) equal rights to all everyone irrespective of gender, caste, religion, IQ, leadership skills everything then why not irrespective of species, why not extend the same rights to the animals. You will say that animals and human beings are different:

1. Humans are more intelligent beings: Rubbish, we just stated that the society now grants equal rights to everyone irrespective of intelligence, then how can one say that an intelligent being is worthy of life and an unintelligent one is not. Moreover, without uninitelligent people in this world what a boring world this will be.
2. Animals are incapable of reason: okay, but so is an infant. is it justified to kill an infant
3. Animals kill each other all the time: so now we r gonna compare ourselves to the animal kingdom, yeah right. But then that makes murder, assault, rape, incest, polygamy etc all legal all correct.

Moreover, Human Beings can survive on vegetarian food. A vegetarian Tiger becomes a dead body but a vegetarian human being becomes an Albert Einstein, Anil Ambani, Prophet Muhammad. And how is it justified to kill an animal because it is less capable than us in certain areas. Then how are handicapped, mentally challenged, blind, deaf, dumb worthy of living. They too are less capable or incapable than us in certain areas. It is not justified to be a non vegetarian just because you like the taste of butter chicken. What i am trying to say is, if we talk of equality how are animals any different. It is about our moral and ethical thinking. And Ethical reasons is the only justified argument against non vegetarianism.

But that is where the dilemma lies. If ethical reasons is the basis for being a vegetarian, the belief that killing of animals is wrong even vegetarians are in trouble. !!We eat Wheat!! (Rhyme not intended) and you know what increases the crop efficiency from as low as 45% to 90%, PESTICIDES. the meaning of the word Pest (insects, rodents) Cidal (to KILL) . So even vegetarians cannot say that i am a vegetarian due to ethical reasons. Unless you become an extremist, a VEgan who grows his own food and tries at every level not to kill or harm any animal intentionally.

The problems indian vegetarians face when asked the "Why Veggie??" question is that they themselves are confused why they are vegetarians. if they give the religious reason, it is valid. But, it is not very appreciated by others especially if you want someone to give up non veg. Also, i have explained that the Vegetarian concept in the Hindu faith was included because they found eating vegetarian more logical and considered non veg food impure and unclean. It was just a stupid belief that manifested itself over the years. Vedas also suggest that Veg food is healthier, it indeed is, and it is a better argument than the "religious belief" one. But, there are many non veg options like fish and eggs which too are very nutrtious and high in protiens, so a person looking for health needs to give up unhealthy food!! and not non vegetarian food!!

the ethical reason argument is the best but it leads to extremism which indian vegetarians are certainly not. 20% indians are vegetarians but if asked why? they are confused

The DILEMMA of indian VEGETARIANS

As for why i am vegetarian?,

Healthier fooD: naa, i do eat unhealthy veg food

Relgious Reasons: not really

but Religion is definitely the reason for my elders. So i grew up regarding non veg as bad and veg as good. children blindly believe wat the elders tell them, ELDERS BRAINWASH US but i'll leave that topic for another blog. yeah, so I have always eaten vegetarian food. if smeone brings nonveg in front of me i scorn at him, feel nauseatic. i strongly advocate every 1 to eat only veg food and am a strict vegetarian, i think the following qoute works for me,

"MY STOMACH IS NOT A GRAVEYARD OF A DEAD ANIMAL"

sections of post taken from Vir Sanghvi's article in BRUNCH

THE GREATEST INVENTION OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS

THE GREATEST INVENTION OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS:
LENSES
It does seem an odd answer but i'll soon justify it....
Firstly, without lenses many people could not read this and i couldn't write this... and, even worse, you might never have been able to read or write, had your eyes needed correction. i remember wearing my first pair of glasses and suddenly having the whole world come into focus. while seeing properly is important, it seems limited to p0ick spectacles as the greatest invention. my vote is for all lenses big or small, convex or concave, alone or combined; the lenses we use to read the universe and the intricacies of life are variations of those we use to read a written word........ just come to think of it, lenses hv prevented the world from being ruled by people under the age of 40

so, let's start with plain ol' spectacles. we dont really know when they first came into use. they started appearing in Italy in 1300's and by 1600 there were specialized artisans who ground lenses and kept their tricks secret.

one of them, a Dutch spectacle maker, Lippershey, saw that a combination of two lenses made an object look bigger. he made the first telescopes hoping to become rich. he didn't succeed but several telescopes were made. one of them reached Galileo Galilei. he pointed his device towards the night sky and looked out. he destroyed it, reconstructed it and improved it. what he saw changed our view of the world. the sun rotated around its axis, Venus revolved around the sun, the moon had mountains and valleys, Jupiter had 4 moons, the Milky Way was made up of large no. of stars. Copernicus and Kepler were right and Ptolemy was wrong............ earth was not the center of the universe.....and there was no going back, there started the space exploration.........

from telescope to microscope. they were discovered at about the same time.....not surprising..as they both involved just the simple piecing together of the right two lenses in correct positions. Galileo used the microscope to see flies the size of sheep, spots of dirt the size of rocks but ignored its significance.... in 1665, Robert Hooke published MICROGRAPHIA. The book contained pictures ............a fly's eye, picture of a louse etc..... then Anton van Leeuwenhoek made a lens of magnifying power -- 500. at that point, a drop of water turned out to be filled with little animals swimming in it. it was the discovery of bacteria..............................

but still the greatest lens of all time was not invented in tha lst 2000 years but much before that, the eye. it was invented by a great inventor......... evolution.
we all know how light rays enter our eye, are immediately bent towards the retina by the cornea. the rays then meet the second focusser, the eye lens -- structured like an onion --- with transparent layers, designed for optimum focusing. the image focussed on retina which has visual cortex and voila.... we see the image

the greatest invention f the last 2000 years, for me is the lens..... but if we talk about all time, its the brain which figured it out how to use the lens..........

please write wat u feel is the greatest invention of the past 2000 years and also giv ur comments

best of luck
Prateek