logo
Welcome in a forest village

Welcome in a forest village

The Hindua day ago
Years ago, as part of a project, we embarked on a visit to a cluster of villages nestled deep within the forests. Our mandate was to gather information from the forest dwellers to assess their socio-economic status, their dependence on forest resources, and the condition of the forest.
Leading a young team of scientists — most of whom had never visited a village, let alone ventured into dense thickets — was a challenge. While we were excited and curious about exploring unfamiliar places, many of us felt apprehensive about spending extended time there after work hours. Our main concerns included staying in dimly lit huts for over two weeks, attending to nature's call in the open, uncertain phone connectivity, and fear of mosquitoes and reptiles. Food, however, was not a concern, as a cook and an assistant accompanied us. To boost morale, I told my team during a pep talk that we might be reluctant to leave once our assignments were complete.
We set off on a foggy morning and arrived at a village known for its prominent temple, where people regularly gathered from the surrounding areas. This village was ideal for our stay and data collection due to its proximity to other hamlets. The temple congregation also provided an excellent opportunity to meet villagers from neighbouring areas.
Thanks to the arrangements made by our institute, we settled in comfortably. The village elders, accompanied by women and young girls, welcomed us with great pomp and gaiety — much to the delight and slight embarrassment of our demure young women scientists. The villagers' simple yet elegant demeanour was both impressive and endearing.
Their heartfelt hospitality quickly helped us integrate into the community. The villagers, warm and accommodating, eagerly shared their customs and practices. The ease with which every team member, especially the women, mingled with them was a testament to the charm of the people and the place.
Our cook and assistant found little to do, as households insisted we join them for meals. We felt fortunate to enjoy such delectable meals, lovingly prepared from. The affection poured into every platter made the food taste even better. Feeling at home, we often turned our lunch sessions into informal interviews, using questionnaires to gather information.
The villagers' enthusiastic and sincere participation made our work smooth, allowing us to complete our assignments ahead of schedule. The team, initially eager to leave, now urged me to request an extension to stay longer for data analysis and report writing. They believed it would be more productive to work amidst the village environment rather than in the institute's four-walled laboratories. When permission was granted without hesitation, both guests and hosts were equally pleased.
It was presumptuous of us to assume superiority over the forest dwellers — perhaps because we spoke English, wore branded clothes, and carried academic titles. The ever-smiling, innocent faces, the strong bonds that united them as one family, and their harmonious relationship with Mother Nature made us realise that the tribal way of life is far superior to ours. At the end of the day, we felt we had much to learn from their simple yet profound way of living.
sk.sandur@gmail.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

"Where's My Favourite Journalist?": Shubman Gill Trolls Reporter In Press Conference
"Where's My Favourite Journalist?": Shubman Gill Trolls Reporter In Press Conference

NDTV

time39 minutes ago

  • NDTV

"Where's My Favourite Journalist?": Shubman Gill Trolls Reporter In Press Conference

Team India did the unthinkable in the Edgbaston Test against England, beating the hosts for the first time ever at the venue in their history. The team wasn't entrusted with the belief that it could do the job as none of Gill's predecessors had managed to beat England in Birmingham. With the management deciding to not pick Jasprit Bumrah for the game too, questions arose even over the team's intent ahead of the second match of the series. An English journalist had even pointed out India's barren history in Edgbaston, highlighting how the team had never managed to win a single game. As Gill arrived in the press conference after etching his name in history, his eyes were keen to find the same journalist who pointed out the bitter stats in front of him during the pre-match press meet. "I can't see my favourite journalist. Where is he? I wanted to see him," Gill said, trolling the journalist during the media conference. "I even said before the Test match that I don't really believe in history and stats. Over the last 56 years or so, we've played nine matches - different teams have come here. I believe we are the best team to have come here in England, and we have the capability to beat them, to win the series from here. If we keep making the right decisions and keep fighting, I think it would be one of the series to remember," he further said. I asked the question… and Shubman roasted the British journalist with a smile Watch the full clip — this one's gold! #ENGvIND #ShubmanGill #PressConference — Ankan Kar (@AnkanKar) July 6, 2025 The India skipper was full of praise for the team's pace duo of Akash Deep and Mohammed Siraj who rose to the occasion and delivered when the team lacked the services of its marquee pacer Jasprit Bumrah. "Our bowlers were magnificent," Gill said. "We are capable of taking 20 wickets anywhere. The consistency from both ends - Siraj, Akash, and even Prasidh - helped us win the little moments. That's what makes the difference," he said. "When the ball is soft on a flat pitch, it's tough to stop runs. With the harder ball, wickets come easier. That second new ball spell changed the game for us," he further said, explaining his mantra. On his own batting performance, Gill said that he had started to prepare for the England series during the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025. "I started working on some things during the last phase of the IPL," Gill said. "We don't listen to outside noise. Opinions change every game. If your teammates trust you, that's what matters."

Watch: English fan sings a song for Akash Deep after Edgbaston Test heroics
Watch: English fan sings a song for Akash Deep after Edgbaston Test heroics

India Today

time39 minutes ago

  • India Today

Watch: English fan sings a song for Akash Deep after Edgbaston Test heroics

Young Indian pacer Akash Deep received a heartwarming musical tribute from English fans after emerging as the game-changer in the Edgbaston Test. The 28-year-old fast bowler returned with a stunning match haul of 10 wickets, playing a pivotal role in India's emphatic 336-run win in the second Test to level the five-match series helping India thrash England to bounce back in the series, Akash was treated to something truly unexpected - a song in his honour by an English fan outside the stadium. Set to the tune of Let It Be by The Beatles, the tribute was playful, catchy, and deeply symbolic. For a relatively new face in the Indian setup, being serenaded by a local fan on English soil spoke volumes - not just about his bowling, but also about the impression his story had left crowds are known for their sporting songs, especially in football, where almost every star has a chant of their own. Cricket has its own version of that culture too, often driven by the ever-vocal Barmy Army. But it's rare for a visiting player - and a fast bowler at that - to be embraced with such affection, especially so early in his career. The Poms do have a sense of humour : 'Akash Deep Akash Deep Bowling England Out Akash Deep' (In Let It Be tune) Sameer (@BesuraTaansane) July 6, 2025 After losing the series opener at Leeds from what seemed like an unlosable position, Gill-led India mounted a spirited comeback, built on the captain's record-breaking 430 runs across the two innings and the efforts of Akash Deep and Mohammed Siraj, who made the new ball talk on a flat Edgbaston the absence of Jasprit Bumrah, expectations of India's pace attack had been modest. But Siraj and Akash turned that perception on its head with match-turning spells in both Tendulkar hailed Akash Deep as the "standout bowler" of the match and described his delivery to dismiss Joe Root in the second innings as the "ball of the series." Akash finished with figures of 6 for 99 in the second innings and a match-haul of 10 for 187, while Siraj picked up seven wickets across both innings to help power India to a memorable sister has cancer: Emotional Akash DeepFollowing the match, Akash Deep shared a deeply emotional moment in a post-match interview with JioCinema. Speaking to Cheteshwar Pujara, he revealed that his elder sister had been diagnosed with cancer just two months ago—a detail he had kept to himself throughout the match."I haven't told anyone about this," he said, his voice heavy. "My elder sister is suffering from cancer. It was diagnosed two months ago. She's okay now, she's stable. She would be so happy with my performance. She's gone through so much mentally these past two months. I dedicate this to her.""I just wanted to give her some happiness through my performance," he asked if he had a message for her, Akash replied:"Behen, yeh tumhare liye hai. (Sister, this is for you.) Every time I held the ball, your face came to mind. I just wanted to make you smile. We're all with you."On the field, Akash bowled with heart and hunger. In the final session of Day 4, he gave India the perfect start by removing Ben Duckett and Joe Root. He returned on the fifth morning and picked up right where he left off, dismissing overnight batters Ollie Pope and Harry Brook. On a lifeless pitch that offered little to the pacers, Akash made the ball talk - outbowling even England's much-fancied attack."It's all about staying in the present," he said after the game. "We batted, bowled, and fielded well - all three departments clicked. I think we should just enjoy this win at Edgbaston and live in the moment."- EndsYou May Also Like

Can AI really write music you might want to listen to?
Can AI really write music you might want to listen to?

The Advertiser

time40 minutes ago

  • The Advertiser

Can AI really write music you might want to listen to?

This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to I want to disagree with Garry Linnell. In his last Echidna, he was of the opinion that music generated by AI was fine. "If a song created by an algorithm can break your heart or, better still, heal it, perhaps music and anything else we consider art still has a future after all in this increasingly artificial world of ours," he concluded elegantly but, in my opinion, wrongly. To my mind and ear, you can't divorce music from the human experience. It has to be authentic. A machine might write a love song, and it might be a sweet sound - but it will fall on my deaf ears. I'm not interested. Good music isn't just a string of notes. It has context and history. As an analogy, I think of the singer Joss Stone. She is phenomenally successful and belts out a good sound. She has her fans (in their millions) but soul music demands, well, soul - and that comes from an upbringing and a background. I met her as a sweet English teenager (her, not me) when she was starting out and trying to make a name for herself. It struck me then that she had a fabulous voice, throaty and growly, similar to Aretha Franklin's. The resonance was with the great soul singers of that black America where soul came from suffering. But Joss was a nice white girl from middle-class England. Aretha Franklin was born in a wooden shack in Tennessee in 1942 when black people risked death if they displeased a white man by, say, looking at him the wrong way or, even worse, at his wife. Soul music came from Aretha's experience. So, what has that got to do with artificially generated songs? The essence of music is that it needs to be authentic. It needs to reflect the human condition. It has to ring true. The Beach Boys were authentic. The Monkees were an inauthentic creation. AI does inauthentic creation at warp speed. It relies on copying the past. It relies on seeing what love songs have said and done and then varying it and replicating it. The result may be tuneful but it has no human resonance - no meaning, in the broad sense. Tell AI to write a new Bob Dylan song and the result would fool the ear - but not the mind. Musicians have always taken music from the past and developed it. Mozart did it. So did the Rolling Stones. All that is fine and creative. But AI doesn't quite do that. In a way, it mimics. It creates a kind of muzak. I'm not sure that AI could have created punk - or the later Beatles stuff, because they were both too different from previous music. One day, probably soon, someone will ask AI to create a Beethoven symphony, and the result will sound like a Beethoven symphony - but it won't be a Beethoven symphony, coming from that time, from Ludwig van's human experience. Listening to it might pass a pleasant hour but no more than that. It would be shallow. Take another example. If you were getting married and your best friend wrote an emotional, moving poem for the wedding, would it be just as moving if you found out later that it had been generated by AI in a machine? HAVE YOUR SAY: So, it's a choice. Is Garry right or am I right? Send your thoughts to echidna@ . By the way, I'm writing the Echidna for Tuesday but I promise to be fair-minded in selecting your views. SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Australian actor Julian McMahon, known for his roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed and Home and Away, has died aged 56 after a private battle with cancer. - Israel will send a delegation to Qatar for talks on a possible Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. - US President Donald Trump says he will start talking to China about a possible TikTok deal, saying the United States "pretty much" has a deal on the sale of the short-video app. THEY SAID IT: "Don't look at me in that tone of voice." - Dorothy Parker YOU SAID IT: Rick said: "AI music is entirely about making money. Therefore, I believe it to be unnecessary. The Monkees may have acted (it's a stretch to call them actors), but they were actual musicians." Susan was more open to AI-generated music: "My eclectic music education began when I was very little, and my likes have few boundaries. My response is visceral. If it appeals, terrific. If not, I move on." Alex was worried about the implications of AI for human music-makers: "One big reason for concern about AI composition is that companies have trained their AI on songs written by humans, without compensation: AI developers have consistently massively infringed intellectual property rights, and that is not fair." Elaine said: "AI does not 'float my boat' and reading how much water (which is vital for our existence} is needed to generate this device is very worrying. With AI entering so many aspects of our lives, which is most important - humanity or AI?"

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store