Class 11th Hornbil The Adventure written By Jayant Narlikar
द एडवेंचर (The Adventure) – जयंत नारलीकर
Jayant Narlikar द्वारा लिखा गया प्रोज (Prose) ‘The Adventure‘ एक काल्पनिक कहानी (fictional story) है जो प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे के अनुभवों के माध्यम से इतिहास की प्रकृति (nature of history) और वास्तविकता (reality) पर प्रकाश डालती है। यह पाठ हमें बताता है कि इतिहास हमेशा वैसा नहीं होता जैसा हम सोचते हैं और कैसे छोटी-छोटी घटनाएँ भी बड़े बदलाव (changes) ला सकती हैं।
कहानी की शुरुआत: पुणे की दुर्घटना
कहानी की शुरुआत पुणे में होती है जहाँ प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे एक सार्वजनिक बैठक में जा रहे होते हैं। अपने दोस्त विनय गाडे से बात करते हुए, वे इतिहास (history) और भाग्य (destiny) के बारे में बहस करते हैं। प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे का मानना है कि इतिहास घटनाओं के एक निश्चित क्रम (sequence) में घटित होता है लेकिन विनय गाडे का तर्क है कि इतिहास में कुछ मोड़ ऐसे होते हैं जहाँ भाग्य (destiny) अपनी भूमिका निभाता है। बहस के दौरान एक ट्रक प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे को टक्कर (hits) मार देता है और वे अचेत (unconscious) हो जाते हैं।
एक समानांतर दुनिया (Parallel World) में प्रवेश
जब प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे होश (consciousness) में आते हैं, तो वे खुद को एक समानांतर दुनिया (parallel world) में पाते हैं। यह दुनिया हमारी जैसी ही है, लेकिन इसका इतिहास (history) अलग है। उन्हें हैरानी होती है कि वे बंबई (अब मुंबई) में हैं, लेकिन यहाँ का वातावरण (atmosphere) पूरी तरह बदला हुआ है। रेलवे स्टेशन साफ-सुथरा है, ब्रिटिश अधिकारी (British officials) मौजूद नहीं हैं और ट्रेनें भी अलग हैं। वे देखते हैं कि ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी (East India Company) अभी भी भारत पर शासन (ruling) कर रही है जबकि उनकी अपनी दुनिया में यह कंपनी 1857 के सिपाही विद्रोह के बाद खत्म (ended) हो चुकी थी।
इतिहास का एक अलग मोड़: पानीपत का युद्ध
प्रोफेसर को पता चलता है कि इस वैकल्पिक दुनिया (alternate world) में पानीपत का तीसरा युद्ध (Third Battle of Panipat) मराठों ने जीता था। उनकी अपनी दुनिया में, मराठा हार गए थे। इस जीत के कारण, मराठा भारत की एक बड़ी शक्ति (power) बन गए थे, और ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी कभी भी भारत में पूरी तरह से अपनी पकड़ (hold) नहीं बना पाई थी। यह जीत इतिहास का वह महत्वपूर्ण मोड़ (turning point) था जिसने इस समानांतर दुनिया को उनकी अपनी दुनिया से अलग कर दिया था।
लाइब्रेरी में खोज
प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे बंबई की एक लाइब्रेरी (library) में जाते हैं और इतिहास की किताबें खंगालते (searches) हैं। उन्हें एक ऐसी किताब मिलती है जिसमें पानीपत के युद्ध का विवरण (description) है। इस किताब में लिखा है कि मराठों ने अपनी बहादुरी (bravery) और एक नेतृत्व परिवर्तन (leadership change) के कारण युद्ध जीता था। यह जानकारी उन्हें और भी चौंका (surprises) देती है क्योंकि उनकी दुनिया में ऐसा कुछ नहीं हुआ था।
आज़ाद मैदान में घटना
प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे आज़ाद मैदान में एक सार्वजनिक बैठक में जाते हैं, जहाँ वे भाषण देने (to give a speech) की कोशिश करते हैं। उनकी अपनी दुनिया में वे एक प्रसिद्ध इतिहासकार (historian) थे और भाषण देते थे। लेकिन इस समानांतर दुनिया में, मंच पर कुर्सियाँ खाली नहीं छोड़ी जातीं (जैसे उनकी दुनिया में नेहरू के लिए छोड़ी जाती थी)। जब वे बोलने की कोशिश करते हैं, तो भीड़ (crowd) उन्हें हटा देती है, क्योंकि लोग उस जगह केवल एक अध्यक्ष (chairman/speaker) को सुनना चाहते थे और वहां पहले से एक अध्यक्ष मौजूद था। इस घटना से वे अचेत (unconscious) हो जाते हैं।
वापस अपनी दुनिया में
जब प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे दोबारा होश (consciousness) में आते हैं, तो वे खुद को उसी पुणे के अस्पताल (hospital) में पाते हैं जहाँ ट्रक की टक्कर के बाद उन्हें भर्ती (admitted) कराया गया था। वे अपनी सामान्य दुनिया में वापस आ गए थे। वे अपने दोस्त, वैज्ञानिक (scientist) राजेंद्र देशपांडे को अपने पूरे अनुभव (experience) के बारे में बताते हैं।
वैज्ञानिक स्पष्टीकरण: कैटास्ट्रॉफिक थ्योरी (Catastrophic Theory)
राजेंद्र देशपांडे प्रोफेसर के अनुभव को कैटास्ट्रॉफिक थ्योरी (Catastrophic Theory) से समझाते हैं। यह थ्योरी (theory) कहती है कि प्रकृति में छोटे-छोटे बदलाव (changes) भी बड़े परिणाम (consequences) ला सकते हैं। प्रोफेसर गायतौंडे ने शायद ट्रक की टक्कर के कारण एक अलग वास्तविकता (different reality) में झाँक लिया था। देशपांडे बताते हैं कि वास्तविकता की कई शाखाएँ (multiple branches of reality) हो सकती हैं और प्रोफेसर ने एक ऐसी समानांतर दुनिया का अनुभव किया जहाँ इतिहास की घटनाएँ थोड़ी अलग थीं। प्रोफेसर का चेतना (consciousness) का भटकना ही इस अनुभव का कारण बना।
निष्कर्ष
‘The Adventure ‘ हमें सोचने पर मजबूर करता है कि क्या वैकल्पिक ब्रह्मांड (alternate universes) मौजूद हैं और क्या हमारी छोटी-छोटी पसंद (choices) या घटनाएँ इतिहास (history) को बदल सकती हैं। यह हमें इतिहास की अनिश्चितता (uncertainty of history) और वैज्ञानिक सिद्धांतों (scientific theories) को एक रोचक तरीके से समझाता है, यह दिखाते हुए कि वास्तविकता जितनी हम सोचते हैं उससे कहीं अधिक जटिल (complex) हो सकती है।
Understanding the Text
1. Tick the statements that are true.
- The story is an account of real events.
- False
- The story hinges on a particular historical event.
- True
- Rajendra Deshpande was a historian.
- False (He was a scientist.)
- The places mentioned in the story are all imaginary.
- False (Places like Pune, Bombay, Panipat are real.)
- The story tries to relate history to science.
- True
2. Briefly explain the following statements from the text.
1. “You neither travelled to the past nor the future. You were in the present experiencing a different world.”
- Explanation: Rajendra Deshpande tells Professor Gaitonde that he didn’t actually go back or forward in time. Instead, when the truck hit him, his mind (his consciousness) shifted into a parallel world that existed in the present, but this world had a different history than his own.
2. “You have passed through a fantastic experience: or more correctly, a catastrophic experience.”
- Explanation: Rajendra means that the Professor’s experience was incredibly strange and amazing (“fantastic”). However, from a scientific view, it was a “catastrophic experience” because a small event (the truck collision) caused a huge, sudden shift into a different reality, just as catastrophe theory explains how small changes can lead to big, unpredictable outcomes.
3. Gangadharpant could not help comparing the country he knew with what he was witnessing around him.
- Explanation: Professor Gaitonde kept comparing India as he knew it (where British rule had ended) with the alternate India he was seeing. He was shocked because in this new world, the East India Company still ruled, and British culture was everywhere, which was completely different from his own reality.
4. “The lack of determinism in quantum theory!”
- Explanation: This phrase refers to a scientific idea (from quantum theory) that on a very tiny level (like with electrons), things aren’t perfectly predictable. A particle might be in many places at once until someone observes it. Rajendra uses this concept to suggest that many different realities or “worlds” might exist at the same time.
5. “You need some interaction to cause a transition.”
- Explanation: Rajendra is saying that to move from one reality to another, something has to trigger it. In Professor Gaitonde’s case, the truck collision was the physical trigger. Rajendra also suggests that the Professor’s deep thoughts about history and the Battle of Panipat at the moment of the crash might have been a mental “trigger” for his consciousness to shift.
Talking About the Text
1. Discuss the following statements in groups of two pairs, each pair in a group taking opposite points of view.
(i) A single event may change the course of the history of a nation.
- Pair 1 (Agreeing):
- Argument: Yes, absolutely. The story itself shows this with the Battle of Panipat. If Vishwasrao had died, the Marathas would have lost, and India’s history would have been entirely different, possibly leading to earlier British dominance. Think of other historical “what ifs” – like a different outcome in a major war, or a key leader being assassinated. Small events can have huge ripple effects.
- Examples: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (triggering WWI), discovery of America by Columbus (changing global history), invention of the printing press (revolutionizing knowledge).
- Pair 2 (Disagreeing/Nuance):
- Argument: While a single event might seem to be a “turning point,” it’s often the culmination of many underlying factors. The ‘single event’ is just the visible tip of an iceberg. Even if Vishwasrao had lived, other economic, social, or political weaknesses might have led to a similar outcome eventually, perhaps just delayed. History is more about long-term trends and deeper forces.
- Examples: The decline of the Mughal Empire was not due to one battle but centuries of internal issues. Industrial Revolution wasn’t a single event but a series of innovations and societal shifts.
(ii) Reality is what is directly experienced through the senses.
- Pair 1 (Agreeing – Traditional View):
- Argument: Yes, how else do we know what’s real? We see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. Professor Gaitonde’s experience in the alternate Bombay felt real to him because his senses processed it. If something isn’t perceivable by our senses (or extensions of them like instruments), how can we confirm its existence as “reality”?
- Examples: If you can’t touch fire, do you know it’s hot? If you can’t see or hear, how do you experience the world?
- Pair 2 (Disagreeing – Philosophical/Scientific View from Text):
- Argument: No, the story challenges this. Professor Gaitonde’s senses experienced a different reality, yet his “home” reality was different. This suggests reality can exist beyond our direct sensory perception. Quantum theory (as explained by Rajendra) shows that at the subatomic level, particles exist in multiple states until observed. Our senses only show one manifestation of a potentially multifaceted reality.
- Examples: Dreams feel real but aren’t; scientific concepts like dark matter or multiple dimensions aren’t directly sensed but are hypothesized.
(iii) The methods of inquiry of history, science and philosophy are similar.
- Pair 1 (Agreeing – Seeking Truth):
- Argument: Yes, at their core, all three seek truth and understanding. They involve observation (of past events, natural phenomena, or ideas), analysis, questioning, forming hypotheses, and drawing conclusions based on evidence or logic. They all try to make sense of the world, whether it’s the past, the physical universe, or abstract concepts.
- Examples: Historians use evidence (documents); scientists use experiments; philosophers use logic and reasoning. All are systematic.
- Pair 2 (Disagreeing – Distinct Methodologies):
- Argument: While they all seek truth, their methods are fundamentally different. Science relies on repeatable experiments and falsifiability. History relies on interpreting unique, non-repeatable past events from fragmented evidence. Philosophy uses logical argumentation and abstract thought, often without empirical (experimental) evidence. The “proof” in each field looks very different.
- Examples: You can’t run an experiment to see if the Battle of Panipat would have turned out differently, nor can you prove a philosophical concept like ‘justice’ through a lab test.
2. Answer the following questions.
(i) The story is called ‘The Adventure’. Compare it with the adventure described in ‘We’re Not Afraid to Die…
- “The Adventure” describes a mental and intellectual adventure. Professor Gaitonde’s adventure is a journey through alternate history and parallel realities, a philosophical and scientific exploration triggered by a physical accident. It’s about a discovery of knowledge and understanding the nature of reality. He doesn’t face physical danger in the same way, but his mind undergoes a profound experience that challenges his understanding of the world.
- “We’re Not Afraid to Die…” describes a physical adventure of survival against extreme natural forces. It’s a harrowing tale of a family battling a monstrous storm at sea, facing life-threatening situations, and overcoming immense physical challenges through courage, resilience, and teamwork. The “adventure” here is about facing immediate danger and literally staying alive.
- Comparison: The key difference is the nature of the adventure. ‘The Adventure’ is largely intellectual/existential, exploring ideas of time and reality. ‘We’re Not Afraid to Die…’ is a physical survival story, focused on overcoming immediate external threats. Both involve unexpected journeys and facing the unknown, but one is internal and the other is external.
(ii) Why do you think Professor Gaitonde decided never to preside over meetings again?
- Professor Gaitonde decided never to preside over meetings again primarily because of his traumatic experience at Azad Maidan in the alternate world.
- In his own world, he was used to giving presidential addresses where people listened respectfully.
- In the alternate world, his attempt to speak from the unoccupied presidential chair was met with extreme hostility, ridicule, and physical assault (tomatoes, eggs, being bodily ejected) by the crowd.
- This violent rejection of his deeply held belief about how meetings should be conducted, combined with the shock of being in a different reality, was deeply disturbing.
- His “thousandth address” in that alternate world ended in humiliation and violence, making him realize that the “Professor Gaitonde” who presided over meetings in his past no longer exists, and he was fundamentally changed by the experience. He now has a real-life, “catastrophic” adventure to recount, which is far more profound than any academic lecture.