Undrawing the Line: R.K.Laxman

He was the only public intellectual in India who could make sense of the nonsense. The good thing is that he would baulk at being referred to as an intellectual. R.K. Laxman is dead.

Those who think a cartoonist cannot be an intellectual just need to trace his work. He could pare down the tonnes of bibliography and tomes to one box. He distilled them and came up with a trenchant take.

While some of it made us smile, he was certainly not a comic. His work was political and social commentary at its best. And he exposed it without moral pretensions. You instinctively knew that he was not scoring any points or patting himself on the back, something that latter-day cartoonists in India seem to revel in.

He did not appear to be friends with politicians, but he was no enemy either. That imbued him with a practicality and it reached the reader as an objective and concerned voice.

His caricatures were precise, taking one sharp feature to delineate the personality. You knew Indira Gandhi would follow the moment you saw the nose line. I thought he captured her hauteur perfectly. There are many more of other leaders and I would urge you to look for them.

However, his creation of the common man surpassed everything else, so much so that the dhoti-clad, checked raggedy jacket, half bald caricature has become to represent the aam aadmi. No political caps claiming the common man will ever be able to take the place of the Laxman one, because it came from a penetrating eye and a deep sense of anguish that did not disappear to get political mileage.

His common man is an observer occasionally forced to be a participant. But he does not lose himself. And when the need arises he even contributes with his commonness to become rather special. This gesture is not covered with tinsel as a celebration, but rather subtly it gives us a peek into what equality really means.

R.K.Laxman does not need a photograph to be recognised. His lines are intimations of, pardon the hyperbole, immortality.

Sunday ka Funda

A caricature is putting the face of a joke on the body of a truth.— Joseph Conrad

Who defines truth is now in the realm of debate once again. And cartoons and caricatures are being heralded as the new truth.

How truthful is racism and sexism if it is only seen as a sharp comment without any supporting analysis or explanation?

If the pen is in opposition to the sword, why does it not take on more than one kind of sword?

Should we exercise freedom of expression without fear or favour? Or be selective? Here is a selection — some are Charlie Hebdo covers; a couple are responses to the recent terror attack:

The world is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be.—George Santayana

Sunday ka Funda

Much as I detest crass ambitiousness – whether it be in the professional sphere, or the one-upmanship of social interactions, not to speak about the more damaging one of close personal relationships – I find some kinds of politically correct and syrupy assertions to the contrary examples of stepping on toes. They convey that by not doing so, someone will benefit from the munificence. It gives them a higher place to function from.

When this becomes cultural, it results in supremacist ideology. A slightly different view is expressed thus:

“Politeness is organized indifference.”

― Paul Valéry

The idea behind much indifference is also supremacist – it can afford to ignore others by faking concern or shielding real intent. 

Sunday ka Funda

Wrong

You need imagination:

You should have the talent to multitask...and feel indispensable:

...and you should believe that things come round full circle:

Sunday ka Funda

"It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences."

— Audre Lorde

Sunday ka Funda

"We are not free to use today, or to promise tomorrow, because we are already mortgaged to yesterday."

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sunday ka Funda

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful that the garment with which it is clothed?"

- Michelangelo

Sunday ka Funda

Sunday ka Funda

"Through humor, you can soften some of the worst blows that life delivers. And once you find laughter, no matter how painful your situation might be, you can survive it."

- Bill Cosby

Sunday ka Funda

Two ways of seeing. Two attitudes at two different times. If we are not one-dimensional, then we can understand, and be, both.

Sunday ka Funda

- - -

Desecrating the Common Man

Where are the pigeon droppings? Do we spare anyone? Can the ordinary person be a holy cow?

This sculture at Worli Sea face is based on cartoonist R.K.Laxman's Common Man, who whimsically looked on as politicians fought for power and pelf.

We woke up to him every day, his silence his statement. Even those who did not live his kind of life were drawn to him.

There's a flipside to this. Such empathy can be conveniently put on a pedestal. It's not surprising that Anna Hazare had garlanded it one of his outings.

However, what would make people want to vandalise this symbol of 'no one', so to speak? His arm was broken; glasses broken. Was it living up to its identity of being broken, destroyed a bit every day?

It is a public place. Has it hurt anyone? Who would want a piece of spectacles or a fibre-metal limb?

We see that even sculptures at heritage sites, especially of women, are strategically damaged.

Is it anger? At whom? I think it is oneself.

And as the sculpture is taken away to be laid to rest, we know that by such destruction the humble common man has got his martyrdom.

- - -

Images: Mumbai Mirror

Nehru, Ambedkar and a Cartoon

Cartoon controversies have a way of becoming jokes themselves. The latest is in a textbook by the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). The government is trapped. Here is why.

As you can see, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is sitting on a snail. Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister then, is standing with a whip. Apparently, there is accompanying text in the book that blames Ambedkar for the slow pace of the Constitution that he formulated.

There has been the usual house adjourning, shouting, resignations, apologies. Do we need a committee inquiring into this, or do we need a full-fledged ministry?

There are people who think we lack a sense of humour. I think we lack a sense of proportion. I do not like this cartoon.

NDTV reports:

Sketched by renowned cartoonist Shankar in the 1960s, the cartoon has been part of the NCERT book since 2006. Today, MPs waved copies of the cartoon in Parliament and said it insulted both leaders.

Did Shankar sketch this in the 60s? If so, the Constitution was well in place before that. (It transpires that it appeared in his weekly in 1949, which seems more appropriate.) The problem is not with the Constitution, but the execution of what it lays down. Therefore, this is an insult of the Constitution. It is rather amusing to see a crowd of ordinary folks smiling broadly at this display of Nehruvian aggression. The cartoon insults them, too, for it assumes that they the lowly who will get their rights only when things are whipped into shape. There is no concern for dignity of the human being.

Does it insult both leaders? I’d say it backfires on Nehru. He looks more like a horse attendant, than a trainer. Besides, standing behind with a whip, there appears to be an element of Brutus back-stabbing. Ambedkar remains a jockey steadfastly steering.

I’d definitely see it as misconstruing history, although young people these days have access to other avenues of information and such cartoons and derogatory references do not tarnish the work done by people like Ambedkar. Note: I use the term work and not image.

The politicisation has predictably taken on a high caste vs. Dalits hue. It will fall flat. Mayawati has just been exposed for her indulgences, spending Rs 86 crore on renovating her house. Despite rising to power, and I do commend her for managing it against odds irrespective of her personal whims, she has shown scant regard for the Constitution. She has misused Ambedkar’s name for personal glory and treated his persona as her personal fiefdom.

Our political leaders should have found other ways to deal with it. But, no. This is the age of shoo-shaa as we say. Waving copies of it only drew attention to something that most of us would not have noticed. Now, sides will be taken. As I said, the controversies become the jokes.

RSS votes for British Rule...

...and the rest of India wants to be foreign

It is shameful that the chief of a ‘nationalist’ group, the RSS, feels that India was better off during British rule. Isn’t the RSS always crying itself hoarse to protect our heritage even if it means asserting it through violence?

Mohan Bhagwat’s reasoning is flawed, anyway:

"After Independence, the dominance of rich and powerful people in politics and rising inflation have worsened the country's situation, which is worse than what it was during the British rule. All political parties were in power some or the other time during the last 64 years since Independence, but the situation has not improved. Hence, citizens must introspect over what went wrong."

There were rich and powerful princes and even business houses during British rule; they were protected depending on how loyal they were. In that, nothing has changed. How is it worse? Development strategies are now the burden of the Indians in power; during British rule, the wealthy did not have to worry about these issues. They lived in their principalities and worked in what may be charitably called an obsequious federal structure.

The situation of the poor was as bad, if not worse. At least on paper today one can question concepts of slavery and bonded labour. The colonisers, in order to avail of chattels, permitted the brown sahibs their indulgences as reward for fidelity.

It is a bit strange that the RSS that was formed to protest against British rule is now singing its praises. Stranger still is the confusion. Mr. Bhagwat states:

"Today, there is an insistence on education in a foreign language (English), instead of education in the mother tongue. As a result, the importance of the foreign language has increased to a large extent in the country.”

So, what language were the British promoting? How foreign is a language that is constitutional and, more important, just how many people know that language? This is hitting out at straws. Most people learn their local language, and education has to be broad-based. The concept of the ‘mother tongue’ is limiting, and inherited. Listening to lullabies in it is fine, but what beyond that?

Mr. Bhagwat does come to the nitty-gritty:

"Even 64 years after Independence, India is being threatened by China and Pakistan. With rising concerns over internal security, we should give top priority to military education to students to make India strong.”

Obviously, during British rule we had no threat from Pakistan and China. The colonisers were the internal threat. Did Indians have military training then? Except for some of the rebel armies and the revolutionaries, the battles were fought with passion and little else. What we are faced with now are security issues that have to deal with diplomatic ones as well. While there are border disputes, the governments are also talking about other things. There is insurgency, but neither of these two countries will ever colonise us.

Military education would entail the power of procuring licensed weapons. How many such students will make India strong? Why not encourage them to join the army or other legitimate combat forces? Do we want a militarily equipped country without any other form of education? What has the RSS done for India with all the training it gives its members in the camps?

It is pertinent, though not surprising at all, that Mr. Bhagwat makes no mention of the terror within and the several states and groups at war for space and identity.

- - -

I’d like to digress here about this attitude towards what is foreign. It has to do with our utter contempt for what is indigenous. Even parties that talk about our culture and fight petty battles against westernisation want to be like others. UP Chief Minister, through a leap of faith and imagination, thinks Lucknow is like Paris. With those granite pedestals and statues in different materials, this would not even qualify as kitsch. That aside, does Lucknow not have a fine culture of its own? What about those nukkads, the food, the weaves, the ambience?

The whole of India is in rapt attention over the elections in that state and we have to listen to this tripe about a local Paris. Imagine what would happen if Sonia Gandhi were to say that Amethi is like Sicily, or Delhi like Rome, or Mumbai like Milan? Her foreign origin would be skewered yet again.

Obviously, it does not make sense. But, from the lakes in Nainital to the backwaters of Allepey, we are Venice. Mumbai’s leaders want it to be like Singapore or Shanghai, depending on what noodles they prefer.

Can’t we have some pride in what we are and what we can be? Weirdly, when it comes to marketing our filth for filthy lucre, we are quite ready.

End note:

“A judge should live like a hermit but should work like a horse” 

– Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia

The law is an ass, and it is donkeys that work. Perhaps the CJI should have considered the fact that the best horses run races, and hermits live by ‘absenting’ themselves. It might have made more sense if he flipped his statement. Let them work like hermits – sparse with no strings attached, and live like horses – always in a ‘stable’ position wearing blinkers occasionally.

- - -

Images Times, cartoons by Raj Thackeray (courtesy my inbox)

New meeows - 33

Should any person holding high rank in the government take the oath of office in the name of god, any god? In secular India that boasts of being a khichdi culture and tolerant society a student, Kamal Nayan Prabhakar, filed a petition against the Jharkhand Governor Syed Ahmad for taking the oath by uttering “Allah ke naam par” (in the name of Allah). When the High Court dismissed his petition, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Bench pronouncing the verdict said:

“Your client has come with a sinister motive. He has tried to draw a comparison with the Constitution of Pakistan. World over in the mythology, god is described as formless. Why do you want to confine him to a name or image? It is very sickening.”

This is the problem. The petitioner has, technically, the rulebook on his side.

The petition says, under Article 159 of the Constitution, the Governor or other constitutional authorities can take oath only in the name of “god or Eshwar” or he/she may “solemnly affirm.”

This means that in India the formless god has got to have an English or a Hindi/Marathi/Gujarati kind of name. On what grounds is Eshwar permitted? Or even god?

It is fairly obvious that this young man was not merely invoking the law:

The petitioner submitted that if the trend goes on, it might encourage others to use their choice of personal deities like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Hanuman, Ganesh, and Christ at the time of taking oath. 

“A new trend will emerge and will be continued whereby the Governor or any other dignitary of high post having faith in different religions would start taking oath in the name of different gods/spirits according to their beliefs and then there would not be proper following of forms of oaths which may lead to a Constitutional crisis.”

Why will it lead to a Constitutional crisis? Our politicians fall at the feet of godmen, and often follow their advice. They consult astrologers, numerologists, aura readers, and they do use various deities to get into power, even if it means causing mayhem.

Why has this issue been raked up only when someone invoked the name of Allah? Why not Eshwar? Only because it is permitted? Then the ssue of one religion taking prominence should have been raised. It is time that any godly reference is removed and the oath is taken with a mere “solemnly affirm”. We all know they aren’t solemn or affirming anything. On the other hand, since we know that, we may as well allow them to take the name of some god or the other, who we can subsequently blame for any “Constitutional crisis” that might arise.

- - -

Anna with communists and Hindutvawaadis

Another Constitutional crisis or constipated one? Joining the Anna Hazare bandwagon for political gains is like putting the cart before a lame horse. You aren’t going anywhere with this one.

- - -

Amina bint Abdulhalim Nassar was beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practising witchcraft and sorcery, which are banned. One is not quite sure whether she really was a ‘witch’ or she merely did something that a patriarchal society cannot digest.

Many women are considered witches and exorcists are brought in to purge them of the demons that have taken over their bodies. Rather strangely, while the woman in Saudi was killed for it, often such people, including our tantrics, kill to practise such sorcery. Haven’t we heard about the blood of infants to cure impotency? Or children, women and those of lower status killed to solve everything, from financial problems to getting rid of the evil eye or the enemy?

- - -

Those still on the 'Kapil Sibal is an idiot' trip, especially from the media, do tell us how many of the editors/ channel owners allow all kinds of views? Do media houses not push one particular position? Do they not promote political parties and their agendas? Are not certain industrial groups favoured in matters of coverage? Don’t glossies make it a point to ‘like’ some socialites and shun others when their chips are down? Don’t we know of stories that are planted?

So, how does this qualify as freedom of expression when you are a pawn in different games of different people? Does this not amount to pre-screening?

- - -

Does Bombay Times not know the definition of plagiarism? Hindustan Times lifted one of its major pieces (yes, something about two people from the entertainment industry saying they are "just good friends") with the byline. They have not passed it as their own. This is a matter of attribution here, not plagiarism, unless BT has patent over anyone saying they are just good friends. Why HT would pick up something like this at all is a bit strange. Apparently, the media world was abuzz about the writer having quit to join HT. Now is this not earth-shattering? Isn't it like saying Neil Armstrong landed on Mars and not the moon? 

- - -

Reading some of the obit pieces on cartoonist Mario de Miranda one is left with a bit of bitters. Comparisons are fine, but I found in them a sort of tangential and quite unnecessary put-down of R.K.Laxman. Here are excerpts from two pieces:

• "It is the ideal example of two great cartoonists working together in the same publishing house. Much of the credit for the fact that they could do so must go to Mario, for the wonderful human being he was. He made sure his work never clashed with Laxman’s. Laxman handled the newspaper, Mario the magazines. Laxman was primarily a political cartoonist, Mario excelled in the social cartoon."

• "That he was to the magazines of the Times of India what Laxman was to the daily paper. And, dare I say it, that Laxman was the Lata Mangeshkar who subtly ensured that the pedestal was not for sharing?"

This is such rubbish. The TOI had shifted Laxman’s column to the inside pages quite sometime ago. He is ailing and now lives in Pune. Would these same people have written such words had he been active and around in the TOI premises inside his cabin? The newspaper needed him; he did not need it. The TOI of course uses him when it wants. One rarely ever read paeans about Mario Miranda’s work earlier. We heard more about his attendance at parties. And Page 3 was always about events. Always. A small clique of people who propped up each other.

It is a pity that in death Mario is being used as an example of the approachable person he was as opposed to Laxman. Pity because he had his own style, which many later tried to emulate. It was something you could emulate – he used stereotypes, and there was no cheep about sexism where the secretary always wore cleavage-popping frocks, which was often understood that she had to be a Catholic or a Parsi.

He often illustrated a story or told a story, and his travel series were the best. Even his wayfarers and vagabonds seemed to be having a good time. They really were not common men. I am sure Miss Nimbu Paani will feel left out with his exit, but her kind always move on and find someone else to hang around with. That Mario lived in some heritage mansion and not in a rundown little apartment block in Goa just added to the society pages armour of a cultural ambassador.

He probably knew that this is a tail-wagger’s world, which is why the dog was omnipresent in his work. 

The quiet yelp will be the only true test of fidelity to his being.

Sunday ka Funda

- - -

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”

- Lao Tzu

- - -

'Nishan' - Noori (a Pakistani rock band)

Mickey Mouse, Modi and Muslims

The 'joke' and the joker's twitter page

If anyone should be objecting to the Islamised cartoon of Mickey and Minnie mouse, it should be the Disney group. It completely mauls their loved characters. The main job of the guy responsible for this is to make money through the mobile company he owns in a Muslim country. As a report states:

An Egyptian Christian telecom mogul has angered Islamic hard-liners by posting an online cartoon of Mickey Mouse with a beard and Minnie in a face veil. The ultraconservative Islamists, known as Salafis, called the cartoon posted by Naguib Sawiris on Twitter a mockery of Islam.

Naturally, everyone who is not part of the campaign or understands it has been going haha at his joke, although he has since apologised because the shares of his company fell after a call for boycott. Some people have asked, and rightly so, what happens if he had made Mickey and Minnie wear a priest and nun clothes or those of Jewish rabbis? Would it not be considered anti-Christian or anti-Semitic?

This guy lives in Egypt and runs a successful business. So, what makes him find humour in this sort of thing? I mean, it isn’t even worth a titter, unless you are seriously retarded and laugh at people who slip over banana peels. To be honest, when I read a small item, I smiled. I like Mickey and Minnie and thought there would be a cute beard and a nice sexy naqab. Muslims do not have proprietorial rights over beards – some famous names have them. And most of the Hollywood women cover their faces with outsize shades that work just as well as veils. Besides, Egyptians do not dress like that. Haven’t we seen enough of them at Tahrir Square?

But when I saw the cartoon, it does not look like a joke. Mr. Sawiris is no different from the rest of the hate-speechers I discussed following the Geert model. One is unclear about the motives except to push a faith into a corner without taking into account the varied kinds within it. Is Christianity to blame for what some priests do in their chambers? Are all Jews to blame for the Zionist expansionism? Do Hindus stand for the saffron parties? Then why must every Muslim be looked on as a potential cartoon or someone who needs to be poked to elicit anger and show the ‘ugly face of Islam’?

I feel sorry for such tickled imaginations.

- - -

On another note, I got this in the mail. I should hope the ‘accidental reader’ is revisiting the site of accident, for I prefer responding here since there was no reference to the context in the note. I hope s/he understands. Thanks, anyway.


The note

I came across your blog by accident, and it made for delightful reading.

Would you feel safe in India if Narendra Modi were to become the PM by some tyrannical twist of fate?

My response

I assume you are asking this question because of the faith I was born in. Therefore, it means that the general perception is that Mr. Modi is against Muslims and could pose a threat to the community. As chief minister he has to be house-proud and showcase Gujarat as such, which is the reason many local Muslims of a certain class have become part of the economic development. As Prime Minister, he will have to delegate responsibility and not be the sole arbiter. That tendency, however tendentious, ended with Indira Gandhi.

If the BJP/NDA were to prop him up, I am not quite sure he would be ready for it. He is aware of his reputation and he is most certainly not a team person, unless having police officers at his beck and call can be termed a team. On a larger platform, he might have to soften his stand considerably, and since he has pushed the economic agenda he will have to live up to it. The RSS will be at hand to raise the communal bogey and he would not be able to shirk from being a loyal soldier of the cause of ancient heritage. The problem is there is no Babri Masjid to demolish now, so large-scale violence across the whole country would not be easy. Besides, he cannot take the mickey out of the mice who have already scraped the niche market.

The resurgence of the Hindu rashtra idea has pushed the Indian Muslim into backward mode to a large extent in terms of social attitude. This has been the worst legacy of the Hindutvawadis.

The survival of the Modis and Advanis, not to forget the whole saffron brigade, rests not on reclaiming culture but on opposing what they see as another culture. Take that away and they will be left twiddling their thumbs.

So, to answer the question: I would feel safe if Modi became the PM, but sorry – for him and his fractured ideas.

Sunday ka Funda

Sunday ka Funda

“Tradition is a guide and not a jailer”

- William Somerset Maugham

and

“Tradition is the illusion of permanance.”

- Woody Allen

and

- Jeff Parker

Sunday ka Funda

“A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.”

- Henry David Thoreau

Is being rich only about money? Don't we let go off what is not essential or important to us, even if we do not think about doing away with them willfully? Skin sheds.

- - -

And here is a smile for today, a wry smile:

- - -

Got this in my inbox...thanks, Sanjeev