Whose yoga is it, anyway?

After this Yoga Day is over, nobody will give a damn about it, neither those promoting it nor those opposing it.

As we celebrate the occasion on June 21, it becomes evident that unlike the rest of the world, for Indians it is not only about physical wellbeing. It takes a very simplistic mind to suggest that the sudden interest in yoga is about health. If that were the priority, then our health infrastructure would be revamped and several other cures propagated.

Perhaps those who perform their asanas and deep breathing might have gone about it as they always do but for the added burden of being made the keepers of a cultural heritage. This becomes more potent when you have to deal with what appear to be enemies of yoga. Supporting yoga today is also about patriotism.

"Yoga is the best soft power of India," said external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj. Inherent in the statement is the belief that we can colonise others with it, and indeed with so many other countries adopting it it is possible to indulge in such delusion, especially where the West is concerned.

The same goes for the prime minister. When Narendra Modi suggested to the UN to institute a day celebrating yoga, he was claiming heritage, capitalising on the foreign interest, and appealing to the NRI community by taking care not to use Hindutva evangelism and spoil their case in their adopted lands.

More than culture, it is an assertion of patent rights. Our foreign obsession often takes us to our own cultural moorings only after they've been accepted overseas, largely by the whites. Do we hear about blacks and yoga? There is no way that the foreigners enamoured of yoga are doing so solely due to its physical benefits. They like the exotica that accompanies it — the incense, the spiritual poses, the history and the mythography of finding the self from the navel to the seat of all desire at the base of the lower back, as the kundalini rises.

Added to this is the guilt that they are taking over yoga. There has been much debate for years about the appropriation. This is not quite true for Indian gurus from Maharishi Mahesh yogi to Deepak Chopra made money overseas and gained currency in the land of their origin because of their famous clientele overseas. There might be a few mom & pop type yoga stores, but it is more likely that it is preferred to be first experienced in its 'natural' environment.

The truth is that yoga has been chosen for special attention simply because it is a thriving industry, and not because India wants to culturally invade the world or the minorities. However, the 'yoga is anti-Islam, anti-Christianity' lobbies come in handy because the majority of middle-class Indians, avaricious as they are, like a moral core to justify their greed.

With the subtle implication that this is an ancient art form that needs to be protected and propagated, they feel assuaged. They carry history in their aspiring to be nimble forms.

It was bad enough that certain Muslim groups and individuals started talking about how yoga is anti-Islam, but it is even worse to see the ridiculous attempts to co-opt other Muslims. Photographs of maulvis and people wearing burqas and skull caps holding their noses and contorting their bodies just make it appear like the farce it is turning out to be.

It started with this nonsense about how Muslims can't do the surya namaskar because in Islam you are not supposed to worship any form. Not everybody who does yoga worships the sun or the moon or anything. Why even bring this up? This gave Yogi Adityanath just the kind of opportunity he waits for:

"Sun is the source of life giving energy. Whoever thinks Sun is communal, I would like to humbly request them to drown themselves in the sea or they should stay in a dark cell."

These Muslims deserve his idiocy that misinterprets their intent and even communalises the sun. At the other end is Sakshi Maharaj who called himself a true Muslim and Prophet Mohammed a great yogi. Some others said namaaz is like yoga.

Some Muslims asserted that they are not supposed to say 'Om' while doing deep meditation, and somebody suggested they could replace it with 'Ameen'. You really do not need either, and if yoga is all about health then just get on with it. By creating a controversy, bigoted Muslims have just played into the hands of the other bigots, and made themselves into a laughing stock to be 'saved' by the likes of Baba Ramdev.

Christians too have objected because yoga is "not compatible with Christianity". An event organized by drug rehab NGO Kripa is in trouble because many from the community believe that Fr. Joe Pereira is more like a Hindu yoga guru. A parishioner said, "...yoga is not Biblical. If a priest wants to organise something, he should do it within the framework of the Christian world."

Everyone seems to want to score points.

Mr Modi, despite all the criticism the event has generated, has used what has always been there to garner more attention for himself. He wants to ensure that this occasion gets into the Guinness Book. Large contingents will be out, including police personnel and bureaucrats.

A yoga instructor at the class for public servants was quoted as saying:

“They heard it on TV, and they are running toward the yoga. The prime minister is the king. If the king does something, that is very effective. And this time, our king is doing yoga.”

School students who anyway are expected to participated in Physical Training (PT) classes are being brainwashed. Is this about general wellbeing? One politician, whatever be his motives, seems to have got it mostly right. Karnataka Social Welfare Minister Anjanaiah said:

"Yoga is for lazy people, especially people belonging to well to do families. They do not have time for exercise in the open including taking a walk...People should ask their children to indulge themselves in playing outdoor sports including running and long walks instead of yoga."

Have you seen a poor person practise, much less discuss, yoga? Yoga is essentially for the angst-ridden elite looking for reprieve or the neo-enlightened who think it is a non-invasive body cleanser. Very few use it as an alternative to medicine. And now with the supposed renaissance, it has become a symbol of political opportunism camouflaging as culture. Forget yoga, we need a new culture.

--

The Taliban has now objected to Pakistanis celebrating the occasion, so many events have been cancelled. An earlier piece I wrote on Pakistan on an Indian spiritual trip

Bread and Wine

The Last Supper is not just Resurrection. It seems a challenge to authority, to the haters, to those who kill, and who cannot stand dissent. It is rebirth, not of oneself but of those who stand by you. It is a lesson to face the traitor head-on, but also to keep people guessing about the identity of the one who betrays — in that way, everyone is on their toes.

Jesus was a sharp man. He went through tribulations, yet he also knew he was destined to be much more than one nailed to the Cross. There has been much analysis of the famous eponymous painting of the event by Leonardo da Vinci, including the sort of food displayed. The salt-shaker in repose as bad omen; the plate before Judas being empty; the choice of fish - did Christ get his apostles from among the fishermen?

Bread and wine, of course, mean what has been said:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

Would remembrance imply rejuvenation of those who remember? Are they the only chosen ones?

I am not qualified enough to discuss the symbolism in religious terms, or even in detail. Also, I was quite intrigued by this other painting by Jacopo Tintoretto:

It is darker, has more happening, and except for the light near Jesus, the rest is almost mundane. Does it need the routine to show up brilliance or does brilliance put everything and everybody else in the shade?

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (John 6:53-58)

Was this spiritual barter? Or, is it the submergence of flesh to live in another (off another?)? If the eternal is based on the temporal, then is it really eternal?

PS: It took a Mad takeoff, with cellphones playing an important role, to suggest that, indeed, the temporal is eternal, connecting, staying in 'touch' with others and, therefore oneself.

© Farzana Versey

A shrewd Ramzan welcome

From today, the 2011 Christian Prayer event is being organised. What is so significant about it?

Coinciding with Ramadan (1 - 30 August 2011) Christians from around the world will be praying in unity for the Muslim world.

Obviously, it is not about the ones praying, but those who need these prayers. Such poppycock. And they are using this month to tom=tom that “Muslims are our neighbours”. So? Do they pray for their immediate meigbours? The hoboes? The unemployed? The drug addicts? The rapists? The victims?

Not only is this typical, it is also a marketing tool. You can order DVDs and books and they have “prayer articles for all the major Mulsim countries and many unreached Muslim people groups”.

The Muslims, at least those who follow certain tenets, will be praying and have been praying. This is just studied kindness. Well, go ahead. And while you are at it, just drop a line or two to god about the weeds in your garden.

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.

The Anti-Islamism Hobby Horse: Out of the Wilders

The Anti-Islamism Hobby Horse 

Out of the Wilders
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, June 24-26

It was indeed “a beautiful day” as Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, wrote after being acquitted for hate speech against Islam. It was a beautiful day not because it was a victory for freedom of speech, but because what Wilders has been doing is akin to sowing wild oats. One should hope he has now got his hormonal kicks and can get down to real political debate.

The first thing he needs to realise in a secular set-up is that religion ought to have no place in such debates. He comes with a huge baggage of a right-winger and a devout Roman Catholic. If this is his personal viewpoint, then it is perfectly valid – he can hate anything he likes. Does it have any place in public discourse? He writes:

“My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions.”

It is indeed possible to see religion through a political prism, and most societies do so as it is easier than selling new ideologies. Wilders 'Party for Freedom' (PVV) has risen to a large extent due to his rabid stance. Perhaps he does not have a mirror around to show him that his criticism of Islam comes from projection. His audience is clearly taken in by his totalitarian views and his own expansionism is quite evident.

It is inadvertently amusing when he says “now it is legal to criticise Islam”. This sounds like a statement of an addict seeking legitimacy for his habit. It begs the question: Why is it important to criticise Islam?

A Guardian profile of February 2008 states:

“Likening the Islamic sacred text to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, he wants the ‘fascist Koran’ outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim ‘criminals’ stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported ‘back where they came from’. But he has nothing against Muslims. ‘I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people’.”

It would have been nice if he could see culture more holistically instead of through the hole of some Arabian Nights dark fantasy, unless he is seriously filigree-resistant. More seriously, where does he draw the line between Muslims and Islam? His comments would have made sense had he been an atheist or born a Muslim and concerned about the state of people in societies that may shackle them due to stringent laws. He lives in the west and is riding on anti-Islamism because it happens to be at the centre of political turmoil in many parts of the globe. Besides internal strife, much of religious resurgence has been a result of western intrusion in such territories.

One commiserates with Wilder about Muslim criminals, but what about criminals belonging to other faiths? What if the Muslims do not have any criminal record and are contributing in professional capacities or as unskilled labour to these societies? Would being Muslim be sufficient to qualify as a crime? Should Muslim societies return the favour by deporting westerners who work in their countries?

The action against hate speech is not restricted to Muslims. “The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either ‘publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people’ or ‘in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished’.” These are Wilders’ own words.

The prosecution stated:

“Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable.” 

So, how can his acquittal be a victory for freedom of speech when it goes against the law? Why has he been treated with kid gloves? It is likely that had someone been critical of homosexuals or the disabled there might not have been a case at all except for a few rumblings.

* * *

This leads to the other question: Why do Muslims always protest?

It is a disturbing trend for it works against the Muslims more than anyone else. But can anyone point out to concerted hate speeches against other religions by non-militant Islamists, except for calling them infidels? If anything, it is the liberal Muslims who are critical of holy cows among Muslims as well as others. Then there are ‘career Muslims’ who have had a brush with censorship and get catapulted to fame solely on that basis. Take the case of Ayaan Ali Hirsi, Dutch writer-activist. She was included in Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people in 2005, a year after Theo Van Gogh was killed for his film ‘Submission’ based on her script. She had already decided on her position, but her public stance was that the brutal killing made her aware:

“Militant Islam shuts down any criticism of Koran. Be it in any language – Chinese, Hindi, English – even if you touch upon Koran, all discussion ends with accusations of ‘traitor’ and ‘infidel’ hurled at you.”

One is not quite sure about a term like “militant Islam”, for those who believe it is militant cannot be Islamic. For them such militancy would be internalised. If the reference is to terrorists, then Islam is their calling card, although one does not have to restate that more Muslims have been killed due to this so-called Islamic militancy. It is unfortunate that people do not comprehend such a glaring fact.

One can empathise with Ali for being hounded by a bunch of fanatics, which is not how the debates deal with such issues by confining their ire to the fringe elements. There are blanket assertions about the faith with militancy added as a mere prefix. Ali’s views on the west reveal a certain cosy understanding:

“The idea that the US is conspiring against Islam is devised by vested interests such as Iran and Saudi Arabia because they resist the American demand for democratization, despite years of aid. In both Europe and the US there’s a fertile liberal ground to do anything.”

Indeed. You can burn the Koran, you can create paranoia, you can decide what people ought to wear and not wear. Aid comes with strings attached and the US has a relationship of convenience with Saudi Arabia. It is amazing that liberal commentators brazenly propagate the idea of American supremacy and how it can “demand democratization” when it has its snide unstated policies in place regarding the ‘others’ within its shores. The anti-Islamists are coddled because they can be used to showcase sympathy. Bring on the stand-up comics, the activists, the bold ones who stick their fatwa-ed necks out. It is the western establishments that use them and place a higher price on their heads than the militant groups. They are the prized jockeys for the multicultural derby.

Wilders had described his film ‘Fitna’ most audaciously:

“It’s like a walk through the Koran. My intention is to show the real face of Islam. I see it as a threat. I’m trying to use images to show that what’s written in the Koran is giving incentives to people all over the world. On a daily basis Moroccan youths are beating up homosexuals on the streets of Amsterdam.”

Are there no cops in Amsterdam to arrest these youths? Are they beating up these homosexuals because they have taken a walk through the Koran? Or is it homophobia that might have nothing to do with religion?

Social consciousness is being married to faith in every sphere and it has snowballed to such an extent that one cannot discuss any issue without the crutch of religion. While among some circles there is shock that liberals have come together with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no one blinks when Tony Blair converts to Catholicism, a Bishop heads a government, the oath of office is taken in the name of god, courts make you swear on holy books, bedside draws in hotels in most parts of the world have a copy of the Bible, ailing members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood donations because it goes against their faith and missionary movements have spread their tentacles, especially in poverty-stricken areas. They offer sops for conversion.

* * *

What differentiates them from Islam, then? They do not have fatwas and jihad. It is purely a matter of semantics. The grammar of belief begins with full stops. It cannot grow because its fate has been sealed. Evolution – no, not the one that rattled the Christian Garden of Eden – is anathema because it is akin less to betrayal and more to freeing oneself from non-cognisable fences.

The concept of the infidel is to shirk any outside influence. At the scriptural level it was to create a following. In contemporary times it works as community. The books of all religions have some such survival mechanism. Christianity states:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” (2 Cor.6:14-17)

There are passages that are even more aggressive. The moot point is that books don’t talk. There has to be an apparatus that connects the dots and creates craters from them.

An apt analogy would be the priesthood. Joseph McCabe discussing the Psychology of Religion has brought in this important dimension:

“The American population is especially composed of religious, and often fanatical, contingents from nations of the old world who had suffered persecution; and even in the last hundred years the main streams of immigration (Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, etc.) have predominantly brought religious fanatics, because they naturally came from the poorest, least educated, and most overcrowded countries, which means the most religious.

“Now consider the fortunes of the most fanatical of them all, the Roman Catholics, when the great expansion of the American people toward the Pacific took place in the nineteenth century. It is true that there were not priests enough to found chapels wherever a few hundred Catholics settled – a difficulty which Rome can always overcome by consecrating German or Belgian peasants and drafting them abroad – but the main point was that priests were generally disinclined to leave Boston and Philadelphia and rough it with the western pioneers. The result was that in a few decades literally millions of these fanatical Catholics lost all interest in religion…The New York Freeman's Journal in the same year (1898) put the loss at twenty millions, and I have shown from immigration analyses that the loss was at least fourteen or fifteen millions. In other words, the most fanatical of all religious adherents fell away in masses when there were no priests to bother them, and, although priests came along as soon as there was money enough in any town to give a middle-class income to an ordained peasant, they never recovered the apostates or (in most cases) their children.”

The recovery has taken place as part of the marketing prototype to create a demand. The demand is accelerated when there is competition. Acquisitiveness is about having what the other does not. A health drink will show a child triumph over another who ends up with a bloodied nose.

All religions have been born with blood trails. The footprints have coagulated. The journey is, therefore, a tribute to fossilisation. Middle-men swoop down on the hardened remains – whether it is militants, evangelists or Wilders-like demagogues. It is business for these predator-priests of frisson.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents

Swami Agnivesh's Double Barrel

He wears orange robes and then appears on behalf of 'civil society'. Why does no one pull up Swami Agnivesh for mixing religion and politics?

Now during a conference with Syed Shah Geelani of the Hurriyat Conference he talked about aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Very slyly he sneaked in a controversial comment about the Amarnath Yatra. Had he delved into the security issues, it would have some validity. Instead, he called the ice formation of the Shivalinga melting a fraud, so what faith was this?

I have a few points:

1. Hindu religion believes in idol worship and all idols are made of some material that breaks. Why, some are put out at sea. When he was initiated, did he not worship anything?

2. In dargahs, the tombstones are indicators of a dead saint. Often, the body is not even buried there and, if it is, it would have degenerated over a period of time. Why are they so popular?

3. The embalmed body of St. Francis Xavier in Goa is a religious and tourist attraction. What value does it have?

Are all of these frauds? A voice should be raised against superstition and blind belief and especially if it causes friction among different groups. As I mentioned, the Amarnath Yatra does result in security issues, and in the past caused deaths during clashes. What does the Swami have to say about that?

His opportunism is clearly visible because he chose to make the comment in Kashmir where he was meeting a separatist leader. His so-called concern for the Kashmiri people gets a setback because often they help in the smooth running of the pilgrimage.

His is politicking of the worst kind, for he portrays himself as a spokesperson of Kashmiris and by default all Indian Muslims. This is what causes problems.

If he wants to address the fraud in the Hindu faith, then he should go where the action is and give his two bits or lecture from some temple or ashram pulpit. And tell us why he is wearing those saffron robes.

Civil society does not need moonlighting sadhus.

Raiments and the Church

Adam and Eve - Rubens

The Church of England got into a bit of a tangle when its website spoke flatteringly about nudity in the Spirit of Living section on its website.

Under a section headed ‘New Age’, the item said airbrushed models created “an unhealthy, unnatural model of perfection”. In contrast, it continued, “naturism is a liberating lifestyle and belief which encourages self-respect, respect for others and for the environment, and embodies freedom and a unique sense of communion with nature. Christian naturists see this as God’s design for living. It is purposefully non-erotic and non-sexual and engenders a wholesome appreciation of self and others.”

There is much going for Naturism as non-erotica. Adam and Eve were not born clothed, but even though there was no one around they chose to wear fig leaves. What prevented them from being 'liberated'?

How does this particular Church authority assume that people will not be judged for their imperfections or there will not be an attempt to seek perfection? How much of religious iconography has dared to create imperfect imagery – in art or otherwise?

The body is being taken over by faith quite openly although it always has do0ne so under cover in every religion. There are so many strictures. This is, therefore, surprising. It could become a means of proselytising where those who would feel awkward or ashamed might shed their clothes because it has been ordained by god.

It has obviously got a lot of flak and the photograph of the back of a naked man has been removed from the site. Why the back? Is it not evidence of shame? Or is it about going away from set ideas?

The cathedral did not fail to mention, “Otherwise we encourage prurience and those with impure motives.”

Prurience and liberation do not go together and motives cannot be gauged in bodies.

Not wanted -Muslims in Germany?

Everyone is upset with Germany’s interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, for saying, “Islam in Germany is not something substantiated by history at any point.”

Instead of seeing it as a “slap in the face of Muslims”, as Lamya Kaddor, chairperson of the Liberal-Islamic Union in Germany is seeing it, the more pertinent query is about the minister’s belief that successful integration needs “two things: knowledge of the social reality in Germany and a clear awareness of the western Christian origin of our culture”.

There will be indepth analyses, but one thing is clear: There is a huge identity tussle in Western Europe and if it is getting them in touch with their roots, then Islam should be given credit.

The two points mentioned by the minister have two simple answers:

• The social reality of Germany includes immigrants and not only the four million Muslims. While it is important for them to learn the language, will it integrate them? Unskilled migrants often don’t need to communicate with their distant bosses. There are several examples and we cannot use this to alienate anyone. Our own migrants to the Gulf regions know little or no Arabic and they constitute a huge chunk of the workforce at every level. With so many multinationals in India, we see foreign women and men and they do not speak Hindi, even if they are working for NGOs.

• Regarding the Western Christian origin of German culture, besides the evolution to the idea of the supreme Aryan race to several others, it has not been static. However, I am glad the minister has put it this way. For long the West has been hiding behind the hypocritical curtain of the division of state and religion. It used the negative images of Islam as an example of how rotten it is to have these two aspects together. The fact is that western nations have always had the Christian subtext.

At last someone has voiced it clearly. Now we can look at these nations in the same manner in which they look at others.

Booth capturing? Lauren goes Islamic...ho-hum

There is something about Tony Blair and his extended family that has an obsession with religion and these sudden flashes of light. His wife Cherie chose to wear crystals and do reiki to get her energy all up. Tony became a Catholic and maybe that inspired him to write a version of the Confession in his memoirs. Now his sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, has converted to Islam because of some “holy experience” in Iran.

"It was a Tuesday evening and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy.”

Oh dear. She should tell this to the ayatollahs instead of giving interviews about it. They’d kick her peaches and cream English ass for such blasphemy. I know many people see religion as some sort of ‘kick’ and being lost in a sublime experience, but what about the rituals? Our Lauren has no problems. Her morphine shot has given her a headache fit enough for her to follow the regimen. As a report states:

(She) now wears a hijab whenever she leaves her home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque whenever she can.

Funny. Which mosques do women visit? Does the media not have any knowledge? I assume she leaves home often, so what’s the need to state that she covers her head whenever she steps out?

I don’t know about Lauren’s motives, but her timing is perfect. She is now dissing Tony for his book, saying that he is not a human being. I suppose she would have to study her new religion and figure out how not to address male members of the family in this manner and what qualifies as a human.

Before her spiritual awakening in Iran, she had been "sympathetic" to Islam and has spent considerable time working in Palestine, she said, adding that she hoped her conversion would help Blair change his presumptions about Islam.

Pother! Keep your sympathy to yourself. There are several Christians in Palestine and the media is unnecessarily clubbing her being “stuck in the Gaza strip” along with this news. Besides, you do not have to be a Muslim to change people’s perceptions. You just need to keep your eyes open. It is time for her to shut up and go beyond page 60 of the Quran she is currently at. Why are these minutiae of such importance? She could just as well read War and Peace for all we care.

The Kerala Professor and the Sharia

This is the sort of news that revolts, irrespective of the questions that will be raised.

In a gruesome incident, suspected religious extremists chopped off the right hand of TJ Joseph, a Malayalam professor at Newman’s College, under suspension since March for allegedly preparing a question paper with derogatory references to Prophet Muhammad, at Muvattupuzha in Ernakulam district on Sunday morning. The police took into custody 15 persons, reportedly activists of Islamist resistance outfit NDF (presently Popular Front of India), for questioning.

How many people were aware of such an organisation? Is the state government not supposed to keep a check on them? There were already protests in March after the question paper controversy. Why did the attackers wait till July?

There is no scope for dilly-dallying here. They had absolutely no business to harm the professor or even threaten him. If they were disturbed by the references to the Prophet, they could have used legal recourse. This group has been bundled as an Islamist outfit. Had they been true believers they would not have conducted this horrific act in the month of Ramzan. They are just criminals who probably have political aspirations.

I am aware that someone will turn around and say that they are only upholding the spirit of Islam and jihad. The BJP has jumped in already:

Demanding an NIA probe into the attack on the college professor, Kerala BJP president V Muraleedharan asked the Home Ministry not to encourage Talibanism in the State. “The Thodupuzha incident proves that Islamic terrorism has strengthened in Kerala. We are not blaming any particular outfit for that. But a tendency to nurture Talibanism should not be there,” he said in Thiruvananthapuram.

As someone quite familiar with Kerala, I can say that this was one state that seemed to be the least communal. Regionalism, too, was limited. You could hardly every tell the community to which a Keralite belonged – they speak the same language, dress in similar fashion, eat the same food. They are liberate and well-read as well. The Gulf traffic proved to be an economic boom and irrespective of what faith they believed in, they all constructed hideous-looking houses when they returned on ‘holydess’.

Would a stray Madani, who incidentally has not yet been found culpable in the Bangalore blasts case, change the attitude of the Keralite?

The chopping of the professor’s hand is a judicial matter. If this group was trying to follow the Sharia, then there is no place for it in India. They have to follow the Constitution. As I said, if the reference to the Prophet has bothered them, then they should take up the matter with the authorities. I do not know what prompted the professor to make derogatory references in a language paper. The college is a Christian one and affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. And he was sacked. Why? Did the authorities think he had done something wrong? Was that probed? The dismissal took effect from September 1.

Who are these lumpen elements, then? Why did they wait for all these months? I hope they are arrested and given adequate punishment. More importantly, I hope they are arrested on charges of threatening, attacking and causing bodily harm.

Just as I believe they should be tried according to the Indian Constitution, their accusers should not try them in their kangaroo courts on charges of ‘Talibanism’. It’s not there in our statute books. And the family’s forgiveness in July does not count.

The case should have been solved by now. Is his dismissal more damaging? Will it get more attention?

Abstinence and egotism

Now that we know Muslims can just do it, courtesy Junoon’s Salman Ahmad, how are believers to manage abstinence? You forsake food, water and other bodily needs for a month and transform into a seraph rather than a siren or a rake.

This sort of austerity is disturbing. On a trip to a Muslim country I was told that even stores that stock pork products to cater to their foreign clientele would continue to do so but behind curtains; the same applies to restaurants in malls where they put up a screen. It is utterly debasing. Why must people who want to eat be made to feel guilty? Do Muslims who stay away from food spare a thought for the jobless in shanties lying on cardboard sheets on stone floors, for whom going hungry is not a matter of option?

It isn’t only about Islam. Hinduism too loves good abstainers. Each day is designated for a god and people fast depending on which deity makes their tummies rumble the most. Christianity relies a great deal on suffering. Mother Teresa’s emphasis on a beautiful death denied people medical facilities. Let us not forget the irony of holy men who perform miracles that produce Rolex watches out of thin air! The Jain devotee who wishes to get initiated into sainthood has to pull out each hair from his head. Years ago when a diamond merchant’s son decided to give up the material life, his family spent crores of rupees on the celebrations and threw precious stones along the route. No one thought of building a hospital or a school. Self-denial is desperate for an immediate halo.

I am not dismissing the believer’s need to follow rituals, but why make a public display of it? Just as flaunting ostentation is déclassé, making a show of abjurance is equally gauche and rather hypocritical if you have a post-sunset a la carte menu. Look around at discussion boards where there is much talk about appropriate cohabitation timings. In this context, Salman Ahmad’s ideas easily qualify him to be a televangelist advising people on how the religion is “good, awesome and great”. His film called Islam sexy. The contextual explanatory analogy is weird: “Westerners talk about ‘Africa being sexy’ to dispel the commonly held image of a region and a people who are mired in pandemic diseases like HIV and Aids, extreme poverty, despair and violence. It’s a way of showing the other side of Africa just as I’m trying to show another side of Islam which is tolerant, thought-provoking and modern.”

If westerners refer to Africa as sexy, they are sick to the bone, the bones of the poor Africans they capitalise on. This is what happens when you use the paradigm of religious and cultural beauty and sell it to the Occident. We can be amused by such flaccid attempts for they posit themselves against cruel fundamentalists. Given that human beings do not lead uniform lives, these guys can turn around and justify perversions too. Despicable as it may sound, we have instances of human sacrifice and virgin blood being offered in several faiths to appease gods. Denying one person dignity and life is used to add to another’s potency — sexual or as power play.

Gandhi, who mastered the art of abstinence, had the luxury of publicly ‘experimenting with truth’. The point is: were those at the receiving end mere guinea pigs? It is worth ruminating that each time we deny ourselves something, it is a choice we make that most cannot. Abstinence is, therefore, just a bonsai version of indulgence.

- - -

Published in Express Tribune, August 10, 2010

Does the Pope understand Crime?

For the first time since the raging allegations against the sexual abuse scandal involving a priest, Pope Benedict has publicly stated:

“Now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognize what is wrong in our lives.”

It is a telling comment that he refers to the attack from the world. It is a masochistic way of looking at things. Had there been no attack, would there be no need for penance? This penance too is part of “obedience to God”. Has god been in any manner demeaned? Has god been tarnished? No. The Church is an institution, and like all religious institutions it has a set hierarchy, sub-sects and people in charge. They ought to be pulled up and be seen as criminals for committing crimes against others, as they would be in civil society.

One increasingly notices that ashrams, madrassas, convents and churches are being used by a few for abusive activities that go contrary to what they stand for and wish to portray. Due to the holy tag attached to them, it is difficult to discover the improprieties and to pull them up and try them as one would in regular cases.

The pontiff denounced Nazis and Communism and alluded in his speech that “subtle, or even less than subtle, aggressions against the Church show how this conformism can be a real dictatorship.”

Is he implying that the Church is not conformist? Religion conforms more than anything else, whether it is monotheistic faiths with one holy book, a god, angels or polytheistic faiths with several gods and their own little value systems. The believer has got to believe in these and conform to the rituals of that faith. How is any of this non-conformist?

He called upon the faithful to “open themselves to forgiveness, to prepare themselves for forgiveness, allow themselves to be transformed. The sorrow of penitence, that is of purification and transformation, that sorrow is grace. Because it is renewal, it is a work of divine mercy.”

In short, do what you want, but keep your options open to seek retribution, not in the real world for real reasons, but because you need divine mercy.

Those poor kids and the women who are being molested in places of worship do not count. Some seers have the audacity to use the ruse of ‘purification’ for such sexual rituals.

- - -

This is from the German satire magazine Titanic. This is its April issue cover on ‘The church today’:

The Real Face?

Be prepared! Sounds like a dire warning, especially if what is to be unveiled is a 3-D image of Jesus Christ according to digital technology.

Computer artists – and I shall let that term go – have used information available from the 14-foot long Shroud of Turin, the only available evidence that had blood. dirt and stains. History Channel is to air ‘The Real Face of Jesus’ that used the impression they got from the linen on the body of Christ.

"The shroud wasn't hanging on the wall - it was wrapping a corpse. The face is hidden in there. By imitating those distortions we could take the image and put it back into shape and figure out what the face looked like. It gave us a blueprint," said Ray Downing from the computer imaging company.

Is it important to know what the man looked like? Christianity, like most faith systems, crosses cultures and borders. People like to imbue their god-figures, as they do their legends, with a dose of the local culture. It is true that thus far Christ has been portrayed in the Caucasian mould despite not being from the region. This is part of the way religions grow and are taken over by the superior races.

However, we cannot discount that paintings and sculptures by artists too took liberty when portraying such images. Was it artistic license or a personal fervor? Unless it was within the confines of the church, would such images be dictated to by those in charge of a version of the faith?

Christ has most often been shown on the Cross in popular culture because that is what he symbolised. It then begs the question whether his potency remained as symbol or does humanising him have greater value?

Would this digital face really be seen as the true face? It is scientifically fascinating and therefore ironical that when there are doubts about the Shroud itself, we have a community of rationalists trying to recreate a face based on it.
As a non-religious person who understands the idea of belief, I think that faith in anything depends not on a figure but on one’s own sense of connecting. If you believe in the power of the ocean, then you will not alter your opinion based on changing tides. Images are like tides.

And portraits do convey more about what the artist thinks than what the subject was.

- - -

The Real Face of Christ

Lindt it or lump it?

Minarets don’t really float my boat, but to ban them? That too in Switzerland by a referendum from the people. 57.5 percent voted in favour. It has been opposed by the Swiss government, parliament, business groups and churches but given the thumbs up by the Right wing Swiss People’s Party.

Here are a few issues raised and it reveals the hollowness that has come to apply to political discourses:

There are only four minarets among the tens of thousands of church spires in Switzerland but the SVP campaigned against them as a symbol of Islamic political influence, which it claimed could eventually undermine the nation's Christian values and democracy.

Since when has Switzerland become a Christian nation? Values cannot be politicised. Minarets do not stand for political influence. Muslims constitute about five percent of the population, and they are mostly from East Europe which can hardly claim to be symbols of Islam.

The spires are traditionally used to make the call for prayers at mosques but Swiss noise control regulations have already stopped them from being used for that purpose; instead, they became an architectural symbol of the Islamic faith. The ban on minarets does not stop the building of mosques, and Muslims were still free to practise their faith.

This is weird. A muezzin could shout from atop a dome as well. And what about church bells? Personally, I am against the call to the faithful at unearthly hours and would rather they invest in alarm clocks, but to use this as a stick to beat a community with is ridiculous.

Embarrassed government spokesmen agreed that the ban would "serve the interests of extremist circles" only, and Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey claimed that a yes vote "could make Switzerland a target for Islamic terrorism".

Wow. Even when they are decrying the ban, they are slyly suggesting that this could result in a backlash. Did they want it? Switzerland was not attacked in the two world wars. During the First war, Lenin lived there; it managed to remain unscathed during the WW 11 by playing along with the Germans, although it did not fall into the Nazi trap.

If it has managed to work its way around such major upheavals in history what is the fear now? Mosques have been attacked these past two weeks.

Ulrich Schluer, an SVP politician has been holding forth:

"We compare our situation to Germany, France or England and the problems they have in their suburbs. That is what we do not want here. Mosques are not part of freedom of religion. This is not against Islam. The minaret is a symbol . . . of conquest and power, which marks the will to introduce Shariah law as in other European cities. We will not accept that".

Obviously, someone needs a few lessons in history. How is it not against Islam if it assumes that Shariah law will be introduced? Civil society building mosques is going to now connote conquest?

The problem is that many of these nations will market their goods, send their expertise to Arab countries and bask in the special privileges they get there, but at home they treat immigrants with suspicion.

I have already talked about the breach in the White House security. This was no terrorist attack.

I understand the need for societies to retain their own identity, but what can five per cent of the population do? Are we trying to use examples of a few terrorists? There is no way to justify those acts, but how many people are gunned down in campuses, how many people are murdered, how many fanatics of different stripes – and not just religion – walk around selling their ideologies? What about those versions of ‘shariah’? No one can impose a religious law in a democracy. This bogey is deliberately created to marginalise some groups.

Businesses such as watch-maker Swatch and Switzerland's famous banking industry said they feared the ban could provoke expensive boycotts by Muslims around the world, while the Swiss government warned it could inflame tensions between religions.

Oh, sure. This is what the business lot would be concerned about. Here is news. Muslims, the real rich ones, are the Arabs. They will not boycott anything so long as it is kosher. Trade will continue. If they just kept quiet and went about with their Alps and stopped getting all jittery about something rising up towards the sky, there would be no problems. The rowdies may come out in the streets and make a noise. This seems deliberate.

In the form of direct referendum to get views, they could have asked people about more pressing issues. Why did they choose this? To please the rest of Europe? France, Germany? Perhaps the country should take a good look at itself and watch how the different sections of its own French and German sides are disparate and have an ongoing quiet battle on between them.

I only hope Muslims forget about it as a bad joke and go on with their jobs. They do work too, you know? And the Swiss can be certain that at least one Muslim here has worshipped at the altar of Sprungli. And will continue to do so.

The Pope and the Prophet

Two bits of religious news and let us see the reactions…

A Scottish art exhibition invited visitors to deface a copy of the Bible. The exhibit, Untitled 2009, is part of the ‘Made In Gods Image’ exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and was thought up by local artist Anthony Schrag. The intention was for gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to write their way back in to the holy book. But visitors offered pens by gallery staff had other ideas, and have scrawled a series of obscene remarks.

Is art beyond the realm of social discourse? Would one consider it as a political commentary that seeks to exclude certain segments of people because of their other beliefs and actions? Have we not heard about incidents of homosexuality within the Church?

The flip side is this: Why does the gay community wish to belong to a faith system that is mainstream when they are not? Does writing obscene remarks lessen their feeling of being left out?

Apparently, after the Pope’s objection, the Bible has been placed in a locked case and visitors can write their comments on blank sheets of paper. They may as well have a meeting or seminar. Incidentally, copies of the Bible, as I am sure other scriptures, are distributed freely. At least, I got several copies from back in my school days to a couple of years ago. How would anyone know whether or not I would treat it with any respect? Do those with evangelical fervour think for a moment that what they deem holy could mean nothing to another and that itself is a sort of defilement?

I don’t find such art particularly interesting or enlightening or even a potent commentary. However, the Church could just have taken up the issue for what it is. Instead, this is what a report states:

The adviser to the head of the Catholic Church said the project was disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran, he added.

Who are the ‘they’? Who flushed the Koran down the toilet? Who published those Danish cartoons? If people did react, they were immediately termed Islamists, jihadis and intolerant. Some of us who took a view that a religion for its believers must be large enough to withstand such onslaughts were also called jihadis!

So, let us deal with an issue closer to home.

The Prophet’s picture has found its way in a Hindi book chapter in Uttar Pradesh on different religious figures who have contributed to humanity (Manav Uthaan ke Liye Vibhinn Dharmo ka Yogdaan). Islam does not permit publication of the pictures of the Prophet, according to a report. A clarification. There are no pictures available or even ancient artistic impressions. And, yes, the religion does not allow such depictions because it does not believe in iconography. That is the reason I have often mentioned tombs being unIslamic.

Yuvraj Dutt, the writer, said the Prophet’s picture was available on the internet and was downloaded from there. Incidentally, the picture was added in the third edition of the book in 2009.

It begs the question: why now? Obviously, they knew it was not exactly the done thing. What is the motive? Why this desperate urge to give a face to the Prophet? Because politics needs something.

Ex-state minister and SP leader Ujjawal Raman Singh threatened that the party would take to the streets and also raise the issue in the assembly if the photograph was not removed.

Please note the name of this gentleman. He is not a Muslim protecting his faith. Just as the first person to call for a ban on Satanic Verses was Khushwant Singh, a Sikh.

And this is my beef. I may well say that it is no big deal, but once it is made an issue of then do not expect silence. The Pope makes a noise; the maulvis will too. And the saffron guys do it as well when their god images, which are used artistically often, are distorted in any manner.

Oh, we speak about madrassas and how only religion is taught there. Here are students in a Mumbai school praying to the snake god:

Inter-faith blah

Hindu and Catholic leaders had a dialogue which they assume will solve the problems of minorityism.

Naturally, the press labelled it a “path-breaking Hindu-Catholic dialogue”. They agreed that there would be:

“No violence against minorities. No forced conversions. A pooling of resources for social work and charity.’’

The first one is supposed to be a Hindu problem. The second one is a Catholic problem. The third one is no problem. Nice.

The Hindu group was led by the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Sri Jayendra Saraswati. He likes deciding what India should do; very political this swami is. His reason for speaking out on violence against minorities is that India is a deeply spiritual country. So spiritual in fact that it should not be called secular but spiritual. Therefore, if he decides to let out a few secrets of some high-flying politicians, then maybe we will be called The Spiritual Republic of India.

We can then meditate each time there is disaster or even a minor calamity. We do it anyway. No rains? Conduct some havans to propitiate the gods, use up precious wood, ghee and other unguents, feed priests and there will be rains because they are expected within the next few days. If they are delayed, which happens, then no one ever makes these guys accountable. Never. We curse the weatherman, we curse global warming; even these sadhus curse these factors. But they do it spiritually. They meditate to wish global warming away.

The report further added:

The Sankaracharya also made it clear that he did not approve of conversions and foreign funds for running educational and charity projects.

Unless the charities and schools are run by religious institutions, they come within the purview of the state government. The government decides. His approval or agreement will not be solicited in these matters. He was trying to take a shot at such funds for missionary-run establishments. Perhaps, he might like to look into the temple donation lists and check where much of the money comes from. Also, for the saffron parties.

The Catholics on their part were told not to indulge in forced conversions.

This meeting took place in a hall and there was a press conference. Do these discussions serve any purpose? What did you learn from all this? I did. One thing. Did you know that India had a papal ambassador to Delhi, Archibishop Quintana? Why do we need one? Why was he at a meeting to discuss what goes on in India and has political ramifications?

Do such ‘meeting of minds’ result in anything concrete? It is not even a feel-good thing.

Does the poor person in a village who is a victim of violence want such pontificating? Does the convert think beyond the money and hope for a god, which is where this spiritualism comes in and in fact negates the whole idea of the discourse?

Spiritualism does not need an agenda. It is an intensely private belief in seeking something that is beyond oneself. Religion has got nothing to do with it.

Art, politics and mockery

Is political satire in art a mockery of art? We don’t seem to have much contemporary art that can boast of such ability, at least in our part of the world. The closest we come to it is cartoons.

I have already written about the painting at the Shanakht festival that got into trouble:

The controversial painting at the Shanakht festival

There have been questions raised as to whether it is art or even satire. Both are difficult to define and cannot be seen objectively.

There can be very dark commentary, as Iranian artist Ardeshir Mohassess portrays:

Ardeshir Mohassess' 'Against the wall'

Quite a bit of Salvador Dali’s works would qualify as parody.

It is even possible to go way back into the 16th century. Artist Jacob Jordaens’ The Satyr by the Farmer is perhaps a telling commentary where the satyr is the cowering figure, while the farmers are in what may be described as a 'peasantly' expressive orgy. I am completely fascinated by how almost everyone is using their hands:



Political parody need not be obvious, but if it is then it can be analysed by those standards.

This brings us to the Shanakht painting. Almost everyone has spoken about it being objectionable because of the image of Benazir.

This is part of what I wrote in the earlier post:

It does not look like a tasteful idea but then reams have been written about how Pakistani democracy invariably plays along with the army. This happens to be historical reality. Besides, is art merely supposed to be tasteful and not comment wryly, or even with a whiplash, at prevalent norms and mishaps?

…If, say, Benazir is shown as Mother Teresa, would the moral-keepers of Pakistani society object to her non-Muslimness, her Indian connection or her canonisation, which is against Islam?

With the image now available to me, I would like to use the perceptive comment posted by mstaab (in italics here) to deconstruct it:

I haven't seen the work depicting Ms. Bhutto perched on Gen Zia's lap either; but one can well imagine. As a part of our paternity here in the west, we have such expressions as, "in the lap of luxury," which is suggestive of especial privilege. Another such expression plays off a fairly common domestic image of a child nestled comfortably on the lap of a parent or caregiver while being regaled with a story. We say "X learned it at Y's knee," which conveys the transference of cultural wisdom from an elder to a youngster. The image of Santa Claus in countless shopping malls across the US, hordes of children lined up to take their turn on his lap to make their particular request(s) for consumer goods, is still thought to illustrate the winsome innocence of children and their pressing desires.

The lap of luxury concept is rather obvious here where Benazir is dressed in finery. She is a grown woman and therefore an element of wiliness can be conjectured upon. Even coquettishness. She is also head and shoulders above Zia, which means that she knows her place. Is it the wisdom from an elder?

Zia got her father killed. So, if the artist was timing it ‘pre’ that period then the above may work. If it is ‘post’, then perhaps she was playing along or became a happy victim to get some gains and then topple him. Which she did.

Interestingly, the Islamist Zia is quite comfortable with her un-Islamic dress and posture and both are holding each other.

This would connote the rich kid who still yearns for Santa Claus goodies because of its…

Fairytale value
To belong
To cater to greed
To follow parental indoctrination

It must also be noted that she is the only one whose skin colour is close to real and not the pantomime mask of the rest, except the figure on the far right top.

Maybe her history is still fresh and therefore not concretised.

Certainly it makes sense that the personalities involved (Ms. Bhutto and Gen Zia, in this instance) might cue the viewer as to how this arrangement is to be interpreted. After all, there are countless paintings of "Madonna and Child" that depict a naked baby Jesus holding forth from the lap of a fully clothed Virgin Mother; but I have yet to hear of any interpretation of these works that suggests the naked (perhaps even "vulnerable") Christ-child as being, say, a ventriloquist's dummy…

Besides the point about vulnerability, there is the innocence factor too. The transposed innocence of the Virgin Mother’s with the child’s. Also the comfort level with nudity seeks to confirm the purity. And immaculateness.

However, this particular image shows a stern mother and a certain distancing. The child looks mature and is apparently already his own person:

13th century Madonna and child in the Italo-Byzantine style

The ventriloquist’s dummy brings me back to the Shanakht painting. Ayub Khan is carrying a baby Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Military dictatorship was a new phenomenon, and there is benign distance in the armyman’s demeanour, whereas an impetuous child Bhutto is holding him, while in deep thought looking ahead. This is again a part of recorded history. The petulant child found a new Santa, who is interestingly in the foreground.

Yahya Khan is shown as almost a ridiculous dwarf physically, but his face is in repose. Probably in the classical ‘sitting for a portrait’ mould. From all accounts, the gentleman behind him is Mujib-ur-Rehman. I am sticking my neck out with this, but if it is so it is sought to be shown that there was a tacit understanding between them that later failed. He is wearing almost priest-like robes, a fact that harks to his later beatification as the creator of Bangladesh and martyr for its cause.

Certainly many western (and eastern) businessmen have some familiarity with the "lap dance." And, likewise, there yet remains in the consciousness of some the not-altogether-bygone imagery of a secretary (generally female) with notepad in hand athwart the manager's lap (generally male), "taking dictation" (it may be helpful for folks from Mumbai to exchange the secretary for starlet and the manager for film director, with the activity being "learning his/her lines," lol).

The imagery of the lap dancer also means deceit; the belief that what you are paying for is really catering to you. The dancers’ motives are clear; the obfuscation of the clients’ understanding makes it poignant.

“Taking dictation” and lines being scripted are a part of any political tamasha.

Tasteless art is probably trying to reflect that very tastelessness.

Dancing for god?

She was a striptease artist, an exotic lap dancer titillating men in nightclubs across Milan. Today, she is a nun.




Anna Nobili found her new calling after a visit to the shrine of St Francis in Assisi in 2002. She has transformed her old profession and not given it up. According to a report:

Sister Nobili is due to perform in front of senior Catholic clerics later this week at the Holy Cross in Jerusalem Basilica, one of Rome’s best-known churches. The performance, based on stories from the Old and New Testaments, will be called The Bible: Day and Night. Among the guests expected to attend will be Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, who is in charge of the Vatican’s Cultural Department.

Would that make god happy or the clergy? I find this a bit disconcerting. Her change of heart is understandable, but how will those watching justify their position? Will there be nuns among the audience (the report only mentions that she will be dancing before bishops and cardinals)?

She says:

“I was wasting my life dancing for men in clubs. The nights were filled with sex and alcohol. It was an empty life but I liked it because I was the centre of attention.”

This “Ballerina for God”, as she calls herself, is seeking the same sort of attention now. She will be known not for her piety but her moves on stage. She may justify the dances as mystical and her latest performances may well be based on stories from the Bible, but religious tracts and mythology have been used often enough by mainstream dancers. Even pop stars have manipulated these – the Cross, Sanskrit shlokas, the Sufi twirl, such references to god abound. What makes her different?

“But now my life has been transformed. I still dance but now I dance for God and I’m happy. All my choreography is dedicated to Him. My aim is to pray using my body.”

This appears to be the antithesis of what the Catholic Church would like. It denies the devotee the luxury of any vanity and riches and the body is subservient to the soul.

Here, she is blatantly referring to her body as a means to prayer. This is almost like marketing it, whatever the purpose might be.

Would she have grabbed the headlines had she been just another dancer?

- - -

Sister Nobili performs

Sunday ka Funda

I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician – Charlie Chaplin

The BJP in Bangalore is protesting against a statue of the comedian that was erected for a song sequence in a Kannada film. The reason: He was a Christian and the sets are close to a temple.

Imagine all those worshippers, many fans of Chaplin, being tainted by the sight.

And I do not understand why newspaper reports are at pains to point out his Left leanings. So what if he was indeed a Christian, a practising one? That does not take away from anything. As I say, we are so darned insecure it isn’t even funny.

Dis n Dat

Hah…

The political wing of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency which used to spy on politicians and rig elections has been disbanded and will now focus only on internal security issues.

Someone please tell those who are getting all excited about this bit of news that internal security issues often have to do with the activities of politicians. Has any foreign power been responsible for the killing of its leaders?

Oh…

Ramosana, a small village in Gujarat’s Mehsana district. Since the last 15 days, 3,000 priests have been chanting hymns to invoke divine intervention to tackle the global financial crisis.

The globe does not know about Mehsana, Mehsana does not know about the globe, much less its financial crisis.

Now comes the fun part: This yagna will continue for the next two years (gosh, these priests sure know about market trends) and will cost approximately Rs 150 crore.

Who is paying for it? Don’t tell me some poor traders in Mehsana have been roped into believing that all this stock diving is going to affect their daily lives and they must cough up money? This is utter nonsense.

What is the point of going to the moon when we are still trying to appease god and goddesses for various crises? With this money, they could construct houses for the poor, or small industries and employ people.

What is Narendra Modi doing? Is this his idea of going global?

Aah…

You can rise in Australia. Join The Australian Sex Party. This is a political party and its slogan is “We are serious about sex”. The target voters will be its four million citizens who access pornography.

Its policies will include a national sex education curriculum, reducing censorship, abolishing government’s proposed Internet filter and supporting gay marriage.

These are honourable motives. Am wondering though whether being serious about sex means no laughing, no tickling, no flippant acts of feather caresses or popping bubbles…no kangaroo jumps…

Aha…

The Dalai Lama could be a good model for the Fevicol ad. Says he:

“There is no point or question of retirement. It is my moral responsibility to lead the Tibetans till my death. My whole body and flesh is Tibetan.”

So were those who were killed a few months ago.

And he is now even willing to give up the Dalai Lama position after he is gone!

“There are various ways of doing it (having a successor). The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not. I may be the last Dalai Lama…My successor can be a young boy or a girl. Girls show more compassion. Also, women are dominating things all over the world.”

I think spiritual leaders should make up their minds whether they want to be politicians or god’s middlemen/women. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Ouch…

John Lennon has been forgiven by the Vatican for his remark about the Beatles being “more popular than Jesus”.

What is the use? It has been 40 years. The Church is still around, so is the memory of the Beatles.

The Vatican’s official newspaper said:

“After so many years it sounds merely like the boasting of an English working-class lad struggling to cope with unexpected success”.

It should have hit them on the head way back then. It does not have to be success going to his head, just refusal to believe in institutionalised religion or wanting to create a new world through music. That the Church even objected is puerile.

All Lennon said was:

“Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink We’re more popular than Jesus now — I don’t know which will go first, rock and roll or Christianity.”

Why did the Church want Jesus to be ‘popular’? And this sudden forgiveness business is a bit silly. Instead of regurgitating 40 year-old comments, they should have gone and stopped that Michael Jackson from converting to Islam. There is still time for them to take him back.

They will save two religions for the price of one.