The Pontiff's Closet

What do you think about Pope Francis being chosen Best Dressed Man of 2013 by Esquire? When the magazine says, "Pope Francis's sartorial decisions have subtly signaled a new era (and for many, renewed hope) for the Catholic Church", it is jumping the gun. As religious head, he has certainly proven to be immensely likeable. He is discussed for his symbolic gestures, and they might not alter perceptions but do send out signals about a modernistic way of looking at social mores.

However, I believe that a best dressed tag does not quite reward these gestures, much less comprehend the nuances that might get lost and possibly lose track of what is being symbolised.

Mark-Evan Blackman, assistant professor of menswear design at FIT, has been quoted as saying:

"His mode of dressing really does reflect the mindset behind it. I remember when John Paul II was buried in those opulent bright red shoes. When the current pope was elected and chose not to wear the red shoes I thought that was very reflective of his approach to being a person functioning in a role."

Every position comes with a set role, and the only dissonance possible is in terms of interpretation. That does not alter the inherent nature of the role. For true believers, the red shoes were not an impediment to their faith, just as the discarding of them will not be.

Ann Pellegrini, Associate Professor of Performance Studies & Religious Studies at New York University, goes over-the-top:

"The humility of his garments offers a way to visibly display his theological and material concerns for the poor. This Holy Roman emperor really does have new clothes."

While it is true that the Pope has been "approachable" and "humble" — though such a station is supposed to be about humility and subservience to god, is it not? — a reality check is needed here.

I am not a Catholic, or a practising believer in any organised faith system, but being surrounded by several streams of theological thought it is obvious to me that devotees, especially those unfortunate enough to be poor and homeless, do look up to pomp and splendour. It is their means of escapism. And, dare I say, hope.

Unlike the well-heeled and the educated, they do not marvel at church spires and stained glass windows, nor do they appreciate the fine filigree work of the Islamic architecture in mosques, nor the fine motifs in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist temples. But, the sheen of the altar, the sanctum, the idols does affect them. The brighter these are, the more dewy-eyed they get. This is not about materialism, but to experience what they do not possess. It is an egalitarian moment for them, for it renews their faith due to its obviousness. They seek no evidence of the power of an aura beyond what is evident, even as some of us might rationalise.

In fact, Esquire is doing just that. Yet, quite ironically, it is performing papal sort of duties by anointing the Pope with a grand gesture that contradicts the purported purpose of rewarding him: austerity.

© Farzana Versey

Benetton's 'Friendly' Lip-service

How can you ‘unhate’? Is it like undress or undo? Benetton is known for its use of stereotypes to display its supposed egalitarian stance. Where money speaks who would anyway care about colour or race? The new campaign has images of people in positions of power, supposedly belonging to different ideologies, getting close and comfortable in a liplock. How does a kiss solve problems?

If we take it literally too, lust does not necessarily overcome hate. It could well result in more hate if it is embedded, for together with that emotion will be the added baggage of guilt: I slept with the enemy. People are also known to wreak vengeance through the sexual route. If we do not wish to get that far, then there is the image of social niceties. A ltitle peck, even on the lips, could be seen as a mere gesture, an acknowledgement of existence and being part of the herd. There is a good deal of it at gatherings, besides the overdose of socialite don’t-mess-my-makeup air-kissing.

The fact that Benetton desisted from using images of the Indian and Pakistani leaders due to cultural sensibilities reveals that it is steeped in these archetypes. There could have been a backlash, but it would not be so much about cultural sensibilities as it would for diplomatic reasons To force-feed friendship for commercial gains is pretty disgusting, especially if you know precious little about how the particular governments wish to deal with each other.

As I said, where money talks, the company need bother about bringing ideologies together. Major American companies have outsourced their technological marvels to China, where the workers are paid a pittance and labour in terrible conditions. So where does free enterprise and Communism clash here? One feeds the other.

The same goes for religious figures. The sheer muscle power of these organisations put them at an advantage. They have millions of people who will follow them for no reason other than that they are seen as emissaries of some god. They have not been able to control any undesirable activities within the fold or even within the hallowed precincts from where they operate. And chances of them being quite willing to put up Benetton’s rainbow-coloured banners to promote peace and sell a few threads are not quite as remote as it might seem. There has been sharp reaction from the Catholic Church and the company has decided to remove the Pope’s image with the Egyptian Imam.

Bringing the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a digital photo-snogg is unlikely to solve the political issue; if anything the images draw attention to the differences.

So, let’s just not play this social consciousness banner game which follows the slapstick prototype rather than anything remotely sensitive to bonhomie. Get the slumboys and girls who work hours to make it happen. No, wait. That too might end up as slcik marketing gimmick. Nothing is left untouched. They’ll dig the muddiest places if there is promise of gold.

Let’s just continue to ‘hate’ without having to dress in ‘unhate’.

- - -

Note: I have used the images because the company cannot titillate and then choose to selectively censor. Besides, the more important issue is not of the photograph but the larger picture of why the need. 

- - -

Update: The Vatican has objected:

Press secretary Father Federico Lombardi said:

"We cannot but express a resolute protest at the entirely unacceptable use of a manipulated image of the Holy Father, used as part of a publicity campaign which has commercial ends. 

"The secretariat of state has authorised its lawyers to initiate actions, in Italy and elsewhere, to prevent the circulation, via the mass media and in other ways, of a photomontage used in a Benetton advertising campaign in which the Holy Father appears in a way considered to be harmful, not only to the dignity of the pope and the Catholic church, but also to the sensibility of believers."

While the al-Azhar mosque did denounce it, the Imam was not quoted.

The company immediately started tearing down the posters. Now, had the objection been raised by the Imam or his emissaries, it would have mmediately been branded as an over-reaction and muzzling of freedom of speech.

- - -

On quite another matter, and a bit on the light side of heavy....

Is Barack's Butting Again?

“I want women to be liberated and still be able to have a nice ass and shake it”

- Shirley MacLaine

But, do we want men to watch? President Barack Obama sure likes to stand behind women. Here he is with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Canberra on November 16:

Two years ago, his hindsight was evident when he looked back at a Brazilian girl under the watchful eyes of Nicholas Sarkozy (not in this picture):

Of course, there was a debate then about the 'lying' pictures. Of course, they can lie. But I am curious why other heads of state, friskier than Obama, have not been so captured.

Sunday ka Funda

An apology for the Devil: It must be remembered that we have only heard one side of the case. God has written all the books.

- Samuel Butler

- - -

And a few church signs that go beyond the books. (Courtesy a forwarded email)

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.

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’:

News meeows - 22

Jail Bharo

You are in an Indian prison. Why can’t you get anything non-vegetarian?

The Bombay high court raised this query rapping the prison authorities for this discriminatory attitude. “When you can consider the tastes of a foreigner, why can’t you show the same consideration to Indian prisoners?’’

Foreigners in prison are served bread, butter and eggs. Here is an exchange that took place.

Public prosecutor: “They were not used to eating chappatis.”

Judge: “All Indians don’t eat the same food. Revise your rules and make room for every taste.’’

Ah, Kasab will now get his biryani. But seriously, would any Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Korean serving time in a prison in the West be granted culinary grace? Are foreigners given forks and spoons (knives would be out)? These days they have taken big-time to Indian food and curries, so they can jolly well eat some dal and chappati. And anyway the prison ones are as thick as pita bread. Just mash the chholey and call it humus. Puree the tomatoes, add a dash of mirch masala and finely-chopped onions and you have salsa.

And for their chai time, are the firangs offered Earl Grey or English breakfast? Is it coffee and do they prefer a frothy cappuccino or an Espresso?

Mera Bharat Mulligatawny…

Church

Do churches encourage conversions? Maybe. Maybe not. Conversions have always existed. But attacks on churches have just increased in the past few years.

Outside Bangalore, in a church two statues were broken and glass panes damaged; they tried to set a car on fire but were unsuccessful.

Infuriated by the attack, 350 followers of the church blocked the Bangalore-Hosur Road on Thursday morning, leading to traffic jam for hours…church followers called it a well-organised attack.

The police are “looking into the matter”. What got my goat was the state home minister V S Acharya saying that some antisocial elements were trying to create disharmony.

Of course. We are a peace-loving nation, living in harmony. Remember Orissa?

School

A stampede in a New Delhi school results in the death of five students; 35 are injured and four critically.

Initial reports said a rumour about electric charge in water led to the stampede, but locals refuted it saying that the area had no power supply at the time of the incident. The stampede took place when students were trying to make their way up and down a narrow staircase when they were asked to shift classrooms flooded with rain water during an examination. Around 1,300 students had come for the examination in heavy downpour.

This is unfortunate and bizarre. When there is flooding, the students should be asked to go home. If there is a shift suggested, then someone ought to be in charge of seeing that it is carried out in an orderly manner. Why were no teachers injured? Where were they?

Chief minister Sheila Dikshit has announced compensation of Rs one lakh to the next of kin of the dead and Rs 50,000 each to the injured.

I am aware that the government can do just this much; after all, we need to take care of our defence budget. But these were young people who had a long way to go; many would have supported their families.

Boxer’s Day

Barely had he delivered the winning punch to become the first Indian to make it the last-four stage of the prestigious World Championships and boxer Vijender Singh has already signed a million-dollar sponsorship deal with the Percept Sports Management Company.

It is good that a not-pampered sport is bringing us accolades. It is good that boxers too are getting endorsements. But Vijender has already become the media’s darling not only because he is good-looking but because he speaks English haltingly. Everyone’s heart goes out to the Jat with thaat. Yeah. He has got attitude. And that’s what matters.

Good for him. Now how about the sponsors shelling out some money for athletes to get some accommodation and facilities to practise so that they can get us much more? Buy them if you must, you vultures.

Wedding off her back

A Surat bride gets her back painted

I find this quite an ugly sight. The bride's skin has been painted completely in that portion and stands in contrast to the rest of her natural colour. Damn, it is not even some flowery design or a peacock feather pattern. Like, what is it for? Each time she turns, the groom can get a high seeing another woman’s face? Is this some sort of threesome fantasy being realised?

Perhaps, they can instead have a you-know-what sketched so that he knows you-know-what to wear when…