Sunday ka Funda

I don't like this tree, a hybrid tree that bears forty different kinds of fruit and flowers in varied colours.

This "sculpture by grafting", the brainchild of art professor Sam Van Aken of Syracuse University, might be a great scientific experiment and good as curiosity or art installation that it initially was, but a workable green option?

There is something about orchards with trees bearing one sort of fruit; it feels like communion, familiarity, and also to an extent hierarchy when one picks the good ones. The birds too know where to come for what they seek.

A huge tree with different varieties appears to compress nature. It is also demeaning in a way for spoiled for choice, one may either make the wrong move or the one not intended, or just walk away awestruck.

Trees are designed to be resilient, not to multitask. And some of us like our trees and people to just do one thing at a time.

As the Zen teacher told his pupil, “When drinking tea, just drink tea.”

Are your jeans distressed by lions?

If you are the sort to shell out over a thousand dollars for a pair of jeans “designed by tigers”, then you have until July 21. Animal conservationists are marketing this bizarre idea to you. Even if you won’t buy the jeans you might feel like you are contributing to the welfare of the poor beasts.

Japanese brand Zoo Jeans includes wild beasts in their design process to create the perfect pair of ripped denim. In order to do this, sheets of material are added to old tires and giant rubber balls and tossed into the animals’ cages at Kamine Zoo in Hitachi, Japan. The lions and tigers then have the chance to chew, gnaw, and scrape at the fabric, taking “distressed denim” to the extreme.

Do they even realise how cruel this is? Lions and tigers are carnivores; they tear into pliable flesh. Bears are omnivores. Denim does not smell or feel like skin or plants, and rubber has a unique scent and feel. The animals probably assume they will be rewarded after they’ve got rid of the ‘excess baggage’.

The zoo and World Wildlife Fund are being horribly insensitive, and to think this is to benefit the animals. WWF and People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rant about ill-treatment; they file complaints against cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies for using animals as guinea pigs. They have a point, but they aren’t doing any better.

These organisations have a history of regressive ads that put human models behind cages, chain them, or make them wear edible clothes. At the same time they use loaded, even sexual, imagery. With Zoo Jeans too, ripped by animals has a certain ring. It defeats the purpose. They end up perpetuating an idea they claim to oppose – that of the ‘wild beast’ as fantasy.


© Farzana Versey

Euphony

Music is in footsteps eager to reach you, the bell ring, the sound of whispers in ear, of knuckles unknuckling lazily, the swish of clothes, of laughter, and the name being called out. Again and again.

Music is windows rattling, wind knocking, thunder, rain, the splashing in pools of muddy water, the gurgle of drains, of gumboots plodding, the towel drying wet hair.

Music is opera, the gut-wrenching cry of unspeakable sadness, of stories that never die about people who always do.

Music is the church choir, stiff collars scraping necks, throats belting out hymns in sync, the uniformity of consent, of community, of togetherness.

Music is the huge temple bell rung just once to announce arrival and once more to depart, an offering to an idol created by the cadence of hands.

Music is the azaan, the call of the muezzin, especially at dusk, intoned like the sun cooling off, like air trapped in the hollow of cheeks that breaks free and escapes into the sky.

Music is the symphony of an orchestra where hands seem to quiver. Of the soloist at a pop concert who has to match voice with attitude, timbre.

Music is the turning of the pages of a book, of scratching out words with a pen, of sketching on rice paper, of the fan blowing into face, of lips puckering to blow away the strands of hair.

Music is distant traffic at night, of the phone on silent and a call with a name so familiar you divert it to voice mail so that you can listen to the sigh.

--

© Farzana Versey

The road less travelled...'Highway'

I had a profoundly cathartic experience while watching 'Highway'. It was when Veera and Mahabir are in the mountains, and they reach a house and she says, "Yeh tau mera ghar hai, mujhe hamesha se hi aisa ghar chahiye tha (This is my home, one I had been looking for)". It is a dusty, bare house, very different from her plush lifestyle in Delhi where "tameez" is taught and learned by buying silences.

Without getting into details and diverting attention from the film, let me just say that the home, a cavernous retreat, that she swept clean and put food in front of became mine. Next day, sudden gunshots hit Mahabir, and as his eyes meet the sky that seems flanked by trees, there is another purging. An acceptance of things being short-lived.

'Highway' has been called a road movie, but the journey pierces internally. Old maps are brought out, some lines erased, new ones formed.

Veera Tripathi, on the eve of her wedding, asks her fiancé, "Why can't we just run away and go to the mountains?" This is how she is. She wants to breathe free, take risks. For her the fancy wheels are just a means to getting away. She wants to go far, just go on and on...and when they take a U-turn, they are confronted by a group of criminals on the run who had no intention of such a 'meeting'. It is a chance encounter. Her kidnapping begins on an unreal note, and stays that way.

The gang leader, in fact, is angry with Mahabir Bhatti for taking her hostage. This is a criminal niche where they have not ventured. "Tu kutte ki maut marega (You will die like a dog)," he tells Mahabir. The latter's reply is stunning in its simplicity: "Jo kutte ki jindagi ji raha hai usko kutte ki maut hi milegi (one who leads a dog's life will obviously get a dog's death)."

While it is not emphasised, there is a strain of a political class struggle. At one point, not sure about what to do with her, he tells his mate that they should sell her to a brothel. He is not dismissive about it. He gives a reason. As a Gujjar, he vents his anger over how easily the rich abuse the women of the poor, even demanding their wives for pleasure. He wonders at the hypocrisy of gangsters too being concerned about the clout of the rich father of Veera. Yet, he does not abuse his power. He does not sell her. This needs to be seen in the context of her innocence being bought by one she was supposed to trust. Is that why she becomes comfortable in his presence?

Her story does not merge with Mahabir's, but runs parallel. They are not made for each other; they are like raw material that cannot be moulded. Therefore, she laughs in the midst of tears, she asks herself incredulously, "Why am I talking so much?" And she hides when the cops check the truck. She had a chance to find freedom from the criminals. Why did she not? Even Mahabir wants to know.

This is most certainly not about the Stockholm Syndrome. If that were the case, then Mahabir is the one suffering from it. He becomes vulnerable. But this is not about any such syndrome. It is not about being awe-struck or falling in love with your captor. Veera wanted to run away right at the beginning. Her escapism is a thirst to experience, to break free, and also due to insecurities. This is the captivity.

That time when she comes out with "when I was nine" and how her uncle sexually exploited her is not an episode. The retelling is not planned, which is why it is so effective. There are no gory details — the fear, helplessness, anger are all in her face and voice. And his stillness. She is the water, he the rock. The terrain has many of these water-rock scenes as they traverse through six states. Water rising, a spray, a jet, droplets in her palm, moving in circles around the rocks.

Mahabir has two moments of denouement. One when he hums the song his mother sang to him as a child and the other when he peeps into that dusty mountain house and sees Veera transforming it. "Promise me you will go and see your mother after all this is over" she tells him in the first incident. She holds him weeping close to her bosom, like mother to child. In the new home, she snuggles up to him, almost over his chest, like daughter to father.

They are together, but not joined. There is no adhesive. As he tells her on an earlier occasion after she rushes back when he leaves her near the police station, "What will you do with me - marry me, produce babies?" Later, waiting for a bus, she says, "I am not planning to marry or make babies. I just want to go a little further for some more time, knowing that you will take care."

We trust the elements as we climb hills, go into the sea, battle inclement weather. We trust almost everything we grow up with. Here the growth is on the way, a constant movement. In Veera's words, "I don't want to return where I came from. I don't want to reach anywhere. I just want that this road should never end."

Mahabir's death does not end her journey. She not only faces, but confronts the demons. She spits out words in their customised faces. And leaves for the mountains. To work. To live. To be. When she remembers Mahabir, it is of both of them as kids. They had never met then. What she is recalling is the innocence of their relationship, its purity. Like the clear air.

This is not about being a captive. When we feel good or seek out something, somebody. it is essentially the true love we feel about wanting to reclaim ourselves.

© Farzana Versey

---


Snapshots

• Alia Bhatt as Veera behaves as nature does. Fire, earth, water by turns.
• Randeep Hooda as Mahabir smiles only once, weeps twice, yet he carries so many emotions in the hardened face.
• Imtiaz Ali has broken all genre rules. His direction is most unobtrusive.
• Anil Mehta's cinematography goes from craggy dark cranies, flithy lanes, godowns, to long stretches of undulating ghats, valleys, deserts, mountains. And he shows silence.
• A.R.Rahman. Quiet music is rare. Still music rarer.

---

Fuzz and Feminism

Why can't they just leave women's body hair alone? From Cameron Diaz to American Apparel, they are being intrusive.

To think that the Hollywood star has discovered feminism via down under is a bit much. She is selling her book, and just like propping up the smooth skin is a big ticket there is a market for fuzz when these views come pregnant with adjectives. It is almost always "shocking images", and about being raw.

If Lower East Side Manhattan is going to curl up with embarrassment over a clothing store that shows mannequins in transparent lingerie showing off pubic hair, then it has little to do with reluctance to accept the natural.

If natural is what we want, then why restrict it to hair on the privates? Where is the fuzz on legs, arms, face? Where is the pigmentation, the natural contours of the belly, the hip? You can't create a woman, or a mannequin, to look like a stereotype and then talk about how liberating it is not to depilitate.

American Apparel's statement is:

"We are a company that celebrates natural beauty...We created it to invite passerbys to explore the idea of what is 'sexy' and consider their comfort with the natural female form."

For all the liberating talk, they are telling women that it is okay, that this is sexy, and they ought to just lie down and be comfy. It is such a magnanimous gesture that girl power will rush to buy the stuff. It happens to be the Valentine's Day window display, much in advance. Those women who have made the horrible decision to get themselves into a pre-pubescent stage have enough time to redeem themselves and grow it all back, so that when their boyfriends or spouses get these itsy-bitsies gift-wrapped for them, they can 'fit into' the role that the show window wants them to. All this, including celebrity endorsement, amounts to talking down to women.

The New Age man is always ready to experiment, therefore he would probably walk into American Apparels and imagine a fresh from mother earth sensation.

Also, do notice that the hair is dark, very dark. Why are there no red heads, blondes? Does 'nature' and its connotations imply only a shade that is perceived as belonging to the untamed? Is this not racism?

Somebody has called the display retro. We might have a pop version, a blues version, a nirvana version.

Cameron Diaz has a chapter in her book titled 'In Praise of Pubes' where she asks, "Do you really want a hairless vagina for the rest of your life?" Had this been a serious question, one might have attempted an answer. There is some merit in bringing it out in the open, but she refers to pubic hair as "pretty draping" and "mysterious". She obviously knows what evolutionists or creationists, depending on how she swings, intended it to be, if not god her/himself. What if some do not find it pretty?

She says such hair is like having a nose. The comparison ought to have been with nose hair. Will the big studios like to see poky little hairs sticking out from every part of the body? More importantly, where does one stop at grooming or start?

The idea behind grooming anyway amounts to interfering with what is available material. From head to toe, we meddle in the affairs of the body. It could be to please others, but to a large extent it is also what we are comfortable with. One is not contesting how social brainwashing might affect us, but will those using such images to get us back to basics show us a complete picture where nothing at all is groomed, and not just the sexual organs?

Whichever way you look at it, the obsession is with the female form. Clean-shaven men are seen as metrosexual. Clean-shaven women are now deemed unnatural. From grooming too much to now not grooming, we are sought to be objectified.

This is a private matter between us and our bodies. Do not tell us what to do behind the fig leaf.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."
— Aristotle

What happens if beast and human come together? When I saw this photograph, even before reading the article, I found immense beauty in it. Beauty, not courage, not adventure. We have seen divers, all dressed up and prepared to face sharks. In an older video, Christina gets real close, and the BBC commentary even talks about the sexual attraction, of mimicking a shark, of the shark being in a trance.

There are other questions that can be raised about interfering with nature, courting danger. And what happens were the shark to turn violent? Who is to blame? Would killing the shark that you have been embracing until now be deemed self-defence? Can it, if we rally extend the argument, be a crime of passion?

The article does not have answers. However, it describes the encounter:

At the 22-second mark, one man swims down and grabs the dorsal fin of the lemon shark. After riding it for several seconds, he does something truly shocking. He swings around to the bottom of the shark, gives it a bear hug and hangs on belly to belly. His head is precariously located just below the shark's mouth and he hangs on for several seconds before finally letting it go.

Before you watch this, let me ask Aristotle: Is it solitude when man and beast come together in what could be a spiritual (and a broad sense godly) experience?

Sunday ka Funda

I think about the sea often. But, it struck me that when eyes are described in Hindi or Urdu poetry, there is a reference to them as possessing the depth of the river: "Jheel si gehri aankhein". How deep are rivers?

Do they too cause little storms? Or, is their tranquility enough to shake us up, wake us up...to dream a daydream?

Listen!

Sunday ka Funda

When the first showers were awaited, I thought to myself — the gutters will spew out and we will smell the filth. Early this week, I was in the kitchen and even before I could hear the sound of drizzle touching on the window sill, a fragrance lifted in that small space. It was the one we talk about, of the freshness of earth.

How does it happen? We have concrete streets. Where does this 'open' soil come from? There are patches of green in the vicinity; a few trees. They must quench their thirst and let out this earthy breath.

I was overwhelmed and just stood there 'drinking' in the scent. Nature, as always, silenced me.

It is a few days on and now it's a downpour. It brings us news of water logging, disrupted public transport, structures falling down. The lakes need water, drought-prone areas have been parched, grains need to grow and reach our tables, even as there are mandatory pictures of urchin kids bathing in the showers near the gutters whose smell I am put off by from my high floor and insulated life. They sleep on drenched slabs of public space. The monsoons have overdone it.

Nature overwhelms in different ways.

This afternoon, as the sky darkened, I shut out all thought and listened to some elevating music. Ustad Rashid Khan's voice is the most soothing thunder one could possibly listen to. This one is in Bengali, a language I barely understand. But, then, did I know how the rains would turn out to be?



---

Last year I had captured 'Rains from my window': http://youtu.be/uztqiwldRyQ

Updated

The video link to 'my rains' (re-posted the link) is particularly poignant now, for last night one of the trees 'fell' — "what if the tree falls?" I ask in the voiceover. But it hasn't really fallen. The root is adamant. It is the branches that could not withstand the lashes of rain and the gusts of wind.

Where are the sparrows?

It is easy to run down television, but aren't we overdoing its impact on children?

Does it convey a dumbing down if children between three and four can recall names of brands and TV channels, but do not recognise a sparrow?

TOI reporting on the survey conducted by Podar Institute across a few schools in Mumbai started with this statement:

“Parents often pride themselves on their children’s skills but a recent survey might leave many embarrassed."

Many parents these days push their children on TV reality shows. One might question some of them, and even the intent to be in the public eye, but it is essentially to showcase the talent they think their kids possess.

Before such shows, children invariably were asked to perform before visitors - “Beta, recite that poem...show aunty that dance...tell uncle how you will save your sister with karate chops..." (How many children are asked to show skills in mathematics or history?) TV shows have given a wider platform to these same performances. While I do get pretty disgusted watching people so young make adult moves, tell off-colour jokes, is it not a fact that in real life this would be seen as 'older than her/his age'?

The survey sample was 2000 — 500 each from the 3/4 year and fe/male gender bracket. It also concentrated on a fairly uniform socio-economic background. The director of the institute observed:

“Children learn many things from watching television, especially commercials. Brands are not something parents or schools teach, but kids automatically absorb the information because it comes from a very colourful medium.”

I would extend the argument to iconic people and events as brands. The images of Gandhi are 'colourful' — his clothes, glasses, spinning wheel, and his quick gait. I recall a cousin dressing up as Tagore for a fancy dress competition and another as Indira Gandhi, much as one sees them on some reality shows. What, then, makes the latter bad? Some kids talk about events, and although I vehemently oppose children being used to make a point about religion or terrorism, one may surmise that they are not unaware of things around them.

The absorption is based on observation. If 85 per cent could name brands of chocolate, is it only due to the onslaught of televised images? There is no doubt that a story related to the product makes it easy to remember, but what child of an earlier generation would not tell you about the same, and even of other products? Perhaps, if a survey was conducted in those days, the results may not have been too different. I clearly recall Kiss Me toffees and Cadbury's.

90% could identity fast-food joints and names of powdered energy drinks. Is it because of the electronic media or more access? More families are eating out and the family dinner is about where to eat as much as what to eat. Energy drinks on TV work in tandem with how parents force them down kids. Again, Bournvita, Horlick's and Ovaltine have always been used to lure children to have milk.

The input has a lot to do with availability. Tigers are exotic, so everyone was aware about them. The reason probably only 20% could recognise sparrows is because they are not as visible as they used to be. This is borne out by the fact that crows scored better with 70%.

This same principal applies to fruits. Kiwis, bananas, pears, pineapples were known; only 12% could spot chikoos.

There is too much concern about the influence of consumerism. Children do not think about that. If they’d see butterflies, they’d still chase them. If we want to give the butterfly a brand name and they recall that, it does not denude the wonder they feel for it.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"You forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.”

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau



For World Earth Day

Quacks of quakes

Correspondent on Headlines Today:

"It looks like the people were not prepared for it."

The 'it' is the earthquake that shook the Delhi/NCR region over an hour ago.

It says the magnitude was 6.6. TV news anchors kept saying how large it was. Experts were woken up from their sleep. This was barely ten minutes after the tremors. How would they give accurate details?

Then, they were asked what people should do.

Here:

If you are living on a high floor don't go down...Come out in the open...Go under the furniture.

How can you come out in the open if you are not to take the stairs (lifts are out)? And if the building is shaky, why will the furniture not shake?

Most people would not have felt it if they were asleep. The others would have experienced it and sat still. But, if you switched on the TV then you would be told about aftershocks and how you were part of the Breaking News.

As for the lady who made the prophetic statement that the people were not prepared, all I can say is that perhaps they can have a panel discussion on how to expect such calamities. They can also go on a hunger strike for it.

Meanwhile, latest unreleased reports state that Nature has claimed responsibility for the quake. Nature's links with terrorist organisations are not yet known and a high-level inquiry will probe into any such alliance.

Like a prayer...

With cucumber pads on my eyes, my head uncovered, nothing to indicate that I was doing ibaadat, I lay down to pray. I do not know many prayers. I depend on memory.

Yesterday was the 27th roza. Except for recollection of days when food was sent to the poor who observe the Ramzan fast, I have nothing to fall back on. It is also a practice to complete the reading of the Quran. For many years someone would read it and the finale would be the last few verses, followed by a fateha. Most of those who read were not supposed to demand money; they got it anyway. One day, I discussed about the purpose it served. The person would be reading by rote, trying to meet a deadline. Even as symbolism this seemed superficial.

It is believed that prayers offered on this day have the efficacy of a thousand prayers. I respect the sentiments of those who believe it because I believe in dreams and illusions.

So when I lay down, I knew it was the right time. Maghrib is special. Dusk comes everyday, but when dusk has a purpose the sun does not just disappear. It leaves a glow.

I had spoken earlier in the day with a friend. She is fasting. She is not religious. As conversation went on, she said, "You know, after a few days of roza you reach a dream-like state, something like sex."

What did I discover?

Cucumber pads on the eyes are soothing.

Lying down and just uttering certain words can produce a sense of numbness – some call it calm.

I smiled when I thought about the conversation with my friend. Did it interrupt the prayer or add to it? Isn’t smiling good?

Hundred was the number I set for myself. I am bad at math.

After completing it, I decided to become corrupt and bribe god. I started in English and then it just sounded better in Urdu/Hindi. I could not decide, so I stuck to the Bollywood ‘Jab We Met’ filmi style. And thought about Kareena Kapoor’s character, who says when you really, actually want something, then you get it.

There are some things I have that I never wanted. Since they had appeared, I tried to make the best of it and gave whatever I could to them. Holding back nothing – not my anger, not my affection, not my cyncism, not my idealism, not myself. After a while, these fossilised and ‘became’ mine. Some people call extra baggage a bonus.

There was a time when I would say to nothing in particular, “May everyone’s wishes come true.” This is stupid. One person’s wish may be to cut the thread and the other may want to sew something. Each removed from the other. So, should we wish for islands?

I don’t know. If there is the sea and a few trees, I suppose this is good enough. I shall write on sand and know that it is not meant to hold my words whether or not the waters lash against it and wash them away.

The clouds write out new scriptures in the skies everyday and every breath exhaled is a prayer…

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.

Radiation alert: Don't read this

I am supposed to keep a cloth ready and swab the skin on my neck with betadine because radiation hits the thyroid area first. This is one among the many text messages I have got and I realise that the smart phone I am using would cause me more immediate damage than the spill in Japan. 'Flash news' is moving at great speed because the BBC mentions Asian countries. Indians love being Asians and any other thing when they know they are world players, even if it is a threat perception. Radiation is real and one is not reducing what has happened in Japan. But these chain SMSes can be lethal as much as they are ignorant.

The sun’s rays and the stuff in natural sources of water emit radiation. So stay indoors (that’s what the messages are saying: “If it rains, don’t step out for 24 hours”). Electronic goods that we use daily have radioactive emissions. So don’t watch TV, don’t wear those fancy watches and don’t use mobile phones. Medical diagnostic tools cause radiation. So don’t bother about X-rays. Don’t go through metal detectors and do not visit the loo on a flight because while they will keep an eye on whether you are smoking or not, that little device is a source of radiation. Industrial units that produce most of the stuff you need are radioactive agents.

And when your country tests nuclear power, instead of singing ‘Jai Ho’ or whatever people in Burkina Faso sing, just hide beneath the covers not because someone will get jealous of the nation’s pride bombing and give it back but because of all the radiation it has caused in the environment.

You are under threat all the time, but no one will tell you. It is indeed a state secret. So, why are they telling you now? Because it is helping business. The media, the governments and those medical units will put the fear in your heads and you will go out and buy betadine without even thinking how its overuse can have an adverse effect. It happens to be available over-the-counter, without prescription - your poor doctor won’t get his or her little ‘cut’.

Now please do me a favour and forward this to as many people as possible after reading this quickly. Write it down on a piece of paper and mail it or distribute it. You don’t want no radiation from your computer, do you?

Pat Robertson and the Eclipse

A doomsday quick-fix prophet on TV last night was holding forth on how the solar eclipse would muck up our lives based on our zodiac signs. After he had told us just how bad it would get, a godman sitting next to him asked us to place a pot and add things in it according to the level of muckery, recite some verses a given number of times and then maybe we would be saved.

It was appalling to watch this on prime time. Would children, who ought to look on such phenomena with a sense of wonder, be instilled with information? I would deem this x-rated because it affects the mind. Instead of seeing it as a natural happening and seeing it through at least some scientific prism, they are fed this rubbish.

There are two aspects to this:

1. We keep away genuine interest and believe everything in nature can have dire consequences.
2. The way it is projected, only one belief system was being promoted. I do not know whether Muslims and Christians have strong superstitions about these matters. There are ‘practical’ things I recall, which may or may not have any scientific basis. It is disturbing to see religion being pushed in this manner.

This brings me to Pat Robertson’s ‘Haiti deserved the earthquake because of its pact with the devil’. He obviously does not know about quakes in Los Angeles and how buildings are specifically designed to avoid tremors.

It is disgusting to see an island that was occupied by force by the United States, had several coups, became a slave to the French, and survived it all despite still dealing with debilitating poverty as some victim of voodoo.

Commentators have talked about racist overtones. Haiti, unlike good little black slaves, threw off imperialist shackles. If it was doomed, it was going to be on its own terms. Now the world, especially the big superpowers, cannot stand the idea of such obstinate self-respect on the part of people who are not supposed to be anything but dust underfoot. No ready theories are available, so the best one to pull out is the one with god. God has got to be White, so Haiti is in cahoots with the devil.

The logical question would be: If god is kind and all that, then why would s/he cause this destruction? If the devil is a real opponent of god, then why would the devil let it happen without putting up a brave fight?

What about natural disasters elsewhere? What about man-made calamities that we bring upon our fellow citizens, not to speak about other nations? What god or devil pacts are these about?

Meanwhile, Haiti’s hospitals have been destroyed and thousands are dying. It is an ongoing tragedy that needs to be addressed. Pop evangelism won’t get Haiti anywhere.

It would be easy to dismiss Pat Robertson, but he is not the problem. He is reflecting a problem that we have in some measure as societies on the brink of mental instability. You and I may not buy his thesis immediately, but it will register as something that someone believes. And this man has a huge following. He is dangerous because he thinks he is on god’s side.

At least the eclipse has the good sense to get off the sun after a while.

News meeows - 21

Houses get destroyed. A temple and mosque survive the landslide. What can I say? I am the faithless. Faithless in terms of organised religion, if there is anything organised about religion at all.

Mid-week, in one of the suburbs of Mumbai, the boulders from a hill came tumbling down with the fury of the rains. A temple stood untouched; all the hutments in the area were crushed. Four years ago, there had been a terrible deluge. In the same locality 112 such tenements were destroyed, 83 people died. A mosque stood amidst the rubble without a scratch.

I am amazed about how people have reacted. Apparently, these holy structures have given shelter to those displaced. A local politician said, “This is nothing but a miracle. It has revived our faith in god during these tough times.”

Revived faith? Is faith about a structure? I am glad there was a temple and a mosque. Now, there is talk about how people of all religions are praying at these places. If I know my city well enough, those from the lower strata have always been quite democratic in their beliefs. Every god is good enough.

But the real miracle would have been if the landslide had spared the homes of these people. If god is everywhere, then god does not need a home. People do, and they build it bit by bit, with hope for a better morrow. The even bigger miracle will be when people stop constructing places of worship in every lane and start building hospitals and proper homes and make sure that every year the financial capital of India does not make the city go haywire with one rainfall.

The gods are extremely partial and save their own homes. Sorry, this one’s not biting the bait.

- - -

I do not know how an Army Chief is supposed to behave, but General Deepak Kapoor’s statement about ceasefire violations by the Pakistani army to enable militants to infiltrate into India and “disrupt” the peace in Jammu and Kashmir don’t give out the right signals.

It makes us look as though we cannot deal with such violations.

“Firing is used as a diversionary tactic,” Kapoor said, adding that the only goal is to push in more and more people. He, however, said the Indian troops are alert and have foiled many such attempts at the borders.

Ok. So the Pakistani army uses diversionary tactics, we know about it, we are alert and have foiled many such attempts. This is a matter that should be discussed internally, at the army headquarters and with the defence ministry, and not be accessible to the media, the public and the Pakistani army.

The armed forces are about pugnacity. It is no occasion or reason to try victimhood. Or large-heartedness about how we will honour the ceasefire pact. Are we being given points on good behaviour or something? And by whom?

- - -

While ordinary Dalits strive to get accepted, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati is becoming larger than life. In an exhibition in Lucknow, she has been painted as a goddess, the ‘Dalit Devi’. Some fine arts student decides to get some reflected glory, but she ought to have better sense.


The concept of gods and goddesses are rich pastimes and certainly not for Dalits who have had to battle the faith itself. It is hugely ironical that Mayawati is not objecting to such deification; the statues are vanity and maybe to prove a point. There is one painting in which she is nestled among lotus petals with Kanshi Ram on one side and Dr. B.R.Ambedkar on the other. It is time for her to take a reality check. The lotus is a flower, our national flower (whatever that means), but it is also the BJP symbol. And this image represents Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. This is sheer mockery.

- - -

Huh?

TOI caption: Ramzan shopping is in full swing at Bhendi Bazaar

This is from The Times of India. Find a group of women in veils, in Bhendi Bazaar (where else?), and assume that they are carrying bags so they must be shopping for Ramzan. What does that mean? They are buying dates, fruits, kebabs for the evening? A little education: Muslim women can shop for other things for daily living. And if you want to emphasise the festive nature of the shopping, then it is for Eid, which is at the end of Ramzan. And women and men who practise the faith will not shop before the Eid moon is sighted.

So, stop getting excited and brush up on some basics.

- - -

Poll results:

Jaswant Singh’s book makes you:

understand Jinnah - 5%; understand past Indian leaders - 10%; understand Partition - 15%; understand Pakistan - 5%; understand BJP - 31%; understand Marketing - 26%; understand Indo-Pak current problems - 10%; What book? - 26%

So, hate me as much as you will, but most of you are with me. That the book reveals more about the BJP and marketing than about Jinnah!

Of naked gods and the cover-up jobs

Another nude portrait, another outcry.

The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti forced artist Nitai Das to withdraw a nude portrait allegedly resembling Lord Shiva from an exhibition at Jehangir Art Gallery.

We are back to the same old argument about freedom of expression. The artist has gone on the defensive saying that his untitled oil and acrylic painting was not of the Hindu God but just an anthropomorphic image of God. “My thoughts have been expressed through these paintings. People have a right to disagree with my work but my right to express my views cannot be curtailed. The work is untitled because I want people to interpret it on their own.”

With this statement he is handing over to the protestors a long rope to hang himself with. For, by his logic, their interpretation is valid, too. I don’t understand how giving a title can prevent people from interpreting a work as they wish. Do artists assume that if they title their works, then only their interpretation must prevail?

People have already commented on how the cult of Shiva has nude images, including the blatant worship of the Shiva lingam (Shiva’s phallus). These have mythological, and symbolic, meanings. No one is going to destroy the temples because of these depictions and no one has a problem that the works are titled or understood to be clearly what they are.

There is this rather silly notion that because India has given the world the Kama Sutra it is a more liberal society. These texts were written in ancient times when tribalism was the only culture. The refinement of material aspects of life has led to a different sensibility. The sculptors of temples were not thinking about metaphors the way contemporary analysts do.

Interestingly, the same analysts will see a real nude on the centrefold differently, perhaps even with disgust over how gauche it is, quite forgetting that a real woman or man has posed for it. Therefore, what does freedom of expression really mean, then?

Artist Atul Dodiya’s words, “India is a country with diverse traditions which is why certain people may find some things disturbing. But as long as the intent of the artist is correct, it must be understood. Artists, on their part, must not paint to offend, shock or provoke the viewer” are completely off in this context.

Who is to define the intent of the artist and its correctness? And what does he mean by an artist “must” not offend, shock or provoke the viewer? Are the viewers a single body of people with identical thoughts and ideas? What is wrong with provoking? Without provocation there can be no further exploration. Must the viewers be spoon-fed and swallow only the artist’s version?

Even calendar art makes people react differently as does the concept of beauty.

If the artists owe any responsibility to, it is to their idea of aesthetics and their ability to stand by it. There ought to be no room for scurrying away with a weak ‘untitled’ and use that as an excuse.

Had Das been upfront and said, yes, his work could be seen as Lord Shiva, he would have made more sense.

No one has seen god and god ‘creates’ us naked. So, is god offending, shocking, provoking the maternity ward, the first viewing gallery? Is god exploiting the human?

- - -

Image 1 is of Shiva in the Nataraj pose in the bare miniumum

Image 2 is a sculpture from the Chitragupta Temple

Sunset boulevard

These series of pictures were taken at a park rather late in the evening. I had turned and found the sun looking through the trees, just a hint of it going down. That became my first moment.

The next was when the sky was swathed in the afterglow; the foreground shows the barks of the trees glowing in the artificial lighting in the park.

The last was when the sun had set and the green circle you see is a light outside.