Showing posts with label colonisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonisation. Show all posts

28.1.14

Why display Tipu's Sword?




Should culture be a denial of history? And what history ought to be remembered?

When Karnataka decided to celebrate Tipu Sultan in their Republic Day tableau, the opposition did not really think about this. For them it was ‘murderer of Hindus, temple destroyer”, and the Congress government was chided for fake secularism. Some even called Tipu, “the Tiger of Mysore”, a Mughal king. This is par for the course for the Hindutva agenda. To be noted is that we never seem to have an issue with the British. Has there been any move to demolish the Gateway of India?

Having said this, the opponents of the opponents are using Tipu’s bravery against the Raj colonial rule, and his death in battle as an example. All very well, but the Indian National Congress cannot take credit for that.

I do indeed have an issue with Tipu Sultan in the January 26 float for the simple reason that India was already an independent nation when it chose to become a republic. We do not need to commemorate kings. And what is this obsession with his sword? Can we forget that it was brought back to India by business tycoon Vijay Mallya in 2003 by paying from his "personal funds" of Rs. 1.5 crore? (The second sword was auctioned in London in 2013.)

At the time it was seen as a political move, and like many political moves it was explained as "rightful legacy" by "a proud Kannadiga". If anything, this is parochialism. Which is also what the tableaux are about.

For us culture seems to be a mish-mash of song and dance from various regions. This is static. It does not convey the growth of a nation. It is as much of an anomaly as display of weapons. Who are these shown off to? What does it convey? That we are prepared to deal with any enemy attack.

It is not too different from Tipu's sword that Karnataka owes to a corporate house, which represents in some ways how we view the enemy of dislocated people today. What about other enemies within? Is it not the duty of the Republic to address these issues?

And if we want an exhibition of culture, then this is one area where we could do with fusion. Why not bring two or three regions to create something together?

History is killed by crude and ostentatious statues of dead heroes used opportunistically. Tipu Sultan is now included in the pantheon. There will be dissonant voices. Why play into them? Why not celebrate what can be instead of what was?

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: India Today

22.9.13

Blood in Nairobi




It takes extreme heartlessness to lob grenades, to shoot people in the head, and hold them hostage. People who have nothing to do with any cause, who are just going about their daily lives, enjoying an evening out with their families, or tourists taking a break from the sights.

What happened on Saturday in Nairobi is tragic and despicable. We have a tendency to compare, because we have become numb to killings largely because they appear on TV.

I would have liked to talk about my grandmother's early life in Kenya, the lullabies she sang to me in Swahili, the slaves her father released.

The crouched bodies and fear in the eyes of September 21 are a reminder of another kind of slavishness. We know who is behind the attacks. We even know why, to an extent. This does not mean anything. For, people are slaves to ideologies and politics, and nothing will stop them. The attempt to stop too is no free lunch.

Reports have mentioned the race of the victims, their nationalities, and it all becomes about who is mine, who is the other.

Al Shabaab, a terrorist organisation based in Somalia, has taken responsibility. The New York Times mentions that this attack was "one of the most chilling terrorist attacks in East Africa since Al Qaeda blew up two American embassies in 1998". Somalia and Kenya have been at war over three decades before that, and continue to be. It was territorial, to begin with.

Al-Shabaab’s spokesman, Ali Mohamoud Rage, said following the attack: “Kenya will not get peace unless they pull their military out of Somalia.”

Reports mention how the group was gloating in the social media. This trend has to stop. It is bad enough that we get sensational images on television. Such theatre of violence is close to the real thing, and glorifies the killers.

There is also a tendency to create more fissures:

• "The mall, called Westgate, is a symbol of Kenya’s rising prosperity, an impressive five-story building where Kenyans can buy expensive cups of frozen yogurt and plates of sushi. On Saturdays, it is especially crowded, and American officials have long warned that Nairobi’s malls were ripe targets for terrorists, especially Westgate, because a cafe on the ground floor, right off the street, is owned by Israelis."

Kenya is rich in natural resources, and it has seen levels of prosperity until, like many other nations, it was colonised. The expatriates continue to thrive.

However, is the Israeli establishment not there to do business? Don't they do business in the U.S. which feels under constant threat? Why is it always about 'us'? (Has the Israeli establishment expressed reservations?) The Somali group has been described as 'Islamist". Does that explain their earlier war with Kenya? Does that even explain the Arab entering Kenya in the 16 century to trade and staying on?

Eyewitnesses say the terrorists asked Muslims to leave. Unless they were recognisable by mode of dress, they would not know. And they don't really care, even if some reports suggest they asked people on the run to identify the Prophet's mother. One does not see terrorists do this in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan where they target their co-religionists.

Rudy Atallah, the former director of African counterterrorism for the Pentagon, said: “I think this is just the beginning. An attack like this gives them the capability to recruit, it shows off their abilities, and it demonstrates to Al Qaeda central that they are not dead.”

Now imagine if the reports had not played into just this narrative. The Al Qaeda does not need the media to let it know what its members and allies are doing. The organisation is well-oiled and has its antenna up. What we are witnessing — the 39 dead people and 150 injured will be forgotten — is one more version of monopoly.

Dan Stackhouse, a commenter from New York City, sort of revealed the subtext:"Kenya is an old ally of America, not to mention Britain and other major powers. It would be hypocrisy if we did not aid them in their fight against the shabab in Somalia. For now we can do nothing about al-Assad's terrorism in Syria, but we can and should do something about this."

This is not a quid pro quo. Helplessness over inability to 'do' something in Syria should not seek replacement. The old idea of allies too does not work anymore. Besides, the power equations are different. (Not to forget that Britain ruled over Kenya.)

At this time, we need to spare a thought for those who are killed everyday for some vague idea — of faith, of political expediency, of just muscle power. We need to spare a thought also for Somalia. There are Somalians who live an honest life. They are not terrorists.

One has to only be exposed to lands where terrorists live to understand how desperate the ordinary people are, and how victimised they too can be... if not by bullets, then by branding.

© Farzana Versey

---

All quotes from The New York Times

---

Update

The issue of highlighting race is again evident in new findings. As reported:

The Foreign Office is investigating suggestions that a female British terror suspect nicknamed the "White Widow" could have been linked to the plot. Witness accounts have suggested a woman was among the attackers, fuelling speculation that Samantha Lewthwaite, who was married to 7/7 bomber Jermaine Lindsay, was involved.

She is wanted by Kenyan police over links to a suspected terrorist cell planning bomb attacks.In March 2012, it was reported that Lewthwaite, 29, originally from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, had fled across the border from Kenya to Somalia.

5.12.10

Fearless Obama?


The American president, who has been talking about democracy, did not have the basic courtesy to inform another democratic president that he planned to visit his country. Barack Obama made an unscheduled visit to Afghanistan, skirted the capital Kabul and landed straight at the Bagram Air Base where his increasing number of troops are stationed.

Forget what they say, and I mean American commentators, about his concern following the Wikileaks. His comments are enough to raise questions even if they are taken within the context. Here are a few quotes deconstructed:

1. “I know it’s not easy for all of you to be away from home, especially during the holidays. But here’s what I want you to know. As President of the United States, I have no greater responsibility than keeping the American people secure. I could not meet that responsibility, we could not protect the American people, we could not enjoy the blessings of our liberty without the extraordinary service that each and every one of you perform each and every day.”

How many Taliban fighters have been knocking on the doors of the US? Are they a security risk to the American people? There was an act of terror committed on 9/11. It wasn’t the Taliban. Not the Taliban that is at war with its own people. Americans need to be protected from the policies of their government – policies that have taken away their jobs, their homes, their welfare schemes, their healthcare facilities. Many Americans would not know where the heck Bagram is. Check with Sarah Palin.

2. "We said we were going to break the Taliban's momentum and that's what you're doing, you're going on the offense, tired of playing defense."

There are several soldiers lying wounded in the hospitals. Why? Were they not supposed to defend themselves? I know that’s not what he meant. I am just flipping the argument. Soldiers may 'tire' of defensive tactics if they get orders from above or their job clearly states so. They do not attack on their own. Later, there could well be tremendous psychological pressure and they may indulge in forms of offense beyond the front, especially with prisoners.

3. “America is not defined by our borders. We are defined by a common creed. And this holiday season, it’s worth remembering that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are the right to life, and liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

If America is not defined by its borders, then why does Mr. Obama want to secure the US borders, even due to imagined threats? What common creed is he talking about when social and racial disparities exist in the land of opportunity and political opportunism, as in lands all over the globe? What about the right to life, liberty and happiness of the civilians killed in air strikes in those lands? Oh, of course, this was to ensure that democracy prevailed.

One reads that the US-propped Hamid Karzai regime is terribly corrupt. It is not sponging on American money, but the money of its own citizens. The US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, said: "The meeting with AWK highlights one of our major challenges in Afghanistan: how to fight corruption and connect the people to their government when the key government officials are themselves corrupt.”

This should clearly indicate that it is failed US foreign policy. Obama should have met those government officials instead of the PR exercise of three hours with the troops.

4. “So we may face a tough enemy in Afghanistan and we’re in a period of tough challenges back home, but we do not become the nation that we are because we do what’s easy, as Americans, we’ve endured and we’ve grown stronger, and we remain the land of the free only because we are also home of the brave.”

How tough is it to send other people’s fathers, brothers, husbands, sons out to fight an enemy they don’t care about in a place they may barely have any interest in? It is a pity, Mr. President, that you believe the freedom of your people is possible only by the bravery of spreading your armed forces wide.

And, there are other lands that are free in their own way and it is not nice, really, to just drop in to meet your troops without saying hello to the guy who makes it possible for you to be ‘brave’.

3.8.10

Spit and polish

When David Cameron came to a shining India and spoke of a common culture, he failed to mention the problem Britons have with paan. Coloured drool and the stiff upper lip just do not go together.

Who amongst us has been immune to the charms of the paan, whether we partake of it regularly or on rare occasions? Our paanwallah gets cult status as he applies choona to the betel leaf and expertly adds aromatic supari and gulkand, folds it, sometimes piercing a clove to set it. The shop down the road is an economic leveller as people from all strata wait for the triangle to work its magic and melt in the mouth. There is delicious sinfulness as the lips are aflame with a touch of crimson. Can we forget the wickedness of Waheeda Rehman dancing to “Paan khaaye sainyan hamaaro” alluding to the aftermath of the mulmul kurta with red-red splotches? Indeed, there is also a palang tod paan intended to transform local libidinous Clark Kents into Supermen.

Cameron stuck to the safe areas of the India Britain wants — whitewashed with Shahrukh Khan and Sachin Tendulkar. Against these detergent and wax-work heroes, with slovenly guile he pitted Pakistani terrorism. What surprised me, though, was his reference to common food. The UK is into the chutney Mary sort of Indian cuisine that has fallen prey to the British palate where even a nargisi kebab tastes like shepherd’s pie. Except for those execrable pricey British-Indian restaurants, you won’t find the English significantly enamoured of our food. Heck, they hate our smells.

It isn’t surprising then that the prime minister studiously avoided any mention of how the Brent Council is planning to spend a good £17,000 to educate people of Indian origin against paan spit and will fine offenders with £80. The local councillor had said, “Paan staining is unsightly and contributes to a negative image that Wembley is dirty and rundown, which can lead to increased levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. By working together with the police and the local community we are confident that people will think twice before spitting on our streets.”

Ah, there goes the salivating bubble of David. ‘Our streets’ must not be messed up by ‘those’. I must admit that when I read this report I was secretly thrilled. It was like hitting back at the Raj, akin to a civil disobedience movement, the paan stains like graffiti written with blood. I have seen these people create their own world right there, and you can’t tell that you are not in India when you are in Wembley or Southall. It is an almost satirical recreation of India and paan represents it so well.

I understand hygiene, I understand image, but how can a place that is dirty and rundown increase levels of crime? Is this British wishful thinking to ensure that those with impure antecedents do not intrude elsewhere and are shown their place? Why would the Gujaratis and Punjabis create havoc in their own homes? Some of them have expressed colonised disgust over the spittle, but most lead pretty ordinary, hardworking, isolated lives. They aren’t waiting to be knighted. No Curry King lives there.

Cameron’s 90-strong contingent, the largest since 1947, appeared to be the neo East India Company with a designer logo. He did the IT sector, the business community, cited the heroes, and dissed the neighbour. He could have been Lord Mountbatten patting the young punks of globalisation. Of course, he’d take our ones with close shaves. Their walls look like the Victoria and Albert Museum, not paan spit. They are ready to form their separate state of Indian illusion with western monogrammed cooperation.
- - -

Published in Express Tribune, Auguest 3