Sunday ka Funda

You go out for a meal and take a picture and post it. What are you really telling the world? You drive and capture the streets, the clouds, sunsets. Are any of these new to those who see them? You meet friends and one of the most important takeaways from this "wonderful evening" is to pose for a selfie, after taking picture of tea and snacks and of the interesting tree in the compound.

I can't say all of this is a recent phenomenon. I have done much of this, although I believe that taking a photograph of a meal you share with somebody is an intrusion into their space as much as yours. The same is true of wanting to capture any and every meeting.

This is not a judgment, for I am aware that I'd be guilty at some point in time of all of these. It points out to the utter isolation, so much so that even real interactions seem legitimate only when they are virtualised.

Like this very normal view of the balcony and from it. It is a wry comment on what we have become, the bareness of the room only highlighting disengagement with reality:

The Scarf at Saarc

Some might find it cool, the swagger and the scarf. But all these leaders at the SAARC summit in Kathmandu look like characters in a Bollywood film. They could be part of the rugged terrain, as dacoits. Or, village chiefs ready to extract their pound of flesh from the poor. Or, perhaps they are the rustic version of Men in Black or The Godfather. They could also be members of an extended family that has come together for a wedding, hiding the bad blood between them for public appearance.

Indeed, none of these South Asian leaders has a benign demeanour, at least in this photograph. It is, I suppose, an occupational hazard, but they do have to travel with baggage that is very heavy.

Sunday ka Funda

What could the camel be thinking — that he is protected or that he is a threat? And do camels come in the way of camels?

Another August 15

"To all Indians celebrating our Independence Day, greetings from the Pradhan Sewak. I stand before you not as Pradhan Mantri (Prime Minister) but Pradhan Sevak (prime servant)."

— Narendra Modi

Today's Independence Day speech by the Prime Minister was all about playing to the gallery. It was like an election rally. From the word go he was marketing himself — whether it was to talk about how a poor man had made it to the Red Fort (quite fittingly a Mughal monument that makes his supporters froth at the mouth at other times), or how an outsider made it to Delhi, in a way negating the idea of a cohesive India especially when there is increasing resentment against immigrants from other villages, towns and cities.

Even the quote above is wrong on so many counts. The whole concept of a sevak is feudalistic, and to be a prime servant does not upset the status quo but works as a taunt to its own to suggest he is not one among them too.

"We have seen instances of communal violence for too long. Till when will this go on? Be it caste or communal violence, they stall the growth of the nation."

He went to the extent of calling for a ten-year moratorium on violence. And what exactly does he mean by "we have seen"? Is everything to be brushed under the carpet? The growth of the nation also means inclusiveness of all communities and castes, and ensuring that political lightweights do not incite them or, worse, ignite the situation by lighting the matchstick. The state and the police have a huge role.

It is convenient when you are the 'supreme leader' to want peace, but do little to check those who whip up such frenzy, including right inside Parliament.

"We have to stress on cleanliness, sanitation. By 2019 we must ensure a Swacch Bharat...Dignity of women is our responsibility. We have to ensure that we provide toilets for all."

He recalled Mahatma Gandhi for this. At that time, toilets also had to do with caste, as they continue to do now. Why did he not talk about how that should stop? What we are likely to have is the urban elite 'doing' cleanliness with much fanfare. Interestingly, there were pictures of ragpickers cleaning up after the speech. This is the real issue, of the poor will have to continue to clean up the mess the not-poor make.

Tying up the "dignity of women" with lack of toilets (after the case of the rape and public hanging of the teenage girls in Kanpur) is a sop. We need toilets, but rape happens even where there a toilets. It happens inside toilets. This will only make society complacent.

Besides, by saying that people might wonder how a PM is discussing such things on an occasion like this he conveyed that he was doing a favour.

I'll leave it at that and quote his own words after last year's August 15 speech by Dr. Manmohan Singh:

"Media channels said this is PM Manmohan Singh's last speech from Red Fort but he said he has miles to go, which rocket will he take?"

Somehow, I am thinking..."mujhe khauf aatish-e-gul se hai ke kaheen chaman ko jalaa na de..."

For now, some pictures:

Painting on the Freedom Struggle by V.N.O"key

The first August 15

Precarious windows

Despite it all

--

This I wrote last year

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.

Rishtey mein Lord Ram hamare baap lagte hain?

It is lecture time. “The interest of ordinary Muslims in new India lies in embracing modernity,” says Minhaz Merchant. The headline of the editorial page piece in The Times of India is ‘Educate, Don’t Appease’. It assumes, therefore, that only the uneducated are appeased and the white knights like Mr. Merchant are not.

I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:

As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”

Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.

The author goes on to state:

This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.

Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.

Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.


I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:

It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.

My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?

Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?

Jolie's image-making

Angelina Jolie has gone to Pakistan to help the flood victims. Good enough.

But why is she dressed as though she is visiting a dargah or some holy place? And why has she been photographed with a fully-veiled woman? This is just pushing a stereotype, when people have been stripped off their belongings and have to make do with what little they have. Men, too, were affected, and many, many children. But Ms. Jolie is with this kind of woman because it makes such a huge impact.

Whereas, these women wade through the waters unconcerned about how they appear.

And there are several others who often come out in the streets to protest without their heads covered.

This is part of the image-making exercise.  Of the advanced society helping the poor and trying to be like them in a show of empathy. After Jolie leaves and gets back into her thigh-high slit gown, these women will be still seen by the world as cloaked creatures. The world will not think about those who are helping within. Or even the corruption within. Vultures overtaken by vultures.

Shoo-shoe, Omar

I don’t know about you, but I am really tired of the intellectual analyses these shoe-throwing incidents have thrown up. The manner in which the media has been tracing the history and dissecting the cases, one would think that every shoe is a dissenter.

The latest target is Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, Omar Abdullah. I love the picture; it almost looks like the photographer and the assailant had co-ordinated their movements. Now, the Times of India carried this caption: ‘SHOOED’ BUT UNFAZED’ as the footwear ‘sailed over’ the precious head. How was it possible for the CM to get fazed? Does he have eyes above his head or, more appropriately, over his cap?

Or was the reference to his reaction after the incident when the shoe fell ahead of him? An interesting possibility that it sails over his head and falls ahead of him when it was thrown from the third row in front of the dais and might have fallen at the side. Perhaps the direction of the wind had something to do with it.

However, the TOI report is very balanced; so balanced that while it says the man who lost his shoe is a head constable with the J&K police on one page, it mentions later that Abdul Ahad Jan was dismissed and in fact served a sentence and was out on bail. Should not the media – not just this newspaper – have checked on the current status of the man?

No. For it would not help in the slant of the report:

The fact that he did so during I-Day celebrations makes it an even more damaging dereliction of duty.

Had he done it on any other day it would have been less damaging and less of a dereliction of duty? In fact, he is exercising his independence on the given day.

Mind you, Omar has been demanding that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be revoked so that the J&K police can tackle the troubles in the state directly.

Ah, how wicked. While seeming to take up the cause of Omar, the paper is snidely trying to say that you get the army out of the way and look at what can happen. That is the reason the other story about the cop was pushed to the back pages.

Here is the stuff about him…

• He was mentally unstable
• He looked uneasy from the beginning
• He had been charged with extortion
• He had been sent by a political party and used the politician’s entry pass. (Names please.)
• He was shouting pro-azadi (freedom) slogans

Guess what? Omar also mentioned azadi:

Earlier, in his address, Omar said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was ready to consider autonomy for the state as a solution. “But we would like to discuss other options like self-rule and azadi too.”

Back to the shoes, it did not deter our brave CM. He went on to unfurl the flag. The way this is emphasised one would imagine he was grievously injured. Of course, courageous man that he is he said:

“I’ve no regret that somebody threw a shoe and raised azadi slogans. I think it’s a better way of protesting if a shoe is tossed instead of a stone.’’

Bloody hell. Those who are pelting stones are protesting against policies or lack of them, they are protesting for their rights, they have grievances against the social order and against being pushed into a corner, they are being targeted by militants and security forces and used by political parties. Before Omar Abdullah aims at getting martyrdom from those brown shoes, he had better understand that this individually-expressed ire against him is not the same as the movement he will ditch the moment he gets some sops from the Centre for himself. Isn’t that why his papa, Farooq Abdullah, stopped him from resigning? If they want to run the state as a Mom & Pop store, then they'd better just stick to candies.

Don’t speak for the people’s hunger and anger of years.

The Eye and Eyes

That week in England, just before I was to leave for home, I decided I had to see the London Eye. Although it was unashamedly touristy, I felt this urge. On reaching there I was told there was a technical problem and it might open only at noon; it was 10.30.

I walked towards the Dali exhibition, then sat on a bench and starting writing something morbid, my pen twisted at an angle as though reluctant to commit. A few people hesitated before asking me to take their group pictures. I felt like taking back a digital memory as well. I managed half a smile and returned to my place.



An old woman came and sat next to me and unpeeled a sandwich wrapped in plastic; it looked stale as dry crumbs fell. She remained expressionless, looking nowhere but at the target of her hunger. There was so much desolation in those few minutes – was that her lifetime?

So lost in thought was I that I decided to walk back towards the gate. There was already a queue. I had not bothered to exchange my counterfoil for a ticket. I ran quickly and was being ushered into one capsule. After the metal detector and the rummaging of the bag, the security person asked, “Anything sharp?” I had already moved ahead but I called out to him, “Yes…”

He arched his eyebrows in a query…what??

“My mind!”

I did not wait to see his reaction.

Inside the capsule we were told to take precautions since we would be going very high and could feel dizzy or get sick. I started clicking – the sky, the river, the Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, buildings, others in the capsules, people below – tiny figures. We all look like crumbs from stale sandwiches.

As we were descending, an announcement was made that our pictures would be taken by a remote camera and we should all move to the North-east side. Everyone stood…well, most did. A bit diffidently, I felt I too needed a souvenir. I ambled to a spot. When I went to collect the picture, there were several flashing on the monitor.

I was there with the thick line that ran across the capsule dividing me into two. The girl at the counter apologised, “Sorry about that.”

“Not at all. That’s me, all right.”

The pretty dead

Such a pretty girl and I did not put up her photograph. I didn’t. It was deliberate. Almost all newspapers that carried the picture of Ishrat Jahan and her friends who were shot dead had an inset of her fair, luminous face. She would become just that – a trophy for the media as much as she had been for the Establishment. She would become another Nida.

The good-looking dead grab more newsprint and TV space because we need a relief from eyesores of calamities and tragedies even if they come in the form of victims. Especially if they are victims. Our sorrow can get heightened. The argument is that had I shown her face before she died, then the tragedy would have hit harder as it would be transposed with the blood-splattered body.

I am seething. People are killed for no reason and it does not matter how they look, how they speak and what their financial or social status is. If we start building up the dead as embalmed beauties in our consciousness we will be as pathetic as those who indulge in murder and then camouflage intent beneath legalese.

Last night, after a long time, I decided to watch the news channels. I was looking for something on Ishrat at prime time. One channel showed two men grappling with an animal in a cage; it wasn’t Discovery or National Geographic. Another one showed a private airline’s pilots on strike and kept flashing images of the screen that showed cancelled flights, as though people are dumb. Finally, I reached Times Now. It did have a discussion on the fake encounter.

The anchor’s intentions may be honourable but did he have to screech and shout down the voice of the BJP guy who, needless to say, would indulge in technicalities? How many times was it necessary to say, “Oh, that is technical”? And was there any need to insist on seeming to appear to take a side when it is apparent to anyone?

Then he spoke to Ishrat’s sister, who ended with how those who helped her were non-Muslim. In fact, she interjected after she was thanked for being part of the show to tell us this. I feel for her loss and appreciate the family’s belief in Ishrat. I know they must have gone through five years of hell for being branded as part of a terrorist’s family. It would hurt. Her need to assert the support of people who were not Muslim came from deep within, an insecurity she had internalised with such intensity that she just had to say it. However, if there were people from other communities who were with them, then there were Muslims too.

The Muslim who spoke on the channel was well-known lawyer Majeed Memon. He said, among other things, that because of this labelling of Ishrat for five years, 150 million Muslims have been tainted. I wanted to ask him to stop right then. This is what Narendra Modi and his cohorts say. This is not what he has to state because it only gives further credence to a stereotype. We have all lived with it for almost two decades to some degree, but we are not the real sufferers. And we are most certainly not the spokespersons for 150 million Muslims in India.

Mr. Memon and I (to a much lesser degree) can at best voice certain thoughts. Mr. Memon does not read this blog, I am sure, but if there is anyone who knows him do tell him not to decide on behalf of a community about how they feel. Do not ride on the death of a young woman. Tell him that a couple of months ago he was sitting at the Atrium Lounge at Taj Land’s End, the table next to the large flower arrangement which is in front of the pianist. I was on the sofa diagonally across having my crème brule. Why am I mentioning this? To convey that Muslims do not have to be beleaguered creatures or hugely famous to enjoy a good time. More importantly, to drive home the point that Ishrat was far from his mind and mine.

We have a baggage to carry, no doubt about it. Let us do so as our burden and not someone else’s burden we are being forced to bear. This is about me and you, Mr.Memon, as individuals and as members of disparate groups. When I talk about Indian Muslims as a polity it is different from using the community to further my ends. If that were the case you would see me more often, eyes blazing on TV screens. Have you refused to appear on shows that try out different versions of the Muslim - liberal, moderate, unusual, out-of-the-box, secular, pseudo secular, atheist, agnostic, religious but tolerant, smokes but does not inhale, drinks but does not get drunk?

Do it. It will liberate you and make those channels find one less caricature.

The Rogue's Gallery

Anyone wants pictures? Here, these are the ones we should keep in mind. I have not been able to find any of police inspector J G Parmar and additional DGP PP Pandey.

Below are Gujarat's beloved chief minister Narendra Modi flashing a sword. Next is D G Vanzara, who has already confessed to killings earlier. And finally, then Ahmedabad police commissioner K R Kaushik in uniform.

How holy!

I just got a box of modak. I wrote to a friend saying that these days they have fancy ones with cranberry, apricot, figs and chocolate to cater to cosmopolitan tastes, and I so want to be cosmo. They don’t look like the real thing with coconut flakes dripping grease or going squishy with steam. But, not many things look the same anymore.

Like this deity being taken for immersion.


I can imagine Ganesha telling the chauffeur, “Hawaa aane de (let the breeze come in).” Or insisting that the car have a wireless connection so that he can figure out how the poor ones are doing it and send some blessing their way while his ‘owner’ talks to Facebook friends about the awesome puja they had and the planned evening with brie on rye bread and a Chantilly. Laterz, honey, muaah, muaah…

- - -

So, the iftaar tamasha is going on strong. Don’t have to tell you what Ramzan is about, but it has to do with Islam that does not believe in idolatry. Look at this picture:


Sonia and Rahul Gandhi dominate. I am sure the minister knows that new and renewable energy does not possibly mean a change in the way the religion is practised?

Ironies of India

Caption in TOI: ALL GEARED UP: A dog wears a custom-made windcheater at Marine Drive

Obama and Peta: The Fly Whodunit

Ah, now President Barack Obama cannot say he wouldn’t hurt a fly. Since everyone knows what he did in the studios, I found just one quote that makes me think of several instances when he could have uttered those words, “That was pretty impressive, wasn’t it? I got the sucker.”

Was the fly a sucker, as in naïve and vulnerable, or was it the sort of insect that sucks and feeds on blood? In either case, the Prez has got himself a new pun: “SWAT Operation”. I am sure someone at the White House must be thrilled to bits.

Watch the man in action here being interviewed by John Harwood and his ‘flyotus interruptus’:




For all his efforts, some people are not happy. As expected PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) thinks it amounts to cruelty to animals and are sending him some device to trap house flies that can be released outside.

This wasn’t a house fly. It was a fly on the make, trying to get its 15 minutes of fame before the cameras by getting too close to the most powerful man in the world. It isn’t something that happens to mere mortals. The fly could have been a mole, the fly could have been something from the past – skeletons are rather passé, the fly might have been the head of a cult called The Fliers whose sole purpose is to make the high and mighty get a laugh at their expense, you know like David Letterman. Or, the fly could have been an innocent victim that got trapped inside and was rather famous among its own. In that case, this wasn’t simple murder but assassination.

The FBI ought to order an enquiry and check whether the fly was American, to begin with. Was it racist? Did it belong to some Islamist group? Was it there to sneak into the Obama well-fitted suit and check out the potential of a date in New York at a Broadway musical?

These are exceedingly important queries that need to be addressed.

Meanwhile, the PETA guys might like to take a look at their own most exploitative ads. Recently, they released an image that showed German-Filipina model Mia Gray inside a cage to highlight the plight of animals in zoos.

I do not think anyone is thinking about any animal in a zoo while seeing this ad.

Easy does it

Now that it will start raining...

Jaanbaaz

I did not like Feroz Khan. Each time I saw him at some award function, I’d get irritated. His so-called showmanship put me off completely; his apparent style just did not flow effortlessly.

He is dead now. He chose to die close to the animals he loved even if it meant taking a risk and travelling.

This I liked about him. Taking risks.

There was a time when he did qualify as both showman and stylish in the real sense. If he had to blow up a car in his own venture, he got the best new brand and blew it up.

There was an element of Elvis Presley and Clint Eastwood in him, without not quite being either.

One could never imagine him as poor…he had to live in large houses, wear the best suits and turtle neck sweaters (it seemed to be invariably cold where he was located!), drive long cars through winding and reckless turns, he had to have his hair in place and he had to be the winner; even if he lost it was with a gesture of magnanimity as though he were doing the hero a favour.

He was quite a terrible actor, only a bit better than the deadpan Jeetendra or the “naaaiii” exclaiming Shashi Kapoor which made the nahin (no) sound more like an urgent appeal to the barber (nai is barber is Hindi). Feroz Khan had the advantage of a fairly flawless dialogue delivery.

The only film I liked him in was Safar. The woman is in love with someone else, but of course he gets her…the words are not in keeping with his persona at all:

Jo tumko ho pasand wohi baat karenge Tum din ko agar raat kaho raat kahenge

(I shall do whatever you wish
If you call the day night, then so be it)

Unlikely. But then, he could be a smooth talker…as long as he was in the driver’s seat.

And he was till the end. When he insisted on meeting his thoroughbreds before he left. It was a great gamble…or perhaps another journey (safar):

Jo Tumko Ho Pasand



# Movie: Safar
# Singer: Mukesh
# Music Director: Kalyanji-Anandji
# Lyricist: Indeevar
# Actors/Actresses: Feroz Khan, Rajesh Khanna, Sharmila Tagore

A coloured war

At a time when we are inundated with war-like situations and images flash at us in almost synchronised form and seem colour-coordinated to match the backdrop, we have become lobotomised creatures. If at all we react it is because our systems and sensibilities are affected, not due to any revulsion at the happenings.

Think of old war movies and photographs. They were subtly stark and dark. I have watched many of them and recall barbed wire fences, men in berets, bunkers, the mess, the singing and tapping of wooden tables, the parting of lovers, the standing in queues for rations, the loss, the death…all so black and white, yet layered with the greys of profound meaning.

Recently I was sent a link to Der Spiegel’s collection of the only pictures of World War I that were shot in colour by two seasoned photographers - the German Hans Hildenbrand and the Frenchman Jules Gervais-Courtellemont.

The report states:

Although color photography has existed since at least 1879, it didn't become popular until many decades later. The overwhelming majority of photos taken during World War I were black and white, lending the conflict a stark aesthetic which dominates our visual memory of the war.

History, whether recorded or not, is always repeated. It was this picture of devastation that sprang out at me from the gallery.

Why? A mere structure, a church destroyed, is the centre-piece. It is mere structures that crumble – brick by brick and emotion by emotion. We invest a lot in them and they have become the cause of many a dispute in our so-called modern age.

Besides, I read that the pictures of people - soldiers and civilians - were ‘posed’ due to technical constraints. I understand that, but however much planned wars are and whatever strategy is adopted, the impulse is a moment of thoughtlessness. And when I say war, it is the wars we fight each day with people who we are forced to call enemies.

- - -

For the full gallery, go here.

Hell-oween

Since I don't know much about Halloween...and I have a chocolate treat everyday, here is something that shows the fearful face of our future:

And for those who enjoy some fun, try this link!

Designer exploiters

Getting disgusted won’t get me anywhere, but once again something at a fashion show has put me off. Look, why don’t these people stick to their sticks walking the ramp and stop messing around with social issues? The last time I got upset was when they had exploited toilet cleaners; now they are using blind women.

One of them embossed Braille on the front of one garment and the English alphabets at the back. She said, “It is the blind that feel and ‘see’. The ones that have vision are really blind. The blind don’t want compassion, they want respect.”

Is this respect? The bloody gall of designing clothes with Braille. Do they think that the visually impaired are stupid? Do they imagine that they are going to run their hands over their clothes to read about fabric and silhouette and such other details…or is it detailing? And as this picture shows, the blind women are not even wearing the so-called designer clothes; they were brought in as gimmicks.

If you want to help the blind then, even though it sounds insensitive, make your models walk blindfolded. Watch them trip (and please do not try a wardrobe malfunction trick to capitalise on boobless boobs) and then play some violin music to convey tragedy, darken the auditorium and flash the social message - the blind cannot see, but ‘see’.

Damn. They might even take this suggestion seriously.

Another cuckoo case this ‘season’ dealt with the issue of fascism. And how did he convey it? By using Nazi skinheads! As though we don’t have home-grown fascists. Here, too, we cannot get rid of our foreign obsession.

Some are now trying the no-makeup look with models dressed in sack cloth walking barefoot. Honey, if you are so desperate at least make sure the ‘super model’ has nice feet. Stop kidding around. Fashion is about clothes, beauty, upfront physical appeal. Leave the issues for another time.

- - -

This is an extract from an earlier post…Fashion, my foot:

We need to shut shop. This fashion parody has been going on for too long and makes no sense. I believe there was one show where all the male models were dressed as Sikhs because it was a sporting line and Sikhs are sporty! What next, a cocktail line should have Malayalis because they drink like crazy, and a lounge line ought to have Bengalis for they are always lounging?

There is this Bong designer, Sabyasachi Mukherjee. I remember his early days when he would smile and do ordinary things with clothes which made them wearable. Now he talks about using leather and jute and all that crap and he invariably gets the models to look deglamourised in a trendy way – they mostly wear large glasses and bindis with any kind of outfit. It just looks terribly stagey and hardly dramatic.

What is the point being made here? That you can be a plain Jane and carry it off? Who the hell is some designer to convey that? These clothes are pricey and lack basic aesthetics. Talking about silhouettes is not going to change the fact that wearing long tunics over short capris will always make you look like you are a behenji who has rolled up her churidar for a little dip in the beach waters because your shauhar said, “Chalo ji, kuchch paaon tau geele kar lo!”

I am really tired of this….then they go on about cuts and lines. We are Indians; we have curves. Real curves. And we like it. As women. We don’t give a damn what some men, and to hell with designers being gay, want. If you care so much for the flat look then just dress your male models as women, like you made them dress like Sikhs. Not too tough. The androgynous look is what you want, and what you will get.

Easy does it

- - -

- - -

- - -

Up mine?

Nooo… have been auto-suggesting this for a few days now. No writing about how I started writing this blog three years ago on this day. No senti stuff. Just go on as though nothing has happened. No one notices. Really.

But what to do? Even Khomeini was born on this day 106 years ago.

Now, you can read what you want about the Ayatollah, but no one will tell you a thing about me.

So, here’s to me, each applies at different times:

When you want to tear your hair

When you think I am half-way there

When I am doing something right

And finally:

“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
- Oscar Wilde