Reflections

Indian Children in Norway- Cultural Differences and the Welfare System

2012-02-10T20:35:00.000-08:00

Last month, a bizarre news article reported across various print and electronic media managed to create a significant amount of excitement in India. The incident happened in Norway and involved an Indian family and the Norwegian childcare system.

The family consists of a young couple who are on a temporary visa in Norway, and their two children: a three-year-old son and a one-year-old daughter. As per the reports, the couple lost custody of both their children several months back because the childcare authorities concluded that the care given by the parents were inadequate and did not meet the children’s needs. When the authorities visited the family on a few routine inspections, they were appalled by the various ways in which they perceived the children were being mistreated. They pointed out many anomalies; including:

1. The mother was feeding the children with her hand.

2. The boy was sleeping in the same bed with his father.

3. The boy didn’t have a bed of his own.

4. The mother breastfed the baby whenever she cried instead of following a fixed schedule.

5. The toys that the boy had were deemed inappropriate.

6. The boy didn’t have sufficient space to play.

7. The boy didn’t have suitable clothes.

8. The mother seemed depressed and irritable.

Apparently, representatives of the childcare system started visiting the household after the boy was seen to exhibit phases of irritability in school. Upon a “thorough investigation” that spanned several visits, the representatives deemed the parents unfit for rearing children. The verdict was that the children were to be cared for in foster homes until they were eighteen years old; and that during this period the parents would only be allowed to see them twice every year, for an hour during each visit.

The incident took place in May 2011 but it only began getting media coverage this January; when the parents, after a long legal tussle with the childcare authorities; took the matter to diplomatic levels and got the Indian High Commission involved.

As the news spread, it caused a great deal of furor in India. To the average Indian, most of the anomalies listed by the Norwegian authorities seemed commonplace; indeed in India these are the norms and not deviations. A mother feeding her child with her hand is common in India; as is common for one to eat with his own hands. In a society that values touch and familial affection highly and has little regard for individual space, it is also usual for children to share beds with their parents until they reach teenage. Breast-feeding babies when they cry, again, is the standard practice in India. Finally, it is also not unusual for children in India to have an inappropriate or an inadequate collection of toys and clothes; the Indian family ascribes little importance to these materials in the context of child-rearing.

At any rate, as per Indian cultural norms; the reported “discrepancies” were either normal and perfectly acceptable; or too insignificant for anyone to bother. Under all circumstances (barring the rare and unfortunate event where the parents suffered from some severe psychological disorder), separating children of ages one and three permanently from their parents would be considered outrageous by the average Indian. He would opine that the combined negative impact of all the points mentioned above would be far surpassed by the effects of forcefully denying a young child the love and affection of its parents.

The Norwegian authorities, on their part, insisted that this was not merely a case of cultural misunderstanding; that the parents were twisting facts to garner public sympathy; that the decision was made on the basis of a lot of compelling evidence of negligence and mal-treatment and after a considerable deliberation; and that the Child Protection System do not snatch children from their parents unless they have no other option. On the other hand, the fact that an astounding 12,500 children were being taken care of by the system in 2005 in sparsely populated Norway, gives an idea of how proactive the system is.

After a considerable interference from the Indian High Commission, the matter was finally resolved in the first week of February; when the Norwegian authority agreed to hand over the children to their uncle. It appears that the children may finally be re-united with their family; although the scars of an eight month long forceful separation from parents in an unknown land would perhaps only heal with time.

As one hopes that the children get to live a normal, fulfilling life, replete with the affectionate warmth of family; one cannot but help ponder over the cultural differences that seem so prominent in cases like these. We often talk about the underlying traits that are common in various societies and that can function as bases of our unity; but at the same time, one cannot deny these remarkable deviations among cultures that can potentially lead to misunderstanding and pain.

As an institution, the family has withered and weakened in the Developed World over the last century. Familial bonds, love between children and their parents have faded with the growth of individualism; personal freedom has come at the cost of a severance of chains that bonded people together. That effect has not been as pronounced in developing countries; and personal relations within a family still run deep. As Aishwariya Rai had once famously said to David Letterman, we don't have to make appointments to dine with our parents.

Another issue of concern in this regard is the role of the welfare system. While social welfare in many cases leads to a general improvement of the lives of people; there are ways in which it can negatively affect the peace and well-being of individuals; as clearly exhibited in this incident. If not implemented with foresight and deep understanding of cultures; the welfare system can lead to menacing results; even when applied with the best intentions. This incident therefore cautions the system to be careful and prudent when it attempts to interfere with someone else’s lives; it is of course foolish to spend tax-payers’ money in an endeavour as futile and useless as this one.

References:

Shifting Patterns in Bollywood

2012-02-10T18:39:00.001-08:00

Those who know me well would never accuse me of being a fan of Bollywood. In fact, the accusation has often been the other way round. I've been deemed an aantel (Bengali adjective that ridicules intellectuals) because of my conspicuous disinterest regrading the popular entertainment presented by the likes of Karan Johar and Shahrukh Khan. Nonetheless, there have been occasional moments in my life, too, when I have watched a Sholay or a Kuch Kuch Hota Hai with considerable attentiveness; or when I have glanced, albeit casually, to whatever was shown on the television. I continue at present too, to keep myself abreast of the headlines in the world's largest film industry; and the musings reflected in this particular piece are conclusions drawn from such observations; from the past and from the present.

Whoever has seen Bollywood movies of the eighties and early nineties would probably agree that a majority of the movies tended to relate to a certain socio-economic stratum. The good guys overwhelmingly came from a poor or lower middle class background; their economic condition varying from a state of absolute destitution to that of moderate scarcity; but never of abundance. The bad guy almost inevitably was the obscenely rich and devilishly crooked businessman; who would device the dirtiest of means to harass the poor.

The hero would often take the role of a Messiah of the poor; someone who stands up against smuggling trades of the villain; someone who resists bulldozers that the promoter sends to destroy slums; someone who grows up through hardship and deprivation and one day goes on to avenge the misdeeds perpetrated against his family and his people. We have seen Amitabh doing that role a million times. We have seen Mithun there. We have even seen how wealth corrupts character; through the experiences of one Raju in Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, portrayed by a young Shahrukh Khan.

Since the economic liberalization of India in the nineties; there seems to have been a paradigm shift in that regard. The hero and his friends are no longer poor; seldom are they from the middle class. In contemporary Bollywood movies, the main characters are filthy rich! They are either sons and daughters of industrialists preparing to take over family businesses; or MBAs living in the US; or Engineers working in London. They are dressed in designer clothes; they have well-groomed bodies and perfectly gelled hair and they drink champagne. They visit Switzerland and Australia during vacations and they go to Spain for Bachelor Parties. The modern day hero, too, has his own problems; but unlike his counterpart from the past, unemployment or feeding a family is not one of them.

There certainly is a correlation between the shifting pattern in Bollywood movies and the pro-market economic policies; but there is more to it. It would simply be wrong, for instance, to assert that Indians have gotten significantly richer in the last twenty years; for they clearly haven't. The rich and poor divide, on the contrary has widened; inflation rates have soared; and it is a matter of controversy whether there has been any significant reduction in the percentage of people living below the poverty line.

There is data, that shows that the middle class has become somewhat wealthier. This has been accompanied by a high degree of increase in their aspirations and more importantly, in the attitude towards the rich. The rich are no longer a class of oppressive minority that amassed wealth through deception; rather, they are what the middle-class wants to be. The values that traditionally defined the Indian urban middle-class for a large part of the last century are vanishing; giving way to those that are more suited to a consumer-based economy. Outlooks are changing fast, and socialistic ideals of the past are withering away rapidly from the minds of people; to be replaced by a strong desire for materialistic pursuits: a desire to make more money, a desire to buy more things.

My contention is that it is this aspiration among the middle and upper middle class; this ambition to be rich; this desire of emulating the lives of the rich; that more than anything else, has brought about the shift in the socio-economic ambience of the Bollywood movie. For after all, Bollywood caters by and large to the taste of the middle class.

There could certainly be a host of other reasons and factors that are directly or indirectly responsible for this change. It would indeed be an interesting topic in sociological studies to investigate these effects.

Movie Review: Gandu

2011-11-18T15:38:00.000-08:00

In many ways, middle-class West Bengal is more liberal and modern in outlook than the rest of India. When it comes to the use of expletives in social life; however, sophisticated and cultured Bengalis tend to maintain a sort of Victorian Conservatism and cringe at the usage of swear words in popular media. The general view about the depiction of sex in media is likewise. Until very recently it was extremely unusual to find any demonstration of a vulgar vocabulary in Bengali movies; except for the somewhat benign (and more socially acceptable) Shala ("wife's brother") or Shuorer Bachcha ("son of a pig") thrown in here and there, and those, too, were rare. In the past decade or so, there has been some change in that paradigm, with some recent movies presenting sporadic occurrences of expletives, including the Ch-words (a family of Bengali equivalents of the F-word and derivatives), especially while depicting the colloquial style of gangsters and goons; in an attempt to make their portrayals more realistic. Nonetheless, such usages are generally very limited and occupy a minuscule fraction of show time. Barring a handful of recent exceptions, nudity and sex have been taboo as well.

The Bengali movie-goer, therefore, was startled last year, upon hearing of a movie titled Gandu, a Bengali slang loosely meaning worthless, or idiot, having the connotation of the word "Asshole" and rarely used in civilized society. Such a name was unthinkable; the word being considered unparliamentary by the urban upper middle-class. The trailer of the movie soon became available on youtube; and revealed scenes and language that would be considered vulgar, nay repugnantly obscene by most cultures, not just Bengali. As the internet-friendly younger generation frantically searched for a download link on torrent (this reviewer included); it was learnt that the movie had obtained quite a few favourable reviews worldwide and bagged a couple of awards here and there. To my knowledge, it was never officially released in India; in all probability, it couldn't pass the censors' scissors.

After having somewhat forgotten about the movie and the frenzy its trailer had created, I finally had an opportunity to experience it recently; thanks to the internet. It certainly was a strangely interesting experience.

The movie is named after the protagonist; a young guy who lives with his mother, a prostitute. The plot, thin as it is, revolves around the life of Gandu; his frustrations and aspirations. It depicts his relationship with his mother, his experiences with pornography, his visits to the neighbourhood cyber cafe, his friendship with a Rickshaw-puller named Rickshaw, his passion for creating Rap music and finally, his heroin addiction. Indeed, almost half of the movie is a continued depiction of his hallucination while he and Rickshaw were under the influence of the drug. In terms of expletives and depictions of nudity and sex the movie far surpasses its predecessors. Dialogues are richly adorned with profanities and nudity and sex scenes are available aplenty throughout. Some of the scenes would in fact put to shame a hardcore pornographic film and questions have been asked whether there was any artistic necessity for such depictions.

While the peculiarity and the boldness of the movie are striking, there is clearly a lack of substance in the plot. But then again, the movie is perhaps not so much about a central story as much as it is about the ideas it attempts to convey to the audience. A fundamental theme of this movie is addressing the frustrations and perversions of a sexually repressed society. The central character represents this very society. Not only do others call him Gandu, but he himself associates with that name; indicating that he too sees little worth in himself. Rap music is a channel to vent out his anger which stems from his sexual frustration. His complicated relationship with his mother, his constant ogling at the girl at the cyber cafe, his fascination with pornography and his raunchy hallucinations while on heroin; all imply too clearly his state of mind. Indeed, given the nature of the theme, it is no wonder that the scenes are explicit, too powerful perhaps for the general audience (this reviewer included); but meaningful nonetheless.

A second, somewhat less significant theme of the movie is that of a worthless loser dreaming to overcome all obstacles to achieve something big. This is reflected through Gandu's winning the lottery, or his becoming a famous Rapper (it seems that he doesn't really get famous; he only hallucinates of becoming so), or the dedicated attempts of Rickshaw to learn Kung Fu. This of course is a more clichéd topic and has been dealt with at length. A third aspect of the movie is a take on drug addiction; the environment that creates it and the downward spiral that ensues.

The movie is shot almost completely in black and white and has a good number of outdoor shots. There are only a handful of actors; the most famous of whom, Shilajit, is only seen while engaged in intercourse. As the mother, Kamalika, a seasoned actress, has been tolerably good. The characters of both Gandu and Rickshaw have been enacted by newcomers and they have both been excellent. The lead actor, Anubrata, has given a bold and raw performance (Incidentally, he has meanwhile obtained the notorious honour of having acted in a particularly explicit sex scene in another Bengali movie). The middle aged man at the lottery store and the girl at the cyber cafe have both done fine jobs.

Overall, Q, the director (he apparently calls himself by that name) has done an interesting job in creating a particularly unusual movie; the likes of which many viewers may have never encountered. By many definitions it would qualify as porn and yet it would be a mistake to ignore the message it conveys. Many would find the free flow of obscenities and elaborate depiction of sex and nudity shockingly repulsive; and yet these are the things that make the movie what it is.

Parallels between Israel and Pakistan

2011-03-02T16:57:00.000-08:00

While Pakistan sees itself as the nemesis of the Jewish State, one cannot help to note the numerous similarities between the two states. Here are a few.

1. Both countries came into existence as an aftermath of the second World War and were earlier parts of the British Empire.

2. The creation of both involved partition that was opposed by many.

3. Both countries maintain hostile relations with their respective severed parts.

4. Both occupy territory claimed by others.

5. Both states were created on the basis of religion; as a homeland for communities that were perceived to be vulnerable.

6. Both are nuclear powers and have formidable armies, as well as (in)famous intelligence agencies.

7. During the formation of both countries a huge number of people were brought in to settle from elsewhere.

8. Both have been strategic allies of the United States of America.

9. Both countries have been victims of terrorism, and at the same time been accused by certain countries to harbor the same.

Of course, there are many differences but listing those wouldn't be as interesting!

The concept of "Akhand Bharat"

2010-07-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

Recently (actually, about a month ago) I came across this article on the internet, where it was reported that the RSS has once again called for the re-emergence of an age-old concept, that of "Akhand Bharat".

The phrase "Akhand Bharat" literally translates as "Undivided India" and generally refers to a super-state of "Greater India" that encompasses the entire South Asia at its minimum and may include Afghanistan, Myanmar and even South-East Asia according to some definitions. The idea finds its bulk of supporters among conservative right wingers. It's often argued that the entire area has always belonged to India, and hence it's only natural that India should establish her political control over it. A cursory understanding of the subcontinent's culture and political history, however, would show that the concept makes little sense.

State boundaries change over time. Nations, ethnicities migrate. Demographics of regions change. It's an absurd idea to think that there exists some boundary for a country that is permanent.

China has this ridiculous idea of claiming all territories that were included in its greatest ever extent (and the Chinese do distribute maps showing vast lands of sovereign countries included in China ), but that doesn't mean that India too should be compelled to exhibit the same stupidity. The same region has been ruled by different kingdoms in different eras. If China can claim Central Asia, so can Mongolia! If India can claim Afghanistan, so can Iran, or even Macedonia, for that matter! :P

The truth is, while India has existed as a cultural/ geographical entity for several millennia (with, of course a great deal of internal diversity); India as a political entity didn't exist before the establishment of British Rule in 1857.

Also, while Afghanistan and South East Asia have been parts of Indian empires; there never was a time when both were the parts of the same empire. When the Mauryans had Afghanistan, their empire did not even include the Southern fringes of the Indian peninsula. Indian dominance in SE Asia reached its peak during the time of Cholas at a time when Northern India was divided in pieces.

At all times, the hills of North East Asia remained mostly independent. From the Mauryans to Mughals, Indian empires didn't capture any territory beyond the plains of Assam.

At certain points of time the sphere of Indian cultural influence did include an area from Central to South East Asia; but that influence did not come with military force. Cultural hegemony once upon a time is a bad argument for supporting expansionism.

And anyhow, adding more to the already large and rather diverse country is definitely not something to look forward to. The Republic of India has too many problems of her own to add some more from her current neighbours.

The IPL is obscene, and here's why

2010-03-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

While entertainment is an inherent part of sports, there is more to sports than entertainment. Unfortunately, it often so happens that the organizers forget this simple fact and turn events of sports into shows where the superfluous clutter of entertainment becomes more important than the game itself. This, precisely is the case with the Indian Premier League, or T-20 Cricket, for that matter, in my humble opinion.

Let's face it, the game of cricket is too complex and too beautiful to be fully appreciated in a minimized version. A batsman doesn't get time to familiarize himself with the wicket, a bowler doesn't get time to settle down with his line and length, the fielding captain doesn't get time to set a field or choose a bowler. You don't see batsmen anchoring and building an innings, you don't see bowlers bowling spells, you don't see the enchanting beauty of stroke play, you don't see epic duels between individual bowlers and batsmen. There's no time for all that in T-20. You only see a frenzied rush to score as many runs as one can.

The shortened format isn't the only problem with the IPL. In an international match, the teams represent nations; the passion associated with the cricket-match watching experience largely emanates from a patriotic sentiment. The teams at the league don't represent anything. Sachin Tendulkar scoring a hundred for India against Australia is a million times more delightful than Sachin Tendulkar scoring a fifty for Mumbai Indians against Chennai Super Kings.

The loud music synchronized to fours and sixes, the frenzy of advertisements, the ridiculous nomenclature of teams, the ever-smiling blondes in skimpy outfits dancing in a meaningless way; all these may go well with baseball or the NBA but are not appropriate in a cricket match. These remove the seriousness of the game and reduce it to a degree of frivolity. The passion so often an inseparable part of watching a live cricket match is lost amidst this extravagant superfluousness.

The IPL is not cricket. It's a derivative that's produced when one strains out substance and grace from cricket. At best it's a caricature of cricket, and an obscene one at that. And like most obscene things, its only driving force is money.

The Paradox of Choice

2010-03-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

I remember the first time I ordered a sandwich at an eatery in North America. I had walked on to the counter to ask for a grilled chicken sandwich, not expecting anything more to say and was subsequently stumped by an array of questions. I was asked to specify the type of bread, the type of cheese, whether toasted or not, and to choose the kind of toppings I would like.

Unprepared, and also only partially enlightened about the options before me (this applied especially for the types of bread and cheese), I took a significant amount of time to make a decision. Since then, of course, I have grown wiser and am much quicker in making such choices. Note, however, that my knowledge on the variety of bread and cheese remains sufficiently inadequate, only now I know that I don't really care if the latter is Mozzarella or Cheddar. I have realized that optimizing a sandwich can be rather taxing for one's brain when on an empty stomach, and therefore mostly make prompt random choices (barring a few exceptions).

There are many more examples where the availability of a myriad of options actually complicates the customer's decision making process and lengthens it. Imagine someone (perhaps a country bumpkin) going to an ice cream parlour with the simple objective of buying "an ice-cream", not familiar yet individually with the variety of desserts that are members of that vast family. At the shop he is bedazzled by the most gorgeous display of delicacies (each looking equally delicious and each well within his budget). When he entered the store he had in his mind this well-defined notion of an object called an ice-cream that he wanted. On entering, he finds out that the description of the object he had in his mind wasn't after all sufficiently specific; asking merely for an ice-cream is not informative enough, one has to say what flavour he wants, and there are several dozens of them. While earlier he wouldn't have cared about the flavour because of his ignorance, now the onus is on him to choose what is best for him. Even after making the choice he would be unsure about its aptness (and hence, not fully satisfied) because of his lack of knowledge on the many options he had to reject.

What does one do then? The more analytic among us actually go on to solve the optimization problem and come up with a definite answer. The rest, me included, would simply make an arbitrary or semi-arbitrary choice which would be very likely not optimal.

Funnily enough, in spite of the fact that the availability of a higher number of options complicates the whole process instead of simplifying it and most often does not guarantee a perfect match, we (including this blogger) tend to prefer places that offer more options. We would rather be baffled by a complex set of choices and end up making an unintelligent selection in the end, than to go somewhere that has fewer options and where the selection process would be easier, and perhaps more satisfying.

Is this another paradox of human nature?

Slumdog Millionaire: A Review

2009-08-20T10:37:00.000-07:00

Given the Indian television's well known tradition of telecasting highly patriotic movies on August 15, Slumdog Millionaire was a peculiar choice. Nevertheless, I didn't have much to complain, for I had time to kill, and watching a feel-good romantic comedy seemed a decent means to do so. Moreover, it helped me refresh my impression of the film, the idea of writing a review of which I had been toying with for a while. Without any more deliberation therefore, let me proceed to do the same.

This was the third time I saw the movie and the first time I saw the dubbed Hindi version. The first time I saw the movie was soon after its release in December 2008, and I must confess that I was carried away by the larger than life fairy-tale like appeal. Later, I was gradually influenced by the widespread criticism of the movie, largely in India; and decided that it wasn't, after all, that good a movie. When I saw it for the second time, earlier this August, I was more critical and had the intention of judging it with an objective outlook. When I saw it last week, for the third time, I watched it not because I wanted to judge it, but because I knew that I like it.

Very few of my readers would perhaps be unacquainted with Slumdog Millionaire; especially after the extraordinary frenzy it created at the 2009 Academy Awards. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, a summary of the storyline is provided. The movie narrates the remarkable life story of one Jamal Malik, who, beginning from the humblest of backgrounds, surpasses all conceivable obstacles to fulfill his dreams. The story starts with Jamal, now a tea-seller, being on the verge of winning the top prize of 20 million Rupees on a national quiz show that's being telecast on live television. It then goes flashback to show how he was taught the answers to each question by life itself, along his journey that started from the slums of Bombay and took him through several dark alleys that society has to offer. The movie finally ends with Jamal bagging a double jackpot; i.e., winning the prize money and finding his long lost love, Latika.

Nothing remarkable about the central story of the protagonist rising to fame, fortune and meeting his destiny against all odds. Though a cliched concept (especially in Bollywood), a nice execution and fresh faces for the three major characters, made it a movie worth watching. What was novel though, was the idea of the game show; and the connection between each question and some incident in Jamal's life, often tragic; through which he knew the answer to the question. Jamal's journey through the game show, from the first question to the last; in turn takes the audience on a parallel journey, along the path of his life. It also takes us on a journey through the dark alleys and by lanes of our society that we often fear to flash a torchlight into; and would rather remain oblivious to the existence of.

Much criticism has been directed towards the dark and disturbing depiction of India that Danny Boyle projects in the movie. It is undeniable that the projected picture is not quite positive. It would appear as if India is a land of hopeless and hapless people who dwell in slums, lose their families in communal violence, end up being beggars or in the flesh trade; or if they are luckier, in the mafia. The Indian society that one sees in this movie is a filtered society; it has been reflected through a lens that had its focal points on the nadirs of the system. All the tragedies depicted in the movie are realities in India; but there still remains more to reality than such tragedies. Every society has its shadows, some perhaps darker than those of others; and what we see in this movie are but those dark patches. It would be unwise to take this depiction as a representative of the complete picture. A romantic comedy should be taken as a romantic comedy and not as a documentary.

There are three major characters in this story: Jamal; his brother, Salim and Latika; whom we have already mentioned. Jamal is the quintessential hero, his character endowed with almost all the virtues that tradition ascribes to the perfect man. He's caring and compassionate, he's fierce to anyone (eg, Salim) who offends his lady-love, he's smart, not just street smart but intelligent, he's a good and quick learner and above all, he loves Latika rather intensely. He also has a very strong, perhaps stubborn determination. It is this stubbornness that makes him splash through a puddle of crap to get an autograph of a movie star; it is this stubbornness that enables him to find Latika in Bombay and it's this same aspect of his nature that leads him to her at the final moments of the movie. Of course, he gets generous help from luck, or "destiny" as he would rather call it; as if to exemplify the old saying of fortune favouring the brave.

Latika's character is quite straight forward. It's apparent that she loves Jamal dearly. She still recognizes him instantly after seeing him after ages. We are not told if she, too, had an urge to find him after the two were separated. But then, given the circumstances she was going through; it would be too much to expect that on her part.

Jamal and Latika's characters, though very consistent, are typical. It's the conflicting and realistic characters like that of Salim that interest us more. This young man grew up with Jamal in the slums, went through similar hardships, and while his younger sibling more or less remained on the track of honesty, he considerably strayed away. Given the tragic incidents that the boys had to endure in their childhood, Salim's slip into the underworld, or his actions with respect to Latika are nothing unusual. What was interesting was that in spite of all his dishonest and ungentlemanly acts, he still retains a humane side. After having abandoned his brother and having lead the latter's girlfriend to dishonour, it's Salim himself that helps reunite the lovers, killing his gang leader and sacrificing his own life in the process.

There are a bunch of errors in the movie. The most glaring of them is that the Indian equivalent of the millionaire reality show is not aired on real time. It's shot several weeks in advance, so the climax cannot possibly happen in reality. Nor do the quizmaster, or the host has any stakes in the prize money. His trying to mislead Jamal, and then calling up the police, and the subsequent torture carried out by the police are all very absurd. The linguistic transition that the three protagonists go through; namely the transition from rustic Bombay-style Hindi to fluent English doesn't make sense. The Hindi dubbed version was better in this respect because it seemed more realistic to have the main characters speaking in Hindi throughout.

I didn't quite like the name. The word slumdog isn't used commonly in Indian English so I checked the internet. It appears that no dictionary has any entry for the word!

Director Boyle says,

"For us, Slumdog was always a very affectionate term because … it was a hybrid, a mixture of underdog and rooting for the underdog, and obviously he comes from the slums.”

Affectionate or not, I personally found the word derogatory and offensive.

Even though the music wasn't the best of A R Rahman I've heard, it still was one of his bests. And that was one deserving man getting the gold statuette.

In spite of fallacies, cliched concepts and other limitations, what makes it a good movie is the message of hope that it carries. The central belief that I-would-succeed-no-matter-what-happens is something very refreshing and positive in these days when hope is often so scarce.

Was it a good movie? I thought it was, else I won't watch it thrice.

Did it deserve a bagful of oscars? I'm no expert, but I'd say, not really.

The plight of our Aryan cousins

2009-06-23T17:45:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I went to a protest march here in Waterloo with several Iranian students. The frustration and disappointment of these people at the recent developments in their country, and the feelings and sentiments that they have are very intense, as one would expect. It's most unsettling to think that these young men and women, liberal in thought, friendly and courteous in behaviour and quite modern in outlook would still be subjected to live the lives of prisoners in their own land whenever they visit home. I was shocked to know that raids in university campuses to rough up, often torture students with alternative political opinion is a common phenomenon in Iranian cities.

From what is being reported in the media, many of us might be under the impression (at least I was) that Moussavi, the candidate who lost the elections as a result of alleged malpractices is a liberal leader. The fact, though, is that he is only slightly less conservative than his opponent. He himself was a Prime Minister of this Government 20 years ago, and he is still faithful to the system and its Supreme Leader. His election would have not brought about a sea change; it would only have been a small step towards liberty. A tiny, yet a much-awaited and a much sought-after step.

In yesterday's rally, my Iranian friends spoke of their collective dream of a free, democratic Iran; where people's fundamental rights would be honoured, and they quoted Gandhi, saying that the non-violent resistance of their compatriots would eventually bring freedom; but how far that day would be is anyone's guess. It's appalling to think that the country that once saw the first ever proclamation of human rights in the world would today see a murder of those same rights.

Events That Defined the History of India - Part-2

2009-04-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

Ok, so now we're getting into the second half.
And here we go again:

11. Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta ~ 800 AD:

The revival of Hinduism and its formation in the way we know it today began to take shape during this time. Shankaracharyya, Madhava and Ramanuja played an important role in eliminating other contemporary schools of thought and consolidating what would become the mainstream Hinduism. An already declining Buddhism would gradually be absorbed into mainstream Hinduism in the centuries that would follow.

12. Rajendra Chola's Rule - 1012-1044 AD:

While Northern India was being ravaged by the hordes of one Sultan Mahmud of Ghazani, an Afghan invader who plundered the country in seventeen raids, South India saw one of its greatest rulers on the throne of the Chola Empire. Rajendra Chola's empire directly held Deccan in almost its entirety and thrugh his ambitious naval campaigns he spread his influence across South East Asia.

13. Second battle of Tarain - beginning of the Delhi Sultanate - 1192 AD.

After the fall of the Pala Empire, Northern India was once more in disarray and the power vacuum was finally filled up by the Turko-Afghan ruler Muhammad Ghauri. Ghauri who was defeated in an earlier battle against the Rajput King Prithwiraj Chauhan, came back to defeat Chauhan and rapidly spread his empire across the plains of Northern India, establishing the first Islamic Empire in India.

14. Second battle of Panipath- Rise of Akbar - 1556 AD.

Humayun was routed by the prolific Afghan Sher Shah Suri, and the prospect of Babur's descendants were appearing grim. At Panipath, the Mughals make a comeback lead by Akbar the great and recapture Delhi. In the course of time, Akbar would expand his empire across India, establish a strong system of governance and his rule would be later remembered to be the high point of the Mughals in India.

15. Aurangzeb's Death:- 1706 AD Beginning of the end of the Mughals

Aurangzeb expanded the Mughal empire to its greatest extent, but his negative and communal policies lead to rising dissents across India, notably among Shikhs, Jaaths and Marathas under Shivaji. The Empire would collapse in a few decades.

16. Battle of Plassey:- 1757 AD.

The British win their first war in India through treachery and backstabbing and capture the rich province of Bengal in the process, thereby establishing the foundation of British India. What follows in the next few years is a systematic depletion of wealth and oppression of the highest kind; something that would lead to the infamous Bengal famine.

17. Third Battle of Panipath:- 1761 AD. Decline of the Marathas.

A regional power that could have been India's last hope against the British face a crushing defeat in the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdaali, the Afghan warlord. Once again, a decisive battle is fought at Panipath, and once again, the defenders are on the losing side.

18. The Great Mutiny, 1857:-

First nationwide armed resistance against British authority. Hindus and Muslims jointly revolt against British authority and an army revolt snowball into a nationwide uprising, perhaps the first of its kind in India. Once the mutiny is crushed, India is brought under the direct rule of the British Monarch, thereby bringing an end to East India Company's rule.

19. Foundation of the Muslim League in Dhaka, 1906 :-

While Bengalis participate in a mass movement against the partition of the province of Bengal on the basis of religion, apprehension about Hindu dominance grows within a section of the Muslim society as they form a political organization. This event would gradually polarize the population along religious lines and would later lead to the birth of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

20. Independence and Partition, 1947:-

An unarmed old man speaking of peace leads a nation to her freedom. Amidst the tragic scenes of mass migration and communal riots that kill and displace millions, two new nations are born out of British India; two countries that would remain hostile to each other for years to come and would face each other in several wars, both open and covert.

Events That Defined the History of India - Part-I

2009-04-12T16:02:00.001-07:00

Tough task. Here are my picks.

I started this as a single blog but then as it became too long I decided to split into two instalments.

1. The arrival of modern man: 70,000 to 50,000 BCE

An extensive analytical study done on the mutations of the Y-chromosome establish that some 70,000 to 50,000 years ago, the first homo sapiens, or modern man, set his foot on the land that would later be known as India. This marked the beginning of an amazing journey that our nation would make in aeons to come.

2. The coming of the Aryans: 2000-1500 BCE

The next big event would be Aryan migration. Even though the Aryan migration theory is still disputed among some circles there is ample evidence to suggest that Aryans or Indo-Europeans weren't descendants of the earlier tribes that had settled in India ages ago. Rather, they appear to have been a branch of nomadic tribes that originated somewhere in Central Asia and set out in search of lands to inhabit.

3.Battle of ten kings: dates: UNKNOWN

The earliest war that finds mention in Indian literature, the battle of ten kings, as described in the Rigveda was a war fought between the Bharata tribe, lead by King Sudas against a confederacy of ten other tribes somewhere in Punjab; possibly by the banks of river Iravati (Ravi). The Bharatas emerged victorious and their supremacy was established over the greate Punjab region.

4. The earliest composition of Mahabharata: 9th-8th century BCE (?)

A civil war of the Kurus spread all over Northern India and gave rise to one of the greatest epics ever written in human history. The war of Kurukshetra marks the junction of the age of legends and the age of history in the Indian context. The epic, though grows beyond a story of war and emerges as an encyclopaedia of Ancient India itself; and along with the Ramayana constructs the basis of Indian moral values.

5. The spiritual revolution: 6th century BCE

A spiritual revolt against Brahmanian orthodoxy and corruption took shape in the form of some 40 odd Naastika movements, the most prominent of which were Buddhism and Jainism. The authority of the Vedas was challenged vehemently, and the events that unfolded left a deep impact on Indian society in centuries to come.

6. Emergence of Magadha as the Indian superpower under Mahapadma Nanda: 4th century BCE

This would eventually lead to the formation of the first Pan-Indian Empire under the Mauryas. Though it started in Buddha's times with Bimbisara and Ajatashatru; it was Mahapadma Nanda who extended the empire across the Gangetic plains and Central India, vigorously uprooting numerous minor kingdoms. By the time of Alexander's invasion (323 BCE), Magadha under Mahapadma's descendants was already a formidable power which even the Greeks weren't keen on taking on.

7. Kalinga war: 261 BCE

It wasn't Ashoka's coronation (273 BCE), but this war fought in modern day Orissa that gifted the land with perhaps the greatest ruler that it would ever see. Ashoka, once a ruthless ruler, underwent a radical change and started preaching the doctrine of love; establishing a most benevolent system of administration and sending his peace missions to the furthest corners of the known world. Ashoka's territory after the Kalinga war also was the greatest pan-Indian empire ever, in terms of area, extending upto and including modern day Afghanistan.

8. Chandragupta II's reign: 375-413/15 CE

Every culture identifies a golden age in its course of history which marks a culmination of art and literature. For India, the most popular forerunner for this coveted spot is the rule of the Gupta Dynasty, the most prominent part of which is marked by the reign of Chandragupta II. Also known as Vikramaditya, this emperor and his court of poets and artists have attained legendary status.

9. Invention of zero and the decimal system: 5th century AD (?)

Needs no further elaboration as far as its importance is concerned with respect to Science in general. Aryabhat, the scientist generally credited with this invention was also the first person to propose the theory of a heliocentric solar system as opposed to the traditionally accepted geocentric one, about a thousand years before the "Copernican Revolution".

10. Invasion of white Huns: 477 AD

Though the Hun invasion was baulked by the Gupta emperor Kumaragupta, it greatly weakened the Gupta Empire, and lead it to its steady collapse afterwards. The ruthless Huns would however gradually dissolve in the ocean of Indian population and would later be embraced into mainstream Hindu society as Rajput tribes.

============ End of Part I ============

Home

2009-04-12T15:58:00.000-07:00

My grandfather was a refugee. One morning, some sixty years ago, he had waken up to learn that his country wasn't his any more. His family was one of millions that became homeless during the chaos that ensued the partition of the former British India. Through years of struggle, he did re-establish himself in a land that was new to him. Starting from scratch, he got a job and earned a name for himself in his professional career, but the wounds of being severed from home were too deep to ever heal completely. He didn't dislike his later residences; in fact he loved them; but that special spot in his heart was always reserved for a place he was never able to return to. Never was he tired of narrating the same old stories of the hamlet where he grew up, of those coconut trees, those lakes and woods, and the people whose lives revolved around his own. That quaint little neighbourhood wasn't his country anymore, but it still was where his home was, and it was the place he wanted to go back to. Always.

It's hard to fix a definition for the word 'home'. Perhaps it suffices to say that it's the place one feels sad to leave and where one wants to go back to, again and again, from anywhere else. After a long journey, or after a day's work, or simply, when one feels like. To a person, it could mean an apartment, a house, a neighbourhood, or even a city; depending on her perspective. However, it's not a place or a house alone that makes a home. The sights, sounds, smells and perceptions that one associates with the place are also a part of it. It's not just another point on the earth's crust with a fixed longitude and latitude, but a place that emerges beyond its spatial existance onto a level where it can be connected to with feeling and nostalgia.

That is not to say that the spatial aspects or the building is insignificant. They have their own place. They constitute the skeleton; a foundation on which the other, less tangible entities weave enchanting patterns of memory. Each room in the house, in fact each spot in each room has its own special place. You remember the slippery floor where you slipped and fell when you were a kid, the flight of stairs where you had once overstepped, the dining room where the family would gather every night, the lawn chair on the balcony where you would sit and watch the birds and the passers-by; the cosy little corner in your room where you would log in to your first computer.

People, of course, are an integral part of it. The warmth that one associates with a home generally oozes from the people who stay, or have stayed in and around that place. Memories that we cherish and that often make us homesick, also are woven around the same people; people we love, people we feel a strong connection to, people we long to see again.

There are other aspects of it as well. Little things we seldom pay attention to show their worth by creating indelible impressions on the mind. These impressions reflect prominently when one's away. When I think of home, among other people and things, I also think of the random strangers who would walk across the street and whom one could watch from our balcony; stray cats that would wander about in the nighbourhood, street dogs that would whine in the middle of the night, crows that would meet for their daily congregation at our terrace every afternoon, and the tree next to my window that would burst into a revolution of red blossoms every spring. None of these seemed to be of any significant importance when they were around me, and yet, they probably were, for they had made their presence felt.

And then there are things I would do when at home, and that I miss when I'm away. Reading the local newspaper in the morning while relishing a cup of the most refreshing tea, or taking those exciting auto-rickshaw rides across the city through peak traffic; or getting drenched in the monsoon downpours when umbrellas just don’t work; or jostling with sweaty crowds on a packed up minibus; or getting enchanted by the mystifying glow of the setting sun on a rain-soaked evening are just some of them. Oddly enough, I even miss the frequent power-cuts at the peak of summer, the intense heat, the chaotic traffic and the noisy crowds. All of them combine to complete a collage that I call home. Some are a nuisance; but they are essential components nevertheless, for they too contribute to put all the colours to the image and to put all the notes to the sound.

All these things, parts of our memory: big , small, important, less important, tangible, abstract, intense, vague; come together to remind us of our home. And they call us to come back; luring us with glimpses of a familiar world.

However, while we find ourselves in a far away land, seperated by hundreds and thousands of miles from the domain of familiarity; at times we realize that home might not be as far as it seems. After all, it's the same blue sky, the same moon and stars, the same clouds, white and grey, and the same raindrops. People and objects are capable of creating a bond of a similar intensity, even if that's of a different kind. And then we realize that perhaps our home isn't limited to a fixed location. As we grow, and as we travel, our horizons expand, and our homes become larger. While for some of us, home remains a complex image from the past of a fixed place; for the rest, it changes. That doesn't mean that the earlier home loses its significance, it holds on to its special place eternally, but other places gradually are elevated to that level too.

Home, after all, is where we want to be; where we want to return to; and to which we could relate and connect to emotionally. It can be a single place, but it also can be more than one place if one feels equally at ease at all of them, and feels an equal sense of attachment to all of them. In a global society, where people often have to stay away from their original homes not because they were driven out by wars or partitions, but because they left deliberately to pursue career goals; it is natural to build a strong connection with the new surroundings. With time, the new place often grows on us. With all its little nuances that capture our perception, it, too, weaves a world of familiarity; and becomes our second home; not replacing the first by any means, but becoming as special.

An ode to my laptop

2009-03-10T18:59:00.000-07:00

Technically this isn't an ode, it's just a reminiscence.

The person isn't dead. She is just in a coma.

It's been little more than a year. Not too long a period, one might say, to build a really intimate relationship, but it sure was sufficient for me and her. I had started loving her the moment I saw her enchanting figure for the first time. Her glamorous exteriors, her speed, her sleek looks and he mesmerizing sounds got me mystified in no time. And thus began a sweet relationship that I would cherish for the rest of my life.

Many a dark moment has been lightened up by her presence. Many a depressing evening has been cheered up by her existence. There are so many memories from the past one year that revolve around her. The movies that we watched , the songs that we sang, the codes that we ran, the papers that we read, the games that we played, the chats that we had with people, the voip calls that we made! The list is endless!

She was the cause of awe among friends. She was the cause of jealousy among enemies. And then, suddenly, one fateful evening, she just stopped. Her life, we found out, was on a halt. I went to the doctors here, but they charged fortunes to treat her. Why don't I get a new one instead, they suggested. How could I? How could I possibly throw her away? Throw away someone who has been so special to me in the last twelve months or so!

I'll get her treated properly.

She isn't dead. She's only in a coma.

Once she gets proper treatment she'll be up on her feet.

I'm sure!

New Year Resolutions!

2009-01-14T20:07:00.000-08:00

Returning from an all-too-rosy India trip straight back into the frigid winter of Waterloo, and being quickly surrounded by icy winds, heaps of snow, dull and depressing skies, workaholic grad students and grumpy professors; I feel like having been rudely awakened from a pleasant dream into cold reality. This awakening, along with a realization that I have a lot of things to do, and very little time to procrastinate, motivates me to write this piece of junk.

For someone with a self-confessed notoriety for procrastination, January 14 is somewhat early to jot down New Year Resolutions. That, and my disregard for the necessity of having such resolutions in the beginning of a not-so-special cycle of 365 days, add to the reluctance of writing this post. However, I felt like writing something, and this seemed to be a good topic to write on.

So, what do I resolve to do? For one thing, I seriously need to cut down on procrastination. I need to reduce the time I spend on watching youtube videos, reading random articles on wikipedia, chatting online and participating in pointless discussions on orkut. I need to work seriously on my research so that I can graduate by the end of Fall at least, if not by the end of Summer. I also need to find time (which I definitely would once I cut down on all the pointless activties mentioned earlier) to do constructive stuff outside research: reading books, watching good movies, writing on a regular basis. And I would blog more frequently. Twice a month, at least.

I guess that's all. Well it turns out to be shorter than I expected. I'll add more later if I can think of anything else.

Perception of Indians

2008-08-14T16:44:00.000-07:00

Many of my friends have often asked me about the general perception of India and her people in Canada. The following is an attempt to summarize the same.

I have lived in Canada for almost eight months now. I get to interact with people from many countries here; not just Canadians. In fact most of the people I meet are non-Canadians: and are of diverse ethnicities, that include Chinese, Arabs, Iranians, Indonesians, Europeans.

The general awareness about India and her culture isn't significant, which is somewhat understandable. For instance, people (except those from the sub-continent) find it strange that our country has so many different languages and find it rather hard to believe that not all people speak or understand a single language. They will ask if these are really different languages, or just dialects/ accents of the same language.

People are also not much cognizant of our cultural diversity. I had a heated argument with this guy from Kyrgyzstan who argued that Kazakhstan has more diversity than India. This guy was my office-mate and sat next to me. His point of view was that the diversity of India is only at a micro level, and not at a macro-level; and therefore it is perceptible only by Indians themselves; while to foreigners our culture seems quite homogeneous. He would talk about the caste system (which he thought was all-pervasive), and arranged marriages, and people who he thought looked very similar (and therefore were ethnically identical, according to him), and languages that sounded similar to him (he had heard us speak in both Bangla and Hindi). Of course he hadn't read much about India and his opinion was mostly based on a bunch of Bollywood Movies and a handful of Indians he had known. And he is the kind of person who turns a debate into a monologue; without letting anyone answer his points. I was initially somewhat irritated at his, should I say "arrogant ignorance", but then again, he can't be blamed either, because there apparently isn't a conscious effort on the part of those who promote India, to sufficiently emphasize our diversity to the outside world.

People, especially most Asians (Asians refer to all Asians here and not just East Asians; refer to a previous entry in this blog if you are wondering why this is clarified) do know about Bollywood and are interested in it, though they have this idea that all Bollywood movies have a dozen song sequences where the hero and the heroine sing and dance and go around trees. They also think that Indian movies don't expose women much, and a couple of Chinese guys had their jaws dropped when I showed them the "Beedi Jalaile" video on youtube. And that Tamil song where Prabhudeva dances (titled great Indian dance or something similar and available on youtube, with an astoundingly high view count) is very well known. The University actually offers a course on "Bollywood Dancing" alongside Salsa, Ballet, Tango and Mambo and it attracts several students of different national and ethnic origins.

There are some people who think that all Indians are born with Singing and dancing skills. Of course people don't know much about movies in regional languages or non-main stream Hindi movies. Most think "brown" girls are hot, which makes them wonder why Bollywood heroines are mostly of fair complexion. Some people also confuse the words "Hindi" and "Hindu". People know that Cricket is the most popular sports in India though their knowledge in this field is rather limited; though they believe that a single match necessarily played in five days.

Another misconception is that almost all Hindus (and all Brahmins) are vegetarians (I found this misconception even among some Pakistanis and Bangladeshis); and that beef is not available in India. "Indian Cuisine" (which is basically a selective combo of North and West Indian cuisine) is very popular and the Indian Restaurants attract a lot of customers. They also think that Indian food is excessively spicy, but they like that. "Chicken Tikka Masala", the national dish of Great Britain is popular here as well. My floormates gave me a strange look when they found me cooking lentils (Daal) in the common kitchen; they hadn't seen anything like that before. One Chinese guy asked if it was some curry.

Almost everyone has heard the name of "Calcutta", and instantly connect Mother Teresa (and probably abject poverty, though they won't say it) to it; though nobody knows the city's new name, "Kolkata", nor do I mention it, to avoid confusion. Some Europeans and central Asians pronounce it as "Kaal-Kootta" (which sounds like Kaalo kootta, meaning Black Dog in Bangla). Other well known cities are Delhi, Bombay (not Mumbai), and Bangalore. And they have heard of Taj Mahal. Well, at least most of them.

Despite a few misconceptions, most appreciate India as one of the earliest and greatest civilizations in the world, and our culture as one of the most outstanding. They also are aware of India' s recent economic boom and some consider her a superpower in the recent future. Most people like India and Indians and do not harness any negative feelings against us, barring may be, a few Pakistanis (though certainly not all of them, most of them are friendly and nice). Even in case of those Pakistanis, the grievance usually is against the Government of India and its Army, and not the common people.

India

2008-08-10T20:55:00.000-07:00

Seven months ago, when I was in India and was preparing myself for a new life at the other side of the planet, I was somewhat vaguely aware of the things that I would be missing. I was certain that I would miss the company of my family and friends, the people with whom I used to spend the most of my time. I knew I would miss Bengali food: the daily dose of daal-bhaat-torkari-maachher jhol and the mouth watering sweetmeats of my land, not to mention the amazing street food delicacies of my city. I did realize that I would also miss, among other things, reading the Bengali daily in the morning while relishing a cup of the most refreshing tea, or taking those exciting auto-rickshaw rides across the city through peak traffic; or getting drenched in the monsoon downpours when umbrellas just don’t work; or jostling with sweaty crowds on a packed up minibus; or getting enchanted by the mystifying glow of the setting sun on a rain-soaked evening.

And I am missing all of those that I speculated.

But in addition to all that, I am missing something more. Something which includes everything else previously mentioned; but of which all that merely constitute a small part. Something I was probably too naïve to realize while in India.

I am missing India. I am missing her sounds, her sights, her touch. I am missing her divine smile reflected on a billion faces. I am missing the caressing touch of her refreshing winds. I am missing the fragrance of her flowers. I am missing the soothing smell of her soil.

I was of the opinion that nationality is just an artificial identity of an individual.

Now I know that it isn’t; at least for me. The love for my country is something that lives and breathes in every drop of blood that is pumped from my heart. The urge to see her emanates from the very core of my soul.

I always knew that I loved her.

I never knew that I loved her so much.

Asians?

2008-04-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

Back in Pimary School they taught us that India is a part of that huge continent called Asia. I thereby had the impression that Indians are Asians. Seems kind of simple and direct doesn't it? India is a part of Asia; therefore all that is a part of India is a part of Asia; and thus follows the conclusion.

Having a notion like that, I emphatically and enthusiastically became a member of the "Asian Students Association" at the University when I found that there was one. But then when I checked out their website, something struck me as unusual. All the members of the community (except me) seemed to be of Chinese, Korean or Japanese descent. There was not a single member either from South Asia or from the Middle East; despite the presence of a significant number of students from these regions. I subsequently came to know that in these parts, "Asian" refers specifically to East Asians; it may or may not include South East Asians (it does not, according to my Chinese Canadian friend), but it definitely does not include South Asians like us.

This is what wikipedia has to say:

" In Canada, Asian refers to people from the Far East, Southeast Asia, South Asia and West Asia. Like the United States, in Canada the term Asian generally refers to the East Asian Canadians since they were the first Asian immigrant groups into Canada."

So as far as regular, unofficial use of the term is concerned, the more Chinese (or Mongoloid) features you have, the more Asian you are. But what are we then? It turns out that the common word for describing all South Asians apparently is the rustic-sounding "Desi" or the rather racist "Brown". The word Brown though, is the most ridiculous word to refer to South Asians, and that's not only because of its racist tone. A lot of North Indians and Pakistanis are as fair-skinned as Europeans while some Indians are as dark as Africans. The word Desi is better, but it doesn't make much of a sense either, because it sounds sort of "uncool", and in Hindi it simply means "of or belonging to the country". South Asian, probably is the best phrase and makes perfect sense; but that brings us to something similar to where we begun; as we face the question, "Are South Asians not Asians?"

Rather confusing, isn' it?

Winter Morns

2008-03-19T18:28:00.000-07:00

My days begin with frosty morns; so cheerless, grey and pale
Shaken by the frigid winds that loudly weep and wail
Whilst whistling past the hapless trees that tremble, throb and shiver
Like arrows sharp with needle points strung freshly from a quiver.

The sky looks down in pensive mood and casts its gloomy glance
On a land that is still half asleep and revel in some trance
Enchanted and enraptured by an ancient magic spell
The world sleeps softly underneath the misty morning shell

I see no colour as I trudge wearily on my way
But vast white patches all along with exceptions of grey
At times they glow in sunshine like piled up heaps of salt,
I plod across the emptiness, I have nowhere to halt.

The winter plays its frozen charm across the streets I pass,
Which smell of snow and feel like steel and meanly gleam like glass.
The horizon ahead of me lay concealed in soggy haze
And thus I take my lonely walk across the wintry days.

An Introspection

2008-01-14T17:05:00.000-08:00

There he was, staring straight towards me with his tired eyes. He didn't speak, but I could still hear every word uttered from the depths of his heart. I could feel in me every feeling he had felt, every agony he had endured and every sacrifice he had made. I knew all about the thoughts and emotions that wandered around in the alleys and avenues of his fatigued mind, thoughts that even he would not be able to express coherently. I could read his eyes. I could see through them as if they were transparent.
And who else could read his mind with such clarity but me? We had been together since eternity, we had shared our moments of joy and sorrow, of ecstacy and despair, and we had walked under bright sunshine and torrential downpours. Sometimes I've loved him as much as I could, at times I have hated him with all my heart. Without him as my eternal friend, this long unfinished journey would have never been possible. Whatever I acheived, whoever I became was because of him. He was my only companion at hours of solitude, he was my only inspiration at hours of depression, he was my only source of light under a dark and stormy night sky. He had lead me to the keys when I found all the doors to be locked. And now, here he was, fragile, weary, lonely, having left everything that was dear to him several thousands of miles away, all because of me. Everything he had done was in a bid to make me successful, an effort to make my dreams become reality. As I looked into his tired eyes that still reflected the same old strength of his inner spirit; weak, cold and yet fuming with an unsurmountable energy, I desperately wanted to take him into my arms in one tight embrace, so that I could let him know that I was thankful to him for all his efforts in making the journey wonderful.
I wanted to, but I could not.
There was a mirror between us.

Reservations against reservations

2008-01-06T12:17:00.000-08:00

The Hindu society, traditionally, has had well defined class divisions since the Vedic times. Such divisions had primarily originated on the basis of profession, but gradually, as for generations people in the same family continued to adhere to the same profession, these divisions started to be determined by birth. Soon the caste system became deeply established in the society, with members of one class forbidden to take up occupations of the other classes, and the gaps between adjacent groups continued to widen. Over a period of several millenia, these barriers became more and more strong, and by the end of the nineteenth century, member of an 'upper' caste would cringe from even interacting with member of a 'lower' caste, let alone eat, drink or socially meet together. As the caste system grew more and more complex, and new sub-castes emerged, certain groups of people were identified as the 'Panchamas' (the fifth) or the 'Asprshyas' (untouchables); those who supposedly fell below the ranks of all the four major castes: viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Medeival and British India in particular, witnessed severe ostracism and inhumanity against these people. Ill-treated, abused and segregated by the 'elite' fraction of the society these people lived in wretched conditions, even though they constituted a significant part of the entire population.

As India gradually rediscovered her way into enlightenment in the 1900's, the necessity to eliminate such an atrocious system of social injustice was realized. It was decided that social reforms would be carried out all over the land to ensure the obliteration of caste based atrocities. Meanwhile, reservations in higher education and public sector jobs would be offered to people coming from the lowest castes to compensate the negative effects that social segregation was having on them. Caste based reservations have thus been a part of the Indian system since independence.

However, as India moves forward into the 21st century, caste based reservations have lead to some significant controversy. The basic assumption that members of a 'scheduled' caste or tribe are always exploited socially and economically is severely flawed. Though that might be the truth for many cases, that is not true universally, and such a generalisation thus, is ultimately too gross. There are thousands of 'upper caste' people living in abject poverty and severly lacking in resources, while there are many 'scheduled caste' people who are financially and socially well established. The sad truth is that in most cases, all the benefits and facilities reserved for the 'scheduled' classes are enjoyed by the people belonging to the second category, while those of the first category are never eligible for any of these benefits. Poor people belonging to the 'scheduled castes' are so poor and socially backward that they seldom cross the layers of primary education and rarely reach the threshold of higher education or the job sector, from which stages reservations are available. At the same time, reservations tend to work against the very reason they were put to effect. In the given system, a so-called "Backward" guy would always apply as a "reserved" candidate; and take no action to improve himself academically, which would have enabled him to compete with the general guys on the same platform. An "upper-caste" guy would continue to despise a "lower-caste" guy, not because of his birth; but because of him being a "reserved" candidate.

The situation may be addressed with the following analogy: some people are tall, and some are short and malnourished. Our aim is to ensure that everyone's head touches the same level. Reservation gives an easy solution, it simply adds up an altitude bias to the short guys, by, let's say, making them wear high heels, to make them appear taller. This is a flawed method, for this would eventually reduce the average natural height of the upper layer of the population, and would also eliminate naturally tall people from the system in favour of artifically tall people. There's an alternative way to acheive the same goal. That is to take extra care of the short guys, nourish them properly to ensure they're tall enough when they grow up. The caste system must be eradicated right from the grass roots of our society, right from the dark chasms from which such obnoxiousness emanates. By providing special aid to the socially and economically backward children at the primary level, it must be ensured that when they grow up, they don't need any reserved seats.

The caste system has crippled our society for centuries. Such social segregation cannot and must not persist in the system and has to be eliminated. But, reservations will never solve the problem. Rather than eliminating the problem, reservations continue to reinforce the concepts of social segregation.

Us and Them

2007-11-19T06:24:00.000-08:00

“I can simply say they were paid back in their own coin. Do you think those who evicted our people were peace loving unarmed people? Our people just retaliated. For 11 months our people who were evicted and could not return home despite several efforts at initiating peace talks with the opposition."

With these words, the Chief Minister of West Bengal finally withdrew his mask of neutrality and emerged as the person he really is. He thus dispersed all doubts regarding his intentions and responsibilities and clarified that his loyalty towards his party comes before anything else. With this revelation, many a heart broke, many a tear fell and many a hope crumbled, for foolishly enough, millions had tried to believe otherwise through all these years. Anyone who has followed Indian politics, even with a passing interest, however, would probably have realized such an eternal truth long ago. The peculiarity of the situation wasn't the revelation itself, but its acceptance from the culprit himself.

Barring a very few exceptions, the fundamental aim of any politician of our society is to secure power and remain in power, power for himself and power for his group. The hunger for power and the thirst to repress have been the chief motivations for most post-Independence Indian politicians. To achieve this goal, politicians usually resort to the age old trick of promises: promises of food, of running water, of roads, of jobs, of electricity... and of everything that India still lacks. And of course, such promises are seldom kept to ensure that there are always plenty of things left to be promised during the subsequent election campaigns. A second element adds variety and strength to the arsenal of the politician. It's that of fear that is to be injected in the minds of people. An able politician uses both his weapons appropriately and skillfully to strengthen and lengthen his hold on the throne. Responsibility to people or humanity never is a priority. But still, most politicians at least officially maintain a neutral face, and the chief minister was noted for the same.

The ruling party of West Bengal has hold on to this doctrine for the past three decades; it has used a perfect mixture of lure and fear to hold its ground. An impeccable organization of the party throughout the state and a conspicuous absence of any political opposition, either strong or respectable, have helped them achieve their goal smoothly. However, there have also been a few hiccups, and the developments at Nandigram would certainly classify as one.

They first started it all by planning to sell a huge piece of land to industrialists, disregarding the fact that this land was inhabited by farmers who would have nowhere to go after the proposed eviction. The villagers united and began anti-government agitations. With a clumsy administration, things quickly went out of control, and at some point the dissenting villagers drove away the machinery of the ruling party along with a horde of their supporters from the disputed territory. The height of the crisis was reached in the middle of the night on March 14, 2007, when the state police shot down several villagers. Clashes between the ruling part and the protesters turned more and more ugly with the passage of time, with regular cases of murder, rape and destruction of property, mostly on the agitators' side, and with anarchy prevailing across the region. Finally, an army of cadres of the ruling party regained control of the area by brute force as they stormed in with firearms and re-installed the evicted villagers, with the police ordered to stay out of the entire operation. The seize of Nandigram finally ended in arson and bloodshed, with several dissenters brutally murdered and severely injured, and many rendered homeless.

Resort to violence and brutality to strengthen position is not a rare phenomenon in post-independence politics of Bengal or India. What made this particular case different was the extensive media coverage of events. Despite repeated half truths, suppression of facts and lies from the government, people this time had the opportunity to see videos that showed firing, armed processions and villagers being interviewed; and videos and images have a much stronger impact on the human mind than newsprint. This lead to a general awareness among people and excited especially those who still had some faith left in the government, as Calcutta subsequently witnessed a protest rally of a 100,000 people, headed by eminent intellectuals of our time. This was something out of the ordinary, for a rally without any political affiliation was something rarely hard of in our city.

The state and the ruling party were not prepared for the same, and the mass criticism from different apolitical sections injected a fear into the minds of the politicians, which readily surfaced as fury. The top leaders resorted to a volley of curses and personal abuse that further tarnished their characters before the civil society. As ministers threatened to literally "throw protesters into the sea", and as apologistic pseudo-intellectuals raised their voices against the protesters and for the government, arranging a counter rally, the party workers, perhaps unintentionally, lost all their camouflage of courtesy and exposed their vicious tooth and nail, and found, to their utter dismay, that they now had the governor, the media, the high court and a large part of the population criticizing them. The demarcation between the oppressors and the oppressed became distinct at this point.

The line that seperates us, the people, from them, the rulers, is now clear for everyone to see. They rule and we are ruled; they order and we obey; they are the repressers and we are the repressed. All this is practiced under the pseudonym of democracy, where they only act as if they work for us. As long as we act the way they want us to, the system gets along smoothly. When we resist, or even criticize, calamity strikes. In the post-Nandigram scenario, politicians find themselves cornered with all the neutral forces against them, and they resort to slandering everyone who voice a single word against their atrocities: be it the law, the media or the most respected poets and movie directors of our time.

In all probability, the events of Nandigram that unfolded through 2007 would not have a major impact in the politics of West Bengal. However, they would still be remembered for their role in bringing into light the often-unseen line of separation that exists eternally between the chair and the ground. A line that is based on fear: on one side of which dwell the fearsome, and on the other dwell the fearful. The two can never be united, for the prosperity and growth of them depend on the suppression of us. The chief minister should be thanked heartily for making this as clear as daylight.

Disappearing Languages

2007-11-11T08:17:00.000-08:00

The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

The Bible tells us of the Tower of Babel, which was built to reach the heavens by a united humanity, all speaking a single language. When God saw that humans would be able to do whatever they set their minds to, so he confused their unified language and scattered them.

Fascinating as the myth is, it is unlikely that at one point of time all human beings communicated in a universal language. From the dawn of history, variety has been the characteristic of a culture, and different languages have acted as the backbones of different civilizations. Long term geographical isolation has facilitated the development of new languages, while increasing interaction among groups at a later stage in history has helped enrich these languages. Media that emerged from the necessity of communication and an urge for expression of the wandering food gatherer have gone on to grow into rich languages and dialects, and have nourished different cultures to grow upon them. All that has played a significant role in the journey of humanity from the ice age caves to to the skyscraper --- literature, history, philosophy, religion, and science --- all need language for support.

Languages are not constant. Neither are they eternal. They are born, they grow and they die as well. With interaction among cultures and with decline and growth of different civilizations, languages of the past have altered significantly. New languages have often flourished and old dialects have faded away into oblivion. In many cases, driven by hatred and prejudice, man has often deliberately eradicated certain cultures, along with the languages spoken by those people. Several South and Central American languages are worthy of mention in this context, the dooms of which were brought about by the Spanish and Portugese invaders. Those which had stood through the winds of change have modified and reshaped themselves with time, refreshing their vocabularies and restructuring their grammars often incorporating elements from other languages. Such variations occur at a very slow rate and are only observable after a considerable time has elapsed.

At present however, languages of the world face a new challenge. With the tides of Westernisation flowing stronger than ever (which we often confuse as Globalsation), less well represented languages are disappearing at a rate faster than ever. According to a recent study, the rate of extinction of language far exceeds those of the most endangered species of birds and animals. Dialects spoken by indigenous people, tribal languages in particular face the greatest danger, for they usually have very few speakers, they seldom have a script and rarely do they have any use as a means of official or academic communication. There are certain aboriginal languages in Australia that are literally left with but a handful of speakers. Many tribal languages in India, too, face a similar threat. Judging by the trends one may sadly conclude that within a few hundred years, all such languages would cease to exist.

Many of the mainstream regional languages in India, too, are facing threats of a similar kind, though not of the same intensity. English has found its way deep into the tongue of the city-dweller, much deeper than it ever did when India was under the British Crown. This spread of English, which is commendable, has been unfortunately accompanied by an apathy towards the vernacular, and comunication in English between native speakers of a regional language has become a common phenomenon in India. Unlike the Far East, South Asia has not been able to find a way to incorporate regional languages as modes of expressing scienctific ideas, and the existance of 22 'national languages' (apart from more than a hundred tribal languages) have rendered impossible the use of regional languages in administration. The bulk of the younger generation of today, especially those hailing from the major cities communicate in a confused conglomerate of languages that consist of elements from English, Hindi and the regional language. Vernacular literature of the last century, despite their great literary value are being neglected. This situation is further exacerbated by a draught in quality literature in regional languages in more recent times. More and more able writers from the subcontinent are finding it easier to express their imagination and ideas in English compared to Bengali or Malayalam. An analogous trend is also reflected in popular entertainment. Bollywood movie songs these days have chunks of lyrics in Desi English, something almost unimaginable a decade or two ago, when a fiery 'Shut Up!' from the heroine or a shy 'I love you' from the hero would suffize to bring out the 'Bilayti' aura required for the movie, coupled with settings in a European landscape.

The current trends depict a very grim picture of an urban society in the not so distant future, where everyone belongs to a grossly homogeneous 'global' culture and speaks a single language, and where all other languages are studied only by linguists and historians. Some of the local languages may still exist as dialect of the poor and the rural masses, but deprived of their previous glory and in a state of severe negligence. Such a linguistic rift would add up to other socio-economic and cultural factors and magnify the gaping divide of mankind which appears to be imminent some time in the future. One can only hope that such a nightmare would not become reality.

The Mother of All Conflicts

2007-10-27T21:32:00.000-07:00

"Imagine there's no country
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too "

If we could indeed realize Lennon's dream the world would have been a better and peaceful place to live in. But unfortunately, it's a lot easier to imagine such a harmonious system devoid of barriers than to implement it in reality.

But why is it so? Why are human beings so belligerent inherently? The answer to the question, perhaps lies in the depths of prehistory, to a time even before the dawn of civilizations.

Human civilization initially flourished in isolation. People developed languages, customs and societies within those isolated spheres; without knowing that a world existed beyond that sphere of familiarity. Men grew up like a breed of toads in a well. Then one day they encountered a new breed of toads, which looked different, and jumped and croaked in a manner henceforth unknown. Both the breeds decided that the new group was harmful to them. So they started to fight. Never, for once, occurred to them, that despite all the physical differences, the new breed was a group of toads after all! Never, for once, occurred to them, that sharing a bit of their wells and ponds among themselves would do them no harm!

Almost all the conflicts we humans encounter in life arise from these external differences. Difference in religion, difference in nationality, difference in ethnicity, difference in social and cultural background: and in general, difference in any of the specific parameters that define a particular system or group of individuals. Since the earliest days of civilization, history of mankind is the history of conflicts: of devastating wars where one culture has eradicated another. The Greeks obliterated Troy; the Romans demolished Carthage; Rama and his people destroyed Lanka. Ancient Mesopotemia witnessed the foundation and destruction of several civilizations: one upon another. History is replete with such examples, and the tradition has persisted through the middle ages (notable examples would be the crusades, Arabic aggresion throughout Asia, and the gory exploits of European colonists in the Americas, Africa and Asia that followed the 'age of discovery'. ) to modern times. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kashmir, in Bosnia and Chechnya; and the eternal clashes between Israelites and Palestinians are but bearers of that same tradition.

When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in South America, they encountered cultures inherently different from their own. They quickly decided that the Incas were but a new breed of barbarians, and plunedered and looted their riches. One of the greatest cultures of the world disappeared from the face of the earth within a few decades, because some people were too prejudiced to tolerate them. Such events occurred and re-occurred throughout history. India suffered such cultural aggressions for more than a millenium. The Arabs and Turks during their invasion ruthlessly destroyed temples, universities and human lives in India for the sole reason that they bore a belief system and tradition markedly different from their own. When the Europeans arrived, they, too took the onus upon themselves to 'civilize' the natives in their own way. The invaders almost never tried to relate to the cultural heritages of India, or try to accept its greatness despite differences from their own civilizations. They never tried to understand these new people, they never thought they might have something to learn from their civilization, because they were too blinded by a superiority complex.

The fundamental philosophy that guides an imperialist power is this prejudice of superiority among peers and a desire to make other nations a direct or indirect part of the empire. Which, in a broader sense, is to remove differences by making different identities dissolve into the identity, ideology and system of the empire. This has been the foundation of all empires, from the Romans to the Arabs, and from Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany.

There is a prevalent hypotheis that religion is the source of all inter-cultural prejudices and conflicts. An important thing to realize at this point is that there is not one particular mode of difference that may be identified as the root cause of hostility. As long as people are happy to adhere to their own religion without interfering with others' belief systems, a peaceful co-existance prevails. Conflict arises the moment one community starts to feel that theirs is the right path and that everything else is rubbish. Then they start to criticise others' ways, and in no time the thin line between criticism and mud-slinging is crossed. It isn't religion, or ideology, or race, or caste, or nation alone: it's the basic notion that connects all and more of them. It's the fundamental notion of difference among groups; and the inherent inability to accept them. And this prejudiced feeeling automatically develops into a severe selfish mentality, nationalistic to the core, when groups start fighting to secure tracts of land for themselves. And war ensues.

It's this psychology of intolerance that makes an Arab hostile towards an American, it's this sentiment that fuels hatred between an Indian and a Pakistani, or a Hindu and a Muslim, or, in general, between a member of group A and another of group B. Religion, though one of the major contributors, is not the sole reason. Events that lead to the war of Bangladesh's independence were initiated by the difference of language. It was fought between followers of the same religion. The seeds of racial clashes in the US and South Africa burgeoned from a prejudice on physical appearance. That too, had nothing to do with religion. And then of course, we have so many nationalistic 'movements' and wars fought between countries to talk about.

The basic cause of almost all conflicts, then, is not the difference itself, but the inability to accept it. We expect people to be like us, and censure severely whatever seems alien to us, be it thought, look, or social norms and cultural nuances. That's where we destroy places of worship of others, term their philosophies as heretic and sacrilegious; force them to follow our path, and, when they do not, set out to eradicate them from the face of the earth. And we try to secure everything good for our 'own people', be it land, wealth or power.

The concept of a homogeneous global society where everyone thinks and acts the same way is an utopian one. The world would never be like that, and it should never be like that, too; for this difference is inherent and natural. Besides they bring variety, and variety brings progress. Human beings and their societies have been, are and would continue to remain inherently different from each other. But there are underlying similarities among them that go far beyond these different exteriors, and that's where we need to focus. That's where we get to realize that having a black skin, or wearing a turban, or eating beef, or worshipping more than one god do not make people our enemies; nor do that make them thugs, or stupids, or infidels. These differences are but much minor compared to the invisible bond that connects all humanity. Once we realize that, we would learn to happily respect and appreciate the deviations, and be friends with people from all over the planet despite differences.

The Traveller's Song

2007-10-13T07:21:00.000-07:00

I don't know where the winds came from, and where they'll lead me to:
I only know I'm moving on, and that's all I can do.
Forgotten is my origin and dusky is my past
I move on with a steady pace because I know I must.
The roads criss cross like cobwebs, like arteries and veins
I walk through streets and avenues, and along crooked lanes.
The heavens melt in horizon and new roads start from old
I've walked through darkened alleys too, and across streets of gold.
I have the sun and moon with me, and stars show me my way,
With blessings from the mighty sky I travel everyday.
I have my dreams to guide me and give me magic wings,
To take me past the stormy nights and beyond dusky ruins.
The lights ahead, like illusions, charmingly dance and bend;
I know I'll meet my destiny, upon my journey's end.

Arranged Marriages

2007-10-06T21:24:00.000-07:00

Well, personally, I've nothing against arranged marriages in general (though I would like to prefer the other option for myself, if I ever decide to bite the bait, that is): I've seen love marriages going completely wrong and arranged marriage couples living happily ever after. But often there are certain disturbing aspects of an arranged marriage.

The fact that we don't get much of a prior knowledge about the spouse-to-be might result in being stuck with an individual with a perfectly different mindset: different tastes, different values and that sort of stuff. Most of these unlucky folks can't break off an arranged marriage easily and tend to suffer forever with a long face. Marriage would always demand some amount of a compromise, but the amount is likely to be higher in an arranged one. Such marriages are like gambling one's luck on a Vegas Roulette; and the future of such negotiated relationships are as uncertain as the position or momentum of a rotating electron. Moreover, meeting and checking out someone with the sole interest of making him or her a spouse seems too artifical a way of establishing a relationship.

But the main issue is the way marriages are arranged usually. Nasty things like caste-matching, Kundali-mapping, Dowry are so often involved in such weddings. Almost all advertisements on the matrimonial columns specify the preferred caste and sub caste. Though expected amount of dowry is not stated on the advertisements, parents of a prospective groom most often expect to make a decent deal through the negotiations; and the bride's family sighs a breath of relief if the demands are manageable for them. Astrologers fatten their purses by making most of the opportunity, as they 'analyze' horoscopes to predict whether a pair would sustain happily or not.

Then there's the practice of 'bride-seeing': where the prospective bride sits pretty draped in her best Banarasi, dazzling in the resplendent jewellery that she inherited from Mom; with the prospective in laws staring at her with inquisitve eyes, in between munching the samosa and the sweets that are brought in aplenty. How perfectly disgusting that might be for a girl of dignity, having to market herself like a difficult-to-sell commodity!

These days many people go for some sort of a milder version of the above. They cut off the dowry, the routine of planet-matching and the formal 'bride-seeing' part. The persons involved see each other for some time before the marriage is sealed, and spend some time together to check if their frequencies are well tuned. When things appear to be going nice, only then the green signal is flashed. Such modernized arranged marriages are pretty much acceptable. More so in a society where inm ost cases the male and female still don't often get to see each other and mingle together in a casual, friendly sort of way.

Sports other than cricket in India

2007-08-14T09:06:00.000-07:00

Some days ago Dola Banerjee won gold at an archery world event. The newspapers celebrated her victory cheerfully and she was received by the homeland with much joy and excitement. But peculiarly enough, it was the first time most of us even heard of her. Something similar happened with Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, who won us the sole medal at the 2004 Olympics. These, more or less summarize the plight of sports other than cricket in India.

The above examples contradict the popular contention that these sports are neglected because the players don't perform well at the international level. Of course there are many reasons specific to different sports; but ultimately, it's the lack of investment in these sports that's responsible mostly for their decline. Money remains to be the driving force in anything in today's world; and that's where these sports suffer. Cricket, because of it's huge popularity gets a great media coverage in India. BCCI and the regional cricket boards get richer and richer. They bring forth the infrastructure that's so deficient in other sports. Also, because of the lucrative prospects involved, and the publicity cricketers get, children are encouraged to play cricket. Clubs and coaching centres sprout all around because of an increasing demand. Young cricketers come forth and cricket maintains its popularity despite occasional poor performances by the national squad.

More or less the reverse happens in most other sports and they take a backseat. Lack of money leads to lack of infrastructure and training facility for players. Media either doesn't cover them at all or cover in a lukewarm manner. As a result, they become less popular and still less people try them. It's a vicious circle.

The involvement of politics naturally has had a negative effect. Constant bickering among factions often take an ugly look and make these sports suffer terribly. The ill-will between Dalmia and Pawar isn't sufficient to destroy cricket because of the latter's overwhelming popularity. But in athletics, boxing or table tennis, the administrators' politics make bodily blows to the sports and players. Without any significant media coverage, bad blood flows unchecked and severely dampens development.

Censorship: justified?

2007-08-13T00:01:00.000-07:00

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

Less than a week ago, images of a terrified lady in a blue sari under attack by a group of middle-aged men were doing rounds in the Indian news channels. The men who were seen trying to hurl chairs and laptops to their victim, were identified as distinguished members of the legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh, and they were infuriated by a book that censured the Quran; and the woman was Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi poet turned fugitive, and the author of the book in question. Though shattered mentally, fortunately Taslima managed to come out of it unscathed. The incident however, raised an age old question that society has asked but never found a direct answer to, that of freedom of speech and of expression. The question of censorship and that of its justification.

It's known that a society with strict rules of censorship never leads to the formation of new ideas; and always obliterates any sign of opposition against the establishment. Even the smallest hint of criticism of the government is erased from everything that is to be considered fit for public viewing in such systems. Classic examples of such extreme censorships include Nazi Germany of the 1930's; and the Soviet Union under the Communist regime. In both these societies, all that the citizens got to see in movies and read in books were government propaganda. The Cultural Revolution in Maoist China sort of epitomizes the ugliness of censorship when people hatefully denounced their own history and ruthlessly destroyed ancient artifacts, texts and paintings.

In most ‘modern’ countries like ours, however, a milder form of censorship exists. Though one is free to criticize the government or social mores, a limit is set as to how far one can go while criticizing something. And, there are certain sensitive issues, unrelated to politics, where censorship rules are not clearly defined. Sex and violence are two such areas where it is very difficult to determine what is suitable for public viewing and what is not.

Pornography, for instance, is banned in certain countries while it is legal in many. Whether explicit display of sex should be expurgated from books and movies is an issue where intellectuals vary in opinion. One might say that such materials are detrimental for the healthy development of an adolescent brain; while the other may argue that these things have been popular since ancient times; and denying them is nothing but hypocrisy. The bitter truth is that porn cannot be obliterated through censorship, and the best thing the government can do is to enforce certain regulations to ensure that exploitation is minimized. As far as violence is concerned, just because some depressed psycho like Cho was inspired apparently by certain movies, and that some looney teenager broke his neck while attempting a Superman stunt, there is no reason in banning anything.

Finally, back to where we began: ethnic groups and ideological issues. As a thumb rule, any social or moral idea that might seem justifiable by the rest of the society may infuriate a particular group who would argue that such an idea is derogatory for their community. Or when an individual speaks against established ideas, his or her views are seldom met with cheerful acceptance. In such matters, the censor boards tend to be ultra-careful so as to remain politically correct. It is then that they ponder over whether Da Vinci Code should be screened at all in India or whether Hussain should be allowed to carry on his exhibitions and speak equivocally of Nasreen or Rushdi.

Censorship essentially suffers from two major fallacies: the lack of confidence on the prudence of the citizens, and, more importantly, the right of freedom of expression.Of course, if someone has anything to say against a work of art or literature is free to criticise it, harangue it if they feel like, but they have no right to ban it. People should ultimately be prudent enough to decide what's good for them, any way; without any help from a cultural guardian. Under no circumstance can official forbiddance on any creative work or idea can be supported; until and unless the latter is known to be harmful in a direct manner. Merely 'negative influence on society' can never be a pretext to prohibit anything. Or a pretext to hurl chairs at a woman, for that matter.

Of dreams and smart goals

2007-07-20T22:14:00.000-07:00

Some months back I attended a training session where there was a seminar on how we should set up 'SMART' goals in our lives: on how we should transform our ambitions that are nourished and cherished as somewhat vague and undefined dreams into concrete and definite aspirations. It was one of those sessions where the employee gets a moment's respite from his daily ordeals as he dozes off in the AC, stretching casually on the most comfortable chairs as the trainer goes on with his lectures all day long. Coming back to the point, a 'SMART' goal, I gathered, is supposed to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and tangible (or timebound) at the same time. The management people will elaborate on each word and provide a detailed explanation of them, but essentially, the thing is that we should set precise targets for us and work to acheive them in a perfectly systematic manner. Simple, definite and comprehensible.

Although demanding a lot of foresight, the principle of SMART goals, when rigidly followed, is a sure road to success . Aspirations, however, are usually too qualitative to put them in the form of a mathematical expression. We grow up believing in vague and impractical aspirations that are far from reality. The doctrine we are discussing, in essence, encourages us to set well-defined objectives in lieu of those dreamy wishes for the future. Undoubtedly, when a dream is quantized to a series of subsequent easy-to-attain steps, the acheivement of the goal becomes simpler, usually at the cost of the grandeur of the final destination. The pragmatist would be satisfied with that, for to him, it's better to settle for something decent rather than wasting his life in the quest of something magnificent but unachievable. The mediocre would get a result beyond his expectation by channelizing his thought and actions in the course of a smart target. Most of us would be able to work up to our full potential in the process. And society, by and large, would be able to maintain its prosperity through the success of the individual.

A miniscule portion of the poulation, however, would never compromise their grand aspirations: they would stagger in an awkward and unsmart manner along the streets of life in the quest of something magical; they would stumble occassionally and many of them would fall. But some would still eventually reach their destiny amidst criticism and adversities; and in their success they would take society itself one step forward.