25th April 2009, 4.45 pm; Singapore.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Zubaan sambhal ke... ; )
By the next elections, one lot of people would definitely be in major demand – the bollywood dialogue writers of 1970s! They would be the most sought-after people to write speeches for our respected leaders. The types which wrote, “kutte! main tera khoon pee jaunga!” May be in the same breadth, the leader to whom this would be directed may respond, “tera aur mera khoon to ek hi hai (hamne saath hi to janata ka khoon choosa)!”
And sir, you don’t have to wait for 5 years to witness this. It (the next election) would happen sooner than that. Anyway, didn’t you already have had a good laugh in these elections yet? No? Witness this:
Modi, “Congress 300 saal ki budhiya hai”
Priyanka, “Do I look old?”
Modi, “Ok then, congress is a Gudiya!”
Advani, “Rahul is a bachcha”
Priyanka, “If Advani considers himself to be a young man than Rahul has to be a bachcha, naa?”
Advani, “Manmohan Singh is the weakest pm in the history of country and has demeaned my chair (err… PM’s chair)
Rahul, “(look who is talking) Manmohan Singh is sher-e-punjab!
Sonia, “…and it was Advani who released the dreaded terrorist anyway (week, week, week)!”
(He! He! He!)
Leave aside the bigwigs, even apna Shekhar Suman initially roared that Raj Thackerey shall dare go to Bihar and address rallies. Of course Raj wouldn’t have taken it in a sporty way (that’s least of his strengths, anyway), once Suman uncle realised this, he meowed, “I was only suggesting that he should go and explain to people of Bihar why it is not good for them to look for jobs in Mumbai and he should also talk to the Bihar government.”
(Ha! Ha! Ha!)
The icing on the cake is the one from our home-grown, son-of-soil shri Mulayamji. His Party’s manifesto popped many eyeballs out! No computer!! No English!!!
Clearly our man believes that if he can’t uplift the poor masses, he can always bring the rest of the world to their level. Isn’t it a brilliant stroke anyway to counter bete noire Mayaji in wooing the poor masses (read vote bank)?
So guys out there in UP villages, be happy. You don’t have to learn any new skill anymore to move up. Stay where you are, just chill – soon whole of India would come down to your level. Why work hard? By next election, few of these villagers would have been a proud owner of a Nano and boom would come another manifesto – “Don’t have to learn driving folks. I would ban petrol and all cars henceforth would be bullock-cars!”
It was no less funny to see a sincere attempt by other-wise-intelligent Aruna Asaf Ali (SP candidate) to defend her boss in a press interview to an English Daily. What could she have done? She tried hard to achieve what seemed impossible right-from-the-word-go and sure, made a mess of it. Now come on guys, let’s not be harsh on her – is it her fault that our Mulayam Singhji sent his both sons to best of the English schools? Now that they are perhaps educated, their pappa can sure ban English or Computers or whatever. Unke baap ka kya jaata hai? Hai naa?
(Ho! Ho! Ho!)
And sir, you don’t have to wait for 5 years to witness this. It (the next election) would happen sooner than that. Anyway, didn’t you already have had a good laugh in these elections yet? No? Witness this:
Modi, “Congress 300 saal ki budhiya hai”
Priyanka, “Do I look old?”
Modi, “Ok then, congress is a Gudiya!”
Advani, “Rahul is a bachcha”
Priyanka, “If Advani considers himself to be a young man than Rahul has to be a bachcha, naa?”
Advani, “Manmohan Singh is the weakest pm in the history of country and has demeaned my chair (err… PM’s chair)
Rahul, “(look who is talking) Manmohan Singh is sher-e-punjab!
Sonia, “…and it was Advani who released the dreaded terrorist anyway (week, week, week)!”
(He! He! He!)
Leave aside the bigwigs, even apna Shekhar Suman initially roared that Raj Thackerey shall dare go to Bihar and address rallies. Of course Raj wouldn’t have taken it in a sporty way (that’s least of his strengths, anyway), once Suman uncle realised this, he meowed, “I was only suggesting that he should go and explain to people of Bihar why it is not good for them to look for jobs in Mumbai and he should also talk to the Bihar government.”
(Ha! Ha! Ha!)
The icing on the cake is the one from our home-grown, son-of-soil shri Mulayamji. His Party’s manifesto popped many eyeballs out! No computer!! No English!!!
Clearly our man believes that if he can’t uplift the poor masses, he can always bring the rest of the world to their level. Isn’t it a brilliant stroke anyway to counter bete noire Mayaji in wooing the poor masses (read vote bank)?
So guys out there in UP villages, be happy. You don’t have to learn any new skill anymore to move up. Stay where you are, just chill – soon whole of India would come down to your level. Why work hard? By next election, few of these villagers would have been a proud owner of a Nano and boom would come another manifesto – “Don’t have to learn driving folks. I would ban petrol and all cars henceforth would be bullock-cars!”
It was no less funny to see a sincere attempt by other-wise-intelligent Aruna Asaf Ali (SP candidate) to defend her boss in a press interview to an English Daily. What could she have done? She tried hard to achieve what seemed impossible right-from-the-word-go and sure, made a mess of it. Now come on guys, let’s not be harsh on her – is it her fault that our Mulayam Singhji sent his both sons to best of the English schools? Now that they are perhaps educated, their pappa can sure ban English or Computers or whatever. Unke baap ka kya jaata hai? Hai naa?
(Ho! Ho! Ho!)
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Great Indian Political Bandwagon!
His name was Deodutt Singh. He was my next door neighbour at Rhea Hostel in Allahabad during my final year of graduation. Deodutt was a keen student of Political Science and though he was one year my junior, I was awed by his political thinking.
The time was latter half of 1990. That was the time of mighty ascendance of BJP. LK Advani was all ready to set off the "Rath Yatra" to Ayodhya to champion the cause of the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed site there.
There was this new found excitement among most Hindus. They believed it was time for them to assert themselves and fight against the opportunistic appeasement of Muslims by Congress, for long.
It was also a time people were looking for some freshness, some change, some new ideology and BJP was able to capitalise on it. It had an array of learned leaders with a relatively cleaner and intellectual image – Vajpayee, Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and many such.
I was not the only one affected by this Euphoria. I remember, like Hindus all-over in the cow-belt, we (Hindu) Hostelers too rallied behind BJP. In fact, most of us - except one!
Deodutt Singh used to take lots of pains to explain to us that BJP’s ideology is a flawed one. He was such a critic that he would equate it with Fascist philosophies as existed in Europe in the times of Hitler & Mussolini.
He used to explain to us that in this process of identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a tendency to identify "evil" with "them." And if the “us” was a majority – one could imagine the plight of the minority “them”. It was like Aryan vs. Jews!
He would say that it would lead to never-before polarisation of society and would lead only to destruction in both groups. We didn’t believe that. We just thought that BJP is trying to bring back the balance, which had skewed towards the Muslims. He warned us that we would realise this after many years that it was not a done thing.
How right he was! In hindsight, it exactly happened the way he said. Attacks and counter-attacks. Ayodhya, Mumbai, Gujarat and then whole of India. Result – mass destruction and hatred. This hatred was initially exploited by Politicians and then worst, by Terrorists!
I now feel sad that at one time even I supported the harbinger of hatred – The BJP. Today its allies are taking it to a new low where women are being attacked for going to pubs and North Indians are beaten up just for aspiring to live in metropolis like Mumbai.
Enough of BJP. Let’s talk about the players in the so called “Third Front”. Yesterday I watched a so-so movie called “Coffee House” which had its moments and a message. At one point in the movie, the agitated Hero puts up a rhetoric question, “You know who are the minority community in India?” In the same breath he replies, “It’s a small group of people who first call themselves “Indian” before being referred to as Punjabi, Tamil, Bengali etc!”
How true! The Third Front ideology falls too short, here.
That just leaves Congress.
Congress too has its own share of Nepotism, Corruption, and a record of Hatred Mongering (The 1984 riots against Sikhs). I see a difference though. This hatred was not a result of any ideology. This was a handiwork of some opportunistic politicians (which thanks to Jarnail Singh’s shoe throwing episode, have been removed from the poll fray, this time) trying to use mass hatred to get more votes!
Congress is secular, thinks National and is capable of providing stable governance.
But what about Dynastic Rule? I wouldn’t lose too much sleep on it. Would you pick Rahul because he is a Nehru-Gandhi scion or because he is young and comes across as a non-conventional, optimist neta? Think of George Bush, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, Chris Cowdrey etc etc - where it doesn’t happen that the children get more exposure and a kick-start than others (an undue advantage!) in their parent(s) field. But can we choose our parents? No.
But we can sure choose a Government.
And shouldn’t we?
p.s. :
- Deodutt Singh is now an IPS officer in the Orissa Cadre.
- Thanks to Ajay for asking me blog into the troubled waters of Politics.
The time was latter half of 1990. That was the time of mighty ascendance of BJP. LK Advani was all ready to set off the "Rath Yatra" to Ayodhya to champion the cause of the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed site there.
There was this new found excitement among most Hindus. They believed it was time for them to assert themselves and fight against the opportunistic appeasement of Muslims by Congress, for long.
It was also a time people were looking for some freshness, some change, some new ideology and BJP was able to capitalise on it. It had an array of learned leaders with a relatively cleaner and intellectual image – Vajpayee, Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and many such.
I was not the only one affected by this Euphoria. I remember, like Hindus all-over in the cow-belt, we (Hindu) Hostelers too rallied behind BJP. In fact, most of us - except one!
Deodutt Singh used to take lots of pains to explain to us that BJP’s ideology is a flawed one. He was such a critic that he would equate it with Fascist philosophies as existed in Europe in the times of Hitler & Mussolini.
He used to explain to us that in this process of identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a tendency to identify "evil" with "them." And if the “us” was a majority – one could imagine the plight of the minority “them”. It was like Aryan vs. Jews!
He would say that it would lead to never-before polarisation of society and would lead only to destruction in both groups. We didn’t believe that. We just thought that BJP is trying to bring back the balance, which had skewed towards the Muslims. He warned us that we would realise this after many years that it was not a done thing.
How right he was! In hindsight, it exactly happened the way he said. Attacks and counter-attacks. Ayodhya, Mumbai, Gujarat and then whole of India. Result – mass destruction and hatred. This hatred was initially exploited by Politicians and then worst, by Terrorists!
I now feel sad that at one time even I supported the harbinger of hatred – The BJP. Today its allies are taking it to a new low where women are being attacked for going to pubs and North Indians are beaten up just for aspiring to live in metropolis like Mumbai.
Enough of BJP. Let’s talk about the players in the so called “Third Front”. Yesterday I watched a so-so movie called “Coffee House” which had its moments and a message. At one point in the movie, the agitated Hero puts up a rhetoric question, “You know who are the minority community in India?” In the same breath he replies, “It’s a small group of people who first call themselves “Indian” before being referred to as Punjabi, Tamil, Bengali etc!”
How true! The Third Front ideology falls too short, here.
That just leaves Congress.
Congress too has its own share of Nepotism, Corruption, and a record of Hatred Mongering (The 1984 riots against Sikhs). I see a difference though. This hatred was not a result of any ideology. This was a handiwork of some opportunistic politicians (which thanks to Jarnail Singh’s shoe throwing episode, have been removed from the poll fray, this time) trying to use mass hatred to get more votes!
Congress is secular, thinks National and is capable of providing stable governance.
But what about Dynastic Rule? I wouldn’t lose too much sleep on it. Would you pick Rahul because he is a Nehru-Gandhi scion or because he is young and comes across as a non-conventional, optimist neta? Think of George Bush, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, Chris Cowdrey etc etc - where it doesn’t happen that the children get more exposure and a kick-start than others (an undue advantage!) in their parent(s) field. But can we choose our parents? No.
But we can sure choose a Government.
And shouldn’t we?
p.s. :
- Deodutt Singh is now an IPS officer in the Orissa Cadre.
- Thanks to Ajay for asking me blog into the troubled waters of Politics.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sakharam Binder
Morality is relative.
What is perfectly moral in one society can become immoral in other. The marriage among first cousins is a good example of this. So there is no right or wrong in morality. It seems what a society views by and large as acceptable becomes its moral boundaries.
Now what happens if an individual views his/her morality differently than what the society he lives in, believes?
I guess if he is weak and meek he might have to behave in socially acceptable norms even if he doesn’t believe in it and may face an eternal internal conflict. But this doesn’t seem to be a possibility in the first place. It’s an oxymoron. As weak and meek would have been tamed very early by the people around him (parents, teachers etc etc) and would have internalised the moral norms as defined by his society.
The interesting situation would be if a strong willed individual defines his moralities differently than the society he lives in and goes on to defy the social moral fabric with I-don’t-care-a-damn attitude. Wouldn’t it upset the society big time? Today with our awareness of the concept of individual freedom as borrowed from the West – this may still seem possible but what about of India 35 years back?
That’s the kind of dilemma Playwright Vijay Tendulkar’s Marathi play ‘Sakharam Binder’ would have presented in 1972 when it was first performed. The result? It was banned in 1974!
I guess better sense would have prevailed soon and the ban would have taken off. The play has been in circulation since then and still is a favourite pick among the Theatre groups. This week-end I had got this great opportunity of watching its Hindi adaptation at Epicentre, Gurgaon.
Sakharam, a book-binder in a small town in Maharashtra doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage and picks up other men's discarded wives who would otherwise be homeless and destitute - and takes them in as domestic servants and sex partners. He rules his home like a tyrant and the woman brought-in is given an option of living by his rules and be treated like a servant and sex-object or to leave whenever she likes. He even promises to give her a sari, 50 rupees and a ticket to wherever she wants to go.
As far as Sakharam is concerned, this is absolutely moral as long as he is truthful and upfront about the arrangement. However, what he doesn't anticipate are the complications that arise out of this arrangement, which proves heartbreakingly ruinous to everyone involved.
Sakharam Binder was initially acted by Neelu Phule. Those who have seen Neelu Phule in few of the Hindi films he did, would know what intensity he would have brought to this role of a Rural Marathi strong-willed person. It seems there is also a Marathi video available which has Sayaji Shinde in the lead role.
In 2004, it’s English adaptation was showed in New York too and after it got rave reviews in ‘The New York Times’, it needed to be extended by another week. Girish Karnad, who once inaugurated the Tendulkar festival in Pune, called Sakharam Binder the finest Indian play in a thousand years!
The play depicts Sakharam’s time with two women (out of seven or eight he brags about) – Lakshmi and Champa. The contrast between these two women is stark and also highlights a point that you can be oppressed only to the extent that you allow yourself to.
What is perfectly moral in one society can become immoral in other. The marriage among first cousins is a good example of this. So there is no right or wrong in morality. It seems what a society views by and large as acceptable becomes its moral boundaries.
Now what happens if an individual views his/her morality differently than what the society he lives in, believes?
I guess if he is weak and meek he might have to behave in socially acceptable norms even if he doesn’t believe in it and may face an eternal internal conflict. But this doesn’t seem to be a possibility in the first place. It’s an oxymoron. As weak and meek would have been tamed very early by the people around him (parents, teachers etc etc) and would have internalised the moral norms as defined by his society.
The interesting situation would be if a strong willed individual defines his moralities differently than the society he lives in and goes on to defy the social moral fabric with I-don’t-care-a-damn attitude. Wouldn’t it upset the society big time? Today with our awareness of the concept of individual freedom as borrowed from the West – this may still seem possible but what about of India 35 years back?
That’s the kind of dilemma Playwright Vijay Tendulkar’s Marathi play ‘Sakharam Binder’ would have presented in 1972 when it was first performed. The result? It was banned in 1974!
I guess better sense would have prevailed soon and the ban would have taken off. The play has been in circulation since then and still is a favourite pick among the Theatre groups. This week-end I had got this great opportunity of watching its Hindi adaptation at Epicentre, Gurgaon.
Sakharam, a book-binder in a small town in Maharashtra doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage and picks up other men's discarded wives who would otherwise be homeless and destitute - and takes them in as domestic servants and sex partners. He rules his home like a tyrant and the woman brought-in is given an option of living by his rules and be treated like a servant and sex-object or to leave whenever she likes. He even promises to give her a sari, 50 rupees and a ticket to wherever she wants to go.
As far as Sakharam is concerned, this is absolutely moral as long as he is truthful and upfront about the arrangement. However, what he doesn't anticipate are the complications that arise out of this arrangement, which proves heartbreakingly ruinous to everyone involved.
Sakharam Binder was initially acted by Neelu Phule. Those who have seen Neelu Phule in few of the Hindi films he did, would know what intensity he would have brought to this role of a Rural Marathi strong-willed person. It seems there is also a Marathi video available which has Sayaji Shinde in the lead role.
In 2004, it’s English adaptation was showed in New York too and after it got rave reviews in ‘The New York Times’, it needed to be extended by another week. Girish Karnad, who once inaugurated the Tendulkar festival in Pune, called Sakharam Binder the finest Indian play in a thousand years!
The play depicts Sakharam’s time with two women (out of seven or eight he brags about) – Lakshmi and Champa. The contrast between these two women is stark and also highlights a point that you can be oppressed only to the extent that you allow yourself to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)