Are we becoming increasingly intolerant?

Another Cartoon is under the hammer of our intolerant society. This time it is an old cartoon which when published 60 years ago did not raise any eyebrows. Cartoon of the famous cartoonist Shanker was reproduced by NCERT in it’s much appreciated Class 11 text book. Now it has been made controversial by vested interests and was ordered to be removed by Education Minister. Unfortunate thing is not only RPI (the supposedly pro Dalit party) but MPs of all political parties (from Left to Right) were united in getting it removed.
The cartoon was shown to highlight the time taken to write the most voluminous Constitution of the World. The text below it explains that each clause was deliberated at length by the members of the Constituent Assembly, amended rejected or approved as per majority opinion in a most democratic and reasonable way.
The cartoon only depicted the newly independent Country waiting impatiently and expectantly for the most important document ever produced in India.
.
Now a Parliamentary committee has been formed to look into all NCERT Text books.
While teaching my daughter I was always amazed at the quality of NCERT Social Sciences text books of recent years. The high calibre was the result of team effort of a large number of people. Will this intolerance see an end to good quality learning materials for our students?
The intolerance of our MPs to such harmless cartoons is a shame for World’s largest Democracy

Related articles
Kafila post
History of drafting of Indian Constitution

God, Religion and Selfishness

The other day I was discussing about God/Religion with my theist friend. He was arguing that if every one become atheists the World will become a very Selfish World.
Is that correct? Is the World or the Organisms residing in the World not selfish (or less selfish) because of their Beliefs in supernatural God?
I do not think so.
Doing good things to others just because you are afraid of ‘God”s punishment and to attain ‘heaven ‘ can be considered as one of the most selfish of all acts.
But still some people will say even if done for a selfish purpose, it is good.
I agree that people doing good things to others is good. But is it really because of God/religion? Is it because of unselfishness?
Non believers also do good things to others. What is the explanation for their noble acts?

In my opinion all living organisms in this World are selfish. All of them are seeking their own happiness. Happiness is a certain state of our Brain. We try to attain that state constantly.When we reach that state we automatically try to share our mood with others. Our body is hard wired to share ( or let others know) our emotions. That is why we smile/laugh when we are happy and cry when we are sad. Other wise there is no purpose for smile/tears.
When some one smile or laugh in front of you, automatically you tend to smile or laugh. Mirror neurones in our Brain are responsible for this behaviour. Thus happiness becomes infectious. Sorrow is also infectious like this.
When we help others we are trying to make others happy (smile/laugh). Their happiness in turn make us happy. So the primary purpose of doing good things to others is to make us happy, a very selfish motive.
This selfishness is a very good thing and has nothing to do with God/religion.

Is revenge killing of the rapist feminism?

Malayalam film ‘22 female Kottayam’ was widely publicized by the film maker Aashiq Abu himself as a feminist movie. Was it so? How good is the movie?
Let me examine this film in 2 ways. First its merits and demerits as a film: then about its message in context of gender.
As a film in the midst of contemporary Malayalam mainstream cinema, the effort was commendable. The theme though heavily borrowed from Hollywood was handled well. The casting was good and the acting too. The romantic scenes were scripted and visualized nicely and naturally. The violent scenes were shown in a sensitive manner. Though rape was the central theme, there was no vulgar show of flesh. The film moves in a fairly rapid pace with enough twist and turn to keep the interest of viewers.
As it happens in most films the script becomes weak in the second half. The actions of revenge looked too easy and in a way very predictable.
Though the Director proclaims that this is a feminist movie I cannot agree with that. This is more of a revenge movie. The only change from the usual theme is it is the heroine who is mainly involved in revenge.
In many ways the movie can be called an anti-feminist movie. The heroine is afraid to report the rape in true patriarchal fashion. The film tends to give the message that killing the rapist is the only option available to the victim. It also loudly proclaims that the main strength of a woman is her sex appeal, whether to lure the rapist into a trap or to earn money for good living. The Director it seems does not see anything wrong in showing an indecent marriage proposal by an old and dying cancer patient to the nurse [heroine]. That was actually sexual harassment at work.
In the final scene the heroine it seems is still leaving the door ajar for the hero who had cruelly betrayed her. All actions of revenge were possible with the help of a male, who in turn is helping the heroine not as a friend but for access to her body.
The take home message of this movie can be termed as the following.
1. Women are too trusting and can be easily duped by show of love.
2. A victim of rape has nothing to lose. She can take the law into her own hands and take revenge.

Though the Director has not understood what feminism is, the film is still worth a watch.

Beliefs and Children

Should parents force their children to follow their brand of Religion and God? On the other hand should parents force them to be an Atheist?

May be the just way is to explain to them about God/religion and Atheism. Encourage them to question everything including your own belief/non-belief. Give them books to read which explains the essence of religion and free thinking.
Let them choose their own path at their own time.

Sexist Jokes

Sexist jokes are not just jokes. They are methods to reiterate the Patriarchal hegemony in our Society. It becomes harmless only if a girl saying a similar joke is treated the same way as a guy is treated, with kid gloves and even with admiration. In a Society in which all the freedom are given to males to say anything to anyone and not to females, such jokes become unpleasant to the oppressed gender. Isolating those who say it loudly that it is unpleasant is another Patriarchal tactic to maintain status quo.

How to eliminate sexual harassment on streets

Which is the best way to eliminate sexual harassment on streets?

Choose the best answer. You can choose only one.

A. Write a protest letter to the newspaper

B.Ask your husband to do something about it

C.Do not go out on to the streets after 8 pm

D.Go out only if it is absolutely necessary, that too with a male relative

E.Organise women in your area and start an Occupy nights campaign in your city

Shame

10 Years have passed with no justice in sight, but the fight goes on. A poem by the famous Poet Satchidanandan on Gujarat Riots.

SHAME
K. Satchidanandan (translated from Malayalam by the poet himself)

( Written after a visit to the refugee camps in Gujarat after the post-Godhra genocide of Muslims in 2002.)

Returning from the refugee camps
I stand before the mirror
to examine myself: are there still
marks left to declare I am a Hindu?

Forehead, eyes, ears, nose, lips,
Chest, abdomen, limbs.

Yes, my body screams, yes:
your name, your speech,
the gods that crowd your memory,
the myths and legends you learnt by rote,
some beliefs passed on to you,
some laws you abide by, some rituals,
some symbols in your poetry.

It was you who did it, every cell
on my body points its fingers at me.

Say in shame, I am a Hindu, (1)
I am the murderer, the arsonist,
the rapist, the vandal and the cannibal.

Pardon, Najma, Laila,
Safia, Subaida, pardon.

I disclaim the vedas
that cannot stop the fire
that turns the living men to ash

I disclaim the Gita that
makes a duty of murder
I don’t want the wheel(2)
that maims infants
Nor the club that
batters the disarmed.
I don’t want the lotus
That signifies death.

Today I know: the colour of death
is not black, but saffron.
Don’t boast to me about
Valmiki, Kabir and Gandhi: (3)
they are perspiring in rags,
refugees amidst these refugees,
their memory choked with
the stench of burning bodies.
Don’t rave about Meera or Lalla,(4)
They sit there, sobbing, bleeding,
naked, heads bent , under
the harsh Gujarat sky.

River Sabarmati has dried up;
Narasi was never born here-(5)
Let’s just go back to the woods.

2002

Adaminde makan Abu- A big disappointment

Malayalam movie ‘Adaminde makan Abu’ (Adam’s son Abu) was a big disappointment. The weight of expectations might have been the reason, but that is natural as the film had won several awards including the National award for best feature film last year.
The story is about an ageing Muslim couple living in Malabar area of Kerala. Abandoned by their son working in Gulf for unknown/unconvincing reason they are living with a meager income. Abu is a street vendor of perfumes and natural remedies while his wife Aysumma earns money by selling milk of her cow. They have a dream, to do the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca.
By saving all the money they earned by living frugally, Abu begins  making arrangements for the trip. Instead of applying for the cheaper Government sponsored trip Abu is seen approaching a private travel agency. They had to sell the Cow and a tree to foot the bill for the pilgrimage. But the tree was worth much less than their expectation and Abu was short of cash. The timber merchant (a Christian), a friend (Hindu school teacher) and the travel agency themselves were willing to help Abu, but he refuses. According to Abu there should not be any debt pending with people other than close relatives before going to Haj. Film ends with the couple resigned to day-dreaming about the pilgrimage.
The film is slow paced and you will not miss anything if u doze off for few minutes. Almost all the characters seems to be ‘white’ goody goody ones, with no resemblance to real life. It seems all the people in the World were conspiring to help the couple to go to Haj except their son who is never shown.Though the couple is portrayed as poor, the clothes they wear inside and outside the house look always new and freshly ironed.  Sometime the film looks like an advertisement for the travel agency dealing with Haj pilgrimage, with unusual prominence given to its (real) name.
Saving grace is the acting of Salim Kumar and Zareena Wahab. The songs are good, but the visualization not so. Madhu Ambat’s  photography is good, but beautiful pictures of the horizon stands out of the film.
It was difficult to believe this film won so many awards and even became India’s official entry to Oscars.  Director Salim Ahmed must be very lucky to get so many accolades for an ordinary debut film.

Is this hypocrisy?

3 BJP ministers of Karnataka who were caught on camera watching porn video on cellphone in the assembly, submitted their resignation with in hours of the scandal becoming public. CM had asked for their resignation after public pressure. Link
Link2

How easily these 3 ‘morally’ tainted ministers resigned? Compare this with the difficulty in getting resignation letters from Yeddy, Kalmadi, Raja etc who were not ‘morally’ tainted. Is there an element of moral policing in the way these ministers houses were stoned? Is this incident a victory or defeat for moral Police?

A powerful film

.

The other day I was able to see a very powerful film at our local film festival. The film was ‘Bol’, the Pakistani film directed by Shoib Manzoor. I have not seen his acclaimed ‘Khuda kay liye’ and was not sure what to except of ‘Bol’, but was overwhelmed.

The story unfolds as Zainab (Humaima Malick) tells her life history to the media, minutes before being sentenced to death. Zainab’s father is Hakim Saab (Manzar Zehbai), a traditional Physician and a very stubborn, proud, conservative and devout Sunni Muslim. Zainab is the eldest amongst half a dozen daughters of Hakim Saab. The father badly needed a son as successor, but the son he finally gets was a eunuch. As the son Saifee (Amr Kashmiri) grows up with his sisters, the father tries his best to ignore his ‘shameful’ presence in the family.

Independent thinking Zainab could not digest the fact that her father refuses birth control and girls continued to be born to the impoverished family. When she was married off to another poor family, she was adamant about not having children until the family could afford to feed them. Her husband’s family was not progressive enough for that and she had to return to her house.

With the decline of feudal system, the role of traditional physician became less and less in the society and Hakim Saab became more and more poor. But his vanity and pride only became stronger, especially in relation to women of the house and family honour. He never allows women of the house to study or work.
Though a devout follower of religion, Hakim Saab did not have qualms in killing his eunuch son to save the ‘honour’ of his family. Also to save his skin from Police he was ‘sinful’ enough to give a big bribe, the money coming from the fund given to him for safe keeping for building a mosque. Unemployed, he was forced to get a job of teaching Quran to kids of a brothel run by Shia Muslims, whom he detested.
When the Mosque building Committee asked for the funds, Hakim Saab had to approach the Brothel owner. He was ready to give the sum, but in return he wanted Hakim Saab to sire a girl child through one of the courtesan.
Thus the devout and proud Sunni Hakim is ‘marrying’ a Shia sex worker younger than his daughter. At the same time he was stubborn enough to refuse a marriage proposal from a doctor who was in love with one of his daughters, just because the groom was Shia. Zainab helps her sister to elope with her lover.

When a girl child was born to him via the courtesan, the issue of family ‘honour’ again begin to haunt Hakim. Not wanting the child to be left at the brothel he unsuccessfully tries to rescue her. Later when the child was brought to his house by her mother herself, he accepts it, but tries to kill it when the owner of the brothel comes with thugs to take it away.

The film shows how religion and patriarchy combine together to make the life of women a hell. Whether it is the wife of Hakim Saab, or the daughters, or the eunuch son, or the women in the brothel, or the new born girl child, each one of them is severely exploited by the male dominated society. Religion gives the philosophical basis for such exploitation. At the same time, for the old patriarch of the film, the devout Hakim Saab, religion was not a barrier to kill, to bribe, to steal money from public fund, to be on the pay roll of a Shia brothel owner and even to marry a young courtesan.
The film ends deliberately in a fairy tale way, showing how easily women can empower and look after themselves when the patriarchal control is removed.

Though technically the film is not perfect, its powerful script more than compensates for the deficiencies.
The loud and clear message from this film is that the fight against patriarchy can never be won without fighting its religious props.