I came across an interview of Innaiah Narisetti, a humanist and writer, with views that were explosive, but very introspective. He has written a thesis that children’s rights should include complete freedom from religious beliefs or parental conditioning.
He has said: “There is a global unwillingness to acknowledge that all religions use their educational institutions and programmes, be they Sunday Christian schools, Madrassas, Jewish or Hindu temples to indoctrinate children. Sometimes, this is in the guise of conveying good moral values, but, while it may be much more rigid and overt in, say, a madrassa, it is no less influential on young minds in a Christian Sunday school.”
I found the ideas in Mr Narisetti’s paper bold, but also strange. He says since we deny children voting rights and stand up against child marriage, there is a need to debate the participation of children in religious institutions.
But it is a fact that religion accompanies us from birth to death. It begins with baptism and ends with funeral, and we confine all of these into the respective religious parameters. Is it then practical to separate religion from individuals? How can we use guidelines to stop parents from “influencing” their wards on religious beliefs.
When we are young, we would accompany our parents to temples/churches . Could we have avoided that? It is also part of a child’s psychology to imitate parents. Which means, praying at home or following a religion is subconsciously passed on to children. Or is the writer trying to say that parents should give up going to places of worship, or stop praying at home. Then, isn’t it denying parents (read individuals) their fundamental right to religion?
Of course, we can choose to be atheists or humanists as adults following indoctrination from ideological theories. But asking parents or families to stop what Narisetti calls “religious abuse” of children seems impractical.
We learn the first lessons of humanity from our parents. Compassion, sympathy, honesty are lessons imparted to us by our parents, who have probably been “brainwashed” by religious texts.
I agree that there is a serious distortion of texts and their interpretation by religious leaders that has corrupted our beliefs. Superstitions have creeped in and some gory practices have mutilated all the religions.
But what is of concern now is this dangerous game of religious one-upmanship being played. Taking India’s case, there is a threat from the young minds being programmed “to protect” religion, be it Hinduism or Islam. And, of course there is this blatant conversion drive by the church. And, all these are happening in the underprivileged India.
At the end, who is the prey? Is it the children? I feel it is the underprivileged children who are vulnerable to such indoctrination. A hungry stomach is always an easy target: whether it is protect “Islam”, or to raise the saffron flag to fortify the essence of Hindutva, or to initiate an entire generation into Christianity.
Then why blame the parents for making religion hereditary?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Food for thought
There is a race among the rich nations of the world to outsource food production. In what has been one of the most thought-provoking articles on food security and outsourcing food production, Devinder Sharma, a food and trade policy analyst, enumerates the role of international private agribusiness entities in procuring farmlands across the globe. Moreover, these corporates are bringing in their own farm workers, production technology and equipment. This is leading to natives being displaced from their land. And the private operators are being solidly backed in this dangerous campaign by the World bank.
This new form of colonialism, where nations buy land overseas for farm produce, is being backed by amendment of national laws. China is becoming a major player in this land grab. After having been India’s role model for setting up Special Economic Zones, China is rapidly “inspiring” India on farm outsourcing. Indian players are now buying land in South America and Burma.
The fallout of this is dangerous. Displacement will lead to social unrest that will rattle the rural populace. Already the usurping of the so-called mono-crop areas for industries is unnerving the complex labyrinth of the Indian countryside. The loss of livelihood is driving the rural folk to cities, where they find themselves with very poor alternatives.
The Naxal upsurge in tribal and rural areas is a direct consequence of the assault on livelihood. Then there is this issue of national food security.
The Food and Agricultural Organisations of the United Nations defines Food Security as a situation when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
A newspaper report, quoted environmental activist Vandana Shiva as advocating decentralisation of food production to boost food security. “The food sovereignty of the people and the country should be respected,” she has said.
But we need land to produce food grains. We are doling out large tracts of cultivable land at subsidised rates to rich corporates to produce computer chips. What about food grains? Should we exchange hunger for growth.
And, the media sympathy lies with the Nano brand of industrialisation. How else can one explain its uncharitable words for Mamata Banerjee, whose Singur stand shattered the middle class Nano dream. I was startled at the media singing paeans for Gujarat’s Narendra Modi, into whose outstretched arms the “Singur-battered” Tatas found refuge. So what if Modi was in a tearing hurry to paint Gujarat with a new brush of prosperity to hide the stains of 1992.
I am not against industrialisation. But agricultural land is shrinking, and with that, our food production is shrinking too. Is there any way we can balance food production with industrial development, without upsetting both the applecarts.
This new form of colonialism, where nations buy land overseas for farm produce, is being backed by amendment of national laws. China is becoming a major player in this land grab. After having been India’s role model for setting up Special Economic Zones, China is rapidly “inspiring” India on farm outsourcing. Indian players are now buying land in South America and Burma.
The fallout of this is dangerous. Displacement will lead to social unrest that will rattle the rural populace. Already the usurping of the so-called mono-crop areas for industries is unnerving the complex labyrinth of the Indian countryside. The loss of livelihood is driving the rural folk to cities, where they find themselves with very poor alternatives.
The Naxal upsurge in tribal and rural areas is a direct consequence of the assault on livelihood. Then there is this issue of national food security.
The Food and Agricultural Organisations of the United Nations defines Food Security as a situation when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
A newspaper report, quoted environmental activist Vandana Shiva as advocating decentralisation of food production to boost food security. “The food sovereignty of the people and the country should be respected,” she has said.
But we need land to produce food grains. We are doling out large tracts of cultivable land at subsidised rates to rich corporates to produce computer chips. What about food grains? Should we exchange hunger for growth.
And, the media sympathy lies with the Nano brand of industrialisation. How else can one explain its uncharitable words for Mamata Banerjee, whose Singur stand shattered the middle class Nano dream. I was startled at the media singing paeans for Gujarat’s Narendra Modi, into whose outstretched arms the “Singur-battered” Tatas found refuge. So what if Modi was in a tearing hurry to paint Gujarat with a new brush of prosperity to hide the stains of 1992.
I am not against industrialisation. But agricultural land is shrinking, and with that, our food production is shrinking too. Is there any way we can balance food production with industrial development, without upsetting both the applecarts.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Aborting rights
There was a recent Supreme Court ruling “allowing” a 20-year mentally challenged rape victim to keep her pregnancy. The girl’s mental age is 7-8 years. How on earth is she expected to take pre-natal and post-natal care? The National Trust for Mentally Retarded has reportedly pledged to take care of the mother and child for the rest of their lives.
This is the case of a mentally challenged girl, who needed a court to decide the fate of her heath and her reproductive right.
This case made me think about reproductive rights of Indian women in general. Are women in any position to decide on their reproductive rights? There are very few women who are in a position to assert their rights on motherhood or choose to go childless. Of course, society sanctions a Sushmita Sen, who has enough financial cushioning and celebrity status, to adopt a baby girl. When I was reluctant to get married in my twenties, I had told my mother, I need not get married to have a family and that I would adopt a child to fulfill my maternal instincts. It obviously sounded bizarre to her.
A newspaper report, quoting Radhika Chandiramani, director of Talking About Reproductive And Sexual Health Issues (TARSHI), a non-profit organisation, said, “It's not just a right, it's a woman's 'damn' duty to reproduce." Nothing could be starker.
Indian women cannot choose to have a baby or not. Who is asking them? Even those, coming from so-called progressive families are forced to toe their husband’s (or in-laws’) line.
In rural India, when a woman gets married, pestering for a child begins nine months to a year after marriage. In urban India, where the society is more “refined”, the probe begins after a decent wait for two years. Things are apparently changing among the young, upwardly mobile crowd. But what is the percentage they represent? How many are they?
Women are made to feel guilty for not being able to bear a child, even if the flaw lies with the man. And, how many men want their system checked to verify who is at fault?
Again it is the family that decides to terminate unwanted pregnancy of an unwed mother, fearing societal outrage. To use an appropriate quote in another newspaper report: Flavia Agnes, a women's rights lawyer, said, “A woman's body and sexuality belong to men in this country."
Let us face it: a progressive, intelligent woman, armed with good education, great career, growing bank balance, notwithstanding, it is mostly the men who decide when and whether to have a baby.
This is the case of a mentally challenged girl, who needed a court to decide the fate of her heath and her reproductive right.
This case made me think about reproductive rights of Indian women in general. Are women in any position to decide on their reproductive rights? There are very few women who are in a position to assert their rights on motherhood or choose to go childless. Of course, society sanctions a Sushmita Sen, who has enough financial cushioning and celebrity status, to adopt a baby girl. When I was reluctant to get married in my twenties, I had told my mother, I need not get married to have a family and that I would adopt a child to fulfill my maternal instincts. It obviously sounded bizarre to her.
A newspaper report, quoting Radhika Chandiramani, director of Talking About Reproductive And Sexual Health Issues (TARSHI), a non-profit organisation, said, “It's not just a right, it's a woman's 'damn' duty to reproduce." Nothing could be starker.
Indian women cannot choose to have a baby or not. Who is asking them? Even those, coming from so-called progressive families are forced to toe their husband’s (or in-laws’) line.
In rural India, when a woman gets married, pestering for a child begins nine months to a year after marriage. In urban India, where the society is more “refined”, the probe begins after a decent wait for two years. Things are apparently changing among the young, upwardly mobile crowd. But what is the percentage they represent? How many are they?
Women are made to feel guilty for not being able to bear a child, even if the flaw lies with the man. And, how many men want their system checked to verify who is at fault?
Again it is the family that decides to terminate unwanted pregnancy of an unwed mother, fearing societal outrage. To use an appropriate quote in another newspaper report: Flavia Agnes, a women's rights lawyer, said, “A woman's body and sexuality belong to men in this country."
Let us face it: a progressive, intelligent woman, armed with good education, great career, growing bank balance, notwithstanding, it is mostly the men who decide when and whether to have a baby.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The profession of news
There was a news report about a woman being stripped in public in Patna. There is going to be a “speedy investigation” into the incident, and “necessary action” by the Bihar government. How much more predictable can these reactions get?
The Indian electronic media, of course, dramatised this whole event. The television anchors replaced their high-decibel pitch with a subdued performance. All, after a short break, of course!
One channel took the cake, when its anchor said, “We do not have the footage of the incident, but some photographs of those responsible for the act”. Excuse me. Did I hear that right? Did I hear him say, “We do not have the footage of the incident”? Well, do you think this is a movie depicting a gruesome rape sequence? If the television crew did rush “just in time”, would it film the incident, or do something to stop it? What becomes more important? Showing the incident to the public to expose the lawlessness in the state or step in to stop such atrocities?
Well, a copybook journalist is supposed to unleash information to people, under any circumstances. A journalist is supposed to react to events and report, not act.
There was an incident two years back when television channels showed the footage of a small-time thief being brutally beaten up after he was caught pilfering. The channels carefully filmed that incident, using the best pan-shots and angles possible. A few more years back, television cameras caught an Afro-American being beaten up in America.
Well, it does open a debate on impartiality and objectivity, those core values for a journalist. When covering incidents, a journalist is not supposed to get involved in it. He/she is supposed to shun emotions, and show the truth.
While Googling, I once read a war correspondent Edward Behr recounting recounting the story of a reporter during the Congo crisis who walked into a crowd of Belgian evacuees and shouted, "Anyone here been raped and speaks English?" Okay, that is journalistic insensitivity at its best.
But when does one transcend journalistic confines and become an activist? Is it wrong to thwart any untoward incident such as a woman being stripped in public, or is the journalist not being professional enough. The job of a journalist is to report news, and not try to cleanse society. But I feel there is a need to put human code of conduct before professional propriety. I would, as a journalist, and a woman at that, let my sensitivity overthrow my professional compulsions
The Indian electronic media, of course, dramatised this whole event. The television anchors replaced their high-decibel pitch with a subdued performance. All, after a short break, of course!
One channel took the cake, when its anchor said, “We do not have the footage of the incident, but some photographs of those responsible for the act”. Excuse me. Did I hear that right? Did I hear him say, “We do not have the footage of the incident”? Well, do you think this is a movie depicting a gruesome rape sequence? If the television crew did rush “just in time”, would it film the incident, or do something to stop it? What becomes more important? Showing the incident to the public to expose the lawlessness in the state or step in to stop such atrocities?
Well, a copybook journalist is supposed to unleash information to people, under any circumstances. A journalist is supposed to react to events and report, not act.
There was an incident two years back when television channels showed the footage of a small-time thief being brutally beaten up after he was caught pilfering. The channels carefully filmed that incident, using the best pan-shots and angles possible. A few more years back, television cameras caught an Afro-American being beaten up in America.
Well, it does open a debate on impartiality and objectivity, those core values for a journalist. When covering incidents, a journalist is not supposed to get involved in it. He/she is supposed to shun emotions, and show the truth.
While Googling, I once read a war correspondent Edward Behr recounting recounting the story of a reporter during the Congo crisis who walked into a crowd of Belgian evacuees and shouted, "Anyone here been raped and speaks English?" Okay, that is journalistic insensitivity at its best.
But when does one transcend journalistic confines and become an activist? Is it wrong to thwart any untoward incident such as a woman being stripped in public, or is the journalist not being professional enough. The job of a journalist is to report news, and not try to cleanse society. But I feel there is a need to put human code of conduct before professional propriety. I would, as a journalist, and a woman at that, let my sensitivity overthrow my professional compulsions
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Eclipse of reason
Today’s celestial spectacle, the solar eclipse, once again threw up the battle between rationality and superstition. In India, this clash between the believers and non-believers has been part of every eclipse (solar and lunar): whether it is the question of eating during the eclipse or the necessity of a “purifying” bath after one.
The battleground is also my mind. But here, it is not the question of: “to believe or not to believe”. Because my answer clearly is “no” to such beliefs. Nevertheless, the dilemma.
Appa (my father) was partial to superstitious beliefs, and followed with conviction all that was associated with this purely scientific phenomenon. So it was no food, a bath before and after the eclipse, and “likhita japa” (repeatedly writing Om Sri Sai Ram during the eclipse). He would also insist on leaving strands of “darbai” (the ultimate Brahminical sacred grass) in cooked/stored food and water. Absolutely no questions were asked.……till I stirred my reasoning that was lying dormant amid the muscle-power of patriarchy.
As a kid, he would tell me that eclipse occurred because a snake was devouring the Sun! I would be quite flummoxed. How could a snake go so far and eat up the Sun! But he was so convincing that I would just accept it. I believed this explanation till I learnt about solar and lunar eclipses in Class V. All hell broke loose. Hey, was appa just making up something? When I asked him for clarification, he drew the sun, moon and earth and gave me a scientific explanation. But he also added that according to Hindu mythology, every time rahu as a snake (or was it his malefic mate, the ketu?) eats up the Sun or moon (as the case may be), eclipses occur. I then realised he was trying to simplify nature’s marvel when I was a kid. But what about the irrationality associated with that?
As I grew older, I was convinced that I would not follow this superstitious drivel. The rebel in me would play hide-and-seek with appa. Why, because I did not want his sugar and blood pressure play truant. So I would secretly pop in munchies during eclipse, to prove a point to myself. But I could not escape from the purifying bath because what might have followed would have made Kurukshetra look like a street fight. But if the eclipse happened during my working hours, I would merrily eat, in fact more than I normally would and feel elated about breaking convention. I still stand by what I did. I would, if given a chance, never follow these beliefs.
But when I was pregnant, there was a lunar eclipse. And, I was told to stay indoors. I came home from work early, and stayed indoors then. But it was not out of compulsion. There was no one to monitor me then. I was alone. But I was not ready to take a chance. Now, is that a rationalist’s thought?
I guess I was not willing to expose my unborn baby to any possible peril. Probably, I felt I had no right to rebel on behalf of my baby. How could I take any chance with a foetus, which depended on me for its survival? But does that mean, I am selective about my beliefs. Not really. But I don’t think as a mother, I was willing to take any risk. Risk? But is there a risk? Perhaps. Perhaps not. A clear rational explanation relating to pregnancy and eclipse might have just helped. But only just, I guess. I still would have stayed indoors. That was when the mother in me eclipsed the rationalist in me!
The battleground is also my mind. But here, it is not the question of: “to believe or not to believe”. Because my answer clearly is “no” to such beliefs. Nevertheless, the dilemma.
Appa (my father) was partial to superstitious beliefs, and followed with conviction all that was associated with this purely scientific phenomenon. So it was no food, a bath before and after the eclipse, and “likhita japa” (repeatedly writing Om Sri Sai Ram during the eclipse). He would also insist on leaving strands of “darbai” (the ultimate Brahminical sacred grass) in cooked/stored food and water. Absolutely no questions were asked.……till I stirred my reasoning that was lying dormant amid the muscle-power of patriarchy.
As a kid, he would tell me that eclipse occurred because a snake was devouring the Sun! I would be quite flummoxed. How could a snake go so far and eat up the Sun! But he was so convincing that I would just accept it. I believed this explanation till I learnt about solar and lunar eclipses in Class V. All hell broke loose. Hey, was appa just making up something? When I asked him for clarification, he drew the sun, moon and earth and gave me a scientific explanation. But he also added that according to Hindu mythology, every time rahu as a snake (or was it his malefic mate, the ketu?) eats up the Sun or moon (as the case may be), eclipses occur. I then realised he was trying to simplify nature’s marvel when I was a kid. But what about the irrationality associated with that?
As I grew older, I was convinced that I would not follow this superstitious drivel. The rebel in me would play hide-and-seek with appa. Why, because I did not want his sugar and blood pressure play truant. So I would secretly pop in munchies during eclipse, to prove a point to myself. But I could not escape from the purifying bath because what might have followed would have made Kurukshetra look like a street fight. But if the eclipse happened during my working hours, I would merrily eat, in fact more than I normally would and feel elated about breaking convention. I still stand by what I did. I would, if given a chance, never follow these beliefs.
But when I was pregnant, there was a lunar eclipse. And, I was told to stay indoors. I came home from work early, and stayed indoors then. But it was not out of compulsion. There was no one to monitor me then. I was alone. But I was not ready to take a chance. Now, is that a rationalist’s thought?
I guess I was not willing to expose my unborn baby to any possible peril. Probably, I felt I had no right to rebel on behalf of my baby. How could I take any chance with a foetus, which depended on me for its survival? But does that mean, I am selective about my beliefs. Not really. But I don’t think as a mother, I was willing to take any risk. Risk? But is there a risk? Perhaps. Perhaps not. A clear rational explanation relating to pregnancy and eclipse might have just helped. But only just, I guess. I still would have stayed indoors. That was when the mother in me eclipsed the rationalist in me!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Rape of ethics
Rita Bahuguna Joshi hogged the television primetime news with the repeated clip of her Mayawati slur. Obviously! Being a state Congress leader, she said if Mayawati was raped, she would throw Rs 1 crore on her face. Raped? Isn’t loosely using rape as a barb to poke the Uttar Pradesh chief minister beyond the ethics of democracy. On a public platform, Joshi has indulged in the ultimate form of voyeurism. It is almost akin to a woman engaging in the sadistic pleasure of watching another one being raped, and basking amid the agonising screams of the wounded. But there is no trace of remorse on her face. At best, that too, in the fear of losing her membership, she has apologised.
I am not a Mayawati supporter, a megalomaniac that she is. But my sensibility is troubled by the careless use of the term. Rape is probably more gruesome a crime than murder. Physical assault of the body apart, it is an emotional assassination of a woman. But this is the vocabulary of our politicians.
Of course, every channel indulged in its version of voyeurism, repeatedly showing Joshi’s statement and the exact sequence of that’s day’s events. Channel surfers were treated to this "Rs 1 crore byte" throughout the evening as channels went about their "breaking news" exercise!
But why blame the electronic media. The print media has its own way of exposing its gender bias. A newspaper carried the story of Tessy Thomas being appointed project director of India’s most ambitious missile, Agni-V. It said: “Women and nuclear-capable missiles do not go together”. And this was followed by the mother of all patronising cliches: systematically breaking all glass ceilings in the avowedly male bastion of `strategic weapons'. Huh!
And then, another newspaper carried a graphic that depicted West Bengal’s top five administrators in saris, accompanied by a report about the state of inertia in the administration. So inaction makes the administration womenlike, and therefore, the office-bearers were being shown draped in a saree.
Such regressive and patriarchal attitude of the media is, of course, magnified by the extensive use of photographs of insufficiently covered models and actors. Of course, this is for those salivating men. Now there is the modern woman debate here, which I shall deal with in my later blog.
I am not a Mayawati supporter, a megalomaniac that she is. But my sensibility is troubled by the careless use of the term. Rape is probably more gruesome a crime than murder. Physical assault of the body apart, it is an emotional assassination of a woman. But this is the vocabulary of our politicians.
Of course, every channel indulged in its version of voyeurism, repeatedly showing Joshi’s statement and the exact sequence of that’s day’s events. Channel surfers were treated to this "Rs 1 crore byte" throughout the evening as channels went about their "breaking news" exercise!
But why blame the electronic media. The print media has its own way of exposing its gender bias. A newspaper carried the story of Tessy Thomas being appointed project director of India’s most ambitious missile, Agni-V. It said: “Women and nuclear-capable missiles do not go together”. And this was followed by the mother of all patronising cliches: systematically breaking all glass ceilings in the avowedly male bastion of `strategic weapons'. Huh!
And then, another newspaper carried a graphic that depicted West Bengal’s top five administrators in saris, accompanied by a report about the state of inertia in the administration. So inaction makes the administration womenlike, and therefore, the office-bearers were being shown draped in a saree.
Such regressive and patriarchal attitude of the media is, of course, magnified by the extensive use of photographs of insufficiently covered models and actors. Of course, this is for those salivating men. Now there is the modern woman debate here, which I shall deal with in my later blog.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Naka Muka
Cannes has found Naka Muka catchy. Smitten by the ultimate dabba kuttu pattu, the ad jury has awarded TOI for its Chennai campaign, especially for using the song. Now, that makes me proud. So what if Naka Muka is loud, it is catchy; it is crude and crass, but crazy. You can hate it, but cannot ignore it. Probably, the Besant Nagar crowd will abhor it. That is fine.. we still have Chintradipet and Saidapet to love it.
In what category do I fall? Well, whenever, I am listening to radio, and the song is played on a channel, I do not, repeat, do not change it! Listening to it while travelling by bus (PTC buses have FM radios now!), rubbing shoulders with namma Chennai crowd is a great experience.
But this excitement of being a proud Tamilian listening to Tamil film songs is actually a resurgence of my regional pride. It is only after I came to Chennai a decade back that I started listening to Illayaraja. I rediscovered my Tamilness only after I left Kolkata.
That was because in my early years in Calcutta (not Kolkata), it was unglamorous to be called a Tamilian. Tamilians were seen hiding their identity to pass off as locals! Disgusting! I have frequently come across a group of Tamilians conversing in Bengali in public. Shameful!!
My appa used to get livid seeing this. Once he gave in to his evil temptation: he interrupted a Bengali conversation between three Tamilian friends in a Lake Road-Howrah mini bus by asking them something in Tamil. Pat came the reply in chaste Tamil! And, then the sudden sheepish look on their faces. Appa was basking in his sadistic glory.
I have also been called an idli-dosa girl. And, I would hate that. But I did not have the temerity to challenge that. Being a Tamilian was not so fab before, especially when you are brought up in the north. Call it ignorance, or arrogance. The northies would call anyone below the Vindhyas Madrasi. And thanks, to Padosan, the quintessential Madrasi sported a dhoti, oiled his hair, wore vibhuti and spoke “indi” (not Hindi). Aaaahh! I am seething. Seething because I too have laughed watching Mehmood’s Tamil dhoti falling when he is running behind the very North India Saira Banu in Padosan.
Today, the Tamilian brain is giving the Big Apple an inferiority complex. The Tamil temperament is correcting that myopic vision of those above the vindhyas! Ahaa.. Tamil rocks!
Just continuing in that tone.. I read the review of Kambhakht Ishq. Kambhakht plagiarism peeche hi nahi chodta!! Pammal K. Sambandam, Kamal Hassan’s refined laugh-riot, is the source. Wonder, why no one even thought about that? Reading the review, I realised, the big-budget Hindi version was one crass act. I do not know whether there was any acknowledgement to the original. If there isn’t, I am not surprised by the attitude of those above the Vindhyas!
In what category do I fall? Well, whenever, I am listening to radio, and the song is played on a channel, I do not, repeat, do not change it! Listening to it while travelling by bus (PTC buses have FM radios now!), rubbing shoulders with namma Chennai crowd is a great experience.
But this excitement of being a proud Tamilian listening to Tamil film songs is actually a resurgence of my regional pride. It is only after I came to Chennai a decade back that I started listening to Illayaraja. I rediscovered my Tamilness only after I left Kolkata.
That was because in my early years in Calcutta (not Kolkata), it was unglamorous to be called a Tamilian. Tamilians were seen hiding their identity to pass off as locals! Disgusting! I have frequently come across a group of Tamilians conversing in Bengali in public. Shameful!!
My appa used to get livid seeing this. Once he gave in to his evil temptation: he interrupted a Bengali conversation between three Tamilian friends in a Lake Road-Howrah mini bus by asking them something in Tamil. Pat came the reply in chaste Tamil! And, then the sudden sheepish look on their faces. Appa was basking in his sadistic glory.
I have also been called an idli-dosa girl. And, I would hate that. But I did not have the temerity to challenge that. Being a Tamilian was not so fab before, especially when you are brought up in the north. Call it ignorance, or arrogance. The northies would call anyone below the Vindhyas Madrasi. And thanks, to Padosan, the quintessential Madrasi sported a dhoti, oiled his hair, wore vibhuti and spoke “indi” (not Hindi). Aaaahh! I am seething. Seething because I too have laughed watching Mehmood’s Tamil dhoti falling when he is running behind the very North India Saira Banu in Padosan.
Today, the Tamilian brain is giving the Big Apple an inferiority complex. The Tamil temperament is correcting that myopic vision of those above the vindhyas! Ahaa.. Tamil rocks!
Just continuing in that tone.. I read the review of Kambhakht Ishq. Kambhakht plagiarism peeche hi nahi chodta!! Pammal K. Sambandam, Kamal Hassan’s refined laugh-riot, is the source. Wonder, why no one even thought about that? Reading the review, I realised, the big-budget Hindi version was one crass act. I do not know whether there was any acknowledgement to the original. If there isn’t, I am not surprised by the attitude of those above the Vindhyas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)