Remembrance of fading dreams

‘Remembrance’ holds the same relationship to ‘Recalcitrance’ as the two words would in a dictionary sequence: remembrance comes after recalcitrance. In simple and comprehensible words, ‘Remembrance’ is a sequel to ‘Recalcitrance’. A work of Mr. Anurag Kumar—who was generous enough to offer me a copy of ‘Remembrance’ that I obviously rejected since I wished to buy it myself—seeks to build over his previous work. You can read my review of ‘Recalcitrance’ here.

Remembrance of fading dreams

Starting with the physical appeal, it is certainly not like those “very bulky in appearance” books. The cover of the book carries a photograph—old, black and white with a rusty feel—of “Chattar Manzil” which one discovers to be a single picture if one holds the book wide open and not to read it but just to see its cover. ‘Remembrance of fading dreams’ carries a signature of the author on its first page then a tribute to “all those who gave up their lives in 1857” and then on the third page we are into action with no content page briefing us about its chapters. We are projected in a time three years after the “Great Uprising of 1857” had ended. The writer starts with a brief overview of the political situation, market scene, the lack of “fun and frolic” and the degradation of poetry.  We soon see appearance of familiar characters of ‘Recalcitrance’. The story starts to take shape around its protagonist, Chote Bhaiya. We also know that “the spark of recalcitrance in Chote Bhaiya could become a raging fire again”.

Along with the usual flow of story in the form of chapters, we are constantly upgraded with the political environment of the post-war period. Sometimes through the mark of respect by the use of the term ‘gora sahabs’ instead of ‘firangees’,at other times by reminding that “real nawabs are now in the South”. The writer also mentions some craziness involved in the Revolution through the visit of Chote Bhaiya to ‘Satichaura Ghat’ and ‘Bibighar’ while at the same time contrasting it with the benevolence of ‘ Acche Nawab’ who sheltered the pregnant Rosemary. I think the introduction of Rosemary and Stanley and their story achieves two purposes here. On the one hand it retrospectively describes the siege of Residency in Lucknow that was mainly covered in ‘Recalcitrance’ while on the other it introduces the humanly behavior of both ‘Acche Nawab’ and Stanley.

Although I am not sure whether the main revolutionary plot in which Chote Baiya, Ahsanul Mulk: to whom gun powder was like perfume, Mohtasim: a pseudo-eunuch or a beautiful Englishwoman or a master of disguise, Walter Sahab’s cousin and other revolutionaries took part is a true historical event, I can certainly say it was definitely intriguing and most thrilling part of the novel. We are also influenced by the Ulfat Jahan’s character whose sensuality did not spare even Chote Bhaiya who is normally “largely immune to feminine charms”. Even the fact of being married to a religious girl and thoughtfully dedicated to another girl named Farheen, could not stop him from ascending the steps of Ulfat Jahan’s house. Substantial coverage has been given to all the main characters this time, including Narenderlal, which was a little bit absent in ‘Recalcitrance’.

The novel has been beautifully spread over thirty-one chapters with a glossary of Hindustani words at the end. This being helpful in case you are not aware of some of the Indian language terms. However, I found that some of the Hindustani words were not described either in the end or at the point where they were used. One other thing I found pretty much to my displeasure was the absence of chapter names, difficulty being compounded while writing review because you couldn’t feature at an instant what the chapter was about. A few spelling mistakes, which I definitely know were introduced on the publishing end, made some romantic moments a little comical: Ulfat Jahan resting her head on Chote Bhaiya’s “soldier” and not his “shoulder” was one such light moment; though holding the writer responsible for such errors is little too harsh.

In the end I would say that ‘Remembrance of fading dreams’ is a wonderful read especially if you have read ‘Recalcitrance’; and even if you have not, ‘Remembrance’ can stand alone and turn out to be an amazing piece combining the revolutionary zeal of a major event with how that fervour transcended the commoners.             

In the guise of freedom lurks imitation

When Radio 5 Live presenter John Inverdale said his –now famous—lines about Wimbeldon winner Marion Bartoli, it was not just another case of Sexism as the media dubbed it so. It in fact reflects the new norms of fundamentalism in transition from the old ones. You really have to read the contents of social media in order to make it that it was not just a slip of tongue by the presenter. These are the new hardcore norms of our weird times.

There is probably no God and we are urged to stop worrying about it; we are even solicited to enjoy our life. However, in their effort to tackle religious fundamentalism, a certain section of atheists are laying down new rules of fundamentalism or they are in guise imitations of old fundamentalism. Let us start with a very basic thing: apparel. Very often Abrahamic religions especially Islam is criticized for its stand on feminine dressing in the public. It is now commonly acknowledged that Islam is ruthless and men force women to wear veil. But is it not the same stand which Islam or for the sake of universality any other religion took against the permissiveness of clothing? The idea being: to judge a person on his/her dress needs a very strange phenomenon to occur in our head; to rip apart a human being from his/her social context and place him in your own culture. That is to say—a situation of pure abstraction of human subtlety; the individual now is not an inextricable part of his/her social context but an object detachable, whenever needed. It is this same phenomenon that most religions used, that is, detach an individual from his roots and place in your own soil to judge him, project your bias on him. And is it not the same reasoning used by atheist today? The same fundamentalist ripping of Muslim women from their social context and placing them in their own environment! Such powerful is the tearing apart that even a defence by her seems to be a ventriloquist reply by a man behind. It is this development that makes it easy for both sides to predict who is free and who is not, who is forced and who is not. Can we not conclude the same for Marion Bartoli ? John Inverlade along with many on social media platforms used the same phenomenon to rip her from some other social dimensions, space and place her in their own “Cartesian system” as if she was an object detachable—a standard battery that would fit in any device. David Graeber in ‘Debt’ use the same phenomenon to describe what actually slavery warrants. Slavery is nothing but tearing apart of an individual from all that makes what he is and then expecting him to behave according to your norms. This was sometimes civilization for the primitive.

Tracing the same fundamental lines, one can almost see that certain contemporary atheists are no different from their theological adversaries. Just like a theist would apply ridiculous simplification and find every solution in religion, it seems that these atheists find every problem as a result of religion, its institutions and mandate. I think it is a clear hint of fanatic simplification. One such example is the inference that religion is a direct cause of economic conditions of different nations. They even have prepared elaborate maps marking nations, their advancement and linking them with religious beliefs. It’s not that there are just few fanatic individuals; even influential intellectuals advocate this. The debate of religion and atheism acquire center stage while history, debts, conquests are treated as if they are trivial or as if those who ruled for centuries all over the world have no advantage in governing over those  who were their slaves. What is important is trivial; what is trivial is important. Politics for them as such is non-existent. It was all a simple game of religion from the start which we must end to set all things that have gone awry. And it is under this pretext demand of separating religion from state is raised, vindicating State and blaming Religion; the same male chauvinist idea that the defaulter in this marriage of religion and state is religion, as if, if state used religious violence as a tool then it is not the state which is at fault . Most of the time it is state or the aspiring state that instigate and manipulate religious violence. The problem is—as these atheists point out—with the religion that makes theist so much infuriated. However, the perpetrator should be absolved of all wrongs. There is neither a single word against state nor towards its abolition but religion must be annihilated. On the same pattern, Chetan Bhagat, though he never professes of being an atheist, suggest on the matter of Gujarat riots that we should introspect: introspection about what is in us that makes us such killers of each other. I agree that we should not be so short tempered but that does not mean that the other partner should stand vindicated as if the whole problem can be summarized in terms of fundamentalism. And this is what Richard Dawkins is propagating, vindicating the role of his nation, or precisely any state. State and religion should not mix; religion should vanish; state is absolved. We actually have a word for what state did when we were a colony—“divide and rule”. This is not for pointing specifics but when you blame one, you cannot absolve other. This is not observed by our “evolving nerd rebellious atheist”. Dawkins and Hitchens have done a lot for their supporters to get rid of “sky daddy” but at the same time both fail, in fact make them accept more jubilantly their “earthly daddy”. It is claimed by these naïve atheists that religion caused a great harm; it poisons everything. But I claim that markets, money and debts have done even greater destruction, of colossal magnitude even. Do we see the same hue and cry when they blame religion for poverty of a nation while at the same time enjoying the fruits of markets, debts and slave trade across the Atlantic? Do we see the poisoning of human morals when a father has to sell his own daughter to pay his debt? Do we see that “Money is not great” or “The Market delusion” when we passively accept the suicide of a farmer just because he could not obey the laws of debt and markets? I think such harms have become norms and fundamentals of “new fundamentalism”. They reject the concepts of afterlife and eternity. But do we not find the same concepts of eternity buried deeply when an atheist say—“I want to do something for humanity. I want my name to be remembered for generations.” Is it not the same concept of eternity when he prospectively imagine the retrospective admiration of posterity as if he will be present somewhere to even notice the gratitude?

They are the front runners of science and even speculate a “gay gene” to cater to the needs of their followers. However, they fail to guess a “faith gene” that might have afflicted so many people. I would be glad to know what evolutionary purpose has been reserved by Mr. Dawkins for a homosexual couple. But before you call me homophobic, you definitely need to answer scientifically your own prejudices. Is it not that sometimes one scientific field place us directly stand against another? Is it not that when we are mad to comfort our body through scientific inventions, we are actually getting weak—decreasing our evolutionary strength? Though we know what both sciences mean, we are guilty of new fundamentalism by simply propagating the persona of nerdy atheist. You already know that you have unintentionally reached the peak of fundamentalism when you start believing everything with the subtext—“a new study by scientists shows”.

Narendra Modi: Closest representation of State’s Inception

If I were to describe Narendra Modi and his fan following, perhaps I should say Lord and his men because that’s what Narendra means (nar-man, Indra- God or lord), I put it this way—Debauch aspiring Ascetic to lead them, fantasizing excess in near future, fascinated by Asceticism but aspiring Debauchery. In short: Asceticism as a means to Debauchery. Here lies the paradox—a practitioner of self-denial, asceticism, Mr. Modi is working day and night so that our aspiring young ones, whom he praises so much that they may also reciprocate naively, can fulfill their dream of excess. His fans are everywhere, on social networking sites, newspapers, among Bollywood actors and corporates apart from usual fundamental ideological base that he is part of and represents. There are chants of growth wherever you go. The saint must work ceaselessly for our surplus, so that we can “dream big”. And this is it! Nationalism, superpower, growth and this is it. Well, I never feel associated with such injected terms: Terms which I think come into common discourse through state or aspiring state. Vocabulary must be taught to us before we can even think of analyzing. You see, with these terms, whether or not they are true on ground level, an atmosphere for discussion prevails. In this arena all arguments must be either for or against the proposed vocabulary and its sophisticated structure. For example, every discussion, and subsequently an argument concerning growth of Gujarat, demands it to be either in support or against. This vocabulary of growth and superpower infused into the mainstream ensures that opinion, if any exists, must either be praising the proposed idea or denying it. So a BJP fan must always support the “growth” and a Congress fan must deny it. What is lost then? The loss is we do not know what it means to grow. What it means to be a superpower! It is out of question—the need to debate what is actually growth. Cancer also grows! Now we must imitate some blur image assigned to these terms and that too, obsessively. The time for theory has ended. We must immediately stop debating and act as if we have taken all our time to define, everything is concrete and clear; the point remains of implementing it. This is most dangerous belief. Recently I watched a movie—“Django Unchained”. There is a scene in the movie where Leonardo DiCaprio( Calvin Candy) mocks one of his black slaves for not knowing the meaning of “reimburse”. Actually, Candy paid five hundred dollars for that slave and expected him to fight at least five “mandingo” fights failing which the slave must reimburse the master. I liked that scene not because I found it amusing but because it contains much deeper meaning. The idea being—the slave must know the meaning of reimburse and subsequently that he is morally expected to reimburse no matter how much violent and degrading act, that is slavery, brought him in a position to reimburse. The master must teach the vocabulary.

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within, a Brazilian film directed, produced by Jose Padilha, starring Wagner Moura, is a semi-fictional account of BOPE. I am not concerned with the overall story or theme. I am interested mainly in the character of Sandro Rocha who is a lead corrupt boss of Rio militia. Since he is powerful and corrupt, he is seen as someone getting his share from drug dealer—a sort of tax you can say. He and his gang later kill the dealers, the middle-men, and start operating directly. He now acquires a bigger role providing internet, cable TV, banks, cafes, restaurants, every business and acts as a protector to the slums. How will a guy living in that slum treat Rocha? I think we deal here with a central and important problem. Although Rocha does not form an official state here, through him we can see how state actually operates. A guy living in that slum sees his relationship with Rocha and his gang as of mutual benefit, protector. He sees the relationship as that of specific roles defined in society. You know what I mean to say.

‘Rocha looks after our basic necessities. He takes care of our wants. Rocha provides security. We must pay our taxes and all that.’

Rocha and his gang is state here.  If we somehow disappear from our own times and place ourselves when our civilization is just beginning to take shape, Rocha represents the dynamics of state. Let us give our Rocha some bigger hurdles to tackle, say employment generation. Rocha owns all lands and resources by default and he generates employment. Now give Rocha a little bit of global touch of growth. He now is a Messiah who intends to achieve a fantasy of surplus for everyone—‘there shall be no poor, we will be a superpower.’ It does not matter why there is a poor. What matters is we must act hastily. Poverty should vanish from earth as soon as possible. Again the mantra: theory is wasting time, acting is everything. As the time passes by,—sufficient generations after Rocha—we have a totally new set of ideological points governing Rocha’s posterity.

‘All problems are there because we do not follow the fundamentals set by state. Or each problem exists because State doesn't have sufficient funds. We should tax the rich and all that.’ State’s emphasis is to present and formulate every bit of problem as a function of funds, which will be solvable if we have enough funds—obviously that day of sufficiency never arrives. Nevertheless, subjects of the State have become habitual of encountering the problem as properly defined; the point is of for or against as I previously pointed. Rocha is not the only one. You can see a reflection of state wherever a sub-state or to be politically correct, a sub-governance begins to germinate. Some street side vendor or one with a barrow often pays a part of his money as extortion for selling in a particular area. In India, where the official State is not vigilant enough, this is often the case. Now that is not the official state tax but they pay it. Why? Because of sheer threat of violence or violence itself! This is governance or state in its crude form which after sufficient time acquires the status of what we call—social contract.

I told this long story—out of context it may seem but it is not. I think Narendra Modi is closest representation of State’s inception that we can get in our own times. You must know, it is a necessity for Rocha to evolve.      

Lovely Commercials

My God! These commercials! I love them especially those tobacco commercials. If you have ever noticed, they start with something ethereal about tobacco, something that transcends, something that elevates, that make you feel like a king; I don’t know but in a naïve manner I put—to make you feel fearless. To chew tobacco is to be fearless; at the same time it is a source of divine pleasure. This is how the commercial start and this is what they convey until a short warning –indecipherable, incoherent with the overall advertisement, usually spoken too fast to be heard so as not to tamper with the pleasant environment which the actual advertisement creates –appears.  In fact, warnings of all sorts share this feature.

“Chewing tobacco causes cancer.”

“Smoking is injurious to health.”

This is what they say, making their honest and good intentions clear in a clumsy way. While majority of advertisement deals with fearlessness, it ends making us fear for our lives. Two totally different emotions fused in one.  Good for none but a laugh. Optimism and pessimism mixed in one. If not for anything else, it is good to tell ourselves how pathetic our condition is. I mean we tell a lie and then a truth and this is not the important thing. What is important is we are forced to do it. Forced not to tell lie only; forced not to tell truth only; if it had been any one of lie or truth, the condition is much better. But we are forced to tell both at the same time. I think this is horrendous. I feel this whole thing like Obscene is sold, at the same time the seller urges you not to buy the Obscene because it’s obscene. What a humanly gesture!

There is another commercial which fascinates me. When I say fascinates me, it genuinely means fascinates me. Please allow me to present to you—‘killer jeans’. Let us be murderously correct –not just ‘killer jeans’ but ‘killer water saver jeans’. That’s what their product is about. At least they say it so. Killer and saver, both at the same time! Killer jeans that saves water! To be politically and environmentally correct, they even put a protesting audience—some sort of young bare chest students caring for our environment and all that—against police with water cannons. You see, these advertisements are fabulous. They do not disappoint anyone. There is something for everyone to feel associated with the product in some sort of transcendental way. Now we have an easy solution for water shortage. Wear killer-saver jeans and be environmentally correct, in other words be environmentally guilt free, be on the right side of the history. Even an atheist, who considers himself free from guilt, can’t resist it. He too wants to be on the right side—redeemed environmentally. Christianity, Islam and whatever religion you take, I think the principles of guilt are best implemented by the advertising world, even better than those religions themselves. Water shortage started because we didn't wear the ‘killer-saver jeans’ at the right time in our long history. To correct our mistake we must instantly indulge in this endeavour obsessively. Who knows, maybe we could measure the precise amount of water we save by buying killer jeans. ‘Oh! You have only three jeans, I have ten of those. I save ten litres of water.’ Now, simple mathematics can even predict how much water people around the world save. Those poor devils who could not afford these jeans are even wasting water, undoubtedly even causing the water shortage in the first place. Imagine an extreme situation—there is shortage in arid regions of Africa and we have our benevolent Western nations sending over hundred thousand ‘killer water saver jeans’ as an aid. Killer jeans dropped from airplanes not to kill as the name suggests, but to save.

The last commercial which has not escaped my memory and still deserves a laugh whenever I watch it is the one about the milk supplements.  Alexander, Akbar and Jhansi ki Rani didn't like the taste of milk; we need milk supplements in various flavours to make our kid drink it. But that is not the point of laughter. One advertisement in the same line of milk supplements, of Bournvita if I remember correctly, claims that to absorb the calcium in milk by human body we need its supplement to be mixed along with milk. Mother who gives Bournvita to her child is knowledgeable while who don’t is ignorant of the obvious, self-evident fact. Nevertheless the point such advertisements make is that man has been drinking plain milk from thousands of years only in vain, technically as good as water, deficient of any extra benefits. I don’t take it as an insult to our ancestors but actually a groundbreaking research of our technologically advanced and intelligent folks, who obviously have strongest of bones than most of our bravest fighters of history.