The liberal are the secular are the conservative are the militant?

As an Indian- or rather as one brought up in the Indian-NCERT-classes1to12-govt.orpublicschool education system, one is very used to the idea of a liberal ethos being a secular ethos and vice versa. The constitution has conferred the right to practice one's own religion as a fundamental right in any case.

Which is why, Turkey makes an interesting counter-point. A secular individual (though through conventional nomenclature still labeled liberal) is actually a conservative in the the current political environment and an Islamist (yes, that complex moniker- usually branded conservative and sometimes automatically even fanatic- though in it's literal meaning, simply devout-even saintly) is actually a liberal. Funnily enough the entire tumult is around a minor piece of cloth though the socio-political landscape contributes a fair bit.
Turkey banned the wearing of Muslim headscarves in its universities a fair bit ago. The fact that this ban could in fact be made follows from a political history where Kemal Ataturk's legacy is strong as the father of the nation and the army as well as large sections of the educated middle and upper classes cling to his ideals today.
In a book titled "Snow" by Orhan Pamuk, a theater actor leads a coup in a small town cut off from the rest of the country by heavy snowfall. In the midst of a performance, they fire at the audience with actual bullets and then take over the town to make their point. And what is their point? That wearing head-scarves or the donning of other obviously religious symbols is a primitive idea, takes away from the development of a nation and is not in sync with the secular ideals of Kemal Ataturk. The book deals largely with the internal conflict of a poet torn between his leftist atheist militant secular ideals from his youth and the abhorrence for a society where freedom (of dress, speech, belief in god) is curbed with militant suppression.
Turkey's democracy has yielded now an Islamist prime minister (and funnily enough it is a largely Muslim country!!) who has managed to (at least constitutionally) re-permit religious headscarves in universities. Interestingly enough, this has resulted in large scale protests, many university heads saying they will not comply, etc.
The current issue of the Economist carries an article: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10701684

So one question that begs itself is: Is secularism freedom of religion or freedom from religion? And while many intellectuals in my country may be outraged by the latter definition, it is a widely accepted interpretation.

The other question that arises is of course, why is there a debate at all? For instance, Ataturk's idea was not one of banning religion, but merely of having what he thought was "modern law" and "modern ideas" to replace many antiquated traditions- in order to achieve among other things a bigger role for women in society. In fact while he seems to have made his opinion on men's headgear pretty clear (asking men to don the western hat instead of the fez which he thought primitive), he didn't object to headscarves.
The problem seems to lie in the fact secularism needs to be bound in a religious community. Or, religious freedom needs to be bound in a secular society. And think about is- both things are essentially the same- in fact in my head I can see them as a Venn diagram. Tough cookie? Yup.
This is going back to the debate about a Uniform Civil Code in India (which is a debate in existence since independence and incidentally had an ardent supporter in the form of the father of our constitution); the debate over a secular constitution, but based on the Sharia-in Egypt and the Catholic conservatives and the debate over abortion, contraception and euthanasia.
The economist's current issue covers this as well at: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10696111
As a liberal, the problem seems to arise in two occasions:
- When one persons religious freedom (like his being governed under his religious law) confers on him certain rights and immunities which are either greater than another person's or impinge on another person's.
- Or, when one community's religious freedom permits practices which are in another person's view, in violation of the human rights or persons in that community.
Since the job of a state (at least by popular conception) is to preserve the individual rights of all, we are doomed to a perpetual debate, though an evolving one- based on the realities of the then prevailing world.

Can 2 become 1?

In red earth and pouring rain (which in itself is almost like a series of fictional stories- given that it's a story about people telling stories), the final episode deals with a homecoming. A young man, somewhat conflicted about his roots and his future returns to India with an American education and an American girlfriend who is no less similarly conflicted. He seemed to have cut himself off, but then decides he wants to come home. She comes with him- both seemingly very much in love. But then, very soon, the differences- the subtle, the obvious, the in your face in her new environment drive her to go back.

There is no moral result here, not even a rational one. 'tis not that two conflicted humans do not a happy pair make. Nor is it that a person must return to his origins and that's where he belongs.

The trouble is- it's real. The situation is very real and it's entirely believable that it would play out that way. The discomfitures for her are real in her new environment as is his guilt, longing and sadness in being divorced from his past. So the question is, where can the 2 survive as 1? Always in limbo?

There is a sequence in The Matrix where Neo ends up at a train station. This is a train station between 2 worlds and it's name is Mobil, an anagram for limbo.

This was a digression, maybe unnecessary, but I was trying to make a point about the 2 being able to stay together in happiness only when in a state of limbo, when they are in an ephemeral hazy drug induced cloud colored dream. Snap out of it, own up to what you want to, pitch in for what you believe in- what gives you your self- and then the 2 are no longer 1.

So is this just them or is it all of us? Is love situational- dependent on an external environment only? Hopefully not.

Maybe love is the state of being in limbo itself and the real question is- how long can you suspend yourself?

And another gem..

It isn't the future I am thinking about; the future is simple: there are those who look within, into their souls, and up at the conjunctions of the planets, who would calculate the shape and form of the world and tell you thus exactly what is going to happen. The future is simple. I can hold it in the palm of my hand; and the present is just a matter of endurance, detachment, and a sense of humor. What frightens me is the past. What-is-to-happen is just a matter of talent and mathematics; what-has-already-happened is the slippery many-headed changing demon that eludes all our blows, defeats all our attempts at geometry.

More VC

Yes, more VC or Vikram Chandra- who I am enjoying reading considerably. There is something on Orhan Pamuk who I read one book by which I wanted to put up, but more on that later. I am in the middle of Red Earth and Pouring Rain, but reading it remembered a line from Sacred Games which I loved. And there is a new one.

The one from Sacred Games went something like: "Let the young take their places in the trenches. The pitted and weathered have other battles to fight".

And from REPR: "What could my mother be to yours? And what kin is my father to yours anyway? And how did you and I meet ever? But in love our hearts have mingled like red earth and pouring rain".

look who's entertained

I was quite thoroughly. On Satuday, when India beat Australia by one strand of Merv Hughes' whisker. Or David Boon's. And then again on Monday night when we beat Pakistan. This time though it was even narrower. I am still perturbed though by Misbah's misbehaved shot with 4 balls to go and 6 to score. Then again a solitary non-batsman was left at the other end. So maybe the unflappable got palpable flapping.

I was most not. Yesterday. Changing two cabs because the cabbie gave up on taking me home through the lord's processions. Multiple processions. All over the city. very colorful. Very Indian. Very rich culture red curry lal gulal Indian. Hrrmph. Oh come on. If the establishment is going to allow it (and fine I'll give in- votes, elections, what not- will of the many versus the few), at least divide the roads properly. Rusted steel drums with ropes? No clue which road is functional, which one isn't. Rubbish.

I am not today either. Yaar, with Ganeshji, I still have a fear of being struck down by lightning. So I'll brave a walk home. But Dhoniji? Arre bhai. It is pouring. There isn't a cab or bus in sight. Me in maitai, polished shoes and propah shirt is looking more and more like a street urchin. And why? Because they decided to take out a processions for the crickets now. Hrrrrrrrrrmphhhh.

This however is entertainment.

President Ahmadinijad's visit to Columbia. I haven't been following all the press debate surrounding whether he should be allowed to speak there or not. But principally I am for it. Liberal arts, science and education I say. All points of view should be heard. And this guy is the ruling head of a country.

Anyway here is the fun:

Columbia President- Bollinger's introduction to the speaker:
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html)
Excerpts:

- "to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it"
- "to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves."
- "Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." (This statement obviously has a context in which it is made. Read the speech to know more).
- "Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?"
- "Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?"
- (This one is the best:) "In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
- "Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?"
- "A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy. Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
- (Sorry, I said earlier- something about that being the best. This para tops it:) "Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more."


And here comes the President:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042_pf.html

- At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...
- Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country. (Right on!!- see i said, entertainment)


Well actually I recommend reading it- the text.. I think he does okay. And this maybe because I have some Indian culture seeped inside me somewhere, but I think the Columbia President and whoever the moderator are either immature or pressured or seriously missing the point. The whole point of a lecture is to have one. To listen to a point of view. Not to score cheap shots.

And when you are hosting someone... sample this, so called thank you from the moderator:

"I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate"

Crap.

The game always wins

I just finished reading Sacred Games. I take a long time to read books. For one, I don't sit and read for six hours at a stretch. For two, I read slow taking it in.
I picked up Sacred Games because of the cover. Honest. I judged the book by its cover and it was good. It has a Sardar inspector on the cover. For one, I can't think of any other novel you would find in bookstores with a Sardar on the cover except maybe some of the stuff that Khushwant Singh keeps dishing out. Either way, it has a Sardar inspector on the cover and another Mahrashtrian fellow who is apparently a Mumbai don. And the book cover says it relates to the former investigating the latter's death.
It's 900 pages long. Given my lifestyle nowadays, it is surprising I ever finished it. But that's the thing. It is fantastic. It is not plot boiler subterfuge and spies and gang wars and stuff. Sure some of it. But no heroes, no action nothing.
It has characters, some- fantastically etched out, most- believable.
Sartaj Singh is my new favorite fiction character. He is the surdy cop and apparently finds mention in Vikram Chandra's other book of short stories, 'love and longing in bombay..'. So I'm going to read that next.

What is interesting? The book concludes. The multiple persons' stories end. They have satisfactory closure. Most of them are not abrupt. But none of the closure is necessarily fair- bleak or white. All the characters are related in their contexts. I can't think of a villain. Except maybe Suleiman Isa (who is loosely modeled on Dawood Ibrahim) who is really a side character, a presence and never explored. And a spiritual guru, who speaks well, but if you are a libertarian (which I am), you won't be able to really justify him at all.
Outside of these fellows, you have:
a. Mumbai gangsters/ warlords
b. Cops- corrupt, semi-corrupt and otherwise
c. Dance bar proprietors
d. Pimps
e. Spies
f. Women who have sold themselves
g. Innocent girls who grew up in villages inPunjab
h. Persons who committed murders during partition
i. Naxalites
.. and maybe more..
And then there are all sorts: the abusive and the pious, the tolerant and the intolerant, bisexuals and heterosexuals..
And everyone of them written about in a casual nonchalant fashion.

And maybe, that's the reason this is a fine novel. There aren't judgments on anything. They are yours to make. You could love any one of the characters or hate them. You could say the novel ends happily or you could say it is a tragedy. You could feel that the world within it is turning for the better at its close. Or you could say it is doomed.

And all of this is against the backdrop of Mumbai- so the world is really Mumbai. And these contradictions sit nicely, fittingly with the city.

Turin vs. Anakin

Watching Star Wars 3 the other day, I was struck by the 'dismal fate' of Anakin Skywalker. It's a common premise, possibly- in a lot of fiction. Anakin is plagued by 'human' weaknesses. They lead him to the Dark Side. These weaknesses are pride and attachment definitely- maybe arrogance if you stretch it a bit and greed if you stretch it a lot and fear if you can sense the Force, but I can't.

What is striking (and what also makes Episode 3 eminently watchable relative to 1 &2) is that the reasons behind Anakin's downfall are understandable. Or rather, his behavior is. The Dark side is not all dark. The descent into the Dark side has a context. (This is possibly also what made Return of the Jedi more complex and interesting than Episode 4, but that is probably disputable).

But the connection I am seeking to make is a different one. It's the motif:
Anakin is brave. He is able. He is in fact the most gifted of all Jedi. He's self made (albeit with some coaching, but he's come up from scratch in any case). He can drive whatever space crafts he lays his hands on faster than everyone else. I can't say if he is smashing looking, but he manages to snare royalty for a girlfriend, so he's doing all right.
In the middle of all this though, he is doomed from the start. He is always going to fall. In fact the higher he goes, the harder he is supposed to come down. And that's not because of immoral decisions he takes, but because of human weaknesses which somehow are the path to the dark side. It's almost as if he is cursed.

Which brings me to Turin Turambar. That dude, seriously gets the short end of the stick. His father goes into battle with the Dark Lord, manages to get his kin cursed and that's that. Turin too has everything going for him. Wise. Brave. Great warrior. Learned in the elven tongue as well. BUT, he is doomed as well. For some of the same reasons. None of his actions are morally wrong. They are proud, angry sometimes. In that sense the dark side casts a shadow over him even though he does not belong to it.

The difference is- Turin never turns. Anakin does. And in that, Turin never becomes the dark one himself. BUT, even so Turin does bring about the destruction of the Middle Earth.