Nina Paley's Sitayana: The Storm to Come

Awesome review Amrita, incidentally Ashok Banker refused to write the seventh part to his novel where Rama dumps Sita. He couldn't come to terms with the fact that a husband who had gone to such extraordinary lengths to save his wife could dump her so easily.

He knew the stuff about dharma and being accountable to his people but....

Ashok Banker's Ramayana is a must read and I will check out Sitayana as soon as my net connection decides to behave itself;)

Amrita, your paragraph about racial stereotyping was delectable! Loved the "chandi ka chamcha.." reference, was in splits over it. Reminded me of Sridevi looking ridiculous in a kimono :D

I have always felt that religion as a way of life and individual religous sentiments have long since been confused leading to all the discontent and factions. On one hand people try to propogate their religion as the best, the most superior and on the other hand are offended when someone not only takes an interest in their religion but tries to bring their own take on the beliefs.

I think your review of Sitayana very succinctly manages to touch on all the aspects of intolerance that have for long prevented people from applying the universal art of interpretation which could make sublime religious beliefs more identifiable.

Kudos!

Amrita, your paragraph about racial stereotyping was delectable! Loved the "chandi ka chamcha.." reference, was in splits over it. Reminded me of Sridevi looking ridiculous in a kimono :D

I have always felt that religion as a way of life and individual religous sentiments have long since been confused leading to all the discontent and factions. On one hand people try to propogate their religion as the best, the most superior and on the other hand are offended when someone not only takes an interest in their religion but tries to bring their own take on the beliefs.

I think your review of Sitayana very succinctly manages to touche on all the aspects of intolerance that have for long prevented people from applying the universal art of interpretation which could make sublime religious beliefs more identifiable.

Kudos!

Amrita wrote: But more importantly, she's succeeded in creating a piece of art that focuses on the immortal aspects of an ancient story - the story of all of us.

What precisely are the immortal aspects of this "ancient story" that Paley has succeeded in creating? Pray enlighten us.

we've consistently portrayed black people as nothing more than vicious thugs and white people as racist money bags when they're not hippie losers - it ill behooves us to pretend that racism and racial stereotyping only exists in the Western mind.

Category error. Stereotyping the other is different (and as you've already admitted, everyone does this to the other) from re-inventing the central character of someone else's belief system. Real equivalence would be for an Indian to make cartoons depicting the Romans as the heroes and jesus as the villain.

Those animations are pretty neat

Hey everybody, thanks for reading!

Dee - I didnt know that about Ashok Banker. Makes sense to me. And I agree, that's one hell of a series, I'm somewhere in the middle of King of Ayodhya and can't believe I didnt read it before.

Aditi - Thanks! The thing that blows my mind when it comes to Hinduism is that its not a revealed religion; it thrives on debate and interpretation - and yet, to question any aspect of it today guarantees a confrontation with any number of people who're extremely resistant to either. What's even more funny is that these same people will then lecture the followers of other religions to be more introspective of their religion.

Sanjay - first of all, lose the attitude: it's making you blind. Because the answer to your first question is right there in my post.
As for the second, I can't believe you have the guts to say "category error" when your dumb example would only work if Paley had made Ravan into the hero and Ram into the villain. Less spittle and more thought would do you good.
And oh, about jumping the "central character of another person's belief system" - why don't you ask the Buddhists how they feel about Hindus co-opting the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu?

Aaman - I do love them. She's doing the whole thing on her own.

Excellent post Am.
Hinduism is probably the most misunderstood religion of all. Call it dogma or a reluctance to open the minds. The Indian mythology and literature are sometimes overflowing with such absurdity that you even wonder their basic credibility.

Rama dumping Sita is one such instance. Another one I can think immediately is from Tamil literature which is being taught and revered in every school - Kannagi burning the entire Madurai because her husband was unjustly killed by the kind. I mean, burn the entire city? And Chennai has a statue for her!!

Religion today has blinded people. Rather than being a means to self-discipline one's mind, it has resulted in imbibing fear and insecurity in people, that they tend to agree with any trash simply because "the book" says so!

Amrita: Thanks for the unsolicited advice but it is really no substitute for reasoned debate.

Because the answer to your first question is right there in my post.

I started reading your piece and got lost for good when I was informed that Ram was the "perfect" man and Sita, the "perfect" woman. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of hindu philosophy knows that a man and a woman can only exist in duality and that there is no perfection in duality. Any interpretation that violates the principles of any of the six systems of hindu philosophy cannot be be valid for anyone except for the author and her chamchas. Still looking for an answer.

the second, I can't believe you have the guts to say "category error" when your dumb example would only work if Paley had made Ravan into the hero and Ram into the villain.

Glad you got my point. The rest is just minor quibbling over how to re-invent central characters. One could have instead focused on the ubiquitous symbolic drinking of human blood.

As for the incarnation of Vishnu part, this again reveals a pattern of ignorance. The etymology of Vishnu breaks down to

Vish: derived from viswa and indicates the manifested universe
nu: derived from anu, usually translated as "atom" but really means "smallest particle in the universe".

Therefore, Vishnu stands for the principle that exists in the smallest, most basic particle of the universe. In each and every such particle. Since everything that has existed, exists or ever will exist, must be composed of such particles, it follows that these are merely different manifestations of Vishnu, including The Buddha

Thanks for the chance to correct some of the more egregious errors.

Sanjay - reasoned debate? I'm all for reasoned debate but how am I supposed to have one with somebody who by their own admission didnt understand anything once they were past the first para?

You aren't here for reasoned debate, Sanjay, you're here to mouth off about something completely off topic.

Take for example your defense of the whole Buddha-Vishnu angle: nice try but completely warped as per usual. You offer that explanation as a Hindu and nothing but a Hindu. But to a Buddhist, that line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant because they are not Hindus.

You're essentially presenting your side of the argument and then taking it to be the one and only basis possible/central "fact" for any "debate".

I've seen you do this all the time and that is not a 'debate', that is you asking everybody to concur with your view. Please don't use words you don't have the least understanding of.

I;m sorry but I can't take you seriously.

Kishore, I didn't know that about Kannagi. Interesting. You're right, when you start looking at religious text as literal truth, it's amazing what you come up with. My favorite is the Lord Ayappa born of Mohini and Shiva story, closely seconded by the Gandhari chopping up the mass she delivered into the Kauravas. The second especially because there's an actual medical condition that resembled it.

Great post. The more time I spend thinking about issues like these (which I do both out of personal interest and because they relate to my job at a museum of world cultures), the more complicated things get - so I'm always glad to encounter calm, engaged, flexible thoughts like yours.

[EDITED - IRRELEVANT]

Nina Paley blogs at sepiamutiny and she has a lot of fans there,too much infact for her handle all by herself

it seems she visits India for a couple of weeks like a tourist and thinks she has it figured all LOL....i haven't read her much because when i saw her say something of the sort like how the women in kerala are being sexually harrased and prevented from lodging complaints with the police i knew she was a loony

*harassed

Paley's use of Annette Hanshaw's music is appropriate since visually, she tells the story using popular animation techniques from American studios in the 1930s. Basically, she is blending cultural traditions in ways that may be jarring to traditionalists, or to those that hold that such blending is sacreligious.

Still, the tradition of popular entertainment in film, music, vaudeville, print media, etc., in America could not have happened anywhere else. We Americans are used to our culture as a melting pot, and we will continue to export that globally.

Think of Rock and Roll. There is no place on earth that doesn't have it, like it or not. Yet it was invented by folks like Little Richard Penniman, Ellis McDaniels, and Chuck Berry as a culmination of vast influences from a multitude of nations.

Nina Paley is doing what Americans do, and undoubtedly, there will some (mostly younger people) in India and elsewhere who will take influnce from it. The world moves on.

Beth - Thanks! The source material, however, did half that job.

Banana Troll - Sorry, I don't know anybody who'd like to date a troll like you so that link'd be wasted on me. Hey, you're a fruity troll! Not an improvement.

MisterRon - Annette Hanshaw is amazing! I'd never heard of her before and she's made the most impression as far as I'm concerned. You're right in that America does like to innovate on older themes, and then other nations innovate on them. It's what makes pop culture so fascinating.

Interesting.

I wonder if any one would have had the courage to write something like this about the Jewish religion. :-)

rgds

Amrita you say: "You're right in that America does like to innovate on older themes, and then other nations innovate on them. It's what makes pop culture so fascinating."

Agree about pop cultures(S) being fascinating but are we falling right into American exceptionalism? So the Americans "innovate" on older themes and then other nations pick up the stuff? Sounds shockingly neo-con or perhaps simply uber-American and neo-imperialist. Do you truly mean to say that Americans "construct" pop culture that then get "innovated" and localised by other parts of the world? By default, there is no "real" pop culture anywhere else because hey, the Americans do it the first bit and everyone else follows the lead?

Disappointed with that particularly shabby logic, and obvious lack of veracity. Especially from you!

Anamika - you know disappoints me? That you've turned out to be the kind of reader who reads what she wants to rather than what I've written.

I haven't said that America is the only nation in the world that innovates and neither did I say that pop culture is an American invention.

In my post, I made a very clear point about "Indianizing" things and said that other nations and cultures have their own versions of the same. MisterRon said Sitayana was just another example of "Americanizing" things and as far as that particular reference goes, it's true.

I have no idea how you arrived at words like "neo-con", "neo-imperialist", "uber-American", and "American exceptionalism" - I don't even know what you're getting at with that term - from those three lines.

Calm down.

Chandra - that's a new one. What about the Jewish religion?

Amrita... that's what happens when people have agendas. they stop listening. and do NOT get Chandra started on my people again. We'll not hear the end of it.

SS - sad but true. Lol @ Chandra, I hear he wants to start "profiling" now. So I guess that answers that question.

SS

:-) Provoked? And here is our friend Amrita who writes a whole 'opinion' provoking everybody possible :-). Of course that list includes Hindoos and Indians only. :-). Typical :-).
And listen to you, when somebody talks about Hindus, it is a legitimate dicussion. The moment somebody utters the word 'jew' and it becomes 'our people'. Seriously, do you think Amrita would have had the courage to write something like this about the Jewish religion.

ila!!

cheers

Chandra... chill girl, sumne thamashey madidhe!

wow...that was nice kannada :-). (atleast i think so)...... Sorry for troubling you. :-).

Chandra.. .girl ?

Chandra.. you said illa, so the rest came out. just assumed you were a kannada speaker :P

and hey, I assumed Chandra was female... more apologies if not. all the Chandras I know are girls.

Chandra - you're yet to have the courage to write about anything at all so let's leave "courage" out of it. Furthermore, what exactly have I written that requires "courage"?

And please, your biases are showing far more clearly than mine: am I supposed to shut up and sit quiet in case it gets people thinking? Dropping the odd smiley doesnt change anything.

Yeah, I guess that would fit in with the kind of mentality that promotes "profiling".

Chandra, I'm sure SS would be happy to talk about the debates the Rabbies have about the Torah.


Respectful debate amongst scholars with divergent views has always been a hallmark of Judaism. The Talmud is replete with debate amongst rabbis who disagreed with one another. They were not afraid to debate because being proven wrong was not seen in a negative light; they only had one agenda--to reach the truth. And even if a consensus could not be reached, it did not mean that either side was entirely wrong.

The Talmud says that divergent views can both be seen as the words of the living G-d (Talmud, Eruvin, 13b). There is a deep profundity in this statement. As long as we are taught to appreciate that divinity is also found within the view of people who disagree with us, then respect and dignity will be paid to intellectual opponents.

This Talmudic dictum implores us to engage with people who are in our opinion mistaken, because although their view may not be ultimately accepted, it is nonetheless legitimate. This element of respect for the views of others is a critical ingredient of a decent, harmonious, strong and healthy society.

To add to Dee's words, Judaism and the nature of Judaism has been openly and critically discussed by non-Jews for decades. If you're talking about the spectre of anti-Semitism that's brought up as a valid response by some people all the time the way racism is brought up by Al Sharpton, then all you need to do is look at your own response to this post.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: when you see something you dislike, the logical response is not to then emulate it and defend your actions by saying the other guy did it too.

deepti and amrita... thanks... sigh... you BOTH hit the nail on the head.

I will tell you that the best argument I have had about Torah EVER was with a devout Muslim man. As a rule, Jews are usually fine with debate about the Torah with anyone who knows what questions they want to ask. We believe that questioning makes us stronger. We believe that argument is DIVINE when it is tempered with respect.

Amrita, I responded to your rather shoddy articulation in the final post AFTER having read your initial article as well as the discussion on Abhishek's article. There is nothing in your post that disavows American exceptionalism or indeed the supposed unilateral flow of discourse. That may well be a problem with the articulation rather than the thought. Yet I have responded - as most readers would - to the articulation!

And no, I have no problem with open debate. The fact that Hinduism has remained resolutely polytheistic and insisted on multiple sources of knowledge is based on that foundation of open debate. I do have trouble with spurious and apparently "liberal" logic of "tolerance" applied selectively. Your aggressive/defensive reaction to those who have disagreed with your view suggests that your own application of tolerance of open debate is highly selective.

Going back to the issue on hand I am a bit sick of the accepting any and all representation of ourselves simply by Western artists/thinkers because its there. Nina Paley's work is very shallow but extremely problematic in ideologies that implicitly inform it.

You are welcome to cheer on her efforts. Just as I am free to find it disturbing. The issue at hand is not a difference of opinion, but rather your articulation thereof which seems more intended to stifle divergence of opinions rather than foster the debate you avowedly cherish.

SS

No offence at all. Does it really matter? :-). You are a fair and balanced person. I like you :-)

Kela-banned

Abe, tu waapas aa gaya? I will beg you, please stop using offensive language. Yor writing is very entertaining (minus the offensive language).

DL

No, was not talking about SS. The reason I talked about judaism here was the fact that hatred against jews was probably passed off as free speech and fair debate(and I am not talking about Germany alone). We know where that ended. The same is being done against our beliefs as well. Stoking hatred by selective writing is another way of creating dvisiveness and hatred in society. But kya karen, fundamental right jo hain....:-). BTW I liked your last post (hinduism). Excellent.

Anamika

Tumko book likna chahiye (if you have not already)

rgds

Anamika - as a person who uses words like "American exceptionalism" you seem singularly ill suited to the kind of behavior you've exhibited on this board.

Anybody who uses critical theory to judge pop art or at least professes to use them like on that other board, should understand that context is everything. My aggressive defense of my words is completely dependent on the kind of criticism I have recieved. Which is extremely substandard.

Had you come forth and said here's the other side of this issue and what do you think of it, then I would have responded accordingly. Instead, you basically came out and called me whitey's stooge and assumed a great deal about my ideas and stances on things that I didnt mention. This means you're essentially debating the Amrita in your head because you never bothered to ask Amrita here what she thinks. Kindly get off your high horse.

Your response on that other article made it abundantly clear that your reading of this article was not informed by this post but rather your "understanding" of the "sentiment" that drove that other post. If you wanted to know what kind of sources Paley used in her work, for example, then all you needed to do was first click on the links I've provided and see for yourself. You chose instead to attack me, not debate me, on things you unilaterally decided - ironic given your stance on the "unilateral flow of debate"

However, to address your above response in detail:
1. There is nothing in your post that disavows American exceptionalism or indeed the supposed unilateral flow of discourse. That may well be a problem with the articulation rather than the thought. Yet I have responded - as most readers would - to the articulation!
How is Nina Paley's work an example of "American exceptionalism"? You say you responded to the articulation: and yet you use terms like "American exceptionalism" which argue that you think about issues like this not as the average reader but as a critical reader. Or are you a member of that group of people who merely read things that shore up their own view?

2. "liberal" logic of "tolerance" applied selectively. Your aggressive/defensive reaction to those who have disagreed with your view suggests that your own application of tolerance of open debate is highly selective.
This from a person who concluded that I was a "neocon" and "uber American" and god only knows what else from three lines of text that didn't say anything of the kind that she read into it. Hypocritical much? In any case, if you don;t wish me to be aggressive in my defense of myself then kindly don't adopt an aggressive tone with me in the first place. You chose the ground, now you get to play on it.

3. I am a bit sick of the accepting any and all representation of ourselves simply by Western artists/thinkers because its there.
Nobody asked you to accept anything. I merely said she has a right to articulate her views and we can't dismiss it simply because she is white.

4. Just as I am free to find it disturbing. The issue at hand is not a difference of opinion, but rather your articulation thereof which seems more intended to stifle divergence of opinions rather than foster the debate you avowedly cherish
By all means, find it disturbing. And go ahead and say so. But don't make a case on my back by allocating me beliefs and ideas that were never mine.

We can have a debate on anything you wish. But I'm not about to stand here and let you or anybody else take potshots at me for no good reason.

@Amrita: I read the your above responses to Anamika's comments. Just wanted to let you know that you aren't the only one. Check out my little discussion (very similar to yours!) with Anamika at this post:

http://desicritics.org/2007/04/12/011441.php

@Anamika: I don't particularly like labelling people/ commentators but I have to admit, there is a pattern here. You read the article and lash out at the author, bearing in mind something you have assumed. You then somehow derive comparisons between the author's style and other people/ critics/ reviewers who you disagree with.

Reference (this I cite only as an example, not to settle scores or anything): In my post about the earthy 80s films, your comments made me doublecheck my own article to make sure I hadn't unknowingly implied the very complicated, and may I say, archaic film philosophies you suggested I had used. And then when you compared me to some other film critics you disagreed with, I finally realized that you had assumed my writing and philosophy was the same as theirs.

You used big titles like 'cognitive realism', 'Eurocentric colonial mindsets' and other very verbose labels (as you do here), none of which were the basis of my arguments. It only led me to believe that vocabulary is no substitute for faulty logic and frustrated me when I realized that while I was placing my sincere arguments based on my own philosophies, you had already crucified me for bearing some vague semblance to other film critics whom you didn't quite like!

As authors we try our best to put out our opinions and then have a fair discussion with people who care enough to read our articles even if their views are conflicting to ours. However it gets very difficult when people tag us with their prejudice and critique somebody else's ideas using our posts as the sounding board.

I don't mean any offence by this, Anamika, but some of the things you critiqued in Amrita's article aren't even there! Take the following sentence for example:

"There is nothing in your post that disavows American exceptionalism or indeed the supposed unilateral flow of discourse."

First of all...Huh? Why should it disavow something that is so broad in relation to one woman's take on an epic...because the cartoonist happens to be an American? Doesn't that in a sense aid stereotyping?

And then this: "Do you truly mean to say that Americans "construct" pop culture that then get "innovated" and localised by other parts of the world?"

How did you come to this conclusion by reading Amrita's post?!

Is it possible that you are extrapolating ideas a bit too much? Two extremes in rationale worry me: overcomplication and oversimplification. Your arguments are abundant with both.

Your effusive use of didactic terminology is impressive only until one realizes that it doesn't really comply with the author's argument or philosophy and is quite determinedly ignoring all of the author's rebuttals!

Ah yes, the love fest! Lets follow this back to the point I intervened in this discussion. This was the post by MisterRon:

"Still, the tradition of popular entertainment in film, music, vaudeville, print media, etc., in America could not have happened anywhere else. We Americans are used to our culture as a melting pot, and we will continue to export that globally.

Think of Rock and Roll. There is no place on earth that doesn't have it, like it or not. Yet it was invented by folks like Little Richard Penniman, Ellis McDaniels, and Chuck Berry as a culmination of vast influences from a multitude of nations.

Nina Paley is doing what Americans do, and undoubtedly, there will some (mostly younger people) in India and elsewhere who will take influnce from it. The world moves on."

And Amrita responded with: "MisterRon - Annette Hanshaw is amazing! I'd never heard of her before and she's made the most impression as far as I'm concerned. You're right in that America does like to innovate on older themes, and then other nations innovate on them. It's what makes pop culture so fascinating."

Yes, Amrita, you did not initially suggest American exceptionalism (doesn't happen anywhere else) but your enthusiastic assent accepted that implicit criteria. Or should we just keep cutting and pasting your final sentence?

As for being "whitey's stooge" - seems that it is your cross to bear! On neither of the two threads have you been accused of that (as far as I can see - I may well have missed the accusation). You brought up the accusation and launched your own aggressive defense! The last time I checked neither neocon nor American exceptionalism were necessary white enterprises!

But hey, if the shoe fits...or is that the lady doth protest too much? Yaaaawn.....

Oh dear god. Please. Anamika, you're full of big words and phrases that sound like you just borrowed them all from your protest literature text from college. We can all do that.

This whole "americans do this, americans do that" crap is old old old. You would never stand for that kind of talk about Indians/India and it's just as useless when you do it about the US. Have you ever been to the US? For more than 2 weeks?

These horrible rehashed generalizations borrowed from your uni syllabus are tiresome.

The thing is there is enough valid shit to criticize about the US. But do it in the proper forum and with the proper tools. And stop dismissing everyone who doesn't agree with you as a colonialist tool of oppression. It makes you look like a poseur.

The epistemological and ontological definitions arising out of the surreal juxtaposition of reality and abstract combined with conventional wisdoms of post-pedantic and post-renaissance notions is...

You get the point ;-)

Sorry to intervene here, but it was very interesting.

Aditi:
I had similar experiences with Anamika. After few discussions I concluded that she types faster than she thinks - thereby quickly concluding something that can almost never be inferred by another rational being (of human species).

What is interesting is what follows next. By assuming something that can almost never be assumed from a discussion, she runs on criticism and analysis of that assumption! :) Lots of energy- you have to give it to her.

The best speeches and best arguments are usually lucid, less verbose and easy to understand. Those who use big-words are those who try to make up for something that they lack- in this case, I strongly believe it is logic and clarity.

One can always make up for lack of logic and clarity by using arcane, obscure and sometimes pedantic jargon.

Cheers!

HULLO SS: I DIDN'T SAY AMERICANS DO THIS! It was a cut and paste. Really, for someone making such noise about reading posts, you don't really follow your own advice.

And yes for the record, I had the joy of experiencing YOUR country for over five years! But perhaps its only Americans who marry desis and live in India who are ALLOWED to have the ability to hold opinions on the cultures they "experience"!!!!

Sujai - yawn. Guess Nandigram isn't keeping you busy anymore. Forgot - its the lefties leading state brutality, so how it would bother you!

HULLO ANAMIKA, you said plenty about Westerners. Good god lady, you cannot even follow what you say. This conversation is useless. I never said you did not have the right, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SAID NO WESTERNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN HINDU ANYTHING. I was simply asking if the same applied to you.

This is a bore. And laughable. You're just a condescending poseur.

Sigh...Guess literacy is not high on the American agenda?

Let me cut and paste an earlier comment that you obviously did not read or understand: "I have no issues with white or indeed green/blue/purple people looking at other races or cultures. The issue is not EXPLORING or STUDYING (although any social scientist with half a brain will tell you precisely HOW contentious that it). The issue is REPRESENTING which is what Paley has decided to do."

So DONT DISTORT what I have said! Or perhaps you can't quite differentiate between exploring, studying or indeed ENGAGING vs representing and appropriation?

Ams:
Brill post. I read this on your blog and after a long weekend of DIY-ing, my limbs refused to connect with anything and was unable to comment there. I have generally noticed that if I comment first on your post in your blog, it results in loads of people reading the post and saying nice things about it! *bows*
Anyways, I am glad I read this here though - cos, added to your interesting post, there is the added drama of this 'debate'. Can I just say, you are doing brilliantly at holding your own? And I think we have found a gem in Aditi - the girl is good!
Oh yeah - am plodding my way through Ashok Banker's Prince of Ayodhya. (Just at the starting post now, Dee!) Will take a dekko at this Sitayana link from home.

At the risk of sounding like I am siding with the chauvisnists on here, I do have one comment.*deep breath*

Perhaps some of the frustration that is coming out as hatred/anger/Indian or Hindu chauvinism is the fact that whenever someone from a western country does something pertaining to India, it seems to get a lot more attention than if someone from India does the same thing. I think someone on this board mentioned some work done by an Indian, also called Sitayana.

This does not mean that no one from outside India should do anything relating to India but I think some of us do find it rather frustrating.

It's rather similar to the unfortunate situation that Indians writing in English are more well-known (even in India) than Indians writing in regional languages, no matter how talented they might be.

I truly believe that the world's knowledge (history, mythology, religion, etc.) should remain open for all to study but I can also understand the frustration.

Ok...that's it.

Jawahara... now that bit of reasoning MAKES SENSE. see people, this is what a conversation looks like.

Anamika... this is my last comment to you. what you have done is akin to when people make a hugely racist comment and then follow it up with "oh, but I have black/asian/gay/whatever friends." you're the one that has serious issues. peace.

Jawahara! A Fatwa on your head! Lol, see that's something I can understand. I've always had a bit of problem with the demonization of Indian writers in English that emerges from that sense of unfairness but I get your point.

But I don't know if that's what at the bottom of this morass.

DG - where's my good fairy been? This seems like DIY week for almost everybody i know. I, otoh, am getting fat and lazy just the way God intended me to be.

SS - I guess she REALLY didnt like America :)

Aditi/Sujai : Glad to know its not just me. I'm going to give it one last try and see what comes of it.

Anamika - I'm trying to concentrate on your argument rather than your tone and I'm confused more than ever. Leaving aside the rest, your main problem seems to be with MisterRon and you're taking it out on me even if I didn't say the words which you then put in my mouth. Your rationale seems to be that by NOT writing about American exceptionalism, I am then a party to it. Which is an astounding leap of logic. And I'm sorry you're so offended by the "love fest" but it wouldn't have taken place if you hadn't acted in a similar manner to other people.

Anyway, it would help me understand if I knew on what basis do you find Nina Paley's work objectionable, which is a point that you still haven't made clear:
1) As a fan of art. You think it's inferior to Picasso as per your response on that other board (it's a stretch in my view, but alright, those are your parameters). This is your opinion and I have nothing to say to it.
2) As a follower of the Hindu Religion: you think she's interpreted/portraying Hinduism in a certain way. This is manifestly not her intention as she has stated and as her work amply attests. Her work might be artistically innovative in the style it adopts but it has absolutely nothing new spiritually to offer nor does it claim to be a work of spirituality in any way. If you believe that her work might be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with Hinduism as "the truth" then I think you're overreacting: no matter how ignorant a person is and how much they don't know about something, it's ridiculous to assume that they'll end up looking for pointers on religion from a cartoon. Misrepresentation can happen with anybody - we should all be baying for Ashok Banker's blood in that case because he has a higher chance than Nina Paley will ever have of influencing people's ideas of the Ramayana.
3) From a critical standpoint: what specific aspect of her work is it that you find objectionable as a critic when related to her work: her whiteness, her nationality, her gender? I think, personally, that all three are important if you're trying to locate her within a critical theory.
You've asked me before why didn't I bother to look examine her work from a more academic viewpoint. At least, that's what I think you asked me: the manner of your asking confused the issue. However, since you seem to like the critical aspect, , here's my answer:

I still do not understand whether you're of the opinion that Paley should not have tackled this work in the first place or whether you feel Paley having tackled this work should not be exempt from critical enquiry.

If it is the latter, I concur wholeheartedly. If it is the former then I disagree just as wholeheartedly. I'm afraid I do believe in ideas like "liberal tolerance" because the opposite is a condition I find repulsive. I do not object to the Taliban because they are Muslim, I object to them because they are illiberal and intolerant and I would hate to live in a society of the kind they formulate. So yes, from an artistic and a human viewpoint, I believe Nina Paley has the right to tackle the subject of her choice.

Now you seem to be of the opinion that an artist should keep ideas in mind such as the power of whiteness. I would go further and say that as a white American woman artist, she ought to keep in mind the power of whiteness, empire, gender, and a host of other factors. An artist, any artist from anywhere at all, should be a student of the world. It is to her own advantage.

But eventually, the artist needs to take a stand. She cannot create art, whether destined for Youtube or the MoMA by trying to inject 5000 years of world culture into a single piece and worrying herself sick about the final audience. Audiences are important, yes, but you cannot apply critical theory to something before it has been created.

You can locate Paley's work in critical theory because it exists; if she sat at home applying it to every single artistic idea she ever had then she would never create anything and if she did manage to do something with that kind of crippling thought process then I would expect it to be less than honest. I'm not saying that no piece of art can be a crowd pleaser - I'm saying that is impossible to create a piece of work that will be able to address every single issue that might be connected to it and still be the artist's vision alone. This is why critics have individual opinions.

In Paley's case, she chose the husband-wife dynamic of Rama and Sita and explored it from Sita's viewpoint stemming from one specific act: abandonment. She makes no overarching claims - she is very clear about the subject matter.

Now, the three main critical theories that are immediately and obviously applicable to Paley's work are: her whiteness juxtaposed against the effect of empire over the home country of her female subject matter - i.e. race, postcolonialism and gender.

It's been 60 years or so since those three theories caught the limelight. In those 60 years the world has changed rapidly and an increasing number of us now live in a world that can be explained by another theory: cosmopolitanism.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I'm younger, urban and personally comfortable in a multicultural context but cosmopolitanism is the theory that I feel most attracted to in terms of critique. Certainly, it is where I would locate Paley's work were I to look at it from an academic standpoint. It feels a lot more genuine than the whole post-postcolonial stuff that people have diligently been trying to stuff down my throat by virtue of my nationality.

Now, in your case, her nationality also seems to play a significant role in how you locate her work. Leaving my supposed servitude to American exceptionalism aside it would help if you told me how you feel Paley's work is an example of that.

I certainly do not object to your disagreeing with me. There is a lot of intellectual space in this world and you're welcome to locate her work in it. But attaching labels to me and attacking Paley as a person while simultaneously expressing disappointment in my lack of academic enquiry - you can't have it all, I'm afraid.

One last Disclaimer: before you get all frothy at the mouth, I haven't drunk the kool-aid and I do have certain problems with it as I do with any "ism" but I think it's a good place to start, especially with critical enquiry.

Okay Amrita - let me go try to explain as clearly as I can!

When I intervened - it was right after your response to Mister Ron's article - it was to point out that your viewpoint somehow accepted American exceptionalism (American's innovate on older themes and other cultures copy it etc). I would not have guessed from your post (to MisterRon) that you WEREN'T party to American exceptionalism as you appeared to accept and endosre that rather spurious logic. If that isn't the case, well, then we can start from scratch on this.

I am not offended by your love fest. If you need a wingperson, you're call...

But let me put this across in the same order as your queries:

1. I used some of Picasso's work as ANOTHER example of cultural appropriation which went mostly unchallenged at the time of creation given the political and economic situation. I am by no means comparing the two in aesthetic merit!

2. You then say: "If you believe that her work might be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with Hinduism as "the truth" then I think you're overreacting: no matter how ignorant a person is and how much they don't know about something, it's ridiculous to assume that they'll end up looking for pointers on religion from a cartoon."

Ummm not really. In fact, few people get their ideas about religion from the actual texts or study thereof. The average believer of any faith forms opinions about their own religion/culture as well as that of the other based on popular cultural discourse, no matter how false that may be. That is why popular media is far more powerful in forming opinions than any "serious" literary or artistic enterprise.

I don't believe you can dismiss any problematic work as pop and thus incapable of informing people or forming opinions. This is ONE reason I find Paley's "interpretation" far more pernicious and problematic than lets say The Life of Pi (yes, at the risk of offending Martel fans here!).

3. I am no fan of Banker's writing but I admire his Ramayana opus for the sheer scale, research and reflection that informs it. Btw, this isn't about "baying for anyone's blood" but simply about the power imbalances. Banker's work will have little impact - beyond those of us who really care about Indian contemporary cultural production - as it will most likely NOT be picked up and pushed worldwide or be on youtube!

4. Now re: Paley's work. I am all for "artistic" freedom. However to assume that artistic endeavour and/or creation is some how free of critical or intellectual engagement is naive. I have no problems with her CREATING her view of it (freedom of speech and all that). I DO have problems with the imbalances in representation that exist which unfortunately privileges her "view" (interpretation) over autoctonous ones. That means questioning the motives, location as well as the execution of the artistic endeavour (critical engagement in your words).

5. More importantly, ALL artistic work is located by geography, language, gender, empire etc. Paley can't somehow be free of that context. As for not having to pay attention to issues of dominant discourse while creating, a lot of responsible, thinking artists do PRECISELY that. Paley doesn't - that is her choice. But then don't expect me to accept her version - with all its attendant political, historical and ideological baggage.

Amrita: Continuing the discussion:

You say: "In those 60 years the world has changed rapidly and an increasing number of us now live in a world that can be explained by another theory: cosmopolitanism."

Well I am glad that you have found yourself another theory. May I also point out that while there are shifts in political and economic power centres, these have hardly reached the proportions where "cosmopolitanism" can be embraced uncritically. Indeed from far too many places in the world, "cosmopolitanism" (or globalization, or take your pick of word) seems very much like a backlash against advances made against the privilges of a primarily Eurocentric elite located in former (and current) imperial powers over the past 60 years. Perhaps that isn't so visible from NYC.

No one is denying that things have changed over the past 60 years, but the imperial power structures are nearly as intact (albeit dented) especially in the field of artistic production and critical engagement. Marginalized voices - whether on gender, racial, cultural or ideological grounds - are still shut out of the dominant discourse.

You then say: "Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I'm younger, urban and personally comfortable in a multicultural context but cosmopolitanism is the theory that I feel most attracted to in terms of critique."

That made me laugh. But I will accept your location of me as "old, rural and provincial" although weren't you accusing me of undergraduate rehashing just a while ago? :-)

And then: "It feels a lot more genuine than the whole post-postcolonial stuff that people have diligently been trying to stuff down my throat by virtue of my nationality."

I had a student tell me a couple of weeks ago that she was insulted that I thought her views were "feminist." Seems like you have a similar attitude about "postcolonial." (AND YES, I realise you may have feminist" credentials. I am simply drawing another parallel and not considering you "similar" - as in case of Picasso and Paley!)

The post-9/11 backlash (the roots of which go back to late 1980s btw and closely tied to Chicago school version of globalised economics) against postcolonial reminds me of an old Susan Faludi work on the backlash on feminism- Backlash (you may be too young to remember it). It was flawed - as all works necessarily are - but surprisingly insightful. If she only knew how much of a Cassandra she was!

A quick look at current critical engagement or indeed cultural production, neither poco nor feminist have lost their validity or replaced by "cosmopolitanism." In fact, more than ever there is an urgent need to engage on precisely issues of power imbalances - whether they be located in gender, empire, race, religion or culture. But I guess that wouldn't be as "cool" as "cosmopolitanism".

Back to work....

Hey Amrita,
Good post. I think you were spot on about us being touchy, especially with "outsiders" interpreting "our" texts.
Sitayana reminds me of a wonderful poem in Gujarati whose gist is "You may be great, Rama, but you're no match for Sita". At one point it even adds the insight, "It was Sita's cold shouldering that defeated Ravan, what did you achieve by vanquishing the vanquished?" (Sorry for destroying the lyricism).
Sorry for going off like this, but your piece brought it out:)Thanks!

Hey Amrita,
Good post. I think you're spot on in pointing out how touchy we get when "outsiders" interpret "our" epics.
Sitayana reminds me of a wonderful poem in Gujarati whose gist is "You may be great, Rama, but you're no match for Sita". At one point it even adds the insight, "It was Sita's cold shouldering that defeated Ravan, what did you achieve by vanquishing the vanquished?" (Sorry for destroying the lyricism).
Sorry for going off like this, but your piece brought it out:)Thanks!

After reading the rather intense debate between Amrita and Anamika I re reading Amrita's post and here is my take.

I think everybody has a right to interpret the Ramayan in the manner they want to. It is not necessary that all interpretations of the Ramayan have been the same (we cannot even agree where Lanka is :-) . However, the central theme has never changed in any of the interpretations. Of course, using cartoons with 20s music is new, but then being creative is the only way that people will listen to you. Way back in the 80s we did the whole Ramayan using 80s/70s bollywood music (cannot claim it was an original idea). My favorite one was when Sita gets kidnapped she sings bachke rehna :-)....Junta really enjoyed that(and was subsequently banned at school). However, I dont think that is a version of Ramayan that i recall much. For that matter, our own understanding of Ramayan and the story itself changes over periods of time. Of course the unusual thing in this case is that Ms. Paley chose the Uttara Ramayan and the Ramayan itself. Since the Ramayan is the story of Ram it is interesting to see an interpretation of what Sita may have thought during the period she is left by Ram. I recall seeing some movies of the 50s-60s that show her agony, need to see them again to see with a different perspective.

As far as it being a controversy is concerned, It will be if one if all our right and left wing friends think it should be. These days we have become experts in fighting wars in other countries (like the calif book contoversy). With elections scheduled in 2009, i am pretty confident we will have a ban on the CDs/ movie as soon as it is released (we banned many 'anti-christian' movies too recently :-)), a few CDs will be burned, IBN will do a few sms polls, TOI will criticise the Hindu Taliban, Drudge will headline her effigy burning and DC will debate her. After may be 2 weeks of shelf life all of us will be back to normal. If Ms. Paley is lucky, Sita will have definitely saved her flagging career. (HER previous attempt through a pornographic version of Kali did not help her much http://www.ninapaley.com/2006/10/desire.html).
We will all then continue with our merry lives :-). However if we Indians suddenly change and ignore Ms Paley, her career is doomed. No front page headlines, nothing. Nobody will even glance at her movie a second time. (May be she will have to do an interpretation of Ravan then)

As far as the parties protesting this is concerned, this would be a great opportunity to reinforce their credentials (why leave such an opportunity before an election). The only ones who will get nothing out of this is 'having nothing to do but type on a keyboard' bloggers like us. Pure Intellectual Masturbation.

A few interesting quotes by Ms Paley

My retelling is also humorous, which some people interpret as irreverent, and therefore an affront. Not that this has any bearing on my work; as I learned from The Stork, the GREATER THE RISKS in art, the GREATER THE REWARDS.

Upon my arrival (IN TRIVANDRUM) I was confronted with his mid-life crisis, a complete emotional withdrawal. This left me without support in a city in which women were second-class citizens, unable to walk alone at night, and not expected to have an identity separate from their husbands.

"Originally, I hoped to expel my demons of heartbreak with a single short film, Trial By Fire (2003). This set a pivotal scene from The Ramayana, Sita's walk through a funeral pyre, to Annette Hanshaw's 1929 rendition of "Mean to Me." Trial By Fire won second Place in New York's 2004 ASIFA-East Animation Festival, and screened in festivals in San Francisco, Latvia, and Red Bank, but I refrained from promoting it further. Audiences loved the design and animation, but were not sufficiently familiar with The Ramayana to really understand the story. Furthermore, my demons weren't adequately expressed; I was still tormented by grief and heartache. When ANOTHER RELATIONSHIP FAILED in November of 2004, I saw only one course of action: I had to tell the whole Ramayana story from Sita's point of view. Sita Sings the Blues, a 72-minute feature, WOULD BE MY SALVATION.

Typo

I re reading ----> I re read

@PH: That was a great addition to the discussion! I did not know of any poems that actually said that although I did know that there were bhajans which praised Sita and questioned Ram's decisions. Enjoyed that even sans the lyrical verses :)

Anamika - once again, you've come back with a lot of personal stuff dressed up look like criticism. All right, let's go with your definition of "debate"/ "discussion" then.

1. You are absolutely irrational. You continue to create assumptions out of nowhere based on the fact that I DIDN'T WRITE SOMETHING. If you can't see the absurdity of your stand then that's your deal.

2. I don't need a wingman. Unlike you, I'm not asking people to "hang in there" and "understanding sentiments" and trying to create coterie. The people who took issue with you did so independently and did so because you have exhibtied the same irrational and idiotic response to their work.

Your modus operandi seems to be "I have a view and I'll search for anybody and anything that comes within reach of that view and attack it. After all, if they dont specifically mention that they agree with me then they must be the voice in my head."

Otherwise, you'd have stopped and asked a question once or twice. Civilly, since that seems so important to you in others but in yourself, I notice.

3. You continue to be confused as to what your problem is. But now it seems its an issue of privelege: more on that in a minute. But first let's examine the nature of changing theories and their validity.

First of all, I never said that poco or race or gender theories are obsolete. That is your ASSUMPTION. of which you make a lot.

However, cosmopolitanism as espoused by Homi Bhabha especially makes a lot of sense to me, personally, which is why I gave out that bit of personal information. Here's a novel thought: I dont run my entire life as a reaction to you. I do actually have a life of my own wherein I have a certain context just like you see in Nina Paley and just like I see in you. Gasp!

As a critic, I have to make my own choices.

This seems to be outside your field of reference. In your view, apparently there is a right view = your view and a wrong view= everybody else. You talk about students - i shudder to think of you as a teacher of some kind because you seem to be the kind who'd turn out little Mini Mes rather than people capable to thinking on their own. [How's that for personal? I hope you like it, it's modeled on you.]

As far as cosmopolitanism is concerned, you seem to have only the vaguest acquaintance with it. This doesn't surprise me, You seem to have gleaned half your information by eavesdropping on someone's conversation at a cocktail party.

Every critical "ism" will is subject to change. People change, tastes change, references change. Cosmopolitanism is no less valid because it refuses to fit in your natty little box.

More...

@Chandra #54: LOL, liked your 'intellectual masturbation' simile/ analogy. If it holds true, some of us must be pretty 'orgasmic', what with phrases like "American exceptionalism", "unilateral flow of discourse" being thrown around over a cartoon film :)

BTW, I almost clapped in glee when I saw "I think everybody has a right to interpret the Ramayan in the manner they want to"...should sum it up shouldn't it? But it doesn't!

Why, look at that other post by Abhishek...things have progressed as far as quantum physics!!! He must have had to read his own article again by now to keep track of all the tangents :D

Peace :)

Anamika - okay, so now let's examine your "explanation".

You started out by talking about American exceptionalism and how you object to Nina Paley's work and my own on that basis. I asked you to tell me exactly how her work falls into that category (my own as I've noted above, is a matter of irrationality on your part. You've taken me to be an apologist for American exceptionalism, based on the facts that A) I DIDNT mention it and B) Some other guy did and I didn't respond to it the way YOU would have i.e. in your eyes my sin is that I'm not you. I'm not even going to argue with that because the idiocy inherent in that line of thinking is pretty much apparent).

Coming to Paley and American exceptionalism, you've now latched on to White Privelege. Not only is this disingenous, it is absolutely ignorant. White privilege and American exceptionalism are not synonymous. One might be construed as a subset of the other - emphasis on might - but these are not interchangeable terms. So first decide if Paley's work is indicative of American exceptionalism or white privilege.

As far as white privilege goes, for a person who puts such emphasis on nuance that she has chosen to call me names based on WHAT I DIDNT WRITE, it's incredible that you would fling terms like white privilege as if it were confetti. The issue of white privilege isn't merely centered on the color of an artist's skin. If that's your (mind bogglingly simplistic) understanding of whiteness, then you have no business even mentioning the term. To look at an artist's skin and simply yell privilege isn't criticism - it's racism. Your reaction to Banker's work is particularly telling in this regard: you very casually dismiss it as "well researched". As if research combined with the color of your skin automatically gives you a pass. If you're going to talk about privilege then you have to examine Paley's work within that vast context. There is a lot to be questioned if its a matter of privilege which you very conveniently leave out while talking about things like 9/11 and global economics.

Talking of 9/11 and global economics, we come to the issue of cosmopolitanism. Just to be clear, I didnt find it: Appiah did. And once again, I didnt say poco was dead and buried, I said cosmopolitanism is where I locate her work in my personal opinion (excuse me for having one unlike you). One of the people whose work in this area that I follow with great interest is Bhabha who happens to be one of the doyens of poco. Pardon me if I choose to admire his ideas over yours.

Your problems with cosmopolitanism with or without quotes is beside the point - the reason I brought it up above is because i thought (mistakenly) that it might be a way to bring this discussion back on some sort of stable footing if you knew where I was coming from. However, you seem committed to operate on a purely reactionary level which you insist is "critical". You are yet to provide any sort of criticism - just a collection of diverse terms that you jump around on, touching here, touching there, moving on when somebody challenges you on any one of them. It would have made sense for you to go on a rant about the limits of various theories. We are not. If you wish to talk about theories in general then please say so.

This entire interaction with you has been a complete waste of time. You've taken more interest as usual on REACTING to my ideas WITHOUT actually coming up with any of your own. All these posts and all these words and yet, the only thing you've said with any sort of clarity is that you don't like Paley's work. If that's all you wanted to say then you were welcome to do so without the kind of pretension or belligerance you've exhibited - sorry, the smileys don't mask it.

I can't believe I wasted this amount of time on you. Moving on....

Lol, Chandra, we all need to get our jollies where we can I guess. But here's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned: I think everybody has a right to interpret the Ramayan in the manner they want to.

And yes, I feel exactly the same about other religions too.

PH - thank you for telling me about that. I'm not very familiar with Gujarati literature but I do like the bits I've heard. It's a thought isn't it: who actually attained a moral victory.

Aditi - with phrases like "American exceptionalism", "unilateral flow of discourse" being thrown around over a cartoon film
Bite your tongue. It's not a cartoon film, it's the culmination of everything that's wrong in the world much like I'm the poster child of everything that's wrong with India. Bet you didn't know I was so important, did you? :D

Ams:
I will tell you what I think of this once I stop laughing out loud!

I love it when two women fight. I think there is some innate masculine feeling of relish, some perverted kind of enjoyment in a man that makes him enjoy two women fighting- either it is mud wrestling, cat fighting or fighting on such discussion forums ;-)

Amrita:
Save your energies - don't take the bait. I think others get the point! Usually people who want to understand and see the point get it right away. For few others you may have to remove the confusion or clear the misunderstanding and you can reach an agreement. With others, you just have to agree to disagree! ;-)

Anamika is more interested in reading what she writes to herself. She builds her own assumptions (with complete and utter disregard to the article that she is criticizing) and then goes about fighting those assumptions.

The author of the article is usually left confused.

'Where did these interpretations come from? How could one assume something so outlandish from my article? And why this rebuttal and refutation of these completely inconceivable inferences?'

It happens!

I have a lifesaver medicine with me to tackle such insanely outlandish arguments- IGNORE MODE. I put them on ignore mode and it saves me lot of energy. I can go home sane at the end of the day!

[For someone who is hellbent on criticizing other's articles, she doesn't own up a single piece of original work.]

Anamika wrote,

"Do you truly mean to say that Americans 'construct' pop culture that then get 'innovated' and localized by other parts of the world? By default, there is no 'real' pop culture anywhere else because hey, the Americans do it the first bit and everyone else follows the lead?"

While I cannot comment on the cartoon produced by Nina Paley - my ignorance of Hindu culture and religion is just too deep to even attempt to - I find myself in the position of having to agree with Anamika in the general sense on what she writes above.

Just so that nobody gets this wrong. I grew up in America. I was born there. So I have a pretty good feel for American pop culture with the sensitive fingers of a native. I look at what passes for "culture" here, and it is just a pathetic carbon copy - smudged by the Hebrew - of what Americans call pop culture. Kasablan, the classic Israeli movie musical about an urban gang that takes on the bureaucrats in Yafo and wins - is a pathetic knockoff. Most of the Hebrew "hip-hop" is a copy of the gangsta rap in the States (with the significant exceptions of Subliminal and Snakefish). Even the "innovative" stuff, the jazz music, is a pathetic attempt to copy American culture. As if that isn't enough, there is a Jacob's Ladder festival of bluegrass music, of all things! This all fits Anamika's paradigm. Hebrew culture, Jewish culture, has all been pushed to the background by the loud, brassy American pop culture machine.

Sometimes, when I sit in the guard's gate at the edge of Ma'aleh Levona, and I need someting to keep me awake in the dead of night, I turn on a Jordanian station - which but for the occasional mention of Amman or Aqaba, i'd never know to be a Jordanian station at all.

So much for the native culture in this part of the world...

Nina Paley's creation will drown out native perceptions of the story of Ramayana. Because it is American, it will get far more attention than it rightfully deserves. Is Miss Paley faithful to the story and the ideas that Indians seek to convey to the rest of the world. This I cannot say. I do not know anything intelligent of the original text. But I do know hat happened to the text of the Book of Exodus in the Bible when Cecil B. deMilles made The Ten Commandments, and a movie was made of Leon Uris' Hollywoodized version of the iucident of the Exodus 1947, made into the novel (and later the movie) Exodus (spare me such bullshit!) and the novel and movie Mila 18.

You know, I was going to further comment about how Anamika confuses the topic but then I re-read her last post and came across the gem at the end wherein she tells me I tried on cosmopolitanism to be "cool"

LMAO!!! That's right ladies and gents, critical theory is the new way to cool!

I've decided to take Sujai's advice and put it on ignore. I've tried to be Anamika for a day and I don't like it.

Good thing too, hon, cos we love you the way you are, don't we Eds?

Hmmmm.....So if in the Japanese Animation of The Ramayana they showed some controversial stuff a number of people would say the same stuff.

Same shit different label. Fight fight...me love cat fights...where are my samosas? I love heat...er better go read some desi porn involving a modern Indra seducing a hot Indian socialite while her husband is in a God man's santuary;)

Incidentally The Virgin Comic's Ramayana is awesome. They, obviously covered their asses by saying they weren't trying to compete with the original it's Sci-fi etc but it did add to a speculation aired rather airily by a friend that Rama was probably on military expedition to extend Ayodhya's territories;)

Dee, is that the one co-produced by Shekhar Kapoor's company? Didnt I read something about them getting into the graphic novel business?

Amrita, the comic is beyond awesome. I'd love to get my hands on an actual copy instead of seeing it online which you can download from the Virgin Comic's site(I think). Yeah Shekhar Kapoor, Deepak Chopra and his son Gautam Chopra.

thanks for the heads up!

The Virgin Comics titles appeared at Indian bookstalls recently, not Ramayan 3303 AD yet, though.

I remember watching Shakti(1982) the other day. I could appreciate(and to an extent correlate) the dilemma Lord Ram would have been in when I saw "DCP Ashwini Kumar" going through a similar dilemma, when his son was abducted by The villain. I think appreciating Sita's perspective (and denouncing Rama's stand) or vice versa is a mere perspective with us mortals.

The "Whys" from Nina Paley do not stand out as unacknowledged questions in Ramayana. Thus, I hardly see how an American divorce (and the role of characters) can be compared with series of incidences which have been etched out in Ramayana.

In fact the moral from Ramayana is what has been depicted in the movie "Shakti".

It might sound bizarre to those feminists, who having been born and brought up into democratic world and staunchly believe in individualism and individual manifestation as primary goal, but again that is just a perspective.

About a week back, I read somebody lamenting on Lord Rama's righteousness, suggesting him to have resigned from being King. But a careful observation will tell you that relinquishing his responsibilities was not a viable(and justified as per eithics and dharma) option for Lord Rama in those circumstances. In fact, Is not it that Rama's decision might have saved so many other women(who unlike Sita would otherwise have failed in it) from going through "Angi pariksha".

Hardy, are you saying that by exiling his wife Rama had shown that women could not be trusted despite taking the Agni Pariksha and therefore not only did he questioned the sanctity of the horrendous tradition itself but further denigrated womens characters ?

It seems like a no win situation from my perspective.

I do not think Lord Rama had any doubt about Sita's integrity at the time he was hearing to dhobi-dhobin case. It had been forced upon him(for the sake of being a true judge and king who is assumed to treat his fellow men/women just like he treats his family) because his praja wanted the same treatment to be met out to other women who were suspected by their husbands...in this case I guess the dhobin who was accused of adultery by dhobi(her husband).

I think while Rama was engaged in making a decision about Dhobi case, he must have been deeply repenting on how he let Agni pariksha incidence to occur in the first place.

P.S. I am talking from the perspective of the version which assumes that Rama had to exile Sita on the merit of dhobi-dhobin case unlike another version which assumes that Rama left Sita to preserve his image in public.

Well, Hardy it all happened long ago and who knows what really happened. We merely speculate. Thanks for the conversation:)

Well, Hardy it all happened long ago and who knows what really happened. We merely speculate. Thanks for the conversation:)

That is right...We merely speculate and sometimes unknowingly add our variations to satisfy our innermost convictions. Thank you too.

Men generally marry two wives (at least).

One wife is the "Structure".

The other wife is the "Human Wife".

All along their lives men get torn between these two wives. Sometimes, they dump one of them and sometimes both (e.g. Valmiki).

Men in Bangalore for example have 2 wives.

In weekdays, they spend 10 hours with first wife in the day time. This is the corporate for which they work.

Remaining time in the evenings and weekends they spend with their "Human wife".

In case of Rama, it was a conflict between a Dumb first wife (ie. the structure, the system, the corporate and whatever it may be) and the second one is the "Human wife" Sita.

In this particular case he failed to maintain a balance. The story is more towards showing that even a great person like Ram can fail in "Human life". It has less to do with his cruel nature.

Ram was not cruel.

He was as much the victim of the system as Sita was.

Neglecting this perspective and painting him as a chauvinistic male leads us all "nowhere" except seeking revenge on "present day" males or even "male kids" for some "real/imaginary" injustice that happened in a story.

The Gender war is going to be as harmful to women as it is harmful to men.


So, far as our organisation SIF is concerned, he often tell the men to losen their loyalty to their "First Wife" (ie, the corporate, the structure or the system).

Men have constructured and maintained structures since ages often taking great pain on themselves. Most probably, they should get out of them or handover some parts of them to women and watch fun from sidelines.

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful article, Amrita, and thanks everyone for the lively discussion. I hope you can see the whole 82-minute feature soon.

Yes Nina

All the very best. Hopefully SITA will save your career.....

Nina

BTW, were you ego searching on google? :-) You really need help.

rgds