Desicritics Category: Culture: History

"Oh Boy!"

Seema Dhindaw — Thu, 15 May 2008 03:43:09 EDT

“Thank god, it’s a boy! How wonderful! Congratulations” I remember the desi uncles and aunties saying with abandon even as I stood right next to my parents. My memories of their uninhibited exclamations of “Badhaai ho, munda hua!” ring loud and clear even today. Being their first-born, a daughter, I couldn’t help being overcome with feelings of jealousy and apprehension. The realization that someone else was going to steal my parent’s attention was enough to get my 6-year old heart racing. My big brown eyes widened and filled with fear as I looked up at my parents and repeatedly asked “Do you still love me?”

As my brother and I grew older, sadly my fears became reality. The favoritism had become strikingly apparent not just to me but others as well. My aunt and neighbors noticed and did what they could to make me feel special. My grandmother, on the other hand, visiting from India could not see past my brother.

I faded into the background and all my tiny accomplishments in kindergarten and elementary school went unnoticed. I began to realize just how important it was for my parents to have a son, particularly my mother. As teenage years approached, the treatment meted out by our parents was obviously differential. He got to stay out later than I did. His mistakes were more readily forgiven. His anger and outbursts excused with “Boys are like that, its ok.” He was bought an expensive car because “it would stay in the family.” His announcement of having a girlfriend was met with pride and encouragement while even a mention of my boyfriend would probably inspire histrionics. Over the years my hostility towards him manifested and our relationship floundered.

Many Indians including Punjabis tend to agree upon the value of the male child. In Indian households and particularly in North Indian families, the son is expected to live with his wife and children while caring for his aging parents in the same house. This can be quite a lot of pressure for any son. Financial responsibilities and the lack of privacy can make life pretty miserable for everyone.

What is bothersome is not that these biases exist but that many families strive relentlessly to preserve and propagate those here in America. My own family, I feel, has been guilty of this. Many a times my mother has made statements such as “He’s a boy, so it’s different. You should be more understanding”, ” We feel sad for so and so. They just have two daughters. Who will care for them when they’re old?!” A daughter can take as good if not better care of her parents than any son could. Why such a strong bias especially when you have a daughter who cares for you? A gift from me is “no big deal” but any small card or gesture from my brother is received with open arms and praise.

How does being female somehow make us inferior? The last time I checked we were in the year 2008, weren’t we? Not 1930. One would think these views about women would be the height of the matter but surprisingly they are not! It actually makes a difference if you are thin and fair. Even Bollywood has adopted the “gori chitti aur patli” (fair and skinny) paradigm. Recently, Bollywood actress Kareena Kapoor has made headlines for becoming an unhealthy and perhaps anorexic size zero. “Zero” not only describes how good she looks but also her acting abilities.

Bollywood actresses like her wear drag-queen-style make-up to match the desired skin color to appear beautiful. Up until recently no significant effort was made towards making the nearing 40 year old balding male actors with receding hairlines and age inappropriate clothing, more appealing.

No doubt Bollywood is guilty of such nonsense but what does one say when the almost 300 lb aunties in sarees with bulging love handles, blouses that barely fit and extraordinarily huge hips casually comment on how so and so’s daughter should lose weight. “She would look so much prettier.” What about their own short chubby sons? I'd like to ask. The standard response which I've heard so often is "Oh, but they are boys, so looks don’t matter as much. It is the girl that has to get married off.” Such a mentality is difficult to change.

Enforcing these beliefs in girls raised in the United States is ridiculous. It breeds low self-esteem within an environment that values confidence and grooming over skin color and weight. Tanning salons have opened up all over and constitutes a multi-billion dollar industry. Yet you still have Indians saying “Hai! Kitni gori hai, patli hai! Changa munda milega”.

As a woman born and raised in the US, I now find myself rolling my eyes at these comments but I have to admit, they affected my self-worth deeply as a teenager. Perhaps on a subconscious level they made me rebellious as well. Why do the women have to endure phone calls and comments centered around their weight and looks? How fair is it that no one seems to notice the nice developing potbelly on my brother or the man boobs that have appeared on Kunal? Women have to deal with comments such as "moti hogayi hai na?"

It doesn't matter that you might be a successful researcher or a prominent scientist or an engineer. Fat is of utmost importance. It is the men,the sons who are complimented on their careers. Even your female friends who happen to get in touch with you online after years have past don't care about your professional accomplishments. "You've become chubby" "Moti, fat jaadi....i".This obsession with weight among Indian women in particular is upsetting.Why aren't such comments directed towards men?

Hearing such female-degrading comments from families and friends at social gatherings has become commonplace for me. However, it was astonishing to face such comments in a professional setting. My very own Indian ex-PhD advisor wasn’t afraid to reveal and act on her biases. At a lab lunch celebrating my birthday, she in a very matter of fact manner said “Indian women need to be subdued, as Seema will learn.”

On other occasions, instead of providing advice regarding my project she would make comments about how I should “lose weight” so that I can “get a husband.” “ You should work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week because you don’t have a husband or kids. Look at all the other people in lab,they aren’t single. They have families. Even XYZ has a girlfriend.” As I listened to these unprofessional comments, I couldn’t help thinking ”aren’t you a woman too? Don’t you have a daughter? “ At the time being her student, I was too scared to say anything for fear that she would jeopardize my future. As fate would have it, I didn’t have to say anything, I guess just being an overweight, single American woman of Indian descent was enough for her to screw me over on a whim.

It’s depressing that such strong biases exist in the US among Indians even today. It takes a toll on you when you hear the same comments so many times from the people who are supposed to be your strongest supporters. It is even more alarming that people with these views can abuse their power and get away it. Isn’t it about time that people do away with this mentality and accept each other with fairness and equality? Man, woman, short. Tall, fat, skinny—what does it matter? Aren’t we all human?

The Magnificence of the Taj Mahal

Deepti Lamba — Sat, 3 May 2008 14:10:32 EDT

While standing in the long security check line outside the Taj entry we burned in the shimmering spring heat last month.

Agra is a couple of degrees hotter than Delhi. The line of human beings barely moved and tempers flared when people tried to jump ahead in the queue. I berated myself for not getting my tots sun hats and covered their heads with handkerchiefs. The heat was getting to all of us and I wondered out loud as to how many of us would suffer from sunstroke that afternoon.

I grumbled whether the Taj was far more important than our collective health. To which my mother replied, "Not only is the Taj more important than our health but even our lives!!"

I was shocked but she explained that such buildings are monuments of posterity that we bequeath to our children and so on. Our life span is short compared to the Taj, and the happiness it brings to thousands year after year, decades and centuries later continue.

Since my mom is a history reader at Delhi University I did not have the heart to debate with her knowing her bias for all that is historical but once I feasted my eyes on the Taj my need to protest disappeared.

I felt a surge of happiness sweep through my heart. This was my third visit to the Taj and it still enthralls me. I grabbed my camera and clicked away like a tourist, all the while trying not to bump into people who in turn seemed to have become even-tempered.

There was no pushing at any of the entry or exit points, a water cooler had been provided at a certain point, the public loos were still dirty but the inner chambers of the Taj were cool.

People sat in the shadows of the Taj, kids ran around, there were foreigners and Indians from different states who enjoyed the beauty of the tomb. The Yamuna river was parched dry and thankfully the much despaired Taj Corridor by Mayawati a thing of the past.

Due to the mind-numbing heat and exhausted complaining children I wasn't able to take too many pictures but the monument left a lasting impression in my mind.

Bardolatory - William Shakespeare's Legacy

C R Sridhar — Fri, 2 May 2008 00:41:13 EDT

"I am more easily bored with Shakespeare, and have suffered more ghastly evenings with him, than any dramatist I know."

Peter Brook

"Let's all raise a flagon of ale and wish a happy 444th to one of our favorite playwright and poet." said one of the admirers of Shakespeare. Indeed, as the BBC news reports, the crowds in Stratford-upon-Avon enjoyed street theatre, dancing, plays and music over the weekend marking his birth - believed to be 23 April 1564. Last week hundreds of people celebrated William Shakespeare’s 444th birth anniversary, including some wearing Elizabethan costumes, took part in the traditional procession on Saturday. A spokesperson for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said the weekend was "a celebration, not only of the world's greatest poet and playwright but also of tradition, the arts and Stratford-upon-Avon."¹

India was conspicuous by its absence at the 444th birth anniversary celebrations of The Bard of Avon at his birthplace. The reason for India’s absence was indeed strange as only last year former High Commissioner Kamalesh Sharma had raised the tricolour at Stratford-upon-Avon. “But the Indian diplomatic absence may be easily explained, if not easily understood.” says Rashmee Roshan Lall tetchily in her column ‘Shakespearewallah fails to show up.’² It appears that as the Indian High Commissioner and his diplomatic officials were preoccupied with the untidy events of the Maoists coming to power in Nepal, they could not participate in the anniversary festivities in the Bard’s birthplace. The columnist’s irritation was perhaps justified, as after 200 years of pillage and plunder, the enduring legacy of Britain to India has been Shakespeare and Cricket.

Shakespeare’s literary foes

The effusive praises for the Bard conceal some dissenting voices that have challenged the greatness of Shakespeare as a literary figure. His harshest critic was the Great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who wrote such masterpieces as ‘War and Peace’ and ‘Anna Karenina’. Tolstoy marshaled his formidable creative power to fire a salvo at the Bard.

In Shakespeare and the Drama, published in 1906, Tolstoy declared that he had always experienced feelings of repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment on reading Shakespeare's plays. "Now," he says "before writing this article, as an old man of seventy-five wishing once more to check my conclusions, I have again read the whole of Shakespeare . . . and have experienced the same feelings still more strongly, no longer with perplexity but with a firm and unshakeable conviction that the undisputed fame Shakespeare enjoys as a great genius - which makes writers of our time imitate him, and readers and spectators, distorting their aesthetic and ethical sense, seek nonexistent qualities in him - is a great evil, as every falsehood is."³

Tolstoy stirred a bitter controversy in literary circles when he claimed “Shakespeare cannot be admitted to be either a writer of great genius or even an average one." He filleted the Bard by examining one of his critically acclaimed plays King Lear. Tolstoy found the play to be overrated and not meeting the basic standards of art. He argued that the play was filled with characters that were stilted, speaking a language that was affected, pretentious, pompous far removed from the real people of the World. The play had no sense of proportion, claimed Tolstoy, and the contents reflected a vulgar view of life, which fawned on the mighty and treated the poor with contempt. Tolstoy also controversially claimed that King Lear was a plagiarized version of a far superior play King Leir authored by an unknown playwright. Moreover, the Weltanschauung of the Bard was that of a status quo-ist without the humanitarian impulse of trying to change the order of an iniquitous society. All the major flaws found in King Lear, Tolstoy concluded, could be found in his other plays.

Tolstoy’s antipathy to Shakespeare rose from irreconcilable differences as to the purpose of Art. For Art to be a meaningful, said Tolstoy, it must be rooted in reason and conscience. Tolstoy passionately denounced the movements such as the Decadents and Symbolists, which idealized beauty, truth, and goodness. For Tolstoy a purely aesthetic appreciation of the holy Trinity symbolized by beauty, truth, and goodness represented the effusions of counterfeit Art. All great works of art, he contended, are great because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone. As examples of great Art Tolstoy selected Schiller's 'The Robbers', Hugo's 'Les Miserables' and 'Les Pauvres Gens', Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities', 'A Christmas Carol', and 'The Chimes', Harriet Beecher Stowe's 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', Dostoevsky's 'The House of the Dead', and George Eliot's 'Adam Bede' as manifestations of love of God and man.

A Shavian Salvo

Tolstoy’s criticism of Shakespeare and the credo Art for Art’s sake found sympathy in George Bernard Shaw who held the view that Great Art should be harnessed to the purpose of changing humankind for the better. On the so called Greatness of Shakespeare Shaw agreed with Tolstoy and said “ I have striven hard to open English eyes to the emptiness of Shakespeare’s philosophy, to the superficiality and second-handedness of his morality, to his weakness and his incoherence as a thinker, to his snobbery, his vulgar prejudices, his ignorance, his disqualifications of all sorts for the philosophic eminence claimed for him.” But Shaw disagreed with Tolstoy and said that the Bard had great literary power, which made him a great artist. ⁴

The Paradox

The popularity of Shakespeare remains a paradox, as he was never considered as a great playwright amongst his peers Beaumont, Fletcher, Ben Jonson and others during the Elizabethan Age. Until the end of the Eighteenth Century Shakespeare remained relatively obscure in England. It was Goethe who praised Shakespeare and later taken up by German Literary scholars who praised Shakespeare’s plays. As Tolstoy says his reputation “originated in Germany, and thence was transferred to England.” There were special circumstances favouring the Bard as German Drama was trapped in its mediocrity and French classical literature was ossified into a sterile rigidity. The Germans were captivated by Shakespeare’s clever development of scenes and his literary reputation grew steadily. The infatuation with Shakespeare has lasted ever since.⁵ Thus the spell of Shakespeare could be attributed to ‘epidemic suggestion’ induced by Germanic scholars whose enthusiasm for the Bard spread to England. The reputation of Shakespeare became solid during the Eighteenth Century as the Bard’s plays represented a return to safety before all the upheavals of the French Revolution and he symbolized solid English values such as Monarchy.

Porters of Colonial Legacy

When the British left India after 200 years of colonial rule, they left a dubious cultural legacy: Shakespeare. Gary Taylor in his irreverent book ‘Reinventing Shakespeare’ challenges the inherited assumption of Shakespeare’s greatness, preferring to see his current status as the fruit of centuries of public relations on the part of British Imperialism, “which propagated the English Language on every continent.”

In post-Independence India, Shakespeare and Rudyard Kipling, the icons of British imperialism became required reading in schools and Universities teaching English Literature. The upper middle classes of Indian society lapped up courses on Shakespeare creating divisions between high art and popular entertainment. The plays in vernacular languages and native cinema became popular with the masses. The uncomfortable questions raised by Tolstoy beg for our attention- Why not shape our literary consciousness by delving deeply into our folklore and the study of epics, which are part of our cultural milieu? Why not draw inspiration from diverse native tradition for our Art? What, if any, is the relevance of Shakespeare in India where many do not speak English?

For the porters of colonial legacy, these troubling questions cast long shadows on their path as they make their journey to a far of place called Stratford-upon-Avon.

Notes:
1. BBC News, 26 April 2008 12:20 UK
2. "View from London- Shakespearewallah fails to show up"- TOI-April 29, 2008.
3. "What is art? - Introduction to Tolstoy's writings"- Ernest J Simmons.
4. "New concerted attack on the fame of Shakespeare"- New York Times-December 9, 1906, Sunday.
5. "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool"- George Orwell

Book Review: HomeSpun

Sunil — Thu, 1 May 2008 00:04:28 EDT

It is hard to resist the lure of a sepia tinted book cover with a black and white photograph of a couple with that glazed, nostalgic look on their eyes. The cover almost suggested something vintage, perhaps timeless. That was more than enough for me to start reading HomeSpun, by the debutante novelist Nilita Vachani.

The book starts with the death of Nanaji, and a scene of mourning. And just like that, you plunge into the lives of different families, and a story of different ideologies, of conflict and reconciliation, love, relationships, marriage and death, all narrated by Sweta Kalra, while the characters slowly emerge as the chapters roll on. Parallel stories develop, all of which you know are interconnected through Sweta. And while the book starts with tragedy, and has plenty of tragedy within, it takes us for a ride without plunging into darkness or depression.

The book is part coming of age, part exploring the complexities of human relationships, part conflict, and part exploring the idiosyncrasies of human nature.

There is the story of Nanaji, and his struggles as a revolutionary and freedom fighter fighting against the British for an independent India. He tries to live an extremely principled life, following the idealistic example set by Mahatma Gandhi. The problems of the world and day-to-day life remain somehow esoteric to his mind. Yet his wife, Naneeji, is a polar opposite. She loves her jewellery and silk, and she wants herself and their kids to lead a good, comfortable life, the life she believes that a senior government official (which is what Nanaji becomes after independence) should live.

Their lives are spent in open conflict, sometimes bitter, sometimes petty. You know their every relationship is strained. Yet the book starts off with Naneeji wailing and bemoaning the loss of her “wonderful” husband.

Then there is the story of the Kalras, most importantly Ranjit “Ronu” Kalra. His father is a sub-inspector of police. Sub-inspector (later superintendent) Kalra could be described with clichés like conscientious, simple, earthy. The apple of inspector Kalra and his wife’s eyes is their son, Ranjit. A chance encounter with a film producer, who happens to adore Ranjit’s curly 5-year old locks, changes Ranjit’s life forever. He goes on to become the greatest child star of the black-and-white era transitioning between silent movies and sound dubbing.

While Ranjit’s brief celluloid career takes off, the author gives us a hilarious and fascinating view of the film (“phillum”) industry of the time, filled with histrionics and glycerine, political sensitivities, charlatans and bigger-than-life characters.

Ranjit’s career as India’s favorite kid ends abruptly with him growing up, but his childhood stardom stays with him for life, and in a strange way directs his fate as an adult. In this mix enters Anamika (Anu) Reza, a spirited teenager, Ranjit’s first girlfriend and true love. Their lives entwine, and they go through passion and longing and separation. Both characters are immensely likeable, yet as different as chalk and cheese. Ranjit is almost immediately endearing. He has the burden of having to grow up as a former child star, and yet remains shy and simple. He’s one of those people who may have dreams, yet lives by avoiding conflict, and trying to keep everyone happy, never confronting tradition.

Just by being with the fiery, modern and liberal Anu throws him into a cauldron of thoughts and conflicting emotions. When the time comes for him to make his decisions, he is unable to go with his dreams. His father decides his future, and soon Ranjit heads off to join the air force to become a pilot he would never have become on his own. In contrast Anu’s life, just like her, remains turbulent and feisty and fiercely independent, and she lives on her own terms without holding regrets.

In between all these stories is the pivotal subplot of a small but important character, Ranajit’s friend and fellow officer, Dusty, and the war with Pakistan. And then there is Sweta herself, mostly as a frumpy, slightly overweight but bright and curious girl, with usual and atypical growing up problems. There is her relationship with her beloved Nanaji, and Nanaji, or her mother, and most importantly, Anu.

The author, Vachani, takes us through a whole panorama of events and emotions, and the story progresses beautifully through the last days before independence, the turbulent fifties and sixties, and more contemporary India in the seventies or eighties. We start with tragedy and the death of Nanaji, and as the book progresses, the different stories interweave, interspersed with gentle or dramatic twists.

“Homespun” is almost a perfect title for the book, the elaborate plot weaves through a post-independence middle/upper middle class India, and the lives of characters you understand and empathize with, or often relate to. And every one of the characters is beautifully developed and utterly believable. In between the characters, the author explores the myths and stories that we hear about the freedom struggle, or the wars with Pakistan; myths that are almost always rosy.

What lies beneath those tales? My only complaint with the book was the way the relationship of Anu and Sweta develops, and the slightly predictable direction it heads towards. But that is just a minor quibble with what was a thoroughly enjoyable read, and just the kind of story that will make a terrific movie.

Why Neither India nor Pakistan Should Rely on America: Part I - Who Really Runs America?

Ruvy — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:02:57 EDT

This series of articles is written as an object lesson for you as to why you cannot trust the United States government as any kind of partner. This is as true for Pakistanis as it is for Indians, Sri Lankans, Nepalis, Bangladeshis or any other residents of the Indian sub-continent.

The series has three parts.

This article examines how the United States got to the apex it did. The second uses Israel as an example of American duplicity regarding its supposed "friends" or "allies". The third views what might have happened and how the world would be different if indeed the United States supported the State of Israel as one-sidedly as so many charge.

These articles is not written in an attempt to "inform" you of events in Israel, the Levantine or the Arab world. Unless you have relatives or business interests here, you probably have no reason to care.

The point of this series is to allow you to apply the sad lesson we provide of how a great power double-crosses a small one. There are many such examples of this, but I can speak as a resident of the victim. Indeed, not only Jews in Israel have been victims of this double-cross, but Arabs as well.

Before continuing further, I want to make clear several things. First; I live in Israel, in Samaria to be precise. While I reside in Israel. I am not a Zionist. The word "Zionism" was originally invented by English Christian theologians in the 17th Century; as a Jewish idea, it was originally expounded upon by rabbis from Serbia and Russia in the early 19th Century (though not called by this name), and was made palpable and real by secular Jews who wanted little to do with ritual, religion, or even with G-d. The creation of Zionism, the State of Israel, has been a success until recent years. The essential goal of Zionism, bringing the majority of Jews in the world back to the homeland, has nearly been completed. It is evident to anyone who lives here that the closer we come to that basic goal, the weaker the movement to achieve it becomes, and the weaker the apotheosis of Zionist ideology, the State, becomes as well.

Second; even though I live in Israel, I was born and raised in the United States and lived there for several decades before coming home to Israel. My field of study was political science and public administration, and I added to these subjects comparative government and linguistics. In addition, I was active in politics in the United States in both major political parties. This gave me a good grasp of the American political system and how it evolved.

Finally; I'm not slamming the people who inhabit the United States, the average folks known as Joe Sixpack. Americans, by and large, are a decent, generous and kind people, even if they are too Amero-centered for their own good. Perhaps they are too naïve at times. But the decency of the average American should never ever be in question.

The government of the United States, now in the hands of an oil and banking establishment for some eight decades, is a very different story. In this article, when talking about "America", I'm not talking about her decent inhabitants; I'm talking about her evil régime.

One last point. Credit for much of what you see in this article goes to Joel Bainerman, an Israeli investigative journalist, economist and publisher. My errors in relaying the data he has taught me and others is my responsibility alone.

And now to business.

The first three words of the American Federal Constitution of 1787 are "We the People" and if you ask most Americans, "who runs America?" that is the most likely answer you will get. The people.

If it were only true.

It isn't. It probably never was.

First of all, the United States were not designed to be a democracy at all, but a federation of states with a republican form of government. While the word "republic" comes from the Latin rex publica (one sees the root in the Russian word respublik) meaning "the people rule", and in spite of the fact that modern Greece is called Ελληνική Δημοκρατία ('Ellinikí Dhimokratía) which is translated as "the Hellenic Republic", the two words "democracy" and "republic" do not have the precise same meaning in English.

A republic connotes a form of government which is not monarchical in nature. Thus, the Republic of Florence, where Niccolo Machiavelli was a mid-level bureaucrat, was not a state where the average Florentine had a real voice in government. Only a small class of Florentines had any voice at all, and they ruled the country.

But the Principality of Florence, which succeeded the Republic upon its fall, was a monarchy, with the son supposedly succeeding the father. Machiavelli's book, De Principatus, "The Prince", was in essence, his curriculum vitae submitted to the man who had exiled him to his estate after overthrowing the republic. While the book has long outlasted the la famiglia Medici that Machiavelli was trying to impress, Machiavelli did not get his job back.

When first established in 1776, the various states restricted voting to white males only, usually only Christians who owned property. So voting was restricted somewhat for several decades. For all of this, the states that comprised the United States did move closer towards popular rule, and the American republic did edge towards democracy in the 1800's.

But a business oligarchy took the country over after its civil war in 1865, and controlled its industrialization. As the 19th Century progressed to a close, the rich men who built huge industries out of the steel plants of the Midwest, the railways, the ships, the meat packing plants and the like realized that competition was not "rational", so they bought each other out, building huge monopolies known in America as "trusts" and "rationalizing" the industries they controlled. This is the kind of stuff most American kids skip over in school, because it is so damnably boring, but it is precisely these events in America that provided the model for the concentration of wealth in the succeeding decades.

What American teachers tend to focus on is not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, but the efforts of the American government to combat that concentration of wealth, known as "trust busting". To make a long story short, American businessmen felt stymied in building monopolies in the States and looked out at the wide world instead, and started investing money in it in the early 1900's.

They invested all over the world; Germany, Turkey, Russia, France, as well as China, Cuba and Latin America. And when a world war broke out in 1914, the profits of many firms went right down the tubes.

This had consequences. One consequence was that rich American businessmen determined that they would not be burned again in another world war. They examined the Treaty of Versailles that crippled post-war Germany, the Russian Revolution, and the way people were buying Henry Ford's affordable "Model T" and made their moves.

Their first presumption was that there would be a rematch between Germany and Britain or the United States. They set up a triumvirate of banks - one was the Thyssen Bank in Germany, the second was the Union Bank in New York, and the third was a bank in the Netherlands. The idea was that the Netherlands would probably be neutral in this coming war, and that Germany and America would be on opposite sides. That is what had happened in the first war, and so they expected the pattern would hold.

If the Germans won this second world war, then the rich businessmen would be compensated for their losses in America through the Thyssen bank "looting" the assets of the Union Bank (and presumably others). If the Americans won the second world war, the rich businessmen would be compensated through the Union Bank "looting" the assets of the Thyssen Bank. In either case, the Dutch bank was supposed to e the intermediary.

It didn't exactly work that way, but these rich businessmen had foresight.

They also had the brains to make sure that they would have some level of control over who ran the governments. In America, they set up a "Council on Foreign Relations" to infiltrate the State, War, Navy and Commerce departments of the American government with their employees. The idea was to provide a pool of "respectable" professors and administrative types who would watch over their interests. They did the same thing in the United Kingdom. These councils still exist today, and in either the United Kingdom or the United States, if you do not have ties to the respective councils, you get nowhere fast. Note how Ron Paul was locked out of the national debate before McCain sewed up the nomination.

Investing in overseas political control was a bit trickier.

One act of these businessmen was to invest in the Soviet Union in an attempt to bring it to stability. This might have been their first act, persuading Lenin to introduce the New Economic Plan (NEP) in the early twenties; but Lenin had the temerity to die, and his successor, Joe Stalin, was a xenophobe.

The next move was to try and find someone who could be controlled in the Weimar Republic that had succeeded the German Empire. These businessmen found an ambitious young man originally from Austria, and they invested in him, building him a fancy house. This turned out to be a better investment - Adolf Hitler eventually became Reichskanzler in 1933, and continued his business ties with his American investors, attempting to use them to get some foothold in the American economy. And as these businessmen had foreseen, there was another world war, and they made sure that they were compensated for their German investments through the Dulles brothers, one of whom was an attorney on the Allied War Compensation Board set up after the war.

The final big move was to invest in a source of fuel for the "Model T" and its successors, and to lay the groundwork for a continuing fortune. This came by investing some money in the wastes of Arabia, arming the ibn Saud clan to the teeth, and supporting them as they stole Makka and Medina from the Hashemi family, its traditional guardians for centuries. The Hashemi family had to be satisfied with emirates in Mesopotamia and "Transjordan"- the eastern two thirds of the territory the British had allotted for a Jewish national home. The money wasn't a gift to the ibn Sauds. It was a deal. American and British oil companies got to control the oil under the ground. The ibn Sauds - now "Saudis" - got the sand. At least that's how it looked in the 1920's.

Thus is was that bit by bit, the oil and banking companies came to dominate America. One of the key parts of winning their dominion over America came from getting rid of trolley cars and replacing them with buses; getting rid of trains, and replacing them with trucks. These two moves guaranteed the dominion of oil over all other fuels. Gradually, the American State Department became the pliable tool of American corporations. Much of the Japanese drive for empire was a drive to control oil, and the same was true for the Germans. Americans never thought of using alcohol to fuel tanks, as did the Germans. They never had to.

With the Germans and Japanese broken and defeated by August 1945, the American oil and banking establishment bestrode the world like a colossus. And Americans, living the best lives that could be imagined at the time, never even dreamt that their country and that their democracy had been stolen from them.

India - Bharat - Tenjiku: One Reality, More Perspectives (Part 2)

Alin Dosoftei — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:20:52 EDT

Some personal opinions

Part 1

So, more words describing, obviously, just one reality. The first assumption would be that they mean the same thing, that Tenjiku shogi is, you know, an Indian shogi, or, in an alternative history with an East Asian prevalence worldwide, an Indian file is, you know, a Tenjiku file. How else, the common logic goes, when they describe the same reality? This is helped by the fact that, in most of the cases, a certain culture would have available just one such imagery. In this manner, it is not questioned its relation with the segment from reality it is supposed to describe. There may be many other names in other cultures describing their own segments from about the same area of the reality (most certainly the segmentations will not be the same in different cultures). But who cares? Usually they will not remain face to face, because they will ignore each other, trivialize each other, dispute each other, subordinate each other (8) or assimilate each other. Hence, it is preserved the appearance of the "one and only", the unquestioned identification between imagery and reality. These are perceived as the same thing and the reality's uniqueness is bestowed also upon that imagery. Obviously, as the time elapses, this relation will need adjustments and patchings to help the imagery keep the pace with the reality or to confront other rival imageries, hence the notions of truth and untruth.

This tends to obliterate the fact that, in practice, the relations between such words speak rather of the relations between the cultures that employ them. This may become more visible in cases like that from above, where the vivacity of Tenjiku, face to face with the contemporary almighty Indo, speaks rather of the successful integration of the Japanese culture in the Western framework, that "Tenjiku dream food, Indian restaurant" mirroring the slogan "Japanese spirit, Western techniques". In the contemporary context, Tenjiku is an established part of the Japanese spirit, while India comes as a result of the integration in the Western framework (of course, here I am writing about India as the Western imagery, not about the society from the contemporary state with this name). If that segment from reality itself is not very vocal, any description of "what everybody knows" about it ends up easily in describing instead the worldview of those who "know" (as you can see from this very article that says very few about the Desi people).

Another such example, from that article reminded at the beginning about Rom as reality and Gypsy as imagery, the only true Gypsies are only the non-Roma who have the Gypsy imagery established in their culture. It should be pointed out that the non-Roma who are vehement in imposing the Gypsy imagery on the Roma, they themselves can be characterized according to this imagery. They are some exotic Gypsies or some violent, destructive Gypsies who make no distinction between their personality and the Roma they encounter, therefore adulating or punishing the latter as a psychological projection (the defense mechanism that attributes to the others one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts). Through this process a matter of fantasy is used for interpreting the real life. It becomes normal and it happens this anomalous violence or adulation, the word Gypsy becomes a safe haven for such behavior. They need to accept the existence of their acquired Gypsy cultural features and then to deal with them. Moreover, those societies that have the Gypsy imagery as part of their culture, must acknowledge that they used the Roma's minority non-vocal status as escapism for otherwise unaccepted behavior, developing antisocial "Gypsy excrescences" in their people's minds. In order to create a functional broad society, instead of thinking how to get rid of the "abnormal Gypsies" that appear on their retinas, they have to aim correctly and deal with the Gypsy part of their own culture.

Back to the main theme, in this less usual case (9) when two such imageries remain face to face, for an outsider that belongs neither to the Japanese nor to the Western culture, having just an unexplored relation with South Asia (10), this looks like the right place to put a long awaited question: which of them is the reality, the "one and only", also which of them represents the truth (the usual human cultural connection with the reality)? Their successful cohabitation in the same framework, each with its own coherence, vivacity, makes clear that none of them is the unique reality, they are relative, there may exist an infinite number of such images about South Asia, also that the reality is not comprised by such frameworks of imageries. They shouldn't have met each other in such a manner if they would have desired to preserve the appearance that they really describe something from the real life.

What about Bharat, as an autochthonous image of this culture? Technically, its structure is no different from the other images, it is one of the infinite number of possibilities, but, obviously, it makes a big difference that it stems from the reality it describes. In such cases, this kind of image is different from the others as much as it is connected to its reality. Theoretically, nothing impedes an outsider to have a fine understanding of a certain segment of reality, but in practice the insiders have chances to know much better. Every instance (both at individual level and at the level of a certain culture) is a particular one concerning both the self-understanding and the understanding of the others. The difference between the self-image and the identity may be visible in cases, like the groups of people emigrating in other cultural areas, when, exactly because of clinging too much on their self-image they had back home, they lose the connection with their cultural identity (one of the most common ways of cultural assimilation).

I wrote somewhere else my views about the relation between the unique reality and the existing images, about the ethnic minorities losing their identity because of too much confidence in their self-image, also about the historical cases when this convenient "one and only" view was questioned, opening ways for other relations with the reality. In the last case, for the scope of this article, I would like to write also here that the relation between the now acknowledged plurality of images and the unique reality became organized by absolute purity rules when only a part of a local society understood it or by relative purity rules when the entire local society clarified its view. As long as it does not appear a clear human understanding of the relation between the reality and the imagery, these purity rules are employed to keep this relation working (in the absence of the belief in the firmness of the images).

I named relative purity rules those rules that underline how every image is relative and absolute purity rules those emphasizing that there is just one reality. The different stress results from different contexts. When an entire local society becomes aware of the reality and of the infinite possibilities to interpret it through imagery, relative purity rules appear to permit further on the use of the images as the main known drive of the social life (and in the same time to keep official their relativity). The Desi society employs relative purity rules publicly expressed through the Dharmic religions and, more or less among non-Dharmic Desis, through some popular Desi peculiarities of their way of life. These purity rules found an important expression in the caste system, as an understanding of the infinity of simultaneously possible ideals/self-images. It is acknowledged that any ideal/self-image does not grasp fully the reality, emphasizing that there is a reality without attributes beyond such points of view.

The absolute purity rules are employed by marginal groups, parts of broader societies, which from a certain moment in history made the difference between reality and imageries. These groups do not assimilate, because their ethnic identification is not based anymore on self-imagery, but on the reality of their identity. The cultural relation between the reality and the images grows differently from the above case of the relative purity rules, as a result of their marginal status. Their public image may have an infinite number of shapes too, but, in practice, it needs to include assimilations of features from the self-imagery of that broad society's dominant culture. Thus it is possible for these populations to be a more or less coherent part of that society, without losing their identity.

This ubiquitous one and only local imagery is not a problem per se, but the way it is dominated and used by the mainstream requires continuous clarifications about its relative nature, about the fact that the marginal group and the powerful majority do not understand it in the same manner. Facing the way it is taken for granted by the others, it must be reminded every moment that it exists a lively reality and that "we stand by it", amid frozen imageries taken for granted. If the usual expression of the relative purity rules is the caste system, as a simultaneous plurality of self-images, the absolute purity rules make the difference between us and the others. Both "us" and "the others" are images, only that "us" is the safe area where any popular imagery of the moment may be considered according to its relative status. Further, as "we" consider any image as relative, we understand that any person or people among the "others" have too their own reality beyond their self-image. Hence we don't decide about who are the others, if there appear images and stereotypes saying that this is "this" and that is "that", they remain relative. We keep all the options open, the only limit being their reality, the same as we think about us. That neutral area from "Journey to the West" becomes permanent, it is not used just for a study of the own identity, for answering "who am I among the others" and then turning back to the realm of the self-imagery, but for remaining face to face with any other person/people we may encounter. It is us and them, all in the same space, in the same time, each with its own vivacity, in an institutionalized manner.

The people that I know employing such absolute purity rules developed this identity clarification: Yehudim (Jews) and Goyim (non-Jews), Nihonjin (Japanese) and Gaijin (non-Japanese). The Romani people has both relative purity rules (the Romani caste system) and absolute purity rules: Roma and Gaje (non-Roma). It is a long way from the concept of barbarian (the assumed or implied vision of the others, from a localized point of view) that denies the culture and the identity of the others just because it does not fit the self-image of a certain person/cultural group. In this manner it is possible to remain face to face with any other cultural group, to employ dominant imageries from localized cultural areas without becoming localized. In the case of the Roma, they even became the maintainers of parts of some other people's traditions. In Hungary, Romania, Spain and other countries an important part of the local folk music is continued and improved by Roma. The Romani music evolves in more layers, that aiming only at the Romani public, that enjoyed by both Roma and non-Roma (whether they feel the same thing or they ascribe different messages to the song) and that focused only on the non-Roma.

Trying to keep the text in the scope of this article, I did not add more information about the worldview of these populations. However I should emphasize that bringing them together in this context does not mean that any features of one group may be extrapolated indiscriminately to the others. Each of them has a unique identity, fact visible in the way they envisage their public presence. This position among a majority with an unquestioned focus on the public images supposes that any self-description needs to establish the reality as a coherent presence in the realm of images. In the cases when they came with a public position about their identity, they employed too identification symbols involved in localized threads of history. However, these symbols are non-imaginary; they express the effort of such groups to keep their focus on the reality, hence they have no attributes: the Divinity with an unpronounceable name of the Jews, the nameless Emperor of Japan.

The difference between the ways they appear these indescribable (through images) identities comes from their position in their relation with the others. In the Japanese case, the clear geographical difference between "us" and the "others", the homogeneity and the safety of our area does not request further clarifications about who we are. The symbol of the reality does not require being opposable to the others, it is for us to keep us meaningful among the others. Also it is not necessary to become historically involved in the decision making process. As long as there is this clear demarcation, any turning point is bound to keep further the contact with the reality. The Japanese society alone cannot take for granted images.

In the Jewish case, the context made that the official public presence was envisaged as involvement in non-Jewish historical frameworks. But how could someone become entangled in a worldview where the personal identity would be reduced to some rigid images? After some good centuries there appeared Moses' model of clarifying the difference between somebody's imaginary identity, as it is taken for granted by the involvement in non-Jewish history, and the lively Identity beyond any description. This separation (with the subsequent involvement in history and assuming of responsibilities by the latter) makes possible a decision making process considering the non-Jewish history, but avoiding being trapped by its localized perspective. This supposes also constructing a historical thread and identify with its details in order to be visible among non-Jews.

The Romani culture does not have yet a public position about itself and the rest of the world. It depends on the local communities and on the individuals the way they negotiate and adjust their position in the local frameworks, in an informal manner that must not limit the Romani identity by assuming some transient self-images. Devel (from Sanskrit देव-Dev meaning Divinity), the same as the other Dharmics' Bhagvan/Ishvar and the Japanese Kami-sama, keeps all the options open, does not become too specific, a "somebody", by getting entangled in localized histories. However, the Roma had neither a local central position as the Dharmics from South Asia (that would make possible a society according to our worldview), nor a clear and homogeneous geographic space like the locally marginal Japanese (that would facilitate a formal public presence without entanglements). As a minority, an involvement in non-Romani histories would require many self-limitations (as it can be seen in the Jewish case), it has to adapt to the others' "one imaginary thread" policy, by keeping a clear adherence to a single historical thread. The others' concept of the "one and only" (image) has to be transferred to the details that signal the presence of the realistic worldview in the realm of images taken for granted.

Roma, unlike the Jews, have also relative purity rules, we can't say that the details of one historical direction are true while of the others are untrue. All are true in their own realm (depending on the construction of that truth how much they are also feasible, connected to the reality) and ultimately all are simply relative. Their details are bound to keep them as mental constructions, distinct from reality. While I see the clear transcendental aspect of the Jewish Divinity's involvement in local histories (the view of the absolute purity rules), I can't overlook the relativity of this involvement's product, its historical thread (the view of the relative purity rules). Diachronically, it is all right, any change or novelty keeps counting on the lively identity, but synchronically, the details of the historical thread used for self-identification make it just one among an infinite number of existing or possible ideologies. And the necessity to regard them (these acquired details) as absolute, as the truth, creates undesirable self-limitations.

From a Romani point of view, the diversity of historical threads is too obvious. A Romani person identifies in an absolute manner as obviously Romani (the absolute purity rules, the diachronicity), but also identifies as just a part of the society, through the accumulated personal deeds (the relative purity rules, the synchronicity). Usually these deeds tend to evolve as the Romani caste system, a system that makes possible the simultaneous existence of all emerging historical directions. In the relation with the local spirituality, these relative purity rules manifest through the assimilation of features from all available religions, creating puzzling (for the non-Romani majority) mixtures in Abrahamic multireligious areas, like the combinations of features from Christianity and Islam in the Balkans, of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity in Transylvania. This while the Romanipen (the Romani worldview) remains invisible to the image-accustomed non-Romani eyes. This practice of assimilating or experimenting features from any encountered spirituality is something normal in South Asia, as a result of the same relative purity rules. The worldview does not really depend on some ossified details. These can be helpful, but they are not absolute (and, because of this, people are also not afraid that they might lose their identity by knowing something new).

So, this is the (now a millennium old) Romani issue concerning the way to have a public presence as a minority, but without identifying with transient self-images. From the point of view of the prevalent non-Romani environment in the areas we live, it is expected from us to come with a selection of features and say "this is us" in order to become visible, otherwise we exist only at an informal level. If we don't come with a self-image, our place in their set of explanatory images about the world won't remain empty anyway. This is how it was born the imaginary Gypsy, filling the place of our public reality with non-Romani images. Expressing our informal status, until recently, in English it was written with lower-case, as gypsy. As different and non-assimilable as we may be, they could not see us as a distinct ethnic group. However, if someone cannot or does not want to see a segment of reality, this does not mean that segment cease existing. In real life we became parts of the local societies, the areas with long-term and strong Romani presence having important Romani influences (Southeastern Europe and Iberian Peninsula).

Until recently, the Romani people could survive more or less with this informal lifestyle, as some unofficial Romani social islands. However, the modernity creates a new perspective, a network of relations connects more and more the local and global social levels. Island or not, each part has to accept this network and work within it. Obviously, the issue of the Romani public formal presence becomes unavoidable. This is also the main drive of this article. The essay on the names and the images of South Asia was necessary both for elucidating what means India (and who are really our cultural relatives) and for clarifying some things about the Romani worldview.

It is necessary to address this misdirected relation with the locally available imagery of India. This constructed origin of the Roma with no correspondent in real life keeps us in limbo, preventing the connections with people sharing the same culture. It misdirects also the emerging Romani intelligentsia. This India is supposed to be that cultural area the Roma come from, but in reality the meanings conveyed by this notion are just a part of the Western culture. Without realizing it, Roma who want to become cultured on local basis think from the very beginning from a different point of view. Many times, this "Gateway of India" is the start of assuming the Western perspective, hindering alternatives. And, being void of any interesting Desi features, it either vanishes quickly from the horizon of the locally educated Rom or it becomes a fetish. Here it should be said that any connections with South Asia were lost in the turmoiled 11th century, right after the emigration, also that the emergence of locally educated Roma is a new phenomenon, of the 20th-21st centuries (mostly the last decades are significant).

Of course, the Western worldview is not a problem per se, it just happens to be the main cultural worldview of the areas inhabited by Roma. If it would have been useful for the Romani people, it would have determined until now some kind of synthesis or assimilation, there was plenty of time. But the Western educated intelligentsia remains sterile, no vision with a popular support appeared until now. And, as the time elapses, the lack of Romani public representation in the contemporary world only produces more disfranchisements. Usually, whether they identify with the other environment or they manage somehow to keep a personal equilibrium, they get some non-Romani eyes and then they try to "catch" the Romani identity in a selection of images (as it is the habit of self-expression among the local non-Roma). This is very appreciated by the non-Roma but it is not good from a Romani point of view, remaining effectless, only determining lack of interest, amusement, ridiculing or even marginalization of these "pioneers".

And here I arrive to the other thing highlighted by this article, the Romani vision of "one reality, more perspectives", of keeping all the options open (regarding the interpretation of the reality). Currently there is a widespread opinion (including among an important part of the Romani intelligentsia) that Roma have a backward mentality, they can't understand even simple things. It should be made clear that these non-Romani things are understood very well, but it is unacceptable to become limited by their details. They are employed only from their relative perspective. Hence many things that define in a very self-confident and limited manner segments from reality are not likely to be assumed in a local non-Romani framework, this would cause severe maiming of the personal identity.

I don't know why nobody questioned why these "backwards" resisted in the heartlands of the Western civilization at the height of its cultural influence, when any other cultural areas had to redefine themselves according to it. Some "backwards" with no territorial basis, totally involved in the non-Romani economy for making a living (as the Romani caste names show), employing in the communication with the non-Roma the local non-Romani mental frameworks in order to make possible some mutual understanding, even preserving for the non-Roma some non-Romani traditions, but still always keeping their own point of view. The populations that accept their "backward" status (compared to a "superior" population) cannot handle the novelties brought by the encounter with other culture(s), experiencing a crumbling of their worldview. Their survival is facilitated by geographical isolation, by the minimization of the contacts with the others' novelties, they have to remain alone for not losing their soul. In the case of the Roma and of the other populations employing purity rules, on the contrary, the constant checking of the contacts with the others is not for being alone, but for keeping safe areas where any novelty preserves its relative status, preventing the creation of an inflexible mindset.

These purity rules prevent also the development of a history only determined by a momentary mindset and external circumstances, the history won't simply go in whatever direction may appear available (especially when there arise image-related issues). Every turning point has to stem from the lively identity focused on the reality, otherwise it won't happen anything, there will be a deadlock. During such a stalemate there appear many opinions, there are many theoretical solutions that look available, but any proposed direction will remain sterile, it will not have popular support unless it is obvious that it counts on the lively identity. In the other cases, there were even some Jews that went to Birobidjan in Far Eastern Soviet Union or to Uganda (some of the proposed locations of Israel), in the years 50s-60s of the 19th century there were many trends in the Japanese society regarding a response to the end of the seclusion, but the history started to move on only when it was obvious that the relation with the reality was not lost.

Hence, these contemporary attempts to "civilize"/"modernize" the Roma, in a direct or veiled manner, do not earn support at a popular level. Anyway, besides disrespecting the basics of the Romani culture, they are only pushing and keeping the Roma in a second-class citizen status. They result from giving credit to the current public image of Roma as "backward" and "exotic", becoming focused on interpreting elements of the Romani culture with locally available non-Romani cultural tools. For example, a few weeks ago, in Rumania, it was proposed (by the local Roma's Party) a law aiming at punishing the parents that organize the marriage of their underage children. In practice, this would target only the Roma from some castes (that use to follow this Desi custom). Their reasoning was that it is necessary to become "civilized", to come with a clean image of "civilized" Roma, in order to become a functional part of the modern world. "We are not from Congo", said Nicolae Pǎun, the leader of this party (Congo being in Rumania a popular epitome of backwardness).

As well-intended as they might have been as a theory (from an assimilated point of view), in practice, such initiatives have the opposite effect. They imply that now Roma are abnormal and they will become normal by impersonating the non-Romani neighbors (with the alternatives of assimilating, of becoming an "exotic" clown or of making official the second-class citizen status). It is obviously necessary to do something about the underage arranged marriages, but this should come as a continuity of the Romani culture, it should have a meaning from a Romani point of view. The fact that this practice exists does not suppose an overall inability of the Romani culture, this is certainly not the end of the world. Such opinion is just the result of thinking from the point of view of the local non-Romani majority, which perceives itself as the "normal" one (by employing a "cleaned" self-image), while rejecting the others as "backwards".

The local non-Roma should understand too that the current attempts of "civilizing" the "backwards" are not the first in the Romani history and, the same as in the previous ones, most of the Roma will evade them, especially in areas with high Romani presence. Instead highlighting those assimilated, the "good Roma" who see the Romani culture with local non-Romani eyes, they should be aware of the majority who (unless the Romani culture will have an official presence) will have available only the social positions of "exotic" clowns or officially second-class citizens. Even from a pragmatic point of view, keeping millions of Roma out of the broad society is increasingly inconvenient nowadays. There should be a New Deal that would consider the existence of the Romani worldview and would turn into something positive the multiculturalism of the overall local societies.

The package of measures for ending the current gap the Roma are experiencing should be a clear and popular expression of the Romani worldview. The idea that impersonating the others would solve all the problems only produces dimness and dysfunctional social groups, as it may be seen in so many clueless populations worldwide. However, at a popular level, Roma are not at all amazed by this perspective, we are already civilized and we have a very strong worldview. Moreover, from a Romani point of view, there is no such distinction suggesting there is an antonymy and not a continuity between "traditional" and "modern", a distinction implying that a population sees its identity changing according as its knowledge about the world changes. With such a mental framework, the Roma would have been assimilated few generations after the migration out of the Subcontinent.

This concept of "civilizing" would only make official the current "backward" and "exotic" status, barring any attempt of cultivating the personal culture. It would make permanent the inefficient interpretations of the Romani culture from local non-Romani points of view. For example, the Romani musicians do not use sheet music, a Romani song develops as an improvisation on a certain basic framework. The contemporary "civilizing" attempts would only make official the "exotic" status of this music, with no possibility to cultivate it. The fact that they "do not use sheet music" (the local non-Romani perspective) will continue to define this music, instead beginning an official cultivation of the improvisations on the basic framework.

I want to make clear that I don't disapprove the basic intentions of Roma's Party, on the contrary, it is very necessary a political representation, but it is important to say that their question after every election ("why don't Roma vote for our party?") does not have the answers they propose. This focus on "civilizing"/"modernizing" (thus implying that Roma are abnormal and they have to assimilate), instead coming with a clear Romani point of view, is very unappealing and disrespectful. A century and a half ago, the Japanese too were considered some isolationist backwards, also they accumulated a technological gap that nobody was imagining they will get rid of. If they would have really believed in that public image, becoming ashamed of themselves and accepting their "backwardness" and "exoticism", most certainly they would have remained a Third World overpopulated and hungry country, caught in the vicious circle of the "civilizing" attempts without visible results, with corrupt leaders able to think efficiently only about their own welfare. Instead, the post-seclusion times are the best part of the Japanese history (from a synchronic point of view).

In the contemporary context there is no other way but to work on a public framework of the Romani worldview. It is necessary to cultivate the Romanipen and to become cultured from its point of view, instead of inventing (with the help of the easily available local cultural tools) the same square wheel with no use in the real Romani life. Of course, this would not imply a rejection of other worldviews, there is nothing to reject, only that they should be considered as they are, as one of the many relative worldviews, and employed considering the limits set by their imageries (plus, it should not be overlooked their practical importance, for communicating with the local non-Romani majorities). It should be said clearly that mastering any local image-based cultural worldview does not necessarily make a Rom literate in the personal culture.

It is necessary to turn the tables, to come with a Romani type of history, to put the Romani worldview in an appropriate public framework. Anyway, this would be comprehensive and respectful enough to consider any other known type of history, permitting us to connect with the rest of the world. It would be much more adapted to the "modernity", with a potential of becoming prestigious, of opening new ways for the human development, and it might be also interesting and inspiring for the others. In this sense, it is necessary a focus on becoming literate, cultured from the point of view of the personal culture, then it comes naturally the formal cohabitation with the other cultures. Here, a problem that needs clarification is this Western image of India void of any Desi features, misleading any attempts to clarify the features of our culture. For example, not even a simple thing like the Romani caste system was recognized until now. The notion of India includes the concept of caste system, but this does not share too much with the real Desi life, being focused on an interpretation of the four varn from the point of view of the European counterparts from some millennia ago. It is mostly oblivious of the jati as the meaningful unit of the Desi caste system and of many other features that may be observed also among Roma.

If some feel like, they may consider reinventing the wheel, expressing publicly the Romani culture as exclusively a diasporic endeavor. But I doubt the feasibility of this approach (and what happened until now makes clear that I am right), as a marginal culture with no territorial basis there is no room for such an attempt. Also, it is important to know how it works an entire society that keeps all the options open, in order to understand and cultivate it. Otherwise, the marginal status would only permit comparisons with the majority, once going publicly. Even in the Japanese case, with their clear and homogenous geographical space, as they don't have a local central position, they have no choice but to compare with the others. Hence there appear self-descriptions of the Japanese society as a tree that grows from a pot (as a result of the purity rules), its roots do not touch the Earth. As long as the local broad society praises certain vegetative and inflexible aspects of the social life, such peripheral people cannot help but to think of themselves as an unusual population. This, as long as they cannot come with a decisive public explanation of the fact that from a broader perspective they are in touch with the reality, not living in a self-limiting worldview. That "Earth" that is not really touched by the Japanese roots is just one of the infinite possibilities of interpretations of the World with vegetative cultural tools, one of the "planets Earth" created by any of the existing or possible worldviews.

Anyway, when we will succeed to express publicly the Romanipen, there will come out the same basic features of the other Dharmic religions, when we will manage to cultivate the Romani music, there will appear something similar to the concept of rāg and so on. Obviously, a good understanding of the cultural tools available in contemporary South Asia makes a big difference; it is not necessary anymore the Sisyphean attempt of self-explaining by comparisons with the local non-Roma (otherwise this article would not have been possible). This besides the aspects of the Romani culture that would always remain as a potential, they can't be expressed in diaspora. The diasporic perspective remains important as usually, this clear view of what belongs to the personal culture and what does not (otherwise this article would not have been possible either). If I would think again about the tree symbol, in South Asia there are sacred trees venerated on local basis. However, as a society that keeps all the options open, the wish is to preserve the relative status of the social life's vegetative aspects and even to go beyond them, fact presented in the Dharmic literature as a tree that has to be cut down. This is understood as a theory, as something that has to be done somehow. It is not applied in the social life (only experimented by individuals), such a direct action would only continue a cause-effect chain, offshoots will sprout again. In the homeland it is almost impossible a collective self-uproot from a localized view. Diaspora is the place where one has to stay true to its own reality, where it is clarified what is the personal reality and what is the self-image. If a tree is still growing, it needs to stay in a pot, otherwise it will get rooted in another "planet Earth", another worldview, following soon the assimilation. Further on, the roots will touch neither that "planet Earth" of the homeland, nor the others encountered elsewhere (the moksh of the Dharmic religions). And then the homeland's society that keeps all the options open becomes again important, because in diaspora it is almost impossible a thoroughgoing public self-expression by keeping all the options open.

Such a future direction of the Romani public popular presence would not necessarily imply the "Israel" model, a massive and planned Romani migration in Bhārat. The first half of the 20th century were different times, now the people are increasingly mobile, the communication becomes easier day by day (also the major political players are interested in maintaining the stability, they are quite interdependent (11)). The focus would be on assuring the rights of the Romani minorities everywhere and the freedom of traveling. Once it becomes obvious that it exists an interesting Desi reality beyond whatever imageries may appear, the broad Desi environment would emerge naturally as the adequate space for expressing and cultivating the Romani culture. In this environment, the state of Bhārat/India comes out as the main political system (without neglecting the other South Asian states and the rest of the Desi diaspora). This not only because it comprises most of South Asia, but for being grounded on the basic Desi cultural features, not on particular groups. For the intermediary years of establishing popular relations between Roma and the other Desis, it should be said that the former would not be just consumers of social resources but also suppliers. The Romani worldview will enrich the Desi cultural area. The cultivation of the Romanipen is bound to produce some prestigious and efficient public expressions (very necessary for relating to the rest of the world as a non-territorial minority). Also, in the perspective of an increased South Asian presence worldwide, we have an intimate knowledge and understanding of an important part of the world, which may foster inter-cultural communication. In a millennium of living in diaspora, we always had a non-violent approach in relations with the local people, always promoting the mutual respect. In the perspective of a normalization of the relations between the Roma and the local non-Roma, with the help of the public presence of the Romani culture, this knowledge would be beneficent for both Desis and non-Desis, a lively expression of the millenary non-violent Desi relations with the rest of the world.

For the reasons detailed above it appeared the habit of favoring the use of the words Desi and Bhārat(i), instead India(n), among the Roma who learned about the real Desi people, once it was opened the way by affirming the reality of the Romani people and dissociating from the externally imposed Gypsy imagery. Probably the Roma are currently the only population that pays attention to the word India, is interested in what it really means. The people from South Asia have a local central position, it doesn't matter too much what the others think about them, while the rest of the world just takes for granted the meanings conveyed by India and other locally developed imageries. However, for the diasporic Roma, the situation looks different, determining the deadlock described above. Hence, for example in Rumania, among Roma, it is employed the female name Indonezia (the Rumanian spelling of Indonesia). On the one hand, Indonesia is a different cultural area, on the other hand it is notable that at a popular level it was perceived this word's connection with India (in the usual speech, this is mostly ignored, it is perceived as a full-fledged word). Or Indira, another female name, mostly from the 1970s-1980s, when Indira Gandhi was the prime-minister of India. At a popular level it was assumed that it had something to do with India (while, in fact, it is a Sanskrit word meaning "splendor", "beauty"), this illustrating also the lack of opportunities and of progress in knowing more about the other Desis, folk etymologies are the best thing many can do. Or an interest in the Native Americans, because, at a popular level, they are also Indians. And many other side-tracks "supplementing" India's lack of Desi features.

As I said before, this issue determine uncertainties among Roma who want to become more involved in the local broad societies, many times resulting in either hiding or fetishizing the cultural background. In the former case, the tendency is to impersonate the local non-Roma, to interpret the Romani culture through a local non-Romani worldview, hoping that this identity twist will give them a public and personal stability. In the latter, it is the same tendency of impersonating the local non-Roma; assuming the imagery of the "Indian" identity, in spite of what may think some clueless people, supposes assuming the same local non-Romani worldview. In this sense, I find evocative that special episode "Back where they came from" of the sketch comedy show Goodness Gracious Me. In this show, focused on the contemporary issues of the Desi minority in UK, among the recurrent characters there are the two families of Rabindranaths (referring to themselves as the "Robinsons") and Kapoors (the "Coopers"), who refuse to acknowledge their background, becoming very upset when somebody names them Indians. Well, it is true that they, the same as any other Desis, do not fit the Indian imagery; however, lacking a serious alternative for a public presence, they claim to be English, trying to impersonate stereotypical English families, with humorous results. In the special episode they arrive by mistake, to their dismay, exactly in India. They keep distance from the local people and are relieved when a Western person is offering to help them. However, this guy doesn't consider himself really a Westerner, he assumes the stereotypes of the "Indian spirituality" (that makes this imagery so suitable for fetishization). He becomes their guide, while all along the episode, in the background there are integrated sketches with issues from the contemporary Bhārati social life or with Western reporters at work enforcing the Indian imagery. The same as in the creation process of "Journey to the West", the "Englishmen" and the "Indian" go somewhere in the desert (to an ashram), away from the Desi social reality, in order to find the true India. Here a "cultural clash" follows soon, the Western "Indians" and the Desi "Englishmen" telling each other they live in a fantasy.

The fact is (besides the specific Romani issue that determined this article) that in the contemporary society it is increasingly odd to take for granted such imageries. In the times of writing "Journey to the West", the author(s) didn't have other choices, they really had no idea about the Desi society. In this sense, it is not much to reproach in the image of Tianzhu from this book, this is largely a polite one, inspired by the only image they knew (of their own society). When the characters arrive there by the end of the book, they say that "the country is mostly like our Great Tang Empire, only that the merchandise is cheaper". Even the religious spectrum is the same: Buddhism and Taoism. However, nowadays the reality of whatever cultural area is more and more available and unavoidable. And in the contemporary increasingly multicultural societies it is more than ever necessary to have a viable alternative for a public presence, other than impersonating prevailing local imageries.

Hence, in this particular case, it should be made clear that saying that Roma come from India is as accurate as saying that Roma come from the Moon. The meanings conveyed by the word India have no correspondent in real life, they comprise one of currently available imageries about South Asia, created in other cultural areas. Yes, there is a state known by this name and it is no problem to use this word when it implies it only as a state among others. However, when there are implied the cultural meanings of this word, it is necessary to say that the reality of its society is different. On a relative scale of accuracy, it makes more sense saying that Roma come from Bhārat. Only the imaginary Gypsies came from the imaginary India to settle in the Western imagination.

--------

8) By establishing a hierarchical relation between the "strong" one and the other "backwards" (this when the "backwards" themselves accept their status).

9) Cohabitations between more such images occur also in other areas of the world (just to remind the rest of East Asia or the area of South Asia), but they don't remain face to face; usually they are composed of various degrees of ignoring, trivializing, disputing, subordinating each other or by diverse stages of assimilating each other. Hence they tend to be hazy, unlike this practical contemporary demarcation between what is Japanese and what is not. A demarcation that does not imply rejection or overcoming of the others, on the contrary, self-respect tied with recognition of the other, permitting cohabitations of more images.

10) Here I am writing about the entire group's cultural level, where it does not matter too much what individuals know or know not, do or do not.

11) Of course, there is no guarantee that the international largely peaceful status quo will remain forever, but after some decades the situation of the Roma will not be the same either, there will be other terms, other issues to discuss.

Book Review: First Light by Sunil Gangopadhyay

Shantanu Dutta — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:08:06 EDT

Some books are difficult to classify in any particular genre. They span several; of them and in that journey leap into the classification of epics. And yet an epic is typically a piece of work that only scholars can relish. The rest of us can scarcely dream of touching one of those and make do with adaptations or summaries. But Sunil Gangopadhayay is one author who writes history as if it happened yesterday and the vibrancy of the characters , the urgency of the times, and the fast pace of the narrative never let you realize that you are actually reading and relishing a classic.

Sunil Gangopadhyay’s First Light is a book that once again like its predecessor “Those Days” brings history to life. If only school level history books were so interesting! Those Days roughly deals with the period from 1850-70 and First Light from the period 1886 -1906. First Light is like its predecessor populated by giants the nodal figure being Rabindra nath Tagore. Surrounding him is a raft of historical characters from diverse fields, be it religion, education, the theatre and of course politics.

The book pretends to be fiction but is extensively wedded to historical fact and in actuality fleshes out and humanizes for us the giants we have perhaps read about in our history books but known little about them apart from their iconic status. What Gangopapdhay does for us is paint a very believable and human picture of all these icons – be it people of the stature of Rabindra Nath Tagore or Rama Krishna Paramhansa or Swami Vivekananda or the royal family of Tripura – all are researched carefully and the facts about them are all presented –warts and all.

But the beauty of the book is that though it presents its noblest characters with feet of clay – Rabindra Nath’s leanings towards his sister in law and possibly his niece, Ramakrishna Paramhansa’s fear of death as he lies terminally ill with throat cancer, the opulent decadence of the zamindars and the royalty, their nobility comes out more enhanced because they are presented as humans with understandable failings and short comings.

Amidst all these towering characters who are basically shaping and creating history – primarily of Bengal but also vicariously also of India, the author has also managed to sneak in a love story between two fictional characters – Bharat, an illegitimate son of the King of Tripura and Bhumisuta, a rescued Devadasi and the love story serves the purpose of disguising what is essentially a gigantic lesson in history as a work of fiction.

The meticulously researched book has nuggets of information that I not easily known. That Swami Vivekananda was named thus by the Raja of Khetri, after the Swami had himself chosen a tongue twister of a name; the Raja of Khetri also financed Swamiji’s trip to Chicago for the World Parliament of Religions and also bought him his clothes which incidentally included a Western Suit. That Rabindranath Tagore’s first fan of significance was not any one in Calcutta, but the bereaved Maharaja of Tripura who was so consoled on reading Tagore’s poetry that he sought him out with gifts and presents.

First Light is of course a work of historical fiction but it very vibrantly resonates in the present; much like the Bengal of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century where tradition and modernity ; struggled for space as did faith and reason, the same forces are still battling it out in twenty first century India – albeit under different disguises.

Book Review: Churchill's Triumph by Michael Dobbs

Fleiger — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:20:28 EDT

While the war started by Hitler was knocking on his doors, the three most powerful men in the world met at Yalta from 4th February to 11th February 1945, to discuss the future of the post-war Europe, and the world. The third novel in the Churchill's War series by Michael Dobbs, Churchill's Triumph is the story of those 8 days which plotted the course of many years to come.

While American and British forces are being held in check at the banks of Rhine, the Russian forces are "liberating" the eastern European countries. The Yalta Conference (codenamed Argonaut Conference), considered by many to be the meeting of the Trinity, reminds Churchill more of the Second Triumvirate after the death of Julius Caesar. In reality, The Big Three are not so different from the famed monkeys of the fable.

Stalin has come to the conference knowing what he wants (and indeed has scored the first victory by getting the ailing American President and the British Premier to Yalta instead of Mediterranean), and refuses to hear anything which is not in his agenda. Roosevelt wants his dream of United Nations to become reality (along with Russia's support against the Japanese), and doesn't want to see anything which does not fit his idealistic world. And the third old man, Churchill cannot open his mouth without "offending" Stalin and revealing the big holes in the crumbling façade of the alliance.

But Churchill is facing the possible end of the glorious British Empire and British influence in Middle East as well as Asia. At the same time, his stubborn demands of free democratic governments in east European countries (particularly Poland) is getting nowhere. So he realises that the only his words might shield Poland from complete subjugation at the hands of Russians.

Meanwhile, he meets a young Polish plumber, who is actually an officer who ran away from Katyń, and is now living under false identity. The plumber wants Churchill to take him away from Russian influence before his adopted identity is revealed, and in return gives some important information regarding Stalin's plansand the meetings and deals between Stalin and Roosevelt behind Churchill's back. But history is waiting to place the blame of the inevitable failure of Yalta Conference, and Churchill is determined to show where the blame truly lies, even if it means that he has to go back on his personal word of honour.

Churchill, at this time, is a man tired and tempered by the war. Unlike the man he was at the start of the War, he is far more ready to be silent and listen to others before flying off the handle. Yet he is the same stubborn old man at the core, with his belief in his words (no matter how others twist them) and inability to start a sentence without turning it into an oratory. Again we see the man behind the invincible name, a man who is tormented by his decision to betray a gentleman, and by the knowledge that his two allies (including his friend Roosevelt) do not need him or the British help going forward. But even handicapped like this, he cajoles, tricks and bullies the conference into granting him the promise of free elections in Poland, the inclusion of which in the official communique is bound to show Stalin as the liar he is later on.

Right from the starting travel, when the road is filled with ruins, the story takes a personal turn. The novel is filled with interesting touches like Stalin (on the first day) "sweeping" his hand across the map of Russian territories, and continuing west towards Germany (while remarking on the markedly different successes by Russian and British armies) in Churchill's War Room. This picture shows far better Stalin's mentality, than when he brags later that Russian soldiers take what they can by force. At the same time, the story of Marian Nowak, the plumber and his "family" in Poland gives a far more realistic picture of the ground conditions than any description of statistics or any discussion in the conference would have done.

All in all, this story of three old men (both Churchill and Roosevelt travelled with their daughters, "just in case"), who didn't quite know how to finish what they started, is a worthy successor to "Never Surrender", in all respects.

Of course, being an Indian gives you one more perspective into the happenings. While Churchill is adamant about the democracy in European countries, and is ready to go to any lengths to gain that, he is equally adamant about the continuation of British Empire (it is mentioned by Stalin and Roosevelt many times). That is a bit hypocritical, as history remarks.

Because we all know, the track record of the "most civilising empire in the history of the world" is not exactly perfect. But in all fairness, will the young people in Poland, removed by two generations from the freedom struggle, talk about Russia in the same tones, as we do about present-day England? Or, for that matter, would the Tibetans about China, if they ever get freedom?

Shajar al-Durr - The Only Sultana of Egypt

Kim — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:44:13 EDT

Shajar al-Durr was the only female Sultana to have ruled Egypt for 80 days in 1257 A.D.

She was of Turkish origin and was originally a slave in the harem of the Caliph of Baghdad. She was later gifted to the Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt and Syria who fell in love with her and married her.

On the Sultan's death, his son took over. The son alienated the Mamluk slaves, who soon assassinated him and the step mother Shajar al Durr was proclaimed as Sultana.

Several months later-- due to political pressure for a male sultan-- Shajar al-Durr married an important Mamluk officer, Aybak. Together, they initiated the first Mamluk Dynasty of Egypt and Syria. They shared power for seven years. She thus was a Sultana of Ayyubid Egypt and also the co-founder of the Mamluk dynasty.

She later murdered Aybak, her second husband when she discovered that he had been plotting against her. She was subsequently beaten to death with shoes by the rest of Aybak's concubines.

To date, to the best of my knowledge, she has been the only female ruler of Egypt other than Cleopatra and Hatchepsut.

Her tomb can be visited even today in Cairo. My friend Camel, who is extremely knowledgeable on these matters (location and history of various monuments in Cairo) gave me these directions:

Dear Kim, I visited the Tomb of Shajar al-Durr before, and it sure is around Ibn Tulun Mosque, a walking distance from it. It is not the most pleasant of neighbourhoods, but the locals know the place, and they call it "Obbet el-Sitt Shagaret el-Durr". Just before Ibn Tulun, there is a street called al-Khalifa. Ask anyone to point the direction. If they don't know, ask them for the Mosque of al-Sayyeda Sakina (it's in al-Khalifa Street). Walk that street till you reach al-Sayyeda Sakina Mosque, then go on straight ahead in the same street, and you will find the Tomb of Shajar al-Durr to your left. If you go on in this street, you will reach Midan al-Sayyeda Nafisa, and you can visit her mosque too. Enjoy! Camel - Keeper of the Temple