Today is Independence Day and all the channels on TV are full of gung-ho patriotism. Obviously, the fact that we just won a gold medal at the Olympics has added fuel to the jingoistic fire. Snapshots from the freedom movement rule the day and if i see another file picture of Nehru releasing doves or Gandhi on the Dandi March i will scream. Or of Kapil Dev holding aloft the Cricket World Cup or even Vajpayee giving the thumbs-up after conducting nuclear tests. All nice, fun times. Not a single bad memory in the public archive?
Agreed its a day to celebrate the survival of a nation for 61 years many considered doomed at birth. But living in a world where everyone has rose tinted glares seems to be a daily phenomenon here. Barely three weeks ago, 60 bombs were found in 3 different cities, 25 of which went off, killing a fairly large number of people. Last year, there were bomb blasts in Hyderabad. A year before that, blasts in Mumbai's trains. Six years ago, a communal conflagration whose effects are still seen in every act of politics in that state. A separatist movement in a state given a boost by a communal group's protests - encouraged by a political party with its eyes at the next election - is still raging on.
All of this has faded from public memory. Not a single reminder to any of these events exist. And there will be none for any other events that seem to distract us from the old fantasy of a happy, peaceful India with 'unity in diversity' (whatever that means) propagated through Doordarshan's 5 minute films.
There is not a single post-Independence memorial for soldiers. No mechanism for remembering the tsunami or the various bomb blasts that have plagued us in the last 15 years. No museum dares to put up an exhibit of a communal riot. These symbols of the memory of a shared tragedy are not mere lip service. They become the focus of a collective catharsis which concludes with a will to not let that event occur again. Maybe that's why the same security lapses and the same excuses from governments allow riots and bombs to take place again and again. Or the failure of the met department to predict a cyclone is forgiven time and time again. Or political parties are not ostracised for causing pain and loss to millions of people.
It seems even at the age of 61, India wants to live in an imagination of itself.
15.8.08
3.8.08
Reversal...
Recently there was a small news item amongst all the excitement about the trust vote about women two wheeler riders in Pune. To protect themselves from heat and pollution, a lot of them cover their faces with scarves, which now the police find to be a security threat as one cannot determine the identity of the person with the scarf.
Oddly enough, there was also a woman from the NCW who must've felt she is in some surreal nightmare as she defended the right of the women to cover their heads and faces. A two wheeler rider also felt that if women can wear burkhas and ride bikes, then why can't she wear a scarf over her face. Even stranger was the normally ultra-conservative police force asking women to NOT cover their heads and faces.
This brought to mind a legislation in France a few years ago, which made the display of overt religious symbols an offence, where burkha clad women protested saying its their right to wear what they want to wear. And the modern, secular, gender-sensitive state cracks down on them. Orhan Pamuk's Snow speaks of a similar irony in secular Turkey where wearing the burkha, even out of choice and not out of compulsion, is seen as a sign of fundamentalism and chauvinism.
Secularism and modernity contradict themselves all the time. Yet, it's odd to see and hear things like these, when one more or less thinks the lines between two polarities have been clearly etched and the two sides very easily definable. So does one say that in one case, allowing women to cover their heads is okay and in another it's not?
Or does one simply wear a helmet on a two wheeler?
Oddly enough, there was also a woman from the NCW who must've felt she is in some surreal nightmare as she defended the right of the women to cover their heads and faces. A two wheeler rider also felt that if women can wear burkhas and ride bikes, then why can't she wear a scarf over her face. Even stranger was the normally ultra-conservative police force asking women to NOT cover their heads and faces.
This brought to mind a legislation in France a few years ago, which made the display of overt religious symbols an offence, where burkha clad women protested saying its their right to wear what they want to wear. And the modern, secular, gender-sensitive state cracks down on them. Orhan Pamuk's Snow speaks of a similar irony in secular Turkey where wearing the burkha, even out of choice and not out of compulsion, is seen as a sign of fundamentalism and chauvinism.
Secularism and modernity contradict themselves all the time. Yet, it's odd to see and hear things like these, when one more or less thinks the lines between two polarities have been clearly etched and the two sides very easily definable. So does one say that in one case, allowing women to cover their heads is okay and in another it's not?
Or does one simply wear a helmet on a two wheeler?
It's Finally Over!!! (or is it?...)
The first 4 are of the living-dining room, the 5th one of the study table and the last one of the bedroom. i take horrible photos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)