English, Tamil: Linguistic Capital (1 of 3)

The notion of ‘linguistic capital’ is related to Bourdieu’s view of ‘cultural capital.’ In terms of education and schooling, the cultural capital thesis argues that some students possess the social class, family, cultural background and dispositions that enable them to utilize the school environment and its facilities more efficiently than those who do not. They are better acclimatized to the curricula and other benefits that branch from it. Those who are disadvantaged in this regard, on the other hand, tend to have a weaker grasp of the same knowledge as it is culturally alien to them, thereby affecting their learning and, in turn, their growth prospects. Thus social stratification and patterns of domination and subordination are reproduced, despite the school system’s apparent intention to provide equal opportunity to all.

The same holds true for linguistic capital: it can be defined as one’s fluency, expertise and comfort with a language which is used by groups that possess economic, social, cultural and political power and status in local and global society. The linguistic capital thesis, then, states that students who possess, or develop linguistic capital, thereby have access to better life chances. Schools that teach (in) a language associated with a higher socio-economic status, in effect, provide better opportunities for those who can take up that language. Even if it is offered democratically, there exist a number of barriers that promote selective inclusion. Schools, through their medium of instruction (MOI), are implicated in the production and reproduction of certain advantages in the society; linguistic capital is both the medium and outcome of the pursuit of enhanced life chances.

It is important, however, that we understand the dynamic nature of linguistic capital. It is something that can be acquired even by those who do not have ancestral precedents. So it is not impossible for a Tamil boy with Tamil speaking parents to acquire linguistic capital that is grounded in English or Hindi. It will be inaccurate to suggest otherwise, given how so many of us who went to English medium schools never once conversed in English with our parents.

English, in contemporary India, is essential for white-collar employment and is a key component of the ‘cultural capital’ of middle class Indians. As a significant cultural resource, English language proficiency is an imperative goal for the poor and middle class people to achieve social mobility beyond a point. Many of the jobs available in government and government-aided service sector stipulate knowledge of English as essential. The private sector, even before the economic liberalization since 1991, adopted a similar approach keeping in mind India’s multilingual markets. The outsourcing era has further substantiated proficiency of English as a necessary skill set in the urban employment sector. And the jobs that do not require the knowledge of English, both in organized and unorganized sectors are significantly low paying.

The language divide between those proficient in English and those who are not is also a mirror image of broader class and spatial divisions in India. Simply put, the elite and urban professional classes are well acquainted with English; the urban and rural poor, the farmers, and the local traders and merchants are not. In India, the ability to speak in English is not simply about jobs or economic growth, it's a significant marker of social status. As with many indicators of social mobility in India -- such as property ownership, annual income, employment rate etc. -- the upper castes also tend to be most proficient in English too; as they attend private, English medium schools the most. So a lower caste parent has multiple reasons to want his/her children to be educated in English. As many Dalit scholars have argued, it is a real means of empowerment.

This is a relatively unique situation in India in comparison to countries like France, Germany, or Japan. Although it needs to be mentioned that such 'admiration' for English is common in several other countries, especially in Southeast Asia. It is disingenuous to suggest that there’s a possible parallel between aforementioned countries and India. India is also different in its market structure and the technical modernization (or the lack thereof) that the ‘regional languages’ have gone through.

(continued in next post)

Medium of Instruction

My point exactly:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday frowned upon the imposition of mother-tongue as a compulsory medium of instruction in educational institutions and warned it could go against the interests of students struggling in the competitive world dominated by English language.

It's a point that has been argued several times over by many scholars before. I refrained from writing or talking about it in detail because it was my master's research paper and had plans of expanding it further for my Ph D. But since I've become disillusioned with the idea (of doing Ph D) I'll try to write shortened version of it here or do a podcast on it.

'Talented' Ms. Haasan

If you're not someone who follows all the 'special columns' in mainstream (Indian) newspapers and tabloid sites religiously, it's not that hard to be oblivious of Shruti Haasan's existence. But some of my friends aren't as fortunate. It’s aggravated further if they happen to be in the same 'batch' and went to a similar school as she -- one of those upscale vidhyalaya types located in that part of the city where it's easy to find a coffee shop than parking space.

While talking to one of them, she expressed disbelief and frustration over the kind of attention she's been getting from "all directions." She said how bad she was (at singing) at school and how nobody cared -- suggesting that she's not any better now but somehow the reception has reversed. I wasn't sure if that is the case. I checked couple of her 'performances' in YouTube and my friend was right: Shruti Haasan cannot sing. The good news, however, is that at least half of the people who commented didn't sound all that impressed.

If she sucks so bad why do the mainstream observers, especially men, seem to be entranced by her 'talent'? Well, because "she's hot." Let's suspend our subjectivities on both counts -- her musical prowess and her sex appeal -- and see exactly what that means and how those two things come together.

Sexual objectification and its consumption usually leans on some kind of perversion after a point. Here, perversion is not a debatable entity. No matter where one's moral compass stands, sexual fantasies are often predicated on some kind of perversion from that point. Where some kind of transgression takes place.

Even though there is plenty of free porn available in the internet -- with a lot of 'beautiful', 'hot' women -- why do people seem to be obsessed with "nipple slips" and cleavages of some celebrity? Because, they have already been mentally undressed by a part of their consumers. They're just curious whether their fantasy matches the reality. It's particularly misogynistic when the consumer is a man and the consumed is a woman. Because, a talented woman is superior to the man in question by virtue of their emplacement in the equation. So he brings her stature down by objectifying her sexually -- a common, uncomplicated tactic. The society has already sanctioned a prejudiced morality and status for sex for the genders. It's the reason why almost all curse words, transcending language barriers, invariably invoke a woman's sexual discipline. So when they say "she's hot" they ascribe other not so desirable characteristics too (that of a slut etc.).

Ms. Haasan's case is also a tad bit different. Someone who may very well be just another light-skinned, lanky lass has been credited with talent and aptitude barely discernible by most of us.Again, why?

Consumption is invariably hinged on the symbolic sign associated with what's consumed. Any object that is beyond the most basic human needs (such as hunger) is bound to become a sign in order to be consumed. Without these signs it's impossible to establish the difference between objects; to get/form a sense of uniqueness about anything (Baudrillard).

So Ms. Haasan may be light skinned and lean -- a conforming sign that fits a common sexual ideal -- but how is she unique? Besides, does she have to be unique? That's dependent on how particular you are about your sexual fantasies. For those who do, she has to be unique and 'different' from the rest of the pack. For this, her eyes, nose, hair, and, of course, cleavage may not suffice. Our dear male may have difficulty in putting them together as a unique sign. That's where 'talent' comes to the rescue. It's a safe refuge to preserve their sense of taste and nuance. They're not the shallow men whose penile reservoirs swell at the mere sight of cleavage, it takes serious talent to turn them on. It's only a coincidence that she's 'hot'.

For Indian television that is preoccupied by movies and movie personalities, Ms.Haasan makes for a nutritious fodder. Her relationship with the tabloids and their existence is almost as basic as food and hunger. And given how much our own lives are tabloidized, this bland soup will be 'hot' for a while.

Boyfriend Latte

It is one of the funniest short films I've seen in recent times. It has some mildly choppy moments but overall it keeps its satire relatable and has a profound metaphorical touch (not sure if that's intentional).


Watch it here.

Tamil Humour

One of the first times I heard an incest joke on television was in an episode of Friends -- about Monica and Ross. I must have been 18 then and fairly new to sitcoms. I didn't even get many of the 'normal' jokes then. So this one took me aback. I was shocked that they would make such jokes on television. Shock that was accentuated by the fact that I was watching it in my living room in India. But gradually I got to watching more sitcoms, and jokes likes that weren't uncommon. If it wasn't incest it was something else -- something that broke a taboo.

What is a joke? How/why a joke works? The psycho-cerebral mechanisms behind laughter etc., are vast topics themselves. But suffice it to say that humour is often constructed around the boundaries of absurdity and breaking the subconscious censors in our mind -- visual, semantic or otherwise. Humour becomes a socially potent force when it is transgressive and subversive. This is the point where capitalism and media consumption come together.

 Modern capitalism  -- perhaps, capitalism in general -- is predicated on creating 'new' things. New products, new markets, 'new improvements' and so forth. Something that is capable of invading existing structures and colonizing parts of it, if not all. It exploits a weakness (if you can call it that) in most humans: we get bored of the same thing over a period. (Familiarity breeds contempt -- how succinct?)

In my observation, humour in television and movies (American and British) have consistently broken boundaries than other genres. Because, jokes risk being not funny if they played by old rules -- it's an inherent necessity. While, a great percentage of sitcoms still derive humour out of reinforcing established and normative rules, series like South Park and Family Guy have thrived in subversive humour.  They may not be quite political, but their contribution to the public discourse is significant (good or bad). They enable the fluidity of the rules of engagement by slaying holy cows whenever they acquire an imposing stature. This is one of the biggest failures of the Indian visual mediums.

Let's take the Tamil case:  as Thamizhavan argued elsehwere, the Tamil obsession with morality has greatly stifled the subversive potential of humour in television and films. Being preachy has been a feature in a lot of Tamil humour for decades. It's even a benchmark  for assessing the comedic worth of something -- "sirikka veikkanum, sindhikkavum veikanum" (it should make you laugh and think too). Of course, not everyone who says this truly believes in it. It's just one of the many things that mark the hypocrisy that is all too common for the Tamil society (and the subcontinent itself, perhaps). Their refusal to be transgressive has only preserved the rigid cultural mould and with it the hypocrisy as well.

For all the self-aggrandizing opinions about Tamil humour, it's a largely underdeveloped genre in visual mediums. In over 15 years of cable television's existence in Tamil Nadu, there hasn't been one decent sitcom. It took years for something like Lollu Sabha, which barely whips the holy cows of Tamil cinema, to come to the fore. (They had to apologize even for that.) It might be decades before there's a South Park or a Family Guy. But given how far we've 'progressed' in the last five decades, even that is doubtful.

 Even the capitalistic drive to 'expand horizons' doesn't seem to apply in the Tamil case. Tamil television has gotten every bit as imitative as any except the part where it requires some creativity.  That's why hybrid talk shows and reality TV -- hybridized simply by throwing cinema into the mix -- have made a smooth migration while others haven't. Tamil society doesn't even seem to have the desire to consume something different -- better or not. The fact that these television channels exist, and have been making profit just dishing out garbage, is testament to that.

Tamil humour, unlike its western counterparts, exploits something else: the hypocrisy in Tamils' cultural norms and two tongued nature of their language. In doing so it has the unique ability to generate humour -- or what is perceived as humour -- without pushing any boundaries or being subversive.

 These are the moments I find myself in support of people like Larry Flynt. It seems that you need one kind of regressiveness to disrupt and dismantle the other -- at least as long as profit making is involved.

Ambai's Talk in Toronto

Ambai (C S Lakshmi) was here in Toronto for about a week. I met her for the first time in the Tamil Studies Conference (I'll write/talk about it later). Apart from her presentation in the conference she had a couple of other talks later. I was able to attend only one of them -- 'Tiger's Lair and Other Stories: Tamil Language, Culture and Women' -- and I had it recorded. I hope she wouldn't mind my publishing her lecture here. (Event link.)

Having read a lot of her academic work, this lecture didn't have anything particularly new but it was still interesting.



Download mp3

Indian Media

It has been quite a while since I stopped to talk about the English news channels in India. It's simply too vexing, and at times, depressing. I mostly try to avoid reading or watching the stupid things they put out. But sometimes, somethings catch your attention. This is when you wonder if they are even trying to hide their supposedly hidden agendas. Phrases like, "I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have to take a break at this point, we'll be back soon" have betrayed where their loyalties lie -- to the sponsors and the shareholders, and simply, to profit. Soon they'll be saying, "I'm sure you have something important to say, but we need to sell it midway and make our millions, so hold your thoughts."

Anyway, today I ran into this blogpost written by an NDTV reporter. The post and the comments (which I believe were heavily 'moderated') just lend more credence to the disillusionment one has with the idea of India:

If ever there was a ripe case for a well-planned and executed military operation, here it was in Sri Lanka. President Mahinda Rajapakse and his team went about prosecuting what, by all accounts, was a legitimate war. (emphasis mine)

PS. I watch BBC for about 3 hours everyday. I have for the last 6 years. The only time pressure they have come under is with regard to their scheduled programming.

Indian Censor Board

After a few failed attempts to land on actual CBFC's website I got to this page. I don't know how accurate the clauses/criteria that have been listed are. On face value they do seem fairly consistent with what I've read about the censor board elsewhere.

What surprised me, however, is not so much they have such ridiculous regulations but the number of movies that have slipped under them. I can't think of more than a dozen movies that won't fit this clause alone: "anti social activities such as violence are not glorified or justified."

Either revise the regulations and amend them to reflect a more mature society -- or simply the social reality vis-à-vis the movies that have already come out with a CBFC certification -- or enforce every one of what already exists. It's not new for Indian burearacy to have something in paper and to practice the exact opposite. But the Censor Board of India seems to have reached new heights in this area.

Obsessed With Morality

We have discussed and deconstructed how rigid notions of morality obstructs critical thinking. Thamizhavan extends the thesis to state that it also underpins the savagery of Tamil society at large:

தமிழ்ச்சமூகம் நீதிபோதனையால் இறுகிப்போன சமூகம். அதனால்தான் வன்முறையான சமூகமாகவும் இருக்கிறது. ’பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும்’ என்ற நீதிபோதனையால்தான் பிராமணர்களின் பூணூலையும் குடுமியையும் அறுக்கலாம் என்ற கருத்து அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டது. எதிலும் தமிழ்ச்சமூகத்துக்குச் சந்தேகங்கள் இல்லை. கற்பு பிறழ்ந்த மகளின், மனைவியின் தலையை வெட்டிக்கொண்டு போலீஸிடம் சரண்புகும் சமூகம் இது. சினிமாவில் நியாயத்துக்காகப் போராடுபவன் உண்மையிலும் நியாயத்துக்காகப் போராடுவான் என்ற கருத்து எப்படி வருகிறது? நீதி, நியாயம் என்ற நீதிகள் சமூகத்தின் பிடிவாதம். அல்லது நீதி என்று கருதப்படுவதன்மீதான பிடிவாதம். விட்டுக்கொடுத்தல், அதுவும் சரி இதுவும் சரி என்ற நெளிவுசுளிவு போன்றன வேறு ஒரு சமூகக்குழுவின் குணம், நாம் ’வெட்டு ஒன்று, துண்டு ரெண்டு’ என்று பேசும் சாதி, பேசும் மாவட்டத்தவர் என்று பெருமை அடித்துக் கொள்வதுகூட நீதிசார் மனோநிலையின் விளைவுதான்.

Arundhati Roy's Awakening

Arundhati Roy is one of the most popular "leftist intellectuals" in India, known for her take on several issues including globalization, imperialism, and media.  Given this image, many Tamil activists hoped that she would join their cause in protesting against the GOSL and India. They probably didn't wish for a dramatic demonstration that she staged in the Narmada Dam site, but a 200 word op-ed  or a flashy statement at the end of her lucrative book readings. To get some attention from the English press in India, and possibly English television. But her indifference and silence about the Sri Lankan Tamil issue may have raised doubts about her intellectual depth and integrity even among her fans.

Some Tamil intellectuals -- who were left leaning themselves -- were not surprised, though. Some even likened her to 'Hindu' Ram. Thamizhavan, wrote a very insightful article about a month ago. He identifies the likes of Roy as elite, "half baked, cosmopolitan intellectuals" who pick up issues that "matter" in order to be recognized as progressive thinkers. He says, "talking extensively about Palestine while not blurting a word about Eelam is an important characteristic of this band." Thamizhavan expressed his views in regards to Chomsky's interview to Sri Lanka Guardian (SLG). He argues that politically regressive media houses like The Hindu, SLG, and top "cadres" of the communist parties in India try to "monoplize Chomsky and his ideas" to lend credibility to their politics.

My impression of Roy has always been that of a lazy thinker who picks up pointers from Noam Chomsky and other serious intellectuals. She frames templates based on Chomsky's writings and moulds her views on several issues with them; quite successfully, I must add.

The SL conflict, if she ever thought about it, must have put her in a tight spot, though. In the SLG  interview, Chomsky confesses that he is not well-informed on the ethnic conflict. (Why? We don't know.) So Roy probably didn't know what to say with nobody to plagiarize ideas from. She must have wondered if there is any scope to personalize this issue; something that would also appeal to the smug crowd that quotes her writings and gathers for her speeches. Or she felt that her histrionics can never match the self-immolations Tamil Nadu has seen -- and India hasn't -- the last few months.

With everything pretty much done and dusted with, Roy has stepped into the arena with her article in The Guardian. This article may not do any good to Sri Lankan Tamils, but at least now she cannot be accused of saying nothing about the genocide. The most infuriating aspect about it is that she insults our intelligence right in the first line and maintains that intent throughout:

The horror that is unfolding in Sri Lanka becomes possible because of the silence that surrounds it. There is almost no reporting in the mainstream Indian media - or indeed in the international press - about what is happening there. Why this should be so is a matter of serious concern.

You wonder whether she's talking to herself? Not so. For she absolves herself from the sinful crowd with this indisputable explanation:

Several of us - including myself - who should have spoken out much earlier have not done so, simply because of a lack of information about the war.

She has so much conviction in her defence that she presents the case like a reporter on field would; "breaking the news to the world." The article is also written with a matter-of-fact tone. Quite unlike her flowery expositions about 9/11 or Kashmir. "The few eyewitness reports that have come out are descriptions of a nightmare from hell," (emphasis mine) seems to be the best she could cook. Maybe she didn't realize there's no hurry to turn the article in. After all, she had the patience and intellectual commitment to gathering information for 30 years before she "broke her silence." Hope nobody breaks her jaw for the puerile recital of old facts.

'Uncorrupt' Clowns

In an interview with Gnani, S.Ve. Shekher told that he believed in spirits and that he communicates with his dad's spirit regularly. Later when Shekher spoke about this political ambitions and how he would run things, Gnani quipped, "how are you going to do things differently? By taking advice from your guides in the spirit world?" It didn't even seem funny because of the things Shekher had said until then. That was then, now this:

Why should they not get reservation? In Tamil Nadu, 69 per cent of the people get reservation and ninety five per cent of people enjoy some kind of reservation except the forward community. Where is social justice? There are over 40 lakh Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is the government's duty to give equal opportunities to everyone. Brahmins have been eliminated, insulted and sidelined in so many ways. You cannot punish people for what happened over 50-60 years ago.

Eugenics, Karma and 'Naan Kadavul'

அதிர்ச்சியான செய்திகளை காட்சிப்படுத்துவதன் மூலமே தங்களை வித்தியாசமான படைப்பாளிகளாகக் காட்டிக்கொண்டு வரும் இலக்கியவாதி ஜெயமோகனையும், இயக்குனர் பாலாவையும் பார்த்து நெஞ்சில் ஈரமுள்ளவர் யாரும் ‘அடப் பாவிகளா’ என கத்தாமல் இருக்க முடியாது.

அறுபது லட்சம் யூதர்களைக் கொன்று குவித்த ஜெர்மன் நாஜிகள், அத்துடன் நிற்காமல் ஒரு லட்சம் உடல் ஊனமுற்றவர்களையும், மனநோயாளிகளையும் - அவர்கள் ஜெர்மானியராகவே இருந்த போதும் விஷ வாயுவைச் செலுத்திச் சாகடித்தார்கள் இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரில்!

‘இனத்தூய்மை’ இதற்கு காரணமாகச் சொல்லப்பட்டாலும், வேண்டாத சுமை ஒன்று இறக்கி வைக்கப்பட்டது என்றே அவர்கள் நிம்மதி அடைந்தார்கள்.

‘வலுத்தவன் மட்டுமே வாழ வேண்டும்’ என்ற இந்த ஆரிய வக்கிரத்தைத்தான் ‘நான் கடவுள்’ வழியாக நம்மிடம் இப்போது சுற்றுக்கு விட்டிருக்கிறார்கள.

மேலும் படிக்க

On exclusion, elitism etc.

Since I've decided to delete comments (not moderate) regularly, I might as well make an explanatory post on it instead of stretching the discussion elsewhere. Since the exchange is pretty long, I'll just post them as comments -- as they appeared in the previous post.

A Wednesday: A Terrible Idea

The movie's premise, leaving aside what seems obvious, hinges on the subtextual notion that Muslims in India don't say/do enough to show that they are angered by the terrorist attacks that happen in India. So the director has decided to prove their 'Indianness' through his protagonist -- the 'common man.' But he doesn't want to make it obvious. It's subtle (ok, not so). The 'common man' speaks with a vocabulary quite peculiar to a certain community (mulk being the 'give away' word). So you know that the man behind this holy mission is a Muslim. Oh how unctuous?

The 'common man' who decides to take his anger out in the form of a threat -- another series of bomb blasts -- sends a message to the ruling bureaucracy that he is 'sick and tired.' What exactly is he sick and tired of? The answer to this question and the questions that surround the answer is what makes this movie so problematic.

First, the answer: The 'common man' delivers a sermon in which he describes the afflictions of a middle class man who commutes to work every day. He's troubled by the distant probability of him getting killed by a terrorist attack. Even more so because his fellow commuter -- a youngster with his 'entire life ahead' -- is killed by one that happened 'recently.'

There are about 20 million people living in and around Mumbai. Based on the terrorist attacks that have hit the city in the last decade, the average number of people killed every year would be less than 50. The probability that our 'common man' would be one of that 50 out of the 20 million is quite negligible. Actually, it's like the same guy winning the lottery twice (given that the 'common man' just survived an attack). He's more likely to be one of the 3,500 people who get killed every year on Mumbai's suburban railway lines alone.

Of course, one might say, "terrorism kills some and terrorizes the rest." True. I'll grudgingly admit that the 'common man's anxiety -- that he cannot go to work, and make that day's wage (or more) -- is justified on more practical (and probable) grounds than the improbable death itself. But where does his paranoia and outrage fit?

In a city that is brought to a grinding halt for days, sometimes weeks, every year by the monsoon? In a city where half its population lives in slums? In a city where raging mobs have killed more people than the blasts themselves? In a city where people are mowed down in greater numbers?

No. It fits in his middle class cocoon of a mind, preserved by ignorance and hypocrisy. The same thing that informs the movie's myopic perspective. It's no coincidence that the 'common man' picks four terrorists (three Muslim) to "purify" the country from. (It's quite ironic that he lists Malegaon among the other terrorist attacks.) While he questions why these men weren't convicted (or kept alive?) yet, he doesn't mention why no one is even indicted in many cases involving Hindu mobs.

I wonder if Naseeruddin Shah realized that he has risked becoming the Muslim poster-boy who viciously condemns 'Islamic terrorism.' One that is supposed to love India. Just like Sharukh Khan did in Chak De India. It's quite messed up when you think about it. I have probably been through a lot less than an Indian Muslim has, but even I don't 'love' India. But dare not he/she say that. At least not while in India. As if Naseeruddin Shah wasn't enough, the movie also has a cardboard cutout, Muslim police officer who's ready to get shot in the arm, and perhaps sacrifice his life, for the country. He's one of the many heroes in the infallible body that works day and night to protect the people: the Mumbai police. Need I say more about them?

The truth is, there is no 'common man.' There are those who are not Dalit, not poor, not illiterate, not political, and not silenced. By virtue of not being any of them he's already immune to their social malaise. Their misery doesn't seem to trouble him. The middle class 'common man' has little in common with majority of his fellow humans. 'Common man' is the last thing he should call himself.

Note: If you have not seen the movie yet, this post may not make sense. (This is not a review.)

WTF?

"Smoking kills: Airhostess dies after fight over fag." Really? That's the best you could come up with?

We should probably be happy that they didn't say, "fag-hag dies!"

Slave Labourers

Several documentaries, including those made by the State and Central governments, have 'captured' the lives of those who toil in sweat shops at a young age. It's no secret that child labour and bondage are rampant in India. So you would think that it's not hard for someone from there to believe that forced labour is very common. But Vishnu, who's supposed to be from Kanchipuram, was angry that I said there are slave labourers in Kancipuram, in my last podcast. He wanted me to "stop making stuff up just to increase (my) hits." He also had more to say about my "rants" against Hinduism. I cannot paste his entire mail here, but you can visit any rediff message board and find a close match. I haven't spoken to Vishnu before, but I'm sure he is a you-know-who.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. The district collector himself did not know that it was happening in his town; either that or it's the usual denial we are so used to hearing from our babus. ("150 cases in all of India," adi seruppala.) I was glad to find the BBC report I had mentioned in the podcast -- I had recorded it a long time ago. It's different from the rest in that we almost feel sorry for the government officials. You are touched by how they are cornered, and feel helpless in the face of what they see as futile. You might even want to cry: "Leave them alone, didn't you hear it? The boy cannot study. Stop wasting their valuable their time already. They will definitely take action."
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Reaction

"Two Dalits hacked to death in Tamil Nadu." Even though incidents like these are not uncommon in Tamil Nadu (or other parts of India for that matter), this is probably the first reported incident of this kind since the Law college 'beating'. I'm not sure if as many from the bourgeoisie will react to this as they did for the former. But I reckon this will be talked over for days in Tamil TV channels and written about in all major news papers in length. Editors of these media houses would do that much to save their faces.

Well, who am I kidding?

Defiance

"Sri Lankan players attacked, tour called off." Come on now! You can't let the terrorists win!

Feeling Good

One of the benefits of online communication with friends is that you get introduced to brilliant material once in a while:

Slumdog Millionaire is the type of film that depicts the horror of slum residents washing and drying their clothes right next to speeding trains as a kaleidoscopic, ethnic, patchwork mosaic; the scenes leading up to Jamal's mother's murder are an idyllic tableau of women doing their wash, exoticized and idealized. Boyle's visual style is all bombast and ego, zooming racks and aerial shots that minimize an audience's need to confront the realities of life in a third world ghetto. When all else fails, here comes more of the slo-mo, retard tingle attached to a long look at beautiful inamorata Latika (Frieda Pinto). Paired unhappily with dogme95 Anthony Dod Mantle's trademark ugly cinematography, the result is this jigsaw monster of a movie that seems to recognize the hideousness of its subject before forcing itself to plaster on a jester's smirk--the visual equivalent of a nice pat on the head. No doubt someone's already formulated the argument that it's just a harmless allegory of one illiterate urchin's predestined rise (Boyle reprises his own repugnant Millions in that sense), but a closing credits sequence that hijacks Bollywood's musical extravaganza with the entire cast of extras suggests otherwise. The cruellest irony of Slumdog Millionaire is that, like (wait for it) the also- impossibly-popular and instantly-dated Juno, it's an archconservative message that causes liberals to feel inordinately pleased with themselves.

PS. Congrats to AR Rahman. I am happy for him.

Zoned Out: Maths

After a tiring argument, "say what you want, but an eye for eye would leave the whole world blind!" concluded Dhimma
"Wait. I take your eye, and you take one of mine in return. Doesn't the story end with both of us with one eye?" asked Murun
-"Well...I guess. But what if I took one back from you after I lost my first eye because I forgot that I started it?"
"Then I'll be left with no eyes and I can't pluck your last eye even if I wanted to. Your conclusion doesn't add up even then. Do you want to rephrase?"
-"Ok. In a world in which people don't know their math or with selective amnesia, an eye for an eye would leave everyone blind!"
"No, it still doesn't make sense."
-"The geezer didn't know what the hell he was talking about, did he?"

Obsolete "Truth"

“Spirituality” and “mysticism” are some of the ideas that are given to mixed understanding by people and scholars of different backgrounds. As an atheist with an empiricist worldview, I tend to deconstruct all ideas of spirituality and mysticism, and ultimately reduce it to an actor’s experience within a structure. It is unlike Freudian psychoanalytic reductionism, though. I do not really try to or find it purposeful to “demystify” the “experience” a certain way. Just like all the inexplicably surreal dreams many of us have regularly. I simply dismiss them. They are irrelevant to life in a materialist, physically grounded world that follows rules that are decipherable by our basic, shared senses – either directly or through instruments. Its validity and accuracy aside, psychoanalysis may be necessary insofar as philosophical and epistemic reasoning – of the simplest kind, such as deconstruction – do not enlighten the visions of “enlightenment.”

Spirituality in of itself risks extinction if it is not communicated through a materialistic form. All mystical experiences – of “pure consciousness” or otherwise – have to be mediated semiotically even for self-explanation. Verbalizing it makes it even more distorted (or manipulated) with interplay of specific cultural signifiers and semantics. Even that, assuming the person has not consciously fabricated the said experience itself. So Ramakrishna may have been honest about all his “visions” but they were still a product of his environment. I do not care if it was his suppressed homoeroticism that subconsciously transfigured into his mystical experiences, they were all constructed nevertheless. How or why is immaterial. My interest and respect for him (whatever I have) comes only from his politics.

On the same token, God’s relevance is more important than God’s existence – it’s a point of ontological divergence. Advaita Vedanta’s notions of “absolute truth”, Brahman, “essence” etc., need to be treated as such. “Who are you?” is not that tricky a question. The answer “I am who you are asking it to” would rubbish all its non-dualistic connotations. All objects are perceived relationally and an object’s state devoid of its relation to the subject – in its “essence” – is of little value in the physical world. Actually, I disagree with the idea itself; that there is an inherent, singular “nature” or “spirit” for every object, outside of human observation. It's a notion akin to the "ultimate purpose" of human life.

Spiritualists seem to rely solely on analogical simplification when their obscurantist claims are deconstructed. The problem in doing so is that analogies are inherently meant to simplify and are hence circular. The way a straight train is made to climb around mountains by exploiting minor flexibilities in its path. (Yes, it’s meant to be ironic.) The only thing about spirituality that I find worthwhile is the philosophical analyses of phenomena in the material world within its terms. Such occurrences, however, are rare in most cases. Most of them have an uncanny, theologically motivated obsession with fatalism.

I do not see this as “Western philosophies’ inability to understand/accommodate the Orient.” It is rather unfortunate that our people were colonized when the West was busy philosophizing matter. Because, a land mass with languages as complex as any European language would have churned out its share of philosophers who would have propounded the same ideas – it’s an undeniable statistical probability. It is disingenuous and escapist to exploit temporal precedence to forward irrational ideas. Of course, rationality itself is a useless Western idea, isn’t it? Indians could have never come up with that on their own. It’s better not to talk about positivist, neuroscientific studies etc.

Experience tells us that for all the God’s supposed communication with its most ardent disciples – gurus and spiritual leaders – people end up doing what their political space allows them to do. A country such as India stands testament to this assertion. The ratio of god-men and inequities among the people is perhaps the worst in this part of the world. Most spiritual gurus here are supposed to have had some kind of “authentic spiritual experience” at some point of their lives. They meditate, fast, chant and do everything to achieve “nirvana” – a mental state that, among other things, keeps out the travails of the “real” world. Why seek political emancipation when “spiritual emancipation” puts you at a better place in the society? If only the poor and the oppressed learnt to fill their stomachs with spiritual food.

From Ramakrisha who convulsed at the sight of money to Jayendra Saraswathi who is bathed in gold coins, spirituality in India has sure come a long way. Most of the spiritualists, I would argue, are not really waiting for their Gods or gurus to say what to do. In spite of all their Sanskrit mumbo-jumbo, they exist and operate in the materialistic domain. It's just another weapon in their wide arsenal to achieve/preserve their elite status and social elevation. If nothing, some kind of respect for their "aura." They are the neo-hippies. “What about the unassuming ascetics by the banks of Ganges?” you may ask. All I can say is, “keep their weed supplies uninterrupted.”

True Postmodernist

"I wish my first word as a child had been 'quote,' so right before I die, I could say 'unquote.'"
- Zach Galifianakis

Podcast: Violence, Disenfranchisement and Statehood

Download mp3; download mp3 (Odeo Link)

1'-5': Protests in distant lands -- far from where it may actually have an "effect".
5'-12': An individual's interaction with the state; role of violence in maintaining a statehood.
12'-14': Nationalist arrogance
14'-19': Why should the systemically marginalized and the oppressed live by a state's laws?
19'-23': Periyar and Tagore on "India" the nation.
23'-28': Constructing nationalist loyalties; erosion of leftist perspective in mainstream media. (pothu putthi - common/mainstream sensibility.)
28'-35': Muthukumar's self-immolation; Tamil Nadu's indifference to protests and the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils.

Related blog entries: நாகார்ஜுனன்; ஜமாலன்; முத்துக்குமாரின் கடிதம்.

முதலாளித்துவம்

அடுத்து அவன் நூறு டியூப்பற்பசைகளோடு மட்டும் நின்று விட முடியாது. ஏனெனில் சோப் தயாரிக்கும் மற்றுமொரு பெரிய முதலாளி தனது சாம்ராஜ்ஜியத்தை விரிப்பதற்கு பற்பசை தயாரிப்புக்குள் வரலாம். எனவே பற்பசையில் வெற்றி நாட்டிய முதலாளி இப்போது சோப் தயாரிக்கும் போட்டியிலும் இறங்க வேண்டும். இப்படித்தான் முதலாளிகள் சக முதலாளிகளை அழித்து ஏகபோக முதலாளிகளாக மாறி ஒரு நாட்டையே கைப்பற்றி பின்பு பல நாடுகளை வெல்லும் ஏகாதிபத்தியமாக மாறி இன்று மேல்நிலை வல்லராசாகவும் தலையெடுத்து நிற்பதற்கு அடிப்படையாக இருக்கிறார்கள். எனவே மோசடியும், ஊழலும், திருட்டுத்தனமும், முதலாளித்துவத்தை நீடித்திருக்கச் செய்யும் அடிப்படை விதிகள். இப்படித்தான் முதலாளித்துவம் இயங்க முடியும். முதலாளிகள் எல்லாரும் உழைத்து கஷ்டப்பட்டு முன்னேறியதாக கிழக்கு பதிப்பகத்தின் அசடுகள் வேண்டுமானால் கழுதை விட்டைகளாக புத்தகங்களை வெளியிடலாம்.

Source

Australian Open 2009

Federer hit a winner at the end of a very interesting rally against Korolev. Before Federer could serve again, the chair umpire interrupted and said, "[w]ait please, we are still amazed."

Zoned Out: Authenticity

Gautam, there's been a lot of buzz about your trip to Hollywood. Please tell us about your experience there.

I went there to promote Varanam Aayiram for the Oscars. I think we have a good chance in at least five categories, including The Best Director. That's where I met with Mel Gibson and as usual, we sat down for a drink. You know, we share the same pro-American, pro-capitalist, pro-nationalist, pro-police, pro-military, pro-war, pro-elite, anti-feminist, anti-Islamic, ant...

Yes, yes, and?

What I mean is, we both go a long way. He said, "hey kiddo! (that's how he calls me) I've been asking you for years now, when are you going to make a film for me?" I narrated a story I had prepared for Warner Bros. He liked my story a lot but he wanted some changes in the script. He sent a few DVDs of his films so that I can incorporate some elements from it. I said it's impossible to add two more rape-murder scenes and walked away. The story is now a part of the movie I'm working on.

There are many who criticize that your characters speak too much Tamil and that it's a tactic to force sophistication in your movies, what's your opinion on that?

I never understood where this is coming from. I try to set my characters in real life scenarios in their absolute, raw authenticity. I cannot force my characters to not to be what they are. For example, in my next movie Vilikalil Amilam (விழிகளில் அமிலம்), the hero blurts, "ni periya mayirandiya?" whenever his authority is questioned. Now, please tell me if English could have done justice for this emotion?

I suppose not. The title sounds very interesting, what is the movie about?

The title has a profound meaning. You'll understand if you watch the movie. The movie is about this auto driver whose only ambition in life is to make love. He had sex, he got laid, he fucked, he humped, he fornicated, he: fed the kitty, varnished the cane, peeled the banana, shanked the shaft, pushed the button, creamed the kaboose, drove the stick, jumped the gun, climbed the mountain, washed the fruit, watered the plant, boinked the bandy, dipped the chip, glazed the donut, drilled the desert, boned the cone, stormed the trenches...

Ok! I think we get the point.

Yeah, so he does everything but make love. The story tries to paint a realistic picture of the protagonist's struggles in finding that decent, good girl who says, "I want to make love to you!" and makes his life worthwhile.

I'm sure the audience cannot wait to watch the movie. Thanks for a candid interview.

Anytime, mah nigga! I's jus keepin it real, fo' shizzle my nizzle.

(Did you just say that?) Never mind.

Also read: Gautam Menon's other "candid" interview

White men

Calling for groups to be treated as separate entities with differing motivations, he wrote that it was not a "simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil" and treating them as such was a mistake.

This is why the British are way better than Americans.

Zoned Out (new series): Blue eyes

"Is that your mother in the photo?" said C2
-"yeah, she is."
C2 walked closer to photo hanging in the wall. "Oh my God, she looks so beautiful!"
"Thanks," said Mundi. C2's observation seemed to gratify him.
C2 called me and pointed to the photo.
I said, "Is that Mundi's mom? Cool"
-"isn't she pretty? I mean, look at those beautiful blue eyes!"
"meh…" and rolled my eyes as if to say "whatever!"
C2 was somewhat upset over my reaction, but she didn't say anything. I don't know if Mundi noticed either of us.
C2 and I are good friends and roommates. Mundi drove us to our building. C2 remained quite as we took the elevator and walked to our apartment; something's coming up for discussion.
“What the hell is wrong with you?” asked C2.
"What happened?"
-"didn't you think your reaction was completely uncalled for? Why did you have to be such an asshole to Mundi?"
"What the fuck are you talking about? It was your comment that was completely uncalled for!"
-"what was so wrong about saying Mundi's mother was beautiful?"
"Ok, let me break it down for you. You made a completely gratuitous aesthetic judgment and you expressed it out in the open too. She is Mundi's dead mother, how the hell does it matter to anyone that she was supposedly beautiful?"
-"not even to Mundi?" interrupted C2 quite angrily
"No wait, please let me finish. This is what you seem to assume: it's perfectly alright to say that someone is beautiful, especially if it's a dead person. You assume that those who are related to the said person will be pleased"
-"oh, you're such a genius for figuring that out. So much for 'deconstruction'"
"Wait, wait, I'm not done yet. While you may be right in your assumption, what you said is still problematic. First, let me get the cliché out of the way. She looked beautiful to you, why should others or I agree? Second: you are talking about Mundi's mother. Why should he be pleased that his mother was beautiful? Is he going to get any more closer to his dead mother because a member of his society thinks she is beautiful? I mean, if you really wanted to make him happy, you should have said his d…"
-"that is so sexist!"
"Well, you are his girl friend. He wouldn't mind that kind of appreciation. Being a 'manly man' as he is, he would have loved it for you to go public about his penis. If you think that ..."
-"will you cut down on the rambling and make your point?"
"What do you mean? I think I've made my point abundantly clear. You just lapped up the bullshit practice of saying that people are beautiful when it doesn't and shouldn't matter the least bit and I refused to participate in that charade. And what's with these ‘blue eyes’, long hair crap? Anyone can get a pair of cheap contacts and make their eyes look blue, purple or whatever"
-"but they are not natural!"
"Yeah, racially natural and naturally racist! When did we start caring about 'natural' shit anyway? Give me a minute...you see this cow? That's what natural means in 2009. Which era's 'natural' are you talking about?"

Disclaimer: All conversations and characters (including mine) in the Zoned Out series are and probably will be fictional. Characters may appear too self-righteous, intelligent, vevaram, one-dimensional etc., and their conversations exaggerated.

Montage: Dasvidaniya

This video is a montage to one of the best movies I saw in the year 2008, Dasvidaniya.

It was pretty hard to find a song that would present a complementing mood to a montage for this movie. Finding a song for such projects is the toughest, most time consuming part. But I'm more than happy with what I ended up with. It could not have been better, I think. People who have seen the movie may understand why.

Editing the video took over 6 hours for me. Others could have done it faster perhaps. Structuring a narrative within a montage is a tricky thing. You have to decide whether you want to go fully linear or fully random or quasi-linear? This video is quasi-linear. So all the time I spent thinking what a clip would mean at a certain point might not make any sense to others. What I have tried to make sure, though, is to go with the mood of the song as much as possible. After all, it is a montage.

I'm glad that I finished this project unlike my four or five others that are half or less done and kept in limbo for over a year. There are some minor editing errors that I have left out simply because I was tired of rendering 20 versions of the same song just to make little changes.

Slumdog Millionaire

This movie is so full of it. The teenage kids can't act, the stereotypes are beaten to death and the juxtapositions are ridiculous. Life in the slums could not have been exaggerated, romanticized and yet contradicted into a weird concoction worse than this movie has.

The only way to watch the movie is to not take it seriously (as Boyle does sporadically); even though it deals with communal riots, child abuse, gangsters, sexual violence, poverty, social prejudice etc. After all, it dares to break into a self-mocking song and dance in the end of it all. "Hey, they are just celebrating the spirit of the youth and the triumph of the underdog! Just chill, will ya?" Sure.

I wonder what people like Mira Nair (Salaam Bombay) and Dev Benegal (Split Wide Open) have to say about this clueless caricature that deals with topics that are too many even for a quiz-game show.

PS. I liked the background score, though.

நித்திரையின் நிந்தனை

யார் அந்தப் பெண் என்று தெரியவில்லை. அவளோடு நல்ல பழக்கம் உள்ளது போல கடைத்தெருவில் பேசிக்கொண்டே வருகிறேன். நாங்கள் இருவரும் திருநல்வேலியில் என்ன செய்து கொண்டிருக்கிறோம் என்றும் தெரியவில்லை. சில நிமிட நடைக்குப் பிறகு அந்த இடம் வந்து விட்டது. உள்ளே இருந்து ஒரு குரல்,"உள்ள வாங்க தம்பி"
நான்: "இல்ல, பரவால்ல, லேட் ஆச்சு. போலாமா?"

சூழ்நிலை சற்று தெளிவாகியது. உள்ளே இருந்த ஆள் வீடுத்தரகர். எங்களுக்கு வாடகைக்கு சில வீடுகளைக் காட்டப்போகிறார்.
ஏதோ ஒரு வாகனத்தில் சிறிதுநேரப் பயணம். முதல் வீடு. ஒவ்வொரு அறையையும் நோட்டமிடுகிறோம். தரகிரடம் ஏதோ பேசுகிறேன். ஒரு கேள்வி மட்டும் நினைவில் உள்ளது; காரணம் அவர் கூறிய பதில்.

நான்: "வீடு மார்கெட்டுக்கு பக்கம் போல?"
தரகர்: "ஆமா தம்பி. ஆம்பளைக்கு அஞ்சு சந்து, பொம்பளைக்கு எட்டுச் சந்து" என்று சொல்லிச் சிரித்தார்.

உறக்கத்தின் அடைப்பில் சிக்கிய என் ஆழ்மனது, குழம்பிக், குலுக்கி போட்ட குப்பைகளில், நினைவில் இருக்கும் இக்கனவின் கடைசி வரி போன்று வேறெதுவும் என்னை பாதித்ததில்லை.

Note: 2

Pointers for the ignorant:

1. Dalit is not a caste. It's social identity that is constructed in order to subvert the demeaning status(es) accorded by the Hindu religion.

2. Dalit pride and Thevar/Gounder pride are not the same. People who cannot see the difference can be safely categorized as idiots.

For further reading.

Note

This is no coincidence.

Caste: I am not, but I am

Anyone who even dabbles in academia, especially in the social sciences, would be wary of making a singular, essentialist statement about caste. Because, caste in contemporary India operates in several layers, constantly renegotiating their exertions with varying space and time. Socio-historical emplacement, political and economic disenfranchisement, aesthetic and racial overtones, and linguistic and symbolic violence are some of the layers that complexify the idea of caste in public discourse. Nevertheless, at the risk of being wordy and simplistic, I’ll try to present my understanding of caste in a way that is most relevant to an audience that browses through blogs like this. (In saying so, I do not mean to characterize the readers’ acumen one way or the other.)

Ideology vs. Social Reality

One of the primary attributes of caste is the identity it imparts on an individual. The identity is so rigid that even Marxist theorists have floundered in their assessments about caste. I have a friend who, at least according to him, grew up in an environment that allowed him to be oblivious of his caste identity. He wasn’t aware of his fellow students’ either. So caste, seemingly, played a minimal role in how he turned out. In one of our conversations I referred to him as a Brahmin and he objected to it. He said, “I don’t even know what it means to be a Brahmin and I don’t care if I am not one. Why do you want to make that association still?”

While many of us may not identify ourselves with any caste (or religion) anymore, we cannot ignore that it’s only in principle, and our actions as we understand it. My friend may have been unaware of his caste himself, but the environment probably wasn’t. Privilege is a relative idea that needs be situated to appreciate it. He, to a slightly lesser extent, I and a lot of us are privileged in that we were not made to sit out of class rooms, served tea in a separate tumbler, denied entry into a temple, and patronized by the government – some of the many forms of oppression the lower-caste individuals go through.

Being in this privileged position enables us to form a worldview that is often devoid of critical assessment of power structures that bind us. For we are not at the bottom of the pyramid; status quo, as long as it enables our mobility, is not a problem [1]. We make every reason to defend the substructures – like religious dogma, morality, partisan ethics, “merit” etc. – that limit the access to power to the others. The most disturbing aspect of this equation is the upper caste rhetoric that tries to conceal the underlying ruthless, ant-colony behaviour [2].

I remember a lecture during which one of my professors spoke about the time she realized she was white. She probably knew she was white all along, but it took that one moment to remind her how she’s different from the black or the brown. As she put it, “the realization didn’t change my race, but it urged me to racialize more issues.” The same applies to caste and a society where castes exist. I may detest my caste now, but I still would not be able to divorce the privilege it rendered – from within and by others – in the past and it may in future. We cannot stop “drawing casteist lines” until social reality re-orients itself with the ideology in pursuit.

The Social Brahmin

Who is a Brahmin? If I were to present an apologetic/defensive case, I would probably cite verses from the Gita or numerous other scriptures. I might even use a carefully concocted narrative that makes it all seem perfectly reasonable – as in Cho’s Enge Brahamanan. But a moral hierarchy is inherently problematic for any academic, whether he/she is a Marxist or a post modernist. The existentialist quest to be the “superior” – irrespective of the means and accessibility to the said quest – is of negligible importance.

What is important is the status of the social Brahmin (just like the social Hindu). Cho Ramaswamy, for instance, has often said that he is not a Brahmin because he doesn’t possess the “superior” qualities of one. I have seen many bloggers and other "internet individuals" take a similar stance. Quite ironically though, they have also mentioned “I’m a Brahmin by birth” elsewhere. Regardless of what their stance is, the priest in a temple would probably not recall Cho’s theoretical distancing from a Brahmin; and my light skinned friend is likely to get a better reception when he steps into an Alwarpet music store than I would.

These are only relatively subtle elements that elevate the social Brahmin. A theoretically rigorous and academic approach would delineate several factors – disputing the myths of cultural and racial superiority – that contribute to ‘the Brahmin success story’. It would be redundant for me to argue why there are more Brahmins in the elite educational institutions of India or why there is a disproportionate number of Brahmins abroad. So I can never sympathize, at least not as seriously, with a Brahmin who claims to be a social victim of some kind.

The "Excess"

Power and exploitation become central to any ideology if it can lend enough credence to its chastity. Brahminism, as an ideology that propagates rigid, hierarchical structures based on piety, vocation and its modern variants, is at the core of the caste system. It has been appropriated and re-asserted by several castes over several hundred years – the prominent ones being Gounder, Thevar, Chettiyar and lately Vanniyar. It may seem as if scholars, mainstream writers and bloggers ‘attack’ Brahmins more than other castes. But their ubiquitous presence in various media, quite ironically, is the very reason for the seemingly excessive criticism. There are more members from the Brahmin community defending some form of Brahminism in written media – mainstream or otherwise – than any other. Among all the upper castes it’s the Brahmins, at least in my observation, who are the least invisible in urban areas.

Frankly, I do not see any reason to tone down the criticism of someone who has the insolence to claim an essentialist, oppressive identity in public space – be it Brahmins or other upper-castes. What we need is not a reduction in censuring Brahmins, but increase in including Gounders, Thevars and Vanniyars. For the latter hold Brahminism not only in principle but execute it with utmost vengeance. The treatment of these castes in media like cinema – especially in movies like Chinna Gounder, Thevar Magan etc. – is reflective of the appalling insensibility that Tamils as a society have engendered.

If anyone is outraged by what’s been said so far because he/she belongs to a particular caste, he/she should ask himself/herself, “why do I care?”

--------------------------------------------------

[1] – Contrast the protestors, dressed in trek shoes and jeans, against the quota system with Dalits in tattered clothes protesting for basic human rights. The state’s indifference to either of them is a different issue in itself.

[2] - Upper in upper caste cannot be put in quotes because we are referring to a system in which hierarchy is intrinsic. To argue that all castes are equal -- by using quotes -- is flawed considering what constitutes caste.

Consuming Music: School days

Music, as I consciously heard and enjoyed for the first time, came out of a radio. Even though we had a tape recorder at home, my father never got into the habit of buying cassettes. I still managed to listen to a lot of songs because of the people around my house. Someone or the other would tune into a station that's playing something from Tamil movies. Home to school, the songs would have a discontinued play as house after house, shop after shop would take the baton as I proceed in my bicycle. I even developed a common "talent": I used to be able to identify a song within a few seconds of it playing in the radio or whatever the source is. Sometimes I would sing through the entire song, word for word. I've even tried my hand at one of those school "singing competitions." That was Dindigul.

Even though Madras was quite different from Dindigul, I never had trouble "belonging". I went to a very 'middle-class' school. It didn't have too many rich kids, there was no play ground, we didn't speak any English among ourselves and the school wasn't big on "extra-curricular activities". Of course, it had a fair share of "Madras Brahmins" known for their ginormous gobs. They spoke more about cricket than playing any, giving a new meaning to the expression "vaayilaye vada sudrathu". Some of these kids would also sing -- because they'll be asked to -- something "carnatic" if the teacher fails to show up for a class and it's substituted by the music teacher (and you know where she comes from). I have a vague memory of an argument over Ilayaraja and A.R. Rehman with these people. I think I sided with Rehman.

Meanwhile, my musical horizons were widening. No, I didn't learn to play anything. I listened to English music for the first time in my life, thanks to FM Radio and DD Metro. I was struggling quite a bit with the lyrics, though. I could probably make out 10-20% of what they said, but I was now able to appreciate -- however superficial it might have been -- the music and music videos that were produced in the 'West'. There was a subconscious sense of sophistication. My parents' aversion for western music -- the little I got to watch on DD -- validated the feeling.

The songs and the artists were still slippery and I thought the odd mention of Michael Jackson and Prince would suffice to achieve some "hipness" at school. But the dweebs who sat behind me knew more than just MJ. They were both Christian and knew how to play the piano too. I don't even remember any of the names they threw at me during our 'debates' about the "unoriginal music" Indian music-directors were churning out (hail sophistication!). Thankfully, though, they were too "ugly" to make me feel insecure.

Self consciousness is a tricky feeling to tackle, especially when you're young.

Higher Secondary: a lot of new kids from other schools -- usually, the scum of PSBB and KV -- got into mine. Even though these kids were rejects in a sense, they were walk-in alpha males in my school. They did not have to fight other males and establish their territory before their status was acknowledged. Because, they were representatives of the gentry -- they just colonized the rest of us. Yes, there was an untold us and them. Communicating in English and pulling "conventish" pranks on each other and some teachers, they were the quintessential post-pubescent "players". Pretentiousness, their 'game' platform. They were learning French while we were "stuck" with Tamil.

As for music, most of them didn't get beyond Aqua and Ricky Martin -- the most popular of pop music. However, there were a few who would mention Metallica and Aerosmith once in a while. I don't know how, but I became friends with these guys. They introduced me to rock music. As is the case with many, I didn't like rock music one bit. The first time I listened to Metallica I had a headache the whole night. Pop and techno had a straightforward appeal. So the two years in higher secondary didn't change too many things as far was my knowledge and exposure of non-Indian film music was concerned. Next stop, college.

You may be wondering what happened to girls in all of this. Fooling around with girls wasn't big in any of the schools that I went to. The teachers would go "fundamentalist" if they saw anyone "talking too much" with girls; it's worse if it's outside the school. Personally, I had a very low esteem in terms of sex appeal to be worried about girls. So internet porn was a better, non-judgemental alternative to keep my mid-teen curiosities under control. (Related podcasts: one and two.)

More in the next post.

PS. This post was inspired by the movie Ghost World. It became an instant favourite and I highly recommend it.

Food

Just wanted to post this as a filler until I make a real post.

Stupid Me

I had not made any research about Bharathiraja's background until now and I assumed he was from a Dalit caste (because of his proverbial friendship with Ilayaraja). Turns out he is from the Thevar caste.
Now that I know the truth about Bharathiraja's caste, I'm so embarrassed by the misjudment. Damn! His movies and characters...it all makes sense now.

Smoking

The health effects of second-hand smoking is one of the fiercely debated topics by policy makers and lobbyists in all countries. This debate has come to the fore again, at least in the Indian media and blogosphere, following the ban on smoking in public places.

A problem that I face almost everyday: when I get out of the subway and run to my office every morning -- when I'm panting and breathing heavily -- the sidewalk is hogged by a series of smokers. I usually try to get ahead of the smoker right in front of me only to find there's more. I don't know if going through this cycle everyday for a few years is going to give me lung cancer, what I do know is that it gives me a bad headache and nausea immediately.

Smoking in bars, restaurants and other such 'public places' has been banned for a long time in Canada. What's interesting, though, is that these are places that I can actually avoid. It's the 'public space' that I'm more concerned about. Especially busy sidewalks where one out of five is always smoking, making it virtually impossible to escape it. That gets us to the question on infringement of others' rights. If I called for a smoking ban on roads and parks, am I infringing on the smokers' rights to pleasure themselves? or is it the other way round? Whose rights is superior here?

Personally, this issue is a little too complex for me to take a stance. Because, I'm a proponent of the "right" to self-inflicted harm -- through drugs, adventure sports or masochistic outbursts -- as long as it doesn't drag others into it. But it's a very problematic stance in that people who "care" about you are affected invariably. It's even more problematic in countries like Canada where the State guarantees comprehensive health care to all its citizens. If I jumped from a building trying to kill myself and ended up alive with a broken spine, the State will not only prosecute me for attempted suicide, it will also spend public money to get my back straightened. (India's health care system may not be as good, but legally they are obliged to do the same.)

Cigarette is one of the heavily taxed commodities in Canada. The rationale behind it, in my opinion, is similar to auto insurance. A driver who is statistically more probable to get into an accident pays more premium. The same logic is applied in self selected health insurances: a person more prone to physical ailments -- generally based on his/her medical history and habits -- would be charged more premium. But in universal health care systems taxing the product directly is the only way to balance out, at least in principle, the extra burden caused by the high risk population. However, I'm not sure if kitchen knives and roofing equipment are taxed as much.

What's ironic in all of this is the opinions voiced by some self proclaimed anarchists. The idea of individual right stems only from the acceptance of a statehood and its legal system. Any system that is completely anarchic will still go through prohibition, compensation, risk and consensus before a practice is established as 'acceptable'. A characteristic shared by most States. So if the State deems that my right to not have a headache is superior to others' right to give me one, there is little to argue over it (unless it's with the State itself). Of course, the anarchists do not have any other option because they exist, in most cases, within a State. For they cannot escape statehood and still proclaim the space that gives them the "right" to be anarchic.

So all the talk about rights boils down to one perspective: I think smoking should be banned wherever I go. And if I were a smoker, I would probably say the opposite.

Found This-2

Route: Basemant Jaxx Romeo->Bond Shine->here

Space Monkeys

The order of events in space exploration, at least as far as the US is concerned, seems to have followed an interesting logic.

NASA sent several monkeys into the space before it decided to send a man (can't use a gender neutral man/woman here, can I?). The rationale, of course, would have been that monkeys are probably the biologically closest to humans and yet the most 'affordable' life forms at a human's place.

Appollo 8 was the the first manned spacecraft to orbit the moon and was one of the most widely covered events in that decade. The astronauts who were sent after the monkeys took the first picture of the Earthrise. And it so happened that the astronauts who were sent after the monkeys had to spend their Christmas orbiting the moon. In a live telecast during the Christmas eve, the astronauts who were sent after the monkeys tried to make the moment poignant by reading a few lines from the Old Testament that went, "[I]n the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth." (Rest of the quote.)

When the astronauts who were sent after the monkeys returned to Earth, they were sued by atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Even though the case itself was dismissed on dubious grounds, it made sure that NASA sent slightly evolved primates -- not just from monkeys -- in its future missions.

The Movie Experience

Audience manipulation is one of the oldest tricks of the trade as far as movies are concerned. It's a complex topic that often calls for nuance when one tries to differentiate 'realistic' narrative progression from 'contrived' haul of boxed plot points. But as in many of these discussions it's always easy to point extremes to state your initial case - to say what you mean by manipulation. The underdog that emerges victorious in the end and the wronged, just man getting his revenge are some of the most common and easiest to point.

It should be noted that 'manipulative' scenes can have the effect of any 'genuinely' moving scene. While it may get some teary eyed and "heavy", the contextualization outside of the movie cannot be ignored. It is especially true with scenes that try to shock you, some quite literally. Videos like these demonstrate the point best. It sure evokes a basic human emotion - fear - but there's little that is creative or original about it. You can draw a direct parallel between such videos and typical Tamil "family drama's" climax monologues.

Here, the movie Dogville makes for interesting case study. Because it's not completely relevant to go into what the movie is about, I'll take the liberty to just link you the reviews that summarize it closely: review 1; review 2. Assuming you've either seen the movie or read at lease one of the reviews, I'll proceed further. Nicole Kidman's character Grace is subjected to all kinds of abuse and exploitation by other characters of the movie for longer than what's generally tolerable for the viewer. It's akin to those 60s Indian movies in which the woman who personifies all things "good" is tortured (read buttered) endlessly for a climactic gush of redemption. Even the apparent plot twists become rather predictable if you're conscious of the movie's length. For example, about 2 hours into the movie Grace tries to escape from the vicious town and you know it's not going to happen. Because, there's almost an hour's movie left. What are they going to show? Grace starting a new life in a new town? Of course not.

There is very little to like about what the characters do for the most part of the movie; Grace being the worst of the lot. Traditionally, this kind of character has to do something drastic, one way or the other, to vindicate herself before the movie ends. But Dogville goes far beyond manipulation, what it does is audience abuse. It literally makes you sick to the stomach through most of its playing time. Because, for whatever reason, many believe that movies and marathons "have to be finished" once begun. Grace and her gangster father's philosophical musing over power and moral relativism in the end can only be characterized as juvenile. The "illustration", as one of the characters, Tom, puts it, isn't as "vivid" as it may appear. Yet, some critics have a "was worth the torture" kind of take on it.

This is an interesting dimension in itself. There are real life examples that are somewhat along the same lines: 1. waiting hungry in a crowded restaurant for the food to arrive; 2. waiting on the queue of a roller coaster ride. Anticipation and uncertainty (or certainty) are the foremost emotions that construct the experience for us. However, generally it's the finale -- something that completes the experience -- that decides our after-thoughts on the experience. But in either scenario, I would be outraged if I realize that I've been forced to wait just so that the I'm ready to appreciate anything they offer in the end. It's even worse when it happens in movies: because, the denouement is only part of the product, not the product itself. A tricky aspect of the art -- constructing the experience -- seems to be misinterpreted often by critics and moviegoers in general. They probably fail to realize that not all share the same threshold when it comes to standing 'manipulation'. Because, "switching off" doesn't come as easily for many.

I remember reading somewhere that a "movie is not a string of interesting scenes." But the way I watch most of the movies -- at home, in my computer or TV -- I am actually fine with a movie that doesn't fit that rule. Of course, what's interesting is debatable.

vetti post - 12

Because this is my blog, I'll use it make an announcement that doesn't really mean anything to others but would give me the superficial satisfaction of being "honest."

I stopped eating meat little over five years ago. When I stopped, I had some ethical, philosophical reasons; three years later, after some reflection on certain things, I didn't really subscribe to those reasons but remained a non-meat eater anyway. (I did a podcast on this topic a year ago.)
For at least 2 years I was quasi-vegetarian for no particular reason. But in the last two months I happened to cook more meat dishes than usual, because I had/I was at more get-togethers than usual. So I tried a lot of new dishes and was "forced" to taste the food. Then tasting became eating when I was lazy and had nothing else to eat.

Basically, I want to say that I've been eating meat once in a while for the last two months. So I'm now a non-vegetarian. Having returned to this status, however, I'm not all too excited about it. Somehow non-vegetarian food has lost its appeal. I think I'll become a quasi-vegetarian again, soon.

சாரு நிவேதிதா - காற்றடைத்த பையடா

குறிப்பு: சாரு நிவேதிதா கூறியுள்ள சிலவற்றை இந்த வலைப்பதிவில் சிலமுறை மேற்கோள் காட்டியுள்ளத்தால் அவரின் ரசிகன் நான் என்பது போல தோற்றம் வரக்கூடும்; அதை தெளிவு செய்யவே இந்த இடுகை. பின் வரும் கருத்துக்கள் அனைத்தும் charuonline.com' இல் இதுவரை வெளிவந்துள்ள சாரு நிவேதிதாவின் எழுத்துக்களை மட்டும் அடிப்படையாகக் கொன்டவை. எழுத்துப்பிழைகளை தயவு செய்து மன்னிக்கவும்.
----------------------------------------------------------


'கடிதம்' என்ற பேரில் சாரு நிவேதிதா வெளியிடும் ஜால்ரா வாக்குமூலங்கள் எல்லாம் சென்னை தொலைக்காட்சி நிலையம் எதிரொலி கடிதங்களை விட மோசமாக இருந்து வருகின்றன.

"சுண்டைக்காய் பொறியல் அருமை, இது போல் மேலும் சமையல் குறிப்புகளை செ.தொ.நி தயாரிக்க வேண்டும்" என்பது போல், சாரு சமீப காலமாக எழுதி வரும் விஷயமற்ற வெற்று "காதல் கடி" SMS களை கூட புகழ ஆட்கள் இருப்பது ஒன்றும் ஆச்சர்யபடுத்தவில்லை. தமிழ் சினிமாவின் அவல நிலை பற்றி வாய் கிழிய பேசும் சாரு, அதற்கு ஆதாரமாக இருப்பதே தமிழ் சினிமாவில் உள்ள "கலைஞர்களின்" மமதை என்றும் தெரிந்திருக்க வேண்டும். அந்த மமதைக்கு காரணமே வெத்து வேட்டு நடிகர்களை புகழக்கூட பல அடிப்பொடிகள் இருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதுதான். இந்த கருத்தை ஏதோ நன்கு உள்வாங்கிக்கொண்டு பேசுவது போல் இவர் கமலையும் ஜெயலலிதாவையும் ஒப்பிட்டுபேசியது நகைப்புக்குரியது. (அந்த ஒப்பீட்டில் எனக்கு எந்த கருத்து வேறுபாடும் இல்லை என்பது வேறு விஷயம்.)

இதுவரை சாரு விமர்சனம் என்று கூறிக்கொண்டு பதில் எழுதியது அனைத்தும் விமர்சனங்களே இல்லை. ஏதோ "நான் ஏத்தி விடுவணாம், நீ எடுத்து குடுப்பியாம்" என்பது போல சப்பானிதனமான கேள்விகள், அதற்கு மேம்ப்போக்குத்தனமான பதில்கள்; அதுவும் அத்தி பூத்தாற்போல். பெரும்பாலும் பிரசுரிக்கப்படும் கடிதங்கள் அனைத்தும், எழுதியவர் இவரை எப்படி எல்லாம் உயர்வாக நினைக்கிறார், அல்லது சாரு ஏன் ஒரு இலக்கியப் புலி என்று அவர் கருதிகிறார், அல்லது எப்படியெல்லாம் இவரை முத்தமிட விரும்புகிறார் என்பதாகத்தான் இருக்கின்ற. புகழை விரும்பாதவன் என்று பிரகடனம் செய்து கொண்டு இம்மாதிரியான வெற்றுப்பிரசுரங்கள் எதற்கு என்று தெரியவில்லை? இவர் மிக உயர்வாக மதிப்பிடும் எழுத்தாளர்கள் இப்படித்தான் "முதுகு சொறி" கடிதங்களை வெளியிட்டுக்கொண்டும் தன் ஏதோ ஒரு படைப்பை மட்டும் "உலக தரம்" என்றும் பினாத்திக்கொண்டு இருந்தார்களா என்று தெரியவில்லை.

இவரின் எழுத்துக்களில் உள்ள ஆணாதிக்கத்தன்மை, அவசியமற்ற போலி அழகியல் கூறுகள் என்று பல விமர்சனங்களை முன்னிறுத்தி பல முறை நானே இவருக்கு மின்னஞ்சல் அனுப்பி உள்ளேன், அவை எதற்குமே இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை (அவர் எதையும் பிரசுரிக்க மாட்டார் என்பது எனக்கு தெரியும், சுருக்கமான பதிலாவது வரும் என்று எதிர்பார்த்தேன்). காமம் சார்ந்த ஒழுங்கியல், அதன் வரலாற்று அதிகார இருப்பிடங்கள் குறித்த எந்த ஒரு கட்டுடைப்பு சார்ந்த ஒப்பீடோ, கருத்தாக்கமோ இல்லாமல் வெறுமனே இவர், இவரின் நண்பர்கள் பலர் இளம் பெண்களுடன் பரிமாறிக்கொள்ளும் sms' களையும், தொலைபேசி உரையாடல்களையும் வெளியிடுவதன் நோக்கம் என்னவென்று தெரியவில்லை (other than feeding aged, male, sexually frustrated minds. It's sure a noble cause if that is it). இவற்றை எந்த போர்னோ ரகத்திலும் சேர்த்த முடியாது. of course, இந்த கூட்டத்தில் ஒரு இளம் ஆண் ஒரு முதிர்ந்த பெண்ணுடன் ஏற்படுத்திக்கொள்ளும் உறவு பற்றி ஒன்றும் எழுத மாட்டார். கேட்டால் எனக்கு அம்மாதிரி நண்பர்கள் இல்லை என்பார். ஏன் இப்படி உங்கள் கதைகளில் புளுகுகிறீர்கள் என்று கேட்டால் மட்டும் "இது புனைவு" என்று அங்கலாய்ப்பார். ஆனால் ஒரு முதிர்ந்த பெண்ணின் காம உணர்வுகள் பற்றி மட்டும் புனைய மாட்டார். தமிழ் சமுதாயத்தின் உடல் சார்ந்த அடக்கு முறைகளை அகற்ற இவர் போல் பாடுபடுபவர்கள் இல்லைதான்.

சாருவின் திரைப்பட விருப்பு வெறுப்புகள் (குறிப்பாக சமீபத்ய விருப்புகள்) பற்றி கேட்கவே வேண்டாம்: பருத்திவீரனின் ஆணாதிக்க கதாநாயகன் புதுமை என்று சொன்னது முதல் மொக்கை-திருட்டு-மாயாஜால கலவையான ஓம் ஷாந்தி ஓம்'இல் உள்ள பின் நவீனத்துவ கூறுகளை கண்டறிந்தது வரை சாருவின் சினிமா கூர்மை பல சமயங்களில் மழுங்கியிருக்கிறது.

இது எல்லாவற்றையும் விட என்னை மிகவும் எரிச்சலூட்டியது சாருவின் சமீபத்திய வித்தை: வலைத்தளத்தில் இவர் படித்து ரசித்த கென் - கென்னை - தன் வாரிசு என்று அறிவித்தது. பாசிசம் பற்றியும் அதிகார மையங்கள் பற்றியும் பீராயும் அதிபுத்திசாலி சாரு, இந்த "வாரிசு" வித்தையை எந்த ரகத்தில் சேர்ப்பார்? கென் சாருவிடம் போய் "ஐயா நான் உங்கள் பரம ரசிகன், உங்களை நான் என் தந்தைக்கும் மேலாக நினைக்கிறேன், ஆதலால் என்னை உங்கள் வாரிசாக அறிவியுங்கள்" என்று மன்றாடினாரா? (கென் பிறகு சாருவுக்கு கடிதம் எழுதியது, அந்த கடிதத்தில் இருந்த விஷயங்கள் எல்லாம் வேறு; இங்கு சம்மந்தம் இல்லை. தெருவில் போகும் ஒரு முதியவர், சும்மா எதிரில் வரும் என்னை பார்த்து "நான் உன்னை ஆசிர்வதிக்கிறேன்" என்று கூறினால், நான் நினைப்பேன் "பெருசு ஏதோ சொல்லுது, அது மனசு நோகாதமாறி எதாச்சும் சொல்லிட்டு நடயகட்டு". அது போலத்தான் கென் எழுதிய பதில் கடிதம்.)

அடுத்து இவர் கருணாநிதி பற்றி உருவாக்க நினைக்கும் மாயை. ஏதோ கருணாநிதி போன்ற ஒரு பரம சாதுவை இங்கு பாக்கவே இயலாது என்பது போல் எழுதிக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார். காமராஜர் ஆட்சி (அப்பா சரி, பக்தவச்சலம் ஆட்சி) கழகங்களுக்கு கைமாறியபோது தமிழகத்தில் ஊழலும் சாராயமும் மட்டும் நுழைந்துவிடவில்லை; குண்டர் கலாச்சாரம், கட்டப்பஞ்சாயத்து என்ற பல எழவுகளுக்கு வித்திட்டவர் இந்த கருணாநிதி. அண்ணாமலை பல்கலைகழக மாணவர்கள் படுகொலை முதல் மதுரை தினகரன் அலுவலகம் எரிப்பு (மூன்று பேர் கொலை) வரை கருணாநிதியுடன் நேரடி தொடர்புடைய வன்முறை சம்பவங்கள் பலவற்றை நினைவு கூறலாம். காழ்புணர்ச்சி என்பது ஜெயலலிதாவுக்கு மட்டும் உள்ள பிரத்தியேக பண்பு என்றால், இவர் விஜயகாந்தின் கட்டிடங்களை இடிப்பது எவ்வகை உணர்ச்சியின் அடிப்படை என்று புரியவில்லை. ஆனால் ஒன்று, இதெல்லாம் தி.மு.க தொண்டர்கள், அழகிரி, குறிப்பிட்ட வாரியத்துறை அமைச்சர், அரிவாள், புல்டோசர் கொக்கிமுனை இத்தியாதி, இவர்கள்தான் செய்தார்கள் என்று கூறி அறிவிப்பாடம் எடுக்காமல் இருந்தால் சரி.

கிசுகிசு பாணியில் "அந்த எழுத்தாளர்", "இந்த எழுத்தாளர்" என்று ஒரு எழுத்தாளரை கூட நேரடியாக விமர்சனம் செய்ய தைரியமில்லாத சாரு, "அவர் ஜெயலலிதாவை இம்மாதிரி விமர்சனம் செய்வாரா?" என்று கேட்கிறார். சரி, இவர் சொல்வது போல "அந்த எழுத்தாளருக்கு" (அநேகமாக ஞானியை சொல்கிறார் என்று நினைக்கிறேன்) ஜெயலலிதாவை விமர்சனம் செய்ய தைரியமில்லை என்றே வைத்துக்கொள்வோம் (ஞானி ஜெ'வை கடுமையாக விமர்சித்து பல முறை எழுதியிருக்கிறார் என்பது வேறு) - ஆக ஜெ'வை விமர்சனம் செய்ய தைரியம் இல்லையென்றால் கருணாநிதியின் ஊழல், குடும்ப அரசியல் பற்றியும் எழுதக்கூடாது, அப்படித்தானே? ஆஹா, அற்புதமான லாஜிக். கருணாநிதியின் முரசொலி மிரட்டல்கள் முன்பு போல திராவிடக் கைக்கூலிகளால் பொருட்படுத்தப்படுவதில்லை, அவ்வளவுதான். அவர் வேண்டுமானால் இன்றும் ம்' என்றால் தீக்குளிக்க ஆயிரம்பேர் வருவார்கள் என்ற கனவில் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கலாம். கருணாநிதியின் இந்த சின்னப்புத்தியையும், அதன் பயனற்ற தன்மையையும் கருணாநிதியின் பரந்த உள்ளம் போல பாவிக்க வேண்டுமென்று சாரு விரும்புகிறார் போலும். மஞ்சள் துண்டு, மண்ணாங்கட்டி என்று பாசாங்கு காட்டிவிட்டு "கருணாநிதியை விமர்சனம் செய்துவிட்டேன் பார்" என்று சாரு சொன்னால், கேட்டுக்கொண்டு ஆமாம் சாமி போட அவர் ரஜினியும் இல்லை, நாங்கள் ரஜினி ரசிகர்களும் இல்லை. இன்றைக்கும் அழகிரி பற்றி பேசச்சொன்னால் மூச்சா போகும் சாரு, "யாரையும் அஞ்சாமல் விமர்சிப்பது" பற்றி ரொம்பத்தான் சவடால் அடிக்கிறார். "பாரதி போல் நான் தைரியசாலி இல்லை" என்று கூறி பம்மாத்து செய்துவிட்டால் இவர் சாயம் வெளுத்துப்போகாது என்று எண்ணிவிட்டாரா என்ன?

இவரின் நண்பர் கனிமொழி தேர்தலின்றி - பல மூத்த "தொண்டர்கள்" இருக்க, வெட்கமின்றி - நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர் பதவியை ஏற்றுகொண்டது பற்றியும் சாரு வாய் திறக்க மாட்டார். அவர் அதிகாரத்தால் நடக்கும் சிபாரிசுகளை பயன்படுத்தவும் இவர் தயங்க மாட்டார் (காவல் துறை ஆணையர் அலுவலகம் சென்றது - ஒரு முறையேனும், விமர்சனதுக்குரியதே). இதையெல்லாம் கேட்டால் "இந்தியாவில் நடப்பது ஜனநாயகமே இல்லை, தமிழ்நாட்டு அரசியலில் எந்தக்கட்சிதான் குடும்ப அரசியல் நடத்தவில்லை" என்று கூறி கனிமொழிக்கு தலையயை சுற்றி மூக்கைத்தொட்டு கொடி பிடிப்பார்.

இப்பேர்ப்பட்ட ஒருவர்தான் விளிம்பு நிலை மனிதர்கள் பற்றி எழுதிக்கிழிக்கிறார்? இவர் பணத்தை எப்படி செலவிடுகிறார் என்பது பற்றியோ எங்கே உணவு உண்கிறார் என்பது பற்றியோ நான் விமர்சனம் செய்யப்போவதில்லை. இவர் சொல்வதுபோல் "நான் ராஜ வாழ்கை தான் வாழ்வேன்" என்றால் வாழ்ந்துவிட்டுப்போகட்டும். ஆனால் "முன்னூறு ரூபாய் குடுத்து சோறு தின்னால்தான் செரிக்கும்" என்றால், முப்பது ரூபாய்க்கு முனியாண்டி விலாசில் பிரியாணி தின்பவன் எல்லாம் முட்டாளா? அல்லது ருசி தெரியாத சொரணை கெட்ட ஜென்மமா? இவரின் "ராஜ வாழ்க்கையை" "விளிம்புநிலை மனிதர்களுக்கு" தெரியப்படுத்தி என்ன சாதிக்க விரும்புகிறார்? அதே நேரம் தான் பிச்சைக்காரன் போல பத்து ரூபாய்க்கு சிங்கி அடிப்பது பற்றி சொல்லிவிட்டால் இவர் "விளிம்பு நிலை மனிதர்களின்" பிரச்சனைகளை எதிரொளிப்பதுபோல் ஆகிவிடும் என்று என்னுகின்றாரா?

இந்த லட்சணத்தில் ஜெயமோகன் தன் மகன் பத்தாம் ஆண்டு மதிப்பெண் பற்றி எழுதியது குறித்து விமர்சனம் வேறு. இவர் தன் மகன் கார்த்திக் பற்றி மட்டும் அகோ ஓஹோ என்று எழுதுவார், கார்த்திக் நியுசிலாந்து சென்று எடுத்த படங்களை வெளியிடுவார். பொது ஒழுக்க நெறி, நல்லெண்ணம், மனிதாபிமானம் எல்லாம் பாசிசத்தின் அடிப்படைகள் என்று வாதிடும் சாரு, தன் மனைவி ஒரு ஏழைக்கு புடவை கொடுத்தது பற்றி புளகாங்கிதம் அடையவோ, அதே அடிப்படையில் தன் மகன் எப்படி உயர்ந்தவன் என்று சொல்லவோ தயங்குவதில்லை.

சாரு பற்றி அவர் இணையத்தளத்தில் வெளியிடப்படும் எழுத்துக்களை மட்டும் வைத்தே அவரை இன்னும் பல விமர்சனங்களுக்கு ஆட்படுத்தலாம், ஆனால் அதற்கு நேரமோ அவசியமோ இல்லை. இதுவரை படித்த விமர்சனங்கள் ஏற்புடயதாகப்பட்டால் மற்ற விஷயங்கள் தானாகவே புலப்படும். இல்லையென்றால் இது வெறும் "அவதூருகளாக்தான்" தெரியும்.

மமதை

கமல் கிட்டத்தட்ட ஜெயலலிதாவைப் போல் ஆகி விட்டார் என்று நினைக்கிறேன். ஜெயலலிதாவைத்தான் யாரும் கட்சிக்குள்ளிருந்து விமர்சிக்க முடியாது. விமர்சிப்பவன் விரோதி என்ற தர்மம் அக்கட்சியினுடையது. மற்றும் , எல்லோருமே அவரை புரட்சித்தலைவி என்றே அழைக்க வேண்டும் ; நினைக்க வேண்டும். அதே போல் கமலை யாரும் விமர்சிக்க முடியாது. விமர்சித்தால் அவர் கமலின் விரோதி ; கமலின் சினிமா ஆர்வத்தைப் புரிந்து கொள்ளாத முட்டாள். மேலும் , அவரை உலக நாயகன் என்றே கருத வேண்டும். அப்படிக் கருதாதவருக்கு ஏதோ மோசமான உள்நோக்கம் இருக்கிறது. இதுதான் கமலின் இப்போதைய நிலை.

Source

Disclaimer: I don't agree with every assessment Charu Nivedita has made on different movies. Notable disagreements with his take on Gautam Menon, Ameer and Mozhi.

Roast of Kamal Haasan (or Dasavatharam)

englishtamil · Roast of Dasavatharam

1-5.00: random stuff 7-00 - 13.00: Chaos theory and its popularity (quite boring, you may want to skip it) 17.00 - 25.00: scenes in the movie 28.00 - 35.00: Kamal the sucker (and Kamal the sell out) 35.00-45.00: random stuff Edit: This is one of the articles I referred to, to refresh on Chaos theory's application

hahaha, paradhesi

Novak Djokovic was upset in straight sets by Marat Safin in the second round Wednesday, ending the Serb's chances of testing his theory about Roger Federer's vulnerability.

Source

Gumbaloda...

Five people, accompanying the body of a youth who died in an accident, were killed when the ambulance they were travelling in plunged into a river on Saturday.

Source

Applaud, I'm a jackass

I've been a regular visitor of Kumudam.com for the last several months, mostly to watch interviews. There is a marked difference between interviews here and those you see in TV. Some of the interviews have been simply outstanding. Kutty Revathi, Mahendran, Nasser - (all offline) - and Thamizharuvi Maniyan are some that I liked the most. I was all the more excited when Gnani entered the arena with 'Gnani Pesukiren'. Gnani has had a left leaning approach to most of the issues he has dealt with in the past, so I expected his interview to be very incisive and sharp. And they were, for the most part.

His recent interview with director Ameer exposed what an immature idiot Ameer is. He not only refused to address Gnani's criticisms but also stifled the possibility of having a civilized conversation. Constantly getting into petty squabbles, it was a sad display of egomania. Because, Gnani eventually stooped low to Ameer's level (albeit only for a short time). Then I tried to find if anyone has blogged about this interview and landed on the video below (almost a year old).

Needless to say, Ameer's convoluted defense seem to find admiration among many who had assembled there (definitely among those who had commented for the video). The exchange reminded of some that we have had in this blog, but more specifically this. Just to quote a part of the exchage:
--quote--
Let's agree that 'Pokkiri' is a bad movie, then we shall discuss why it exists and what purpose it serves - that's where honest subjectivities creep in.
I'll quote what I said again,
"1. Pokkiri provides an escape from the troubled realities of the audience. kuthu songs lighten up their spirits. Movies like Pokkiri are essential for the smooth functioning of the society. 2. We cannot criticize it just because you don't like it. It's all subjective."
There are two syllogisms that don't quite flow together. The former doesn't warrant the latter. While Pokkiri may be 'essential' it's not "subjective bias" that leads you to criticize the movie. That's why I gave that example - a false syllogism that is widely used.
...
I haven't seen '300' yet, but assuming that Scott was right in his criticism (I don't know what value the word 'right' holds in these discussions) and if you contrast it with the movie's apparent BO success -- it may not say that 99% of those who paid for it are fucktards -- it does say that 99% of them are people who don't mind being unsophisticated fucktards for 90 minutes. People's willingness to take shit once in a while should not been mistaken as people value shit.
...
All art forms are subjective, but there is some universality that has evolved over time (much to our dismay). It's one of the "necessary evils" I suppose - but it exists. That's how we produce and communicate through art forms. Even the weirdest of artistic expressions won't appeal if the weirdness isn't visible - if it is limited just to the artist 's understanding of it. Of course, that brings us to the whole "do we consume how it's supposed to be consumed?" debate.
But in spite of all these complexities, I think it's intellectual dishonesty to say that "Mahanadhi and Pokkiri are good movies. It's just that I hate Pokkiri. But I'm sure a lot of others like it, which makes it no worse than Mahanadhi."
--unquote--

Yes, it's all been said several times over, but I still couldn't stop myself from flooding the video with comments.

It's interesting that people even tried to have this kind of QnA session with all these people present together. A melee would have been inevitable had this pseudo exchange continued a little longer. It was a major irony when Ameer mentioned Mahendran to drive a shallow point. If only he knew the things Mahendran had said in his interview in Kumudam (in spite of making some of the most decent movies in Tamil).

On a different note: I don't really find any difference between SJ Surya, Chimbu and Ameer (and probably hundreds of others whose interviews I haven't seen).

Sami

The Sabarimala shrine in Kerala is in the news again this time about a divine light, which they have admitted has no celestial origin but is a manmade fire.
...
Both the government and the temple have for the first time admitted that it is not a celestial occurrence but a fire lighted by men.

Source

Chat

I am playing chess. A chat window pops up:

Friend (6:40:33 AM): hey
Friend (6:41:15 AM): you there?
Friend (6:41:42 AM): helllllooo
Friend (6:42:26 AM): HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO!!

I think of replying "enda mayiru kathra?", but I pause. I minimize the chat window and continue my game.

Suresh (7:10:53 PM): Sorry, I wasn't around when you messaged me earlier.
Friend appears to be offline and will receive your messages after signing in.

Terminology

Either choose the "both are acceptable" stance and move along or choose the 'right', although often archaic, version.
So there's a desi moron that I know who's constantly trying to outsmart me. His latest was this: "Suresh, it's not a rooter, but a rowter". Well, no, you nitwit. Rowter is a tool used in carpentry, rooter is the computer device you and I are referring to. idha naan sollala, Oxford dictionary solludhu, so indhaa kallu, oru oramaa poi mandaya odhachukko!

PS. We are, of course, talking about router.