Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Ekalavya

This is a play which I wrote for Darpan Theatre Competition, 09 in Christ University Bangalore under the banner, 08PG Productions.

Ekalavya: The Lord of Archery

Script: Fr. Jijo

Characters

Ekalavyan

Asandigtha

Maid

Arjun

Khrishna

Drona

Modern Man

Scene I

Scene: Early in the morning: Hasthinapura: Backdrop Rising Sun behind the silhouette of Hasthinapura palace. As the scene begins faces are not clear. Smoke in the scene (fog) A spot light on Arjuna’s profile. As the scene progresses the light is brighter and the sun rises higher.

Drona: In the Kingdom of Surya Bhagavan are you the only one paying tribute to his rising majesty?

Arjun: My brothers have still not awaken from sleep, after last night’s tedious journey.

Drona: My Son, you give me so much joy. No one, but you alone have escaped from the beguiling

treachery of indolence. This is your way to power and fame, Arjun.

Arjun: I know, the way to power is hard. But I am willing to go all the way.

Drona: Power can bring armies under your feet and wars on your decisions.

Arjun: You always told me I am your best disciple. Do you really think I am.

Drona: Your lack of confidence will make you diffident in critical moments of life.

Arjun: Do you discard my apprehensions as mere diffidence?

Drona: Tell me what is in your mind.

Arjun: Well, I have seen Karna outsmarting my prowess many times over.

Drona: Karna is a the son of a nobody, I will demoralise him in public and his expertise will be no

hindrance for your glory.

Arjun: I am sure you will do that for me. But do you think that no one else will ever come to surpass

my fame?

Drona: What matters is fame or prowess?

Arjun: The flames of prowess will die when the soul bids farewell to the body but the embers of

fame will still smoulder in the ashes of history.

Drona: Reading into the grains of time and, predicting which will grow and which will not, is not my

art. But my promise will abide. This world will not see a better archer than you.

Arjun: In the witness of the rising sun can you pledge it to me?

Drona: By the powers, Bharatha varsha has entrusted to me I declare, that no one shall surpass

Arjun in archery in times present and future.

(thunderbolts, flickering lights)

Arjun: I am glad. I am so overwhelmed. (Arjun bows at the feet of Drona)Yet there is a sorrow in my

mind.

Drona: Tell my child.

Arjun: Yesterday during the hunting game I found a young man in the jungle doing amazing archery.

Drona: What?

Arjun: He kept the mouth of the hunting dog open with a dozen arrows.

Drona: Does the storm in the pond raise waves in the ocean?

Arjun: But I am afraid this storm might catch fire.

Drona: you should have brought him here to give a place in the cavalry.

Arjun: I was afraid. He must be stopped, by all means.

Drona: Fame comes like a wind, Arjun, never will you know its origin nor its destination. What you

can control is your actions. So I have given you expertise in archery. Why dream for more?

Arjun: Does the code of royal justice suggest, keeping the threatening enemy alive?

Drona: Arjun..... I see embers of ambition in your eyes. I am afraid that they will be quenched only in

blood baths. Fight with the equals, encourage the weak, But what I see is the avarice of

power in your eyes.

Arjun: The avarice of power is allowed to the royalty.

Drona: Power is to protect, not to destroy.

Arjun: But this one should be destroyed, the warrior of the jungles.

Drona: What have you planned?

Arjun: The day I met him was his marriage. I asked him to take the vow of the warrior until his

apprenticeship is over, lest he begets a nation of warriors from his progeny.

Drona: Arjun, you are already intoxicated with power. Your ambition makes you blind. You are

striking at the root of a family. You will run out of heirs even if you win all your wars.

Arjun: With all my charms do you think I will be left without a progeny even from my concubines?

Drona: The times to come will answer your question. I find forebodings of an imminent holocaust

hovering over Hasthina Pura.

Arjun: Let future decide its own course but now you must help me.

Drona: Tell me, How may I help you?

Arjun: I have named you as his guru and left your statue in his hut, so that he could learn from your

feet and be your disciple.

Drona: But I have not taught him.

Arjun: He shall learn archery from the feet of your image.

Drona: Do you think, my graven image can teach what I gathered over years of contemplation and

Hard work?

Arjun: For the kings, statues are symbols of power and presence. What they are able to do is not

their concern? Do you promise to come with me to his hut?

Drona: Yes, I will be interested in seeing what he can do.

Soothradhar enters

Mmmmmmmmmm that’s news. Prince Arjun is feeling threatened by the lowly Ekalavya. din’t you hear the villainy of the prince. I tell you, Arjun is not the one whom you know. He is a wolf in sheep’s garb. He is laid his axe at the very root of Ekalavya’s family. Beware of him.

Scene II

(As the scene opens. Ekalavya does a Pooja at the statue of Drona and starts his practice.

Asandigtha: Ekalavya, you spurn my very presence ever since that statue was welcomed here.

Where have you lost the wreathing passions for me? Come let us go to the inviting sweet springs of love.

Ekalavya: (pushing her away)Don’t you disturb me Asandigtha, while I am engaged in the art of

heaven. The prince has promised me a place in his army.

Asandigtha: But what did you learn more. You knew to aim to the tigers that pounce on you with out

blinking your eye. You kept that dog’s mouth open with your arrow showers. You have killed threatening tuskers from an arm’s length. What more do you have to learn? What does this statue teach you day after day?

Ekalavya: I do not know. But the prince told me I had to learn a lot more from this statue. Perhaps, I

still have not offered enough sacrifices to Guru that I have not learned anything.

Asandigtha: Leave your art of murder and death, Ekalavya. My fluttering heart longs for your

mesmerising presence. Come let us fly beyond the horizons like migrating pelicans, there

forever savouring the sweetness of the fruits no one has relished before, drink nectar from the flowers untouched by the bees of earth.

Ekalavya: The sweetness in your voice inebriates my being, darling. But I have my vows to keep

while I practice the art of Gods.

Asandigtha: Since when did an elder of Bhil find the presence of the wife a disturbance? (Angrily)

the prince and his statue has bewitched you from the traditions of Bhil families. Hasn’t your

elders prevented you from keeping a married wife, a virgin?

Ekalavya: But my sweet heart, when I become the Army General of prince Arjuna, You will bear me

children as great as the heads of the cavalry.

Asandigtha: Oh the games of the mighty. They have taken my husband away from me from the very

day of my marriage. My precious garden, this home of mine, the springs, the chirping birds,

the fragrant flowers...... They will be lost to me forever like the fleeting morning dew.

(decisively)

Ekalvaya...This is a scheme. We will die without a progeny. They are planning to displace us from this home. We shall never survive anywhere but here. I shall not let this pass.

The maid: Aren’t you aware of the limits of a woman’s words, let alone wife. You have trespassed

both.

Asandigtha: You are defiled with the dirt of the towns people. The Bhil family tradition respects its

women’s words. The men who forget the counsel of the women build roofs that will collapse

on themselves.

Ekalavya: Stop your women’s talk. I need to practice. (The women go in despair to the hut)

Soothradhar.

Mmmmm no sooner the marriage is over than the discord began. Is divorce possible? Asandigtha is no ordinary fool. Mind you.

Scene III (Same scene, dim the light)

(Ekalavya on practices. Asandigtha and maid dancing to (ghanashyama vrindavaniyil)

Khrishna: (enters stealthily and watches the arrows) Ekalavya, Where are your arrows aimed at?

Ekalavya: I need to send my arrows right through the targets and beyond.

Khrishna: But I can see your arrows crossing Bharata Varsha and beyond. I can see them going past

times and epochs.

Ekalavya: Are you mocking me? These arrows of mine have no power but to perish in the battle of

survival in the jungle.

Khrishna: The paradoxes of history will win a place that you have not fought for, Eklavya.

Oh. What is this vigraha doing here?

Ekalavya: Prince Arjun brought a statue here that I can practice my art even better. He named it as

my Guru, Drona.

Khrishna: laughs.......... Earthworms have started playing snakes....

Ekalvya: The prince is a great warrior, are you ridiculing him?

Khrishna: No offence to him at all. Arjun is a warrior but his arrows are fake imitations of yours. They

will reach targets that are visible for the eyes. But yours will fly past times that you cannot

see.

Ekalavya: No, his expertise and speed on the bow is amazing.

Khrishna: But his breed is coming to an end.

Ekalavya: I dread your ominous words. Any danger, befalling him? I hear his cousins are not

pleased with him at all?

Khrishna: The paths of the mighty are strewn with stones of danger. But this one is not a stone. This

is a mountain that they will not pass by.

(Dreamily)

I can see the impending clouds of destruction looming over Kurukhsetra. I can hear the cries from there. All the kings of the world will march with their armies. The blood bath, the fratricides, the dilemmas, the whole of Bharata will be shaken in the churning of this war. Every monarch and emperor, their cavalries and horsemen, their bards and ministrels, an ocean of humanity, everyone of them should perish in this war. Even I, every agent of monarchy and imperialism will be sacrificed in the sanctuary of kurukhshetra. I will show my cosmic figure to them. Indeed it has started coming. From the ocean of blood, shall emerge the governance of the people, with the hope of justice, equality, freedom. Where no one will be above another, where none shall rule over another.

Ekalavya, you will emerge as their hero. .........

Khrishna exits

Suthradhara enters-------------------------------------

Hi hi hi hi

Has the axis of the earth changed? Something interesting. The people of the palace are roaming around the lowly Ekalavya’s hut. I wonder why. Be watchful... Lord Khrishna’s visions seems to make the clarion call for a democracy. Hi hi hi the emergence of a democrat!!!!!!!

Scene IV

(Ekalavya on practice again: Enter Drona and Arjuna with the attendants)

Ekalavya: How blessed am I, and my household, prince, with your presence.

Arjun: This garden and its enchanting surroundings is a feast to the eyes, Ekalavya.

{Maid gives water to wash the feet of Drona and looks with curiosity at the similarity of the statue and Drona)

Asandigtha: Prince, Are you going for a war with the cavalry and insignia?

Arjun: These are the insignia of the majesty. Don’t they look great?

Asandigtha: To come to the lowly huts of the Bhils why do you need the paraphernalia of the

insignia? Are you feeling insecure?

Arjun: We recognise a contempt in your comments.

Asandigtha: Never. lack of common sense.

Arjun: Ours, or yours?

Asandigtha: ours: who do you refer to ours? I was talking to you alone?

Arjun: Ekalavya? Your better heart seems to be unaware of the royal protocols.

Ekalavya: I beg your pardon for insolence.

Maid: Hei, the statue looks similar to this sage. Who is this?

Arjun: Oh, the beauty of this orchard and the comely springs drove us out of our duties. Let us

present you Dronacharya the master of Archery. No one has heard of a better archer in

the 14 worlds that we know of.

Drona: Son, exaggeration affects judgement. But tell me why this statue of mine here?

Ekalavya: (Falls at his feet.) Your lordship, let me behold the face of the one I adored and worshiped

on statue of stones. Is this the one to teach me the mastery or archery?

Drona: Well, Are you a Kshatriya?

Ekalavya: No. I am a Bhil.

Drona: (Angrily) How dare you defile my image in the huts of a Bhil progeny?

Arjun: Relent, I offered the statue to him, so that he could learn archery better.

Drona: But you did not tell me that he was not a Khshatriya.

Arjun: I beg your pardon, master.

Drona: Bhils are flesh eaters. They kill animals. They eat their flesh. Their whole body is defiled. How

could the art of the gods descend to the hands of the defiled?

Asandigtha: Hei Brahmin, I have heard your story told by this maid of mine. She was taken by the

hunting princes from our families. Until their fancy ran out, she stayed in your mansions. She has learned the gossips of the palace. Aren’t you ashamed to call yourself a Brahmin? Your hands are filled with blood. The hands that should be holy enough to touch the Vedas, haven’t you defiled by taking arms that kill men. Aren’t they guilty of the holocausts that your dignified Kshatriya princes will undertake? And you call us defiled with blood. You are great, and you think killing men for glory is a better trade than killing animals for food? I lack common sense indeed to understand.

Drona: Isn’t there anyone to stop these feminine hallucinations?

Ekalavya: Asandigtha get back to your hut. You have added the sin of insult to insolence.

Drona: Show me what you can do with your archery.

(Ekalavya showing his expertise)

Drona: Your arrows, I am afraid travels beyond the targets. None can stop its power.

Ekalavya: This prowess and accuracy I learned from your feet, (showing the statue)

Drona: According to the commandments of the art of archery you should be paying your obeisance

and Dakshina to your master. Have you done that?

Ekalavya: I have not touched my bow and arrow without doing my obeisance at the feet of your

statue.

Arjuna: Obeisance is a matter of heart that lacks evidence of trust. You should give something dear

to you to please the master of your art.

Ekalavya: Ask my Lord. Ekalavya is willing to give his life for the art he has learned.

Asandigtha: Ekalavya, you are entering into oaths that affect your virgin wife. Is there no one to stop

pawning the life of women in Bharatha varsha?

Ekalavya: Asandigtha, Get back. There is nothing greater than offering one’s own life to his master.

But no master takes it away.

Asandigtha: I smell a rat here. Do not make promises that I will not stand to bear.

Arjun: Tie this woman up. She has made a virtue of insolence.

(Ekalavya aims his arrow on Asandigtha. Music-------------)

Asandigtha: Go ahead and shoot me. You have not yet claimed even the virginity of your married

wife. Even before that you stake a claim on her life to please the masters of villainy. What

right have you? Do you have a deeper commitment to this statue of destruction than to your

wife?

(The maid forces her to the hut.)

Arjun: Ekalavya, The woman needs to be bridled lest you forfeit your life.

For the insult to us and Dronacharya, you need to do the retribution?

Ekalavya: Order me whatever it is, I shall do it for my master.

Arjun: (Calling Drona aside talks to him) Ask for his right thumb as Dakhshina.

Drona: Arjun, you are out of your senses.

Arjun: But I will demand it.

Ekalavya: Declare whatever it is, even my life.

Arjun: Offer your right thumb as Dakshina. (music, flickering lights, thunder)

Ekalavya: Does my master approve this? Or is it an order from the prince?

Arjun: Ask his right thumb as Gurudakhshina.

Drona: Fight your enemy face to face lest you lose your crucial battles.

Arjun: I do not want to take his life but his fame.

Drona: Fame cannot be taken from others. If you deserve fame it will come to you.

Arjun: You have a promise to keep and keep you must. So now ask him for the thumb.

Drona: Have I become a slave of my dignity? God, has this Brahman done enough crimes to deserve

such humiliation?

Ekalavya: Master, do not think you have asked. I am obliged to give you, and I will offer you my

thumb.

Asandigtha: Stop this nonsense. A prince and a master. This is the thumb that smeared the mark of

my belonging to him for ever. Who are you to claim the thumb of my husband? How will you pull the bow without your right thumb? What will you do to

protect the family from the animals?

Maid: you are talking to the prince.

Asandigtha: The Prince? What prince are you? You are not the stuff of a prince. You were scared of a

little rat here, Ekalavyan. Who is he to you? Just a tribal living in the jungles. You, you are scared of him? His prowess in archery? Shame on you prince. Even if he were thousand times brighter than your magics with arms he would still have perished in this jungle, causing you no harm. Offering him offices in your palace you wanted to kill him? For what? To keep your fame? To keep your name? To live for ever? Shame on you vulture, you feed on corpse.

Maid: Relent Asandigtha. We are living in the fringes of his Kingdom

Asandigtha: What is a kingdom? The king-dominates.... its people, jungles and everything in it. To

protect? Never. They come here to hunt, to kill and waste life that they don’t even eat. I have not known any king who comes here to protect anything that we love. I know no kings but my family elders. I know no kingdom but my beloved jungle.

Maid: You talk disrespectfully in the presence of the prince. Let us not forget that we are sinners.

Asandigtha: Sinners? We kill and eat the animals around. Yes, we kill to eat. They kill men and beasts

alike, to enjoy. What the king and princes do are their majesties’ royal game. What we do is

sin.

Arjun: To make your offering fruitful you need to do it before the sun sets. Do not listen to the

womans blabberings, she is out of senses.

Asandigtha: Wait, give me some time. There is one I can trust. Krishna, the Lord of my universe. Let

him decide what to do with the family that will go hungry for the rest of their life. “She

prays....bhajans’....music) (Khrishna appears) Khrishna you know what dilemma is this.

Khrishna: (voice?) Eklavya, I give you two choices: If you want to be a hero of today do not offer

your thumb. If you want to win the hearts of people tomorrow, none of the droplets of your blood shall fall in vain. A nation will arise in your name that shall overthrow and rebuild the kingdoms that you have heard of. The choice is yours.

Ekalavya prepares to cut the finger (music, lightening in feverish pitch)but people from the audience come and stop. This is injustice. Should not be done. With commotion the play ends.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Night Visions

The Distance between offering Eucharist and Becoming Eucharist


(This is one of the stories, rather a diary note that I wrote a few years back. This treats subjects that I have not written in the blog any time before)
It was when I spent sometime with a friend in Allepy beach that the following meditation happened. His house name is interestingly “At the foot of the Cross, Kurisum moottil. While we were sharing our experiences of the priesthood he asked me to find the distance between offering the Eucharist and becoming the Eucharist. You are beginning to become a Eucharist he would comment. Then he left me there alone. I was carelessly watching the boats that were returning after the day’s fishing. Then I spotted the mast of a larger ship in the backdrop of the setting Sun. I was taken slowly to a story I read from Tolstoy or Wilbur Smith? I do not know. I do not know when I became a part of this story.

The boy was scaling up the mast of the tossing ship. The fallen national flag has to be hoisted again. The tempestuous sea below was determined to break up the ship. Yet there was just one fire inside - somehow reach the top of the mast. There were quite a few on the deck. Some discouraged, some prayed, some encouraged, and some prepared to throw the next casualty of the storm overboard. But he never heard any of the commotion. His hands and legs had been bruised by the whipping loose ends of the ropes. The sails that rebelled to hold the whirl wind which refused to propose its direction also slapped on his face and bare back. Reach he did braving the salty water that lashed on him even at forty feet above the deck. With a conqueror’s pride he looked down to the deck. His vision blurred. In the tempestuous sea below, the ship was being tossed like a ball. His foot holds slipped beneath the unsteady footing. He couldn’t come down. His father shouted above the roaring winds, my son look above your head. “Look at the sky that is calm now.” The boy looked above and steadied his steps to reach the excruciating climb down.

I felt a fear that was similar to the boy on the top of the mast. My foot holds were slipping too. A voice inside told me to look out to the sky, was it the same man who told his would be disciples to cast the net into the deep?
He took me to the bottom of the ship to the depth of the hull.
I recognized, I had hit the bottom. There were no more steps down ward.
He left me there. Alone.

I wasn’t used to such silence for a long time. I was amidst people who considered the highest pitched sound would be heeded best. There everything was calm. The silence was deafening. I screamed, fretted and fumed against this unjust man who dragged me like a fisher man his catch in the net. I felt the pangs of the fish that was clinging to the last drop of water in the gills to hold on to the dear life. I silenced the rebellion within even as I rebelled the silence around, reconciling to my fate that, I thought was a discarded blue print of some one better He had planned to create.

I was oscillating between spiritual consciousness and delirium. A spiritual schizophrenia. The nightmares that haunted me slowly gave way to clarity of vision. The man who left me alone came back once again. He said “where you are, is the result of a choice that you made.” He left me there asking a final question, “Are you not free?” The question took me back to a procession of events that went through my life and the significance of the choices I made. At the end of the thought I was back on the deck looking at the calm sea in the back drop of the bloodshot Sun, slowly rising in the eastern Horizon.

My friend tapped on my shoulders and asked me do you now understand the meaning of being “at the foot of the cross.” Some are by birth, others choose to be there. I am glad that I chose to be tied at the foot of the cross.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Dialoguing Between Disciplines

It was a sumptuous intellectual dinner on 19th June, evening in ICS (IISc), Bangalore. Anoop Dhar (CSCS) proposed some models by which different disciplines could engage in academics, the thrust being the integration of natural sciences with social science and humanities.
The idea was radically challenged by Rajan Gurukkal, the VC of Calicut University for want of an epistemological position and a definite stand point in the critical approach.
The pivotal points in question were
1. Why do you need an integrated approach
2. Is it possible to have such an approach
3. How can we do it
To my mind an integrated understanding of realities is a dream of everyone. How wonderful it will be to be a poet to look at the moon with its silver blanket on the sleeping beauty, while being a geography specialist to forecast the time of the tides and an astrophysicist to know the contours and compositions of the same moon.
But looking at the structure of higher education that I am familiar with, it is a process of specialisation. Specialisation is the process of knowing more and more about less and less things. So the way a biochemist looks at a beauty lotion, a beautician cannot. They have different understandings of the lotion. One knows only little, about the aroma and its physical effects while the other knows only a little of its chemical composition. But in the little that they know they are experts. This is what specialisation is about. Is anything wrong in this partial knowledge?
Well, the debate was all about falsifying the idea of specialisation although no one put in these unambiguous terms. But is it possible for the same person to be expert in the same way from all perspectives? The point I am making is, in academics we have a broad spectrum of subjects until the undergraduate level. At the level of post graduation and research you start specializing to go deeper into a subject matter. If eclectic approaches are continued in Masters Level you turn out to be jack of all trades and masters of none. Remember you wanted to do Masters and you turn out not as master but a novice in many things. What this master is then expected to contribute to the society or in the institution one is expected to work?
We need people who specialise and farther the limits of knowledge in the field that they are concentrating in. It is not necessary that everyone should be aware of everything in the world. That a natural scientist should know humanities is so childish an argument. That they be aware of other perspectives in the research is an additional achievement not a basic one.
Did I divert from Inter-disciplinarity debate? Oh I think so. So did I think of the debate in ICS (IISc). In the interdisciplinarity approach everyone in research is not engaged in approaching the subject matter from all perspectives. It is a collective approach in which different aspects are researched by people from humanities social sciences and natural sciences. But this essential debate of collective research was hijacked by the discussion on natural science and social science hierarchy and positioning in the priority list.
People who switch over from one discipline to another should not be proposed as paradigms for eclectic approaches to specialisation. My point is, does anyone still practice the old trade after he or she has switched over to the new terra of knowledge? I believe not. If s/he does not then it is not an eclectic approach but still a singular approach.
My argument comes from the practical point of view that we actually do not have people who practice natural sciences and social sciences with the same passion in spite of the rhetoric that it is possible. And making structures to enforce such medley approaches will dissipate the investigative rigour and incision.
My second argument comes from the futility of this extreme individualism. What prevents the one who is seeking an eclectic understanding of issues studying literature on the same topic from different disciplines? I find no problem in gathering information from different disciplines on the same topic. Why is then this insistence that even academic engagement on a topic should be eclectic? I fail to find the reason.
It is one thing to have researches done from different perspectives and discipline areas. They may contribute to the growth of these disciplines. Only a few can in fact deal with such trans-disciplinary mode of research. Let the specialisation go on, lest we wet-blanket further growth in the fields producing only sterile knowledge. Let those who are into trans-disciplinary researches do that. Why make norms of exceptions?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

A China Connection

Somewhere around the South China Sea, a typhoon was in formation and the city of Zhuhai was in the grip of an untimely downpour on 23 May, when I (Fr. Jijo, cmf) first set foot on mainland China. I mumbled a little prayer for the land for which the Barbastro Martyrs offered their lives, nearly a century ago. Fr. Rossa woke me up from my ruminations with his typical hilarious voice, ‘Welcome to China.’ A five-minute drive from the border took us to our house by the sea side. It was high tide, so was my soul. Until then I had only a glimpse of our house from the Macau waterfront, almost every day that I stayed there. Going around the city gave me the feeling of a very eco-friendly development model with parks and gardens all along the roads. It was surprising to note that the taxi-driver who dropped us to our house from the border refused to take a little tip, which Fr. Rossa offered.I came to Macau for my internship as part of my master’s studies in English. Teaching at Yuet Wah College was quite an experience. The internet-activated smart classrooms were new to me. But I got adjusted to them readily. While teaching, a certain reference to Punjab came about. One of the students was curious about what Punjab was like and its people. We had the ready reference on internet on Manmohan Singh the New Prime Minister of India which changed their idea of Punjab as a land of exotic curiosities. Students everywhere behave the same way. If they like your class you get their attention. Ill-prepared teachers beware, expect villainy according to their age.Macau, home to the largest casino in the world, is a haven for gamblers. With a total land area of 28 sq. kms., it has 26 casinos, and the number is expected to increase by the end of this year. I went to some big casinos and felt dazed by the obscene use of wealth. I mused on my vow of poverty as I looked around those mansions of vice and greed. It is good to be poor, I realize, lest I build my own Babels of defiance.

Response to Nizzar's Paper, Life after Secularism

Last week I attended a paper presentation By Nizzar in Casa Andree on “Life after Secularism.” There were serious and not so serious discussions on the topic in and outside the University among friends. Some tried to swap the words to form ‘secularism after life’. This put a startling question in my mind, whether in the life after death one will be secular or religious. But, keep that question as it is. Let me go to the content of the paper. The paper seemed to complexify ordinary notions just by changing them into unfamiliar terminology, like ‘life forms’ for religions and mind regimes for ethics. I did not find any purpose achieved by these new significations nor proposing anything worthwhile. But the discussion that ensued animated by Sunder Sarukhai and Arindham brought the issues at stake clearly. What follows is my response to the paper.
Ever since the Nation of Islam was discussed in the class sometime last year, the concept of Secularism was being churned in my mind. Religion played a major role in the formation of most countries in the world. In fact, I know very few countries that are not formed on the basis of religion. Think of its vestiges still haunting/following America, UK, India, Pakistan and not to speak of the Middle East.
The concept of secularism evolved in countries where only one religion was in practice, viz. Christianity. They conceived the idea that in the economic dealings religion should not be considered a barrier. (Judeo-Christian religion had placed strong censures on certain types of economic transactions.) The idea was transplanted to India where many religions existed side by side. It came to be that the meaning of secularism changed into ‘refraining from discrimination based on religion’. Now the two concepts have totally different connotations. The idea of secularism is discussed anew in west when it is threatened by the influx of Hindus, and Muslims. They are awakened to a new sense of identity and apparently slipping into religious fundamentalism. The west is finding it difficult to practice the secularism they once preached.
The speeches of Obama like a religious preacher symbolize that resurgent religiosity. The political parties that have created vote banks on religion in India speaks volumes on how fundamentalism has returned in a modified form to India. In the wake of such resurgent religiosity my question is how dare Nizzar think of ‘Life after Secularism’ when secularism itself has not come. I do not believe in secularism as a final goal to be achieved either. I believe that religious radicalism is the key to better understanding among people. What shape that religion takes at different periods will be decided by the pace of the psychological evolution human kind will achieve in each era.
Following secularism amounts to speaking against one’s own deepest self to some extent, said Arndham. How many people in our country can make a decision in life without having recourse to spiritual counsel? So to live secularism as a way of life is not a natural behaviour. You will come at odds with yourself when it comes to actually implementing it.
What then is the option? Religious radicalism is the option. All religions at their base, root (radix) believe in universal brotherhood and love. Aggression on another’s conscience on whatever ground one tries to justify, does not fall in line with any religious teaching. If any fundamentalism has arisen in any religion it comes out of a narrow interpretation of the rules and not a defect in the religious code itself. So keeping religions and their teaching will make people feel comfortable within themselves and with others. This is what I mean radicalism in religion.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

New Subjectivities

Ever since I joined Christ University, I have become part of the active and passive deliberations on the question of subjectivity and objectivity. To my surprise the cacaphony on subjectity is too much that objectivity has been defeated by sound and not logic. (Interestingly most guest lecturers belong to this subjectity band wagon) There is no objectivity and all objectivities are ideology ridden and hegemonic is the most appreciated view that is gaining currency now. To my hunble thoughts, I find that if subjectivity is overemphasised, there will be no common ground even for discussions, let alone common decisions. Living as a society will become impossible because no two people will be able to agree on anything.
Consider the typcial instance of the illusion of the rope as a snake. Imagine that there are only two people who see 'something' as a rope/snake. One claims that it is a snake while the other claims that it is a rope. The one who considers the 'something' as a snake even gets the fear and repulsion of actually seeing a snake. While the other does not. Now, if there is no way of going near to the 'something' to confirm whether it is a snake or rope both will continue to claim that it is a snake/rope according to each one's perception. If a third person actually finds that it is a rope, will he be able to convince the first two people? But does lack of ability to get convicned reduce the objectivity of the rope?
Well, I am aware that the third person is hypothetical and there is no one to varify the actual thing. So the debate will continue. But this debate is meant for those who care to look at things from far, uninvolved in the search for truth. If both of the initial viewers were to cross the difficulty and verify the veracity of their claims? Objectivity will surely emerge. But there is a complication that happens at this juncture. If out of the two only one agrees to cross the difficulty and verifies that the 'something' is a rope the other person will continue to debate that it is a snake. Check Spelling

Another complication that can emerge is if the one who goes finds out that the 'something' is a rope but is not interested in truth and returns to claim that it is a snake (he has vested interests (hegemony) to keep the other persons away for ever from the locus of truth) the debate will still continue.


Now the original question is twisted, the question is not on objectivity but on who wins. In this power tension, other people join sides and make so much of sound perhaps on the side of the one who has known that 'something' is a rope but misleads that it is a snake. Here the one who has more sound will be heard. Earlier the power hierarchy was based on political and muscle power. Now this is shifted in favour of sound bytes and public support. Interestingly public support is a matter of emotions and not reason.


A few underlying facts could be drawn out from the discussion.
1. The question is actually not of objectivity but of the ability or inability to verify objectivity.
2. The question of objectivity is blurred by power structures (hegemony)
3. But hegemonic manipulations do not affect objectivity itself but only its narration

Some pre-requisites to find objectivity are
1. to belielve in the existence of objects and its narrations.
2. a committment to truth. It is a willingness to change stance when one is proved wrong.
3. Truth does not rest with the powerful nor with the powerless but with the object.
The belief that the truth rests with the parties in an argument is what makes enquiry impossilbe.

My conclusion is that Deconstruction/ I am using this word with hesitation/ of the binaries of power structure has an agenda of establishing alternative narratives and power structures. In order to establish this new subjectivity (narration) the deconstructionists have kept objectivity out of circulation. This is more hegemonic than the one they try to deconstruct.