The pre-pubescent girl –a manifestation of the Divine Mother – serving her is worshipping the Goddess.
The Ashtami of Devi Navratra is her day.
Five giggling girls. Or seven. Or nine.
Dressed up in their festive best. Having their feet washed ceremoniously by the male householder. Seated on silken rugs. Fed first – before the token male child. Extra-sweet halwa. Fluffy puries straight from the pan.
She is sent off with gifts of flowers and money. To be forgotten till the next year.
One day in a year, the girl child gets to be a Goddess. Why should it not be everyday?
______
Drabble (n) - an extremely short work exactly one hundred words in length. The purpose of the drabble is brevity and to test the author's ability to express interesting and meaningful ideas in an extremely confined space.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
A city unsafe
A couple of days back, 25-year old Soumya Vishwanathan, was found dead with a bullet in her head. That the T.V. journalist was killed in cold blood in the middle of the Capital city was was tragic enough, but what made it worse was the Chief Minister’s reaction to the tragedy – “All by herself till 3 am at night in a city where people believe...you know...you should not be so adventurous.”
I cannot even start to make sense of the Chief Minister's remarks. Sowmya Vishwanathan was in a profession that required people to work erratic hours, and the hour at which she was returnign home was not an uncommon one for media professionals. Sowmya Vishwanathan had not been 'asking for trouble' by keeping erratic hours - if she was asking for trouble, it was by being a contciencious journalist and asking uncomfortable questions.
Rather than apologise for the breakdown in law and order in her state, the Chief Minister (a female herself) chose to cast aspersions on the character of a young professional about whom she knows practically nothing. Is a man asking for trouble when he returns home from work at 3 am? No, he is lauded for being a thorough professional who is willing to work long hours. Why then these double standards when it comes to women?
True, you rarely find women out on the streets of Delhi after dinnertime. In Mumbai, I have cheerfully taken the last train home, without stopping to think if it were safe to do so or not, but in Delhi the first time I asked someone to drop me off a two minute walk away from home was also the last time I did so. Six years back, it was apparently a cardinal sin for a single woman to be wandering around the streets of Delhi even at 10 pm. Judging by Shiela Dixit's reaction, it still is.
And I wonder why it is so – is the prevailing attitude present because the city is unsafe for women, or is the city unsafe for women because of the prevailing attitude that it is? And is there a solution, apart from the one where all working women just move out of the city?
I cannot even start to make sense of the Chief Minister's remarks. Sowmya Vishwanathan was in a profession that required people to work erratic hours, and the hour at which she was returnign home was not an uncommon one for media professionals. Sowmya Vishwanathan had not been 'asking for trouble' by keeping erratic hours - if she was asking for trouble, it was by being a contciencious journalist and asking uncomfortable questions.
Rather than apologise for the breakdown in law and order in her state, the Chief Minister (a female herself) chose to cast aspersions on the character of a young professional about whom she knows practically nothing. Is a man asking for trouble when he returns home from work at 3 am? No, he is lauded for being a thorough professional who is willing to work long hours. Why then these double standards when it comes to women?
True, you rarely find women out on the streets of Delhi after dinnertime. In Mumbai, I have cheerfully taken the last train home, without stopping to think if it were safe to do so or not, but in Delhi the first time I asked someone to drop me off a two minute walk away from home was also the last time I did so. Six years back, it was apparently a cardinal sin for a single woman to be wandering around the streets of Delhi even at 10 pm. Judging by Shiela Dixit's reaction, it still is.
And I wonder why it is so – is the prevailing attitude present because the city is unsafe for women, or is the city unsafe for women because of the prevailing attitude that it is? And is there a solution, apart from the one where all working women just move out of the city?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Durga Puja - a Drabble
Streets blocked off to traffic. A sea of humanity. Step in and get carried along with the tide.The city awash with illuminations. Whole stories retold in lights.
Pandals housing the ten-handed Goddess on every lane. Crude box like structures, or replicas of famous monuments.
The frenzied beat of the dakis. The sound of conch shells being blown. The benign face of the Goddess.
The tantalizing aroma of street-food. The smell of camphor and flowers. And sweaty arm-pits.
A quest to visit all the pandals. Conversations and contests on which were the best.
Four days of Durga Pujas in Calcutta.
____
Drabble (n) - an extremely short work exactly one hundred words in length. The purpose of the drabble is brevity and to test the author's ability to express interesting and meaningful ideas in an extremely confined space.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Navratras - a Drabble
At the heart of the circle, a flickering oil lamp in an earthen pot - Garba, from garb, meaning womb. The Mother Goddess.
Round and round the dancers go. The tempo rises, the dancers keep up. The music reaches a crescendo. Bodies pirouette. Skirts twirl. The mirrors sewn onto skirts catch the light and reflect it back. The frenzy never ends.
Is it a celebration? Entertainment? Worship? Festival and Festivity are cousins.
The Navratras. Nine nights of non-stop dancing. Nine nights of worship.
____
Drabble (n) - an extremely short work exactly one hundred words in length. The purpose of the drabble is brevity and to test the author's ability to express interesting and meaningful ideas in an extremely confined space.
Friday, October 3, 2008
An angry mother crow
While sorting through my photographs today, I came across this picture that I took some months back.
A crow had made a nest outside my window, and when I tried to take a picture of its pretty greenish-blue eggs, the crow got really agitated and nearly pecked my eyes out.
No other bird has reacted as adversely to a real or a perceived threat - I've destroyed dozens of pigeon eggs, and the birds have just placidly picked up the remains of the nest and moved elsewhere. Ditoo with a sparrow nest in Delhi - when they found that my son and I were taking an unhealthy interest in the eggs, the bird moved the eggs elsewhere, but they were not willing to go to war with a human to protect their eggs.
Crows, are almost mammal-like in guarding their young. Why then do they get such bad press?
Is it our colour-conscious mentality asserting itself, I wonder.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Gandhi and Children's T.V. serials
“Mamma, what do I watch? There is Ben 10 on Cartoon Network, but that is not allowed. Ninja Hatorri on Nick, but that is not allowed. Animax is not allowed. Can I watch Power Rangers on Jetix?”
“Jetix is not allowed either. What about Pogo? What is on Pogo?”
“Fighting wala serial – also not allowed. Mamma, please, please can I watch Power Rangers? I switched off the TV when Ben 10 came on Cartoon Network. Please can I watch Power Rangers S.P.D.?”
“Okay. You can watch Power Rangers. But only this time, and only because you were a good boy and turned off the T.V. when the serial that was not allowed came on.”
A one-off conversation? No way - variations of this take place every single day at home. More than half a dozen channels dedicated to children, but between 8 and 9 pm when the kids are allowed to watch T.V., you cannot find a single channel that broadcasts anything even reasonably appropriate for kids.
If it is not the Power Rangers bashing up their enemies, it is Ben 10 fighting with his. Animax always seems to have amine characters blowing up each other, and those dubbed Japanese serials on Nick don’t even have the minor saving grace of dialogues in English.
Brought up as they are on a staple diet of pure unadulterated violence passing itself off as entertainment, is it any wonder that ‘fighting’ seems to be the favourite pastime of today’s kids? Not fighting for a cause, or fighting with someone because they did something to annoy you – fighting as in the noun, “fighting karega?” -
Older brother to younger brother – “Fighting karega?”
Younger brother to older brother – “Haan!”
My boys dispense pushes, punches, and kicks the way I would hugs and kisses. Pulling each other’s hair and pinching each other is all in a day’s work. Declining to buy them guns doesn’t prevent them from playing with them – they just borrow spare guns from their friends.
Are these the values we want our children to grow up with? Sure, the T.V. serials always have the good guys bashing up the bad ones – we know that, but can children tell the difference? To them, the equation is simple – Spiderman is good, Spiderman bashes up the bad guys, therefore it is good to bash up the bad guys. And who is the bad guy – the kid you were playing with till a minute back becomes a bad guy the moment he refuses to let you hold his new battery operated gun, and he needs to be bashed up.
Today, while trying to explain the relevance of Gandhi-ji to our lives, I was repeatedly reminded of his famous words – “an eye for an eye, and the world would go blind.” I told the kids the story of how Gandhi-ji found them fighting with each other –
Gandhi-ji – “Why did you push your older brother?”
Younger brother – “Because he pushed me.”
Gandhi-ji – “And why did you push your younger brother?”
Older brother – “Because he pushed me first.”
Gandhi-ji – “When you push him, what happens? He pushes you back. And then you push him, and he pushes you again. And eventually who gets hurt? Both of you.”
Older brother – “So?”
Gandhi-ji – “So, when either of you pushes the other, and the other pushes back, both of you end up getting hurt. I am sure you do not like that at all. So, the next time someone pushes you, just say ‘I forgive you’, and walk away. Fighting is no fun unless the other person fights back, so after awhile, the other person stop bothering you. Why don’t you just try that and see?”
As a bedtime story, the kids loved it, but I am not at all sanguine about it making a significant different to the quantum or quality of the ‘fighting’ they do.
But if the T.V. Channels start applying some of Gandhi’s standards while selecting programmes for children, maybe we would gradually start seeing a change?
“Jetix is not allowed either. What about Pogo? What is on Pogo?”
“Fighting wala serial – also not allowed. Mamma, please, please can I watch Power Rangers? I switched off the TV when Ben 10 came on Cartoon Network. Please can I watch Power Rangers S.P.D.?”
“Okay. You can watch Power Rangers. But only this time, and only because you were a good boy and turned off the T.V. when the serial that was not allowed came on.”
A one-off conversation? No way - variations of this take place every single day at home. More than half a dozen channels dedicated to children, but between 8 and 9 pm when the kids are allowed to watch T.V., you cannot find a single channel that broadcasts anything even reasonably appropriate for kids.
If it is not the Power Rangers bashing up their enemies, it is Ben 10 fighting with his. Animax always seems to have amine characters blowing up each other, and those dubbed Japanese serials on Nick don’t even have the minor saving grace of dialogues in English.
Brought up as they are on a staple diet of pure unadulterated violence passing itself off as entertainment, is it any wonder that ‘fighting’ seems to be the favourite pastime of today’s kids? Not fighting for a cause, or fighting with someone because they did something to annoy you – fighting as in the noun, “fighting karega?” -
Older brother to younger brother – “Fighting karega?”
Younger brother to older brother – “Haan!”
My boys dispense pushes, punches, and kicks the way I would hugs and kisses. Pulling each other’s hair and pinching each other is all in a day’s work. Declining to buy them guns doesn’t prevent them from playing with them – they just borrow spare guns from their friends.
Are these the values we want our children to grow up with? Sure, the T.V. serials always have the good guys bashing up the bad ones – we know that, but can children tell the difference? To them, the equation is simple – Spiderman is good, Spiderman bashes up the bad guys, therefore it is good to bash up the bad guys. And who is the bad guy – the kid you were playing with till a minute back becomes a bad guy the moment he refuses to let you hold his new battery operated gun, and he needs to be bashed up.
Today, while trying to explain the relevance of Gandhi-ji to our lives, I was repeatedly reminded of his famous words – “an eye for an eye, and the world would go blind.” I told the kids the story of how Gandhi-ji found them fighting with each other –
Gandhi-ji – “Why did you push your older brother?”Younger brother – “Because he pushed me.”
Gandhi-ji – “And why did you push your younger brother?”
Older brother – “Because he pushed me first.”
Gandhi-ji – “When you push him, what happens? He pushes you back. And then you push him, and he pushes you again. And eventually who gets hurt? Both of you.”
Older brother – “So?”
Gandhi-ji – “So, when either of you pushes the other, and the other pushes back, both of you end up getting hurt. I am sure you do not like that at all. So, the next time someone pushes you, just say ‘I forgive you’, and walk away. Fighting is no fun unless the other person fights back, so after awhile, the other person stop bothering you. Why don’t you just try that and see?”
As a bedtime story, the kids loved it, but I am not at all sanguine about it making a significant different to the quantum or quality of the ‘fighting’ they do.
But if the T.V. Channels start applying some of Gandhi’s standards while selecting programmes for children, maybe we would gradually start seeing a change?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
And, Eid Mubarak
This time of the year when Mumbai becomes a wonderland – Ganapathy, Ramadhan, Navratri, Diwali, Christmas- the festivals follow in quick succession. Sometimes, I wonder if the strings of fairy lights that form a canopy over the streets are even taken down between festivals. The way to tell them apart is from the colour of the flags that interspace rows of lights – orange for Ganapathy, green for Ramadhan, multi-coloured festoons for Navratri,
This year, I noticed there were far fewer green flags on public display than the previous year, but I really did not give too much thought to it. Today’s paper gave me the answer to my unformulated question – the All India Muslim Front had appealed to all Muslims to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr with austerity and to wear black bands or black caps to condemn the recent spate of bombings in the country.
One part of me rejoiced at the foresight of the leaders of the organisation – some Muslims are responsible for the bombings, so all Muslims are terrorists is the convenient opinion of most people in the country. What better way to prove to the country that the majority of Muslims shun violence than by toning down the celebrations of your most important festival?
As an individual, I am tired of having to continuously wonder where the next bomb blast is going to take place, to have my eyes constantly flitting about to locate potential bombs. But equally, I am tired of having an entire community being blamed for something perpetuated by a few individuals. I am proud of the Muslim leadership for demonstrating their true position in such a strong manner.
But, as a member of the majority community, I am also ashamed at demanding that the Muslims make this sacrifice to prove their non-violent credentials. Why should an eight-year old Muslim girl be deprived of a chance to show off her brand new lehanga to appease people who choose not to think for themselves? Why should a Muslim household not partake of a full Eid spread, merely because a country chooses to be moronic?
In the past, Ahmedabad had not, out of consideration for the people who lost so much during the Gujarat riots, toned down its festivities while celebrating Navratri. Civic and religious leaders had, in fact, justified the ostentatious celebrations by arguing that participating in the festivities would help the riot affected people heal faster.
Why then, should the Muslims have to tone down their celebrations to prove that they do not support the creed of violence?
The Muslims should not have to do it, but they are doing it, and I hope all Indians get the message they want sent out – that it is individuals who are responsible for the bombings, not the community as a whole.
By the same token, I wonder if any of the Hindu leaders would even consider asking Hindus to tone down Diwali celebrations to condemn the violence against Christian missionaries in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
