Tuesday, 4 October 2011

The Beginning and End of Memory

Today I took a new route on my walk and came upon an old-age care home. It was a neat block of lovely fresh flats tastefully built in the middle of a green carpet of grass. The view was captivating and the lovely gardens surrounding it forced me to stop and take a second look. The curtains were flung open and the colours radiating out was not only picturesque but had a strange attractiveness with a welcoming fragrance. As I began to resume my walk, it almost felt that I was being invited in to participate in the life that was happening behind those double glazed windows. I watched some of the elderly crossing rooms on walkers, while others seated, watching the telly. Some windows led into private quarters while others into community areas with settees and long dining areas. As I continued to peep in (probably I shouldn’t have), the place looked merry with vibrant colours, Sky entertainment, great food on the table, fun, laughter and friendships. As the home passed out of my peripheral vision, I glanced back one last time. This time I was looking right into the very last window of the very last room and suddenly life went into slow-motion. An attendant was helping an elderly lady get to her bed. She had one of the most beautiful angelic smiles I have ever seen and it seemed she was looking right at me. As the attendant was gently nudging her and as her body was being lifted towards the bed, her face was fixed looking through the window, looking right at me. As I turned my head away, I caught a slight wave of her hand and I walked on with a waving hand. Thoughts of birth, life and death came in unannounced and struck a conversation that I was to witness.

We come alone and leave alone – at both ends we are with strangers. That was the very first thought. If we try to remember, we have no memory either of ourselves or of those around us not just at the time of our birth but even the first few months or years. We are born among a bunch of strangers whom over time we start to call family. As the years grow by, we understand what relationships are and what father, mother, brother or sister means. Those very strangers become family. Then an uncanny thought crossed my mind – as one grows older, with the fading of memory, the family once again becomes a bunch of strangers. The memory that held those relationships together is slowly lost and along with it the relationships that it cherished. Those who held you while you were a baby are no more and those you held are not always near. Of course they do love you, and they do come in regularly to visit. They peel an apple for you and even as you bite into it, you try hard to remember, to reach out, and to connect but everything is blurred however hard you try. You seem to know them but just can’t seem to place them, to remember anything properly any longer. As they close the door behind them, you breathe out a sigh of relief. The pressure to try to remember is gone, along with them. It is better to be alone. But then you are not really alone, you are in a home full of people with whom you play games, watch telly and have your meals. But there is no pressure with this bunch of strangers, there is no strain to remember – actually, there is nothing to remember about strangers.

The similarity between childhood and old age is definitely uncanny. Another example is that at both ends, you don’t seem to have control over your own body. The body does things that even surprise you. At both stages of one’s life one is dependant and needs to be cared for and looked after. People are always around you, watching over, looking out and taking care of you. They are around you but cannot be with you. They care and do everything you want, even before you ask and they really want to get into your world, but are unable. You are bounded off and they cannot break in to your horizon. They can read your body language and sometimes it seems even your mind, but at both ends, you always remain an object of care – of loving care, but an impenetrable care.

These thoughts of birth and death made me wonder about the life lived in between. I thought about the different faces that I had seen through those fantastically colourful windows. Each one had lived a whole life with a multitude of relationships. It made me wonder about people, the ones with whom we live, and move and have our being. I wondered about those faces behind the fences– who would have shared the best days of their lives? Who did they live it with? What did they do? They all would have stories that span the time they have distanced. Stories that narrate their time, stories in which they were uniquely the lead actor – the central character. In all their actions, all their emotions, and in all their relationships, every role they played, each one lived in a uniquely personal way. But an actor does not play just one character; he plays different roles, different parts. The myth of the unified self! Maybe there are unique stylistic characteristics in an actor that identifies them irrespective of the roles they play, like Al Pacino’s coarse voice. But a good actor is able to disrobe and empty himself, undergo kénōsis before every new role, so that he becomes nothing but the role – a different person in every new role, completely immersed in the role, he does not play the role, he is the role.

But she is still the same, is she not? But how is she the same and to whom is she the same? In the different stories of her lived life, she has played different roles and different groups of people have seen a different her, so how is she the same. But then at least to herself, and in her memory, even as she draws all these different stories together into one magnanimous whole, a book with each story a chapter – but one book, however, a book that can’t be found in a library, unavailable to any other person, not even available to herself objectively. Only available to her in her memory where she is always the actor, the editor, the producer. But is that it! What happens when her memory fades! What is the use of producing stories only for oneself and for them to be burnt to ashes with the passing away of memory? There must be another way out. Would there be another way to keep these stories alive, to ensure that they have a longer shelf life than the fading memory? But then there are those fragments she leaves behind, traces of herself in co-actors, crew and the entire production team of every story. Maybe even in the lives of the bystanders who watched her perform in front of life’s camera. They all take away traces of her. I suppose we leave ourselves behind as fragments in those who share the stories with us. A story brings different characters together and each character completes the other. My part and role is necessary for the completion of the story and for the other characters to perform their roles. So in performing my role, my character, playing my part, I am giving myself to the other, to complete their role. Just as my part would be incomplete, without any sense without those myriads upon myriads of actors whose parts have completed me, and given sense to my stories, similarly my part completes each one of them. But I would not know what I leave behind, it is left behind, even as it leaves me, it becomes a part of the other, in the unique way they have appropriated and received it. It no longer is mine; it has become a stranger to me, it is partaken by the other.

All I have are my memories, my special seat in the balcony, in my own theatre, where my stories are screened, for the audience of one. Surely, a day will come when all this will not matter, these memories will fade away and all these others will come to become a bunch of strangers again.  Yes, that day will probably come soon, for me and for my memory, when I am no more even to myself, and the stories become incoherent. But these stories live on. They have taken a life of their own. They transcend me even as I leave them behind, in every other person who has walked, talked and woven stories with me, together. Not just the chosen few who played roles opposite me, but the hundreds with whom she shared conversations, meetings, coffees. The thousands of bystanders who watched her and maybe never uttered a word, but they have got a bit of her, a tiny part of her that completes them. You leave behind a fragment, a special part of yourself in each of them.

Then what should I do and how should I be – create beautiful memories, memories that I can live within. Memories that will last me a lifetime and more, memories that will keep me going, even in their faded form, memories that will be the world I can slip into when I am alone, when once again I will be with a bunch of strangers, with death sitting at the foot of my bed.

Monday, 3 October 2011

The Dark Side of Good

Ominous fragrance soaked air
Measured movements in black
Heaving chests, long sighs
Silent gasps and cries
Loud without sound
Dance without the dancer
Strings vibrate long notes
Air heavy with anticipation
White lilies adorning
Every parlour chair taken
No room even to stand
The water breaks
Her heaves cease
Behold the murderer is born
Celebration turns into mourning
Cries of joy mixed with grief
No doubt she doesn’t know her crime
Like so many others including us
Parasitic on lives for ours to live
Life and death connected extraordinaire
Each fuelling the other
Why scapegoat a few
For this monstrous arrangement
Why imprison or shoot at sight?
Even sincere benevolence
Experiences metamorphosis
Eager for the good it seeks for the other
It gets rid of the filth
Re-forming the scum of the earth
Scrubbing clean the baby
Skin peels, blood flows
Scrubs harder
The baby screams in agony
But cleanliness is next to godliness
And the scrubbing continues
Is it self-affirmation?
One’s purity displayed
Or is it the cruel dialectic
Between self-worth and the worth of selves
My worth determined
By the worth I force on the other
Or even self-redemption?
I need to stand for good
The overcoming self
Recompensing my evil
But the march for good
This glorious crusade
Soon rots into evil
Oh the unrestrained violence of good
Numinous hatred and sacred brutality
Or just the plain evil of the self
Sorry tales we tell ourselves
Pass them on to our children
Create characters in supporting roles
The villain always the other
Poor, ugly bastards
Needs stamping out as roaches
Unleashing uncontrolled
The power of my good
My licence to kill
Good and evil
Illegitimate categories
Yet needed for sanity
In this insane universe

Passion Lasts forever

Fell in love
But soon
Failed in love
She was engaged
Secretly to an other
Sent to be a dealer
Family wanted him
Wheeling and dealing
To Paris was he sent
In 1875
Art or commodity
Perverse vulgarity
Resentment led to
Termination
Fled Paris
For England
Turned to religion
Found his passion at last
This is what I want to do
True vocation mine to stay
Will serve my God
Till death cease my
Action apart
But failed again
Entrance exams
Couldn’t clear
Ok, a smaller post, but
Failed again
No diploma, not even a certificate
No chance
For even a tiny portion
Of the dream
Imagine
Couldn’t be a doctor
Not even a nurse
Not even an attendant
There is no room
In the hospital
But passion dies hard
Especially when
Kicked down by defeats
The force of the failures
Fuels its flames
The dream it meant to destroy
Resurrects with strength
Onward to Petit Wasmes
Borinage, Belgium
Into the coal mines
Living like a miner
Slept on straw spread floors
Behind the baker’s door
Foxes have holes
Birds have nests
But all he had was
Sobs and tears
But failure strikes again
Got kicked out
Of the coalmine
For undermining
The dignity of
The dream
Custodians of the dream
Guardians of the Church
Or art dealers from Rome
Family found him crazy
Sent him to an asylum
At Geel
Failed in love
Failed in dealing
Failed in religion
But the passion
Kept burning
Changed form
But kept burning
Turned to art
In the service of God
Some capture in words
And I will do pictures
Maybe the good times
Are at last in rolling
Love seems to come knocking
No sooner the notion
Old friend failure screams
Niet, Nooit, Nimmer
Failures come in all kinds
But the greatest of these is love
The preacher turns to prostitute
To Sien’s bosom for love
Love she did
Gonorrhoea he caught
Failure comes back visiting
Sardonic smiles
Passion enflamed
Turns menacing
He paints her with his brush
The art turns violent
To God be the glory
Gordina de Groot
Is pregnant
Time is running fast
How long would passion last?
The pictures and the prostitutes
Came fast, rapidly working his brush
Chased from the hospital
Not to be a doctor
Neither nurse nor attendant
He came back in
As a patient
For the asylum he sought
‘Fou roux’ was he called
The red headed madman
Friends and family desert
And failure promptly is back
For a last visit
Shot through his chest
At thirty-seven
Revolver he held
With his own hand
Passion ebbing
Twenty-nine long hours
Cigarette reaching its butt
Flicker ready to snuff
Closed his eyes
And out came the
Famous last words
‘The sadness
Will last
Forever’
A madman, menacing
Died a pauper
With no lover
To hold his hand
But sadness is passion reformed
Passion lasts forever
Who would have thought
The un-loved was a father
Expressionism
His true begotten child
Today worth in billions
He dwells amongst the rich
Famous he makes the ordinary
The ordinary has become famous
Millions call on his name
His pictures enframe their souls
The final battle commences
Failure charges passion
Passion flares its nostrils
A flick of the brush
A throw of the wrist
A death-blow it receives
And Failure falls to its knees
Failure fails to conquer
Receives a sardonic stab to the chest
Passion snuffs failure
Passion never dies
Passion lasts forever

Sunday, 25 September 2011

Alexey Navalny - Grassroots fight against corruption in Russia

Last Wednesday (21st September 2011), I went to listen to Alexey Navalny (35) at LSE - a lawyer and a super-blogger who has become a kind of celebrity and some sort of a global icon for grassroots fight against corruption in Russia. He had a great sense of humour, very pragmatic and very open-ended about this mission. His blog has over a million posts and has several million hits every month. With the anti-corruption movement in India, I just wanted to listen to an activist who was spearheading a similar movement in another part of the world.

Here are a few main points from his talk:

first, he fights corruption because he sees corruption as 'opportunities' stolen by an elite group.

secondly, he takes corruption 'personally' as his opportunities and his children's opportunities being stolen and so he wants to reclaim them.

thirdly, the main vehicle is the internet and the use of information.

fourthly, his movement is sponsored by what he calls 'crowd funding' using paypal. They had a target of raising 20,000$ in 1 year and ended up raising 250,000$ in 2 months.

fifthly, this movement has minimum structure, just a battery of lawyers to do all the boring work collecting information and filing cases against corrupt people. The minimum structure enables the movement to be organic and flexible.

sixthly, people are fed up of corruption and they want to make a contribution. The key is to organize their energy and interest and channelize them into constructive action.

seven, this movement is the biggest civil society organization in Russia and it is not even registered.

eight, the difference between the government's fight against corruption and theirs is that (I quote) - 'the president is talking about fighting corruption all the time but we fight. This is the huge difference'.

nine, the legal system is the key arena to fight as laws do exist but are circumvented by the powerful all the time, now we use the laws to fight the lawmakers.

ten, the inefficiency of the state is an important cause of corruption. The loopholes are used to steal. But the inefficiency of the state is good as it also gives our fight against corruption opportunities.

eleven, corruption thrives on a weak state, but then it is also good as it means a weak political system and the fight against corruption is possible in such a situation, for example, as opposed to a totalitarian regime.

twelve, to decentralise the team and have the fight in many fronts. Not to have a central structure for the fight against corruption.

thirteen, he said that they do not fight against the idea of corruption, but against corrupt people. There must always be a face to corruption, it is not an ideological fight. For example, apart from targeting corrupt politicians or business tycoons, he also demands of the public to not vote for the main party that according to him makes corruption thrive - United Russia ( Vladimir Putin's party).



A friend of mine also took snap shots of his slides and I slung them together as a short clip. If you want a copy of that clip, do send me a message.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

corruption – personal moral weakness or a mechanism of redistribution: an alternative interpretation

While the slogan against corruption is presently flying high in India, I think we need all the insights as possible to make sense of this phenomenon. A few questions come immediately to mind - What is corruption? Has it got anything to do with morality at all? How can it be or does it even have to be overcome in the Indian state?

In common parlance, give/take of bribes as well as baksheesh for getting a job done or for escaping social punishment is taken to be corruption. So narrowly defined, corruption is primarily understood as a negative monetary phenomenon. So be it a give/take of a few hundred rupees to avoid a traffic ticket, or for a politician to take a few hundred crores to grant a business license both are taken as standard examples of corruption. With the media boom and its churning of millions of impressions, we in India are on one hand either immune to the political forms of corruption that adds daily to the 480 billion dollars taken out and stashed outside the Indian economy or relish in the process of scapegoating. A successful sting operation by someone like Tehelka and a videotape or a phone conversation that catches a minister 'red-handed' brings the whole nation against this monster who rapes her booming economy. Even the political class immediately joins the public outrage with righteous indignation and without batting an eyelid is seen condemning its own, the one chosen to be crucified, to be sacrificed so that the entire class can be redeemed. This game has been played out so often in our media in different versions that its stale plot has become rather boring – neither entertaining nor infotaining. However the public also faces the corruption phenomenon in its daily life, where it is required to give money to get legitimate works done within the public domain. For example to get a house registered or to get a driving license or a ration card or anything of utility from the government, one is required to give baksheesh. This is probably what raises the hackles of the public.

This daily ritual is immediate and affects both my wallet and my bank balance directly. The millions that get siphoned off regularly do not really affect me, or so I think, but the physical rupees that I pull out of my wallet and hand over to the clerk or the constable – this enacted ritual of appeasing the smaller deities of power, though with symbolic prashad, is real and my embodiment of this ritual leaves me with a deep experience of this holy/unholy exchange – ugly and painful as I hand over the money and but washed away and absolved into holy pleasure of untold ecstasy even as the god grants my boon and the license finds space in my hands. I weep with joy at His mercies and His love for low-lives such as me, who though undeserving have found favour in the Lord’s eyes and have been blessed with both the home registration and the driving license. However, as the euphoria subsides, and realization is obtained, the deep pinch of the loss of the gandhis is felt within the deep recesses of one’s soul, and the enacted ritual takes on a contrary interpretation. Secular sensibilities kick in, and you cry – he is not a god, I am god. Matter of fact, he is my servant given a job to do my beckoning for which he will get his due pay. How dare he then charge me? How has the servant become the master? The baksheesh ritual seems to suddenly go against the very grain of my religiosity and secular sensibilities and I proclaim it as corruption, a moral wickedness and great depravity. My liberal sensibilities regained, I try and find a rationale for this unholy act – greed I say, hmmm, no selfishness and greed. Why is he not satisfied with his pay? Why does he need more money to do what he is justly paid for? Can’t a servant be satisfied with his wages? Why should he aspire for more? Thus the phenomenon is quickly interpreted as a moral breakdown and corruption is seen as moral weakness.

This interpretation of corruption as a moral malaise has largely come from one who either holds or is influenced even unconsciously, by a liberal view of society and state. A liberal state while it is completely supportive of entrepreneurship and free market, is a strong state that has control over the economic processes within it. Every dollar profited is taxed at source and social processes are in place to ensure that those working for the state are paid handsomely from it. The redistribution is managed optimally not because of the liberality of a state, but rather because of the immense control exercised by the liberal state on the capitalism it reigns over. The entire economy is built around utilitarian principles and Adam Smith’s principle of personal greed. Though it has been institutionalised even greed has to have moral principles. Thus bribery or its Indian equivalent baksheesh is seen as a sign of extending the boundaries of legal greed, and as a personal moral weakness that goes against the processes set up to maximise wealth-generation. Simply put baksheesh ultimately goes against the grain of institutionalised greed and that is unacceptable, completely unacceptable. That is why, within a liberal state, corruption is seen as a personal moral weakness and is condemned, while what gets hidden and actually supported is institutionalised greed that not only rapes both the environment and weaker economies but is worshipped as the new god of liberalism.

Within the Indian context, those influenced by liberal sensibilities naively mimic the liberal condemnatory position against corruption and look at it as a personal moral weakness. But by naively doing so, they ignore the real processes taking place within the un-liberal Indian economy. The process of corruption needs to understood in a deeper fashion within the Indian state, and not from a liberal position, that presupposes a strong egalitarian state where anyone circumventing the state system is termed corrupt. In my opinion, India has a very weak state machinery and its systems are riddled with so many holes that one sometimes wonders if we have a state at all. India can claim to be liberal and secular and even have these terms inserted into its constitution, but that says nothing about the state of affairs of the Indian state. One must look below the words and terms to look at the processes that hold the Indian state machinery together. This is of course not the place to do that, but only to look at a snapshot of why baksheesh and bribery though condemned as a personal moral weakness by a liberal position which has institutionalised greed, has to be interpreted in a different manner within the Indian economy – maybe even as a redeeming process.

Indian society has not undergone the version of modernization and liberalization that Europe went through in the modern era. Europe has been able to either abolish its monarchy or make peace with them in a secular and liberal democracy. We have already critiqued the negatives of a liberal society in its institutionalisation of greed however it also has its positives that must be extolled. Especially in America, the opportunity to flourish and the capabilities needed to flourish are provided institutionally to nearly all in its society in a mostly egalitarian manner. So new social equations are formed constantly and there is no honour or pressure to maintain traditional equations.

However, the Indian situation is very different. The modern Indian state is built upon traditional equations, which were to be honest, sloppily repackaged into a secular liberal state at the time of Independence without making any fundamental changes within society at large. The kingdoms became constituencies. The kings became Members of Parliament. I do not mean that this happened everywhere that would be a gross generalization but we do know where it happened. But more importantly, the mindset that power is for a select few and it has to be respected and honoured has continued to remain as a dominant part of the Indian psyche. The traditional king got replaced by the politician and the bureaucrat and the masses continued to live as subjects. Hence the attitude that getting a driving license or a house registration is a boon and an act of grace rather than a right fulfilled. Where the traditional king lost out in the new kingdom, new kings were crowned and they obviously needed the wealth that came with the title. Thus the quest for wealth in the macro-level was seen as normative. It was only enabling the new kings to come to be at par with the old ones. Otherwise how would they have equal voice within the new kingdom of democracy? How could they have the resources even to compete against the traditional kings in elections? The old kings have not been asked to abdicate or have not been dispossessed of their wealth, so all that the new kings could do, in a society of subjects that respected and honoured wealthy kings, is to gain wealth. Obviously they wouldn’t rob a bank, or maybe they ought to and thus would. Thus in India the coming of the democratic state only deepened this divide between the masses and the kings. Even though the king-class has increased its numbers and allowed new entrants, it is still a tiny group that controls and rules over the masses. But in the new kingdom, the masses have roles and positions in the government and because in name the new kingdom is a democratic kingdom, the new kings cannot exercise complete control over their ministers and court officials as they would do in their traditional kingdoms. And these second, third, fourth class officials, with little power look for innovative ways to undercut the kings and to ensure that wealth is not purely retained in the hands of the royals but gets distributed to the other levels. Because the regular state systems have not taken equal opportunities, or equal re-distribution of wealth into consideration, these officials of the kingdom have had the need to evolve an informal system of baksheesh that will offset the total rape of the economy by the royalty and attempt at a redistribution of wealth even if it is only to their advantage. So while the politicians make their billions, the policeman on the beat makes his hundreds. Thus the accusation of corruption in all levels of power! But is this really corruption, in the sense of a personal moral weakness, or is it a counter-mechanism, a mechanism of revolt against the royalty and is in fact one of the means of re-distribution of wealth. Now, this is my take, to interpret this merely as a case of moral weakness would be to miss the larger structural inequalities that enable this nexus between power and wealth. By reducing the process of corruption to issues of morality would be to play a liberal position that would suggest an institutionalization of greed as the solution. But what may be a better way would be to explore how kingship and power have to be redefined and re-invented within modern Indian society. So one hand this exploration has to be true to the vision of a ramrajya, which magnifies the golden age of the Guptas and not necessarily a liberal state while on the other hand it must strive to take advantage of modernity and liberalism that is inevitably upon our twenty-first century society.