Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Gyanvapi Mosque

The elections in Varanasi are taking place at a delicate juncture. It is not just Modi and BJP versus Gathbandhan. Varanasi has symbolised a richly vibrant syncretic culture that emerged over the centuries. Kabir and Raidas (or Ravidas) contributed to it as did various Urdu shayars of yore. Premchand and Dhumil arose from here, as did Bismillah Khan. Mandirs and masjids coexisted as did weavers’ guilds and unions of mallahs. All this is sought to be crushed under a ritualistic and regressive juggernaut, ignorant of history and culture.

Uttar Pradesh, over the last five years, has been a hotbed of communal politics. Since the Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013, the state has witnessed a vicious brand of communal politics actively organised by the Sangh and the BJP. The rise of the Yogi regime further aggravated this trend. In Varanasi too there have been concerted efforts at communal polarisation.

It is understandable why Varanasi would be a soft target for the Hindutva brigade. Varanasi has a history of temple-mosque politics which is similar to that of Ayodhya before the Babri Masjid was demolished. The Sangh believes that the Gyanvapi masjid in Varanasi stands on the same ground that the original Kashi Vishwanath temple stood upon. One of the slogans raised during the Babri masjid demolition was “Yeh toh sirf jhanki hai, Kashi-Mathura baki hai.” Over the years, this issue has been consistently used by the Sangh to whip up communal sentiments. In fact, locals allege that the current demolition drive in the area to create the Kashi Vishwanath corridor brings the Hindutva brigade one step closer to demolishing the mosque.

Another reason why Varanasi has been such an important target for the BJP is that it has historically been a symbol of cultural and social syncretism. The famed Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb of the region, which involves mixing and acceptance of different cultures and religions, has for long found strong expression in Varanasi. Traditionally, the cultural ethos of the city has gone beyond the narrow “peacekeeping” notion of secularism to that of whole-hearted mutual embrace.   
 
One of the greatest musicians to ever come from Varanasi was Bismillah Khan, the shehnai maestro, who single-handedly brought the instrument that was earlier only played in temples and weddings into mainstream Hindustani classical music. Bismillah Khan embodied the syncretism of Varanasi, embracing many religions and traditions at once. He would often say that music was his true religion. He had an undying love for the city. At a time when most other music practitioners of some fame, like Ravi Shankar, decided to move on to greener pastures and never look back, Bismillah Khan never left Varanasi.

The relationship between Varanasi and literature is also rich and diverse. As against popular perception, the city finds mention not only in Hindu scriptures, but also in the imagination of Urdu poets such as Ghalib. Ghalib composed a poem of 108 couplets, Chirag-e-dair (The Lamp of the Temple), based on Vanarasi, which he visited in 1827. About Varanasi he had to say: “Zamane bhar Mein / yeh sthal / Mukaam-e-fakher / kehlata hain// Dehli shaher bhi / iski / parikarma ko / Aata Hain.”

Varanasi itself has seen many Urdu poets, like Nazeer Banarasi and Rashid Banarasi, both of who belonged to the weavers’ community. Nazeer Banarasi wrote extensively about India, its festivals and politics. Rashid Banarasi, in one of his poems, says that the Ganga protects those who respond to the conch of Hindus, the call to prayer of Muslims, the devotional songs of Sikhs, and the church bells of Christians. Not only Urdu poets, the city has produced legendary Hindi poets as well. Dhoomil (Sudama Pandey), was widely known for his revolutionary poetry, who was also from Varanasi. A host of other progressive writers, such as Premchand, Kashinath Singh, and Namvar Singh, who were ahead of their times in the themes they wrote about, also hailed from Varanasi.

Varanasi’s tryst with poetry of tolerance and syncretism of course goes much further back. Two saint poets, who stood for their own unique and emancipatory philosophy, both from Varanasi, were Kabir and Raidas (or Ravidas). Kabir denounced both Islam and Hinduism, even while embracing them both. He belonged to the working class, whereas Raidas was a dalit who was not even allowed to enter the city. Both are still as relevant and revolutionary today as they were in their lifetimes.

It is worth mentioning here that a large part of the economy of Varanasi consists of the production and trade of sarees. The weavers who make these sarees and silk materials are Muslims, and they are traded by Hindus. The famed Banarasi Saree is largely crafted by Muslim weavers in the area.  

Though Varanasi has been simmering since the demolition of the Babri Masjid and has mostly seen the BJP in power in recent times, the city was also once a bastion of the Left. This was due to a large number of trade unions, not just in the saree and silk trade, but also among the artisans who produce wooden toys and brass goods which the areas is known for. There have also been prominent leaders of the left, such as Rustam Satin, who have made lasting contributions to the cultural vibrancy of Varanasi.

As we enter the last phase of polling, it is important to remember all that is at stake here. Hanging in the balance is our prized composite inheritance. What can be said about Varanasi can also be said about the country as a whole. The very secular fabric of our nation is being destroyed by the Hindutva brigade, and it must be stopped.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Election 2019: Modi in the Land of Kabir, Raidas, Premchand, Dhoomil appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The protest headed by Rakesh Singh, an alumnus of NSD, highlights institutional irregularities. Speaking to the Indian Cultural Forum, Singh said, “This is my silent protest and it is non-violent. This is my first demand. I have been associated with NSD for 20 years now and I have found the standard deteriorate over the years. This is one of the prime institutes of India. The award was meant for people who have made considerable contribution to the field of theatre for 10 or 20 years. The institute has become a lobby for 10 people.”

In solidarity with the protest, prominent theatre actor and director M K Raina said to the Indian Cultural Forum, “The awards were discontinued in 2010 for the simple reason that they were being awarded to the NSD faculty itself and there were members within the faculty that raised objection to this. 10 years of awards have been decided on by one jury, and it is not clear what criteria they were following for this. There has been no information about this. These awards are ignoring the good work theatre artists have done across the country and are only being given out to the people who are closest to the institute.”

Among other concerns raised by the people who opposed the award ceremony is the discontinuation of the NSD’s acclaimed journal, Theatre India and the teaching positions lying vacant at the institute. Raina pointed out that the academic priorities have taken a backseat and the institute is only focusing its attention on organising various programmes while important posts remain vacant. The last director of the institute was Waman Kendre, and Suresh Sharma is presently acting as the Director In-Charge. 

“NSD is getting additional money from different places for doing various things like tribal festival, North-East festival which is not within the mandate of the National School of Drama, but the lure of money is too great. Academics are not a priority for them now,” said Raina.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Theatre Artists Protest Against NSD’s Award Ceremony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Patwardhan appealed to YouTube against the decision. They reviewed the appeal and informed him through an email that though the film did not violate their community guidelines, it still may not be “appropriate” for a general audience.

Ram Ke Naam, first aired in 1992 — a few months before the Babri Masjid demolition, follows the campaign started by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to build a Ram Temple where the Babri Masjid stood. The VHP claimed that the Masjid was built on the birth place of Ram. The film also documents the rath yatra launched by LK Advani to rally support for the Ram Temple. The documentary won the National Film Award for Best Investigative Documentary and the Filmfare Award for Best Documentary. The movement culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December, 1992.

To decide whether content should be age restricted, YouTube claims to use the following considerations – “Vulgar language, Violence and disturbing imagery, Nudity and sexually suggestive content, and Portrayal of harmful or dangerous activities”. However, from their communication to Patwardhan, it would seem that over and above the stated criteria “suitability” is also a factor. Talking to the Indian Cultural Forum about the arbitrariness of such decision-making, Patwardhan says, “Some may argue that since YouTube owns the space, who are we to complain? But I think all this hits against net neutrality. Just as we fight for democracy in real life, we must fight for it on the internet. If money controls opinion and visibility, it is a dark and dangerous path to tread.”

It is quite evident that the money the advertisers bring in, along with their unspoken prejudices, is very often the key to age-restriction decisions. In January this year, YouTube released an original series Wayne, which was full of violence and profane language and violated most, if not all, of the stated community standards. YouTubers such as PewDiePie and RackaRacka, who have suffered on account of YouTube’s policies, were quick to point out the double standards, and after such protests, YouTube imposed viewership restrictions on Wayne.

It is worth noting that Patwardhan’s documentary received a U certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) when it was released in 1992. It was even broadcast by Doordarshan-1 during prime time after a High Court directive. It is ironic that YouTube, which claims to have a relaxed attitude towards censoring content, and not the Indian Censor Board with its famously fragile sensibilities, was the one that chose to restrict viewership of the film. Patwardhan highlights the fatuousness of the claim that Ram ke Naam is “inappropriate” when he says, “These are films that build communal harmony by showing the ugly side of hate mongers and the positive secular mindset of ordinary Indians. If they promoted violence they could not have a “U” certificate.”

This is not the first time Anand Patwardhan’s films have been targeted by YouTube. His channel “anandverite” had been demonetised earlier. YouTube monetises a video or a channel depending on the number of views the video receives. If it crosses the 10,000 views mark, YouTube monetises the video by showing advertisements before and during its streaming. Advertisers have the final say on what content they want their advertisements shown on. In March 2016, YouTube came under fire after a report in the London Times on how advertisements were shown during videos containing extremist views. Advertisers such as the American multinational AT&T, among others, withdrew their ads from YouTube after they had been shown alongside objectionable content. YouTube since has changed its policies about what content gets monetised.

Many YouTubers, such as brothers Daniel and Michael Phillippou who run the channel RackaRacka, claim that if a video is both age restricted and demonetised, it becomes virtually impossible to find it even using the YouTube search engine. It also stops being featured on the trending list and the recommended tab.

The political implications of such intervention are obviously not lost on Patwardhan, The film maker says, “Both demonetising and age restricting serve to pull down the rating of the channel so as to restrict viewership. This is nothing less than an arbitrary act of censorship undertaken just before elections…The likely truth is that Hindutva elements within YouTube/Google are looking to curb secular, democratic content.”

YouTube, of course, did not provide any concrete reason for demonetising Patwardhan’s videos apart from calling the content “not appropriate.”
Other progressive Indian film makers too have suffered censorship at the hands of Youtube. Most such instances, however, went unreported. Patwardhan points out, “My friend Satyen Bordolai who films protest rallies and progressive talks and panels on his YouTube site, found that his channel was also demonetised and age restricted. It is as if they are saying that in order to not invite trouble on YouTube, your content has to be right of centre.”

It is undeniable that YouTube, like Facebook and WhatsApp, can and has served as a vital tool in the propaganda machinery of the RSS-BJP. Restricting access to hard-hitting and critical political content such as Anand Patwardhan’s documentary serves one vital purpose: to reduce viewership by hook or by crook, a strategy pursued by the Right-wing since time immemorial.

The Right-wing government at the Centre, along with the machinery of the Sangh, will stop at nothing to further their agenda. It is widely known that they have been trying to control public and private institutions across the country. It would not be a far-fetched fantasy to believe that they would try to infiltrate, influence and utilise to their benefit portals like YouTube.

Attempts were made to contact YouTube/Google for a comment. Till the time of filing of this story, no response had been received. As soon as a response is received, the story will be updated.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post The Politics of Viewership Regulation: How YouTube is Censoring Anand Patwardhan appeared first on SabrangIndia.