Kanika Katyal in conversation with Karthika Nair
 

Karthika Nair is the author of several books, including Until the Lions: Echoes from the Mahabharata, a re-imagination of the Mahabharata in multiple voices. The book won the 2015 Tata Literature Live Award for Book of the Year (Fiction). She is also a dance enabler and was the principal scriptwriter for Akram Khan’s “DESH” (2011), “Chotto Desh” (2015) and “Until the Lions” (2016), which is an adaptation of her own book.

In this interview with Kanika Katyal of the Indian Cultural Forum, she talks about visiting the Mahabharata through poetry, the voices she was most compelled by, her writing influences and what it means to be a dance writer. 

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Visiting the Mahabharata in 19 voices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 17, two days ago, Swami Agnivesh, an 80 year old rationalist and social activist was attacked in Pakur Jharkhand on July 17 by a lynch mob allegedly affiliated to the ruling dispensation.

What was the provocation ? It appears that a speech given by him recently didn’t go down well with BJP supporters and irked them to unimaginable limits. Funnily, many BJP supporters posted a video of the speech on Facebook and other social media channels and justified the attack!

In the video Swami Agnivesh can be seen ridiculing various recent commentaries by political giants including none other than the Prime Minister, Mr. Modi. Most importantly, he can be heard attacking various myths and superstitions propagated by one interpretation of the Hindu religion and advocated officially by the current government and its various representatives.

Agnivesh’s speech is sharp and an expression of dissent, all made within an atmosphere where the simplest of acts have and can be labelled as ‘hurtful of religious sentiments’. It is an audacious act to dissect these practices in a manner not only to shock, but be accepted within a massive crowd of common, believers. The saffron clad seer is clearly more effective than many. Very few rationalists have been able to present such sharp critiques openly in the recent past. When they have, they have been unfortunately, attacked in the most gruesome manner. No wonder then, that the saffron clad seer is such a threat to the bhakt brigade.

Swami Agnivesh can be seen expressing his utter disbelief at the Prime Minister’s fallacious contentions,  for example the one speech in which he says that in ancient India, the Hindu deity Ganesha underwent plastic surgery and his head was replaced with that of an elephant’s.

Referring to another peculiar statement by none other than the PM himself, again, he pointed out, “The PM said that the Kauravas (characters from a well-known Hindu epic, Mahabharata), multiplied themselves into hundreds. This, they achieved through stem-cell transplants” Mockingly, Swami Agnivesh laments, “Such lies, such pageantry, such superstitions, and India’s PM is perpetuating these! The country will move towards a deep abyss,” he predicts

The crowd whole-heartedly applauds Agnivesh’s speech and statements.

Swami Agnivesh, with even more grace, now speaking in a satirical and animated manner, imitating the PM, then adds, “When you go to Nepal as a PM, you spend two hours inside the Pashupati temple, [in your full attire], wearing a garland and a Tika (religious mark on forehead)  and then worship inside for two hours, if you want to worship [like that], become a priest! The PM’s chair isn’t fit for your work”

He questioned the “Pooja” done by the PM in Bangladesh, in the temple of one deity Dhakeshwari and says that a PM worshipping Gods and Goddesses is against the secular spirit of the constitution. He adds also that he has condemned these ridiculous acts of the PM in Dehradun, and in Srinagar!

All these, the Amarnath worshipping, Tirumala, Tirupati, all these places are places where superstition was bred. Talking about a Hindu pilgrimage Amarnath Yatra he mentions, “TV persons asked me in Srinagar, Swami ji, Amarnath Yatra time period has been reduced by 15 days, what is your reaction? I told them why only 15 days, the yatra should be stopped altogether”

Shedding light on the superstitious belief that there was a ‘Barfani baba’ (Ice-God) or a Shivling (Hindu God Shiva) at Amarnath, he said that no such Gods existed. He adds that it is a well-known fact that the ice formations are a work of the stalactite and stalagmite deposits. When, at the height of more than 13,000 feet from sea level, the water drips from the Himalayas, the ice formations happen in a certain manner. He points out that this was a natural phenomenon and there is no divinity in it! He adds, “These claims, that the government has to take the effort to go all the way up to thousands of feet and deploy forces for the ‘yatra’, all this was an ostentatious pomp!”

Talking about an interesting anecdote, he recalls a time when the so called Shivlinga melted and the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Gen. S. K. Sinha went with artificial ice in a helicopter so that when the ‘devotees’ (Bhagat log) come, then they should be able to witness ‘Shiva’. He ridiculed such actions on the part of the government and rightly questions, “Is this the job of the government?”

When the Kumbh fair takes place every year, many die in stampede. People come to ‘wash their sins’ Swami Agnivesh says, “I roam around the fair distributing pamphlets about how all this is a spectacle. How washing in dirty waters [of Ganges] won’t wash off one’s sins, but will cause diseases!”

It is crucial that a sane and scientific voice like that of Swami Agnivesh is preserved and protected. When people are, on the one hand, going to ridiculous lengths to prove their secularism by coming up with hashtags such #TalkToAMuslim, or, on the other hand, are being pushed into ghettos, this speech by Swami Agnivesh is an act of courage, unmatched in its clarity and audacity.

Today, two days after the assault, protests have taken place in various parts of the country in support of Swami Agnivesh. Swami Agnivesh himself has pointed out that the violence on him cannot be seen in isolation and has also the elements of a conspiracy and pre-planned attack.
 
 
 

The post Was it  Swami Agnivesh’s attack on the ‘Sacred Games’ of PM Modi that Provoked Bhakts ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Some days ago I was on a television programme with Mr  Mohanlal Singhal, a BJP 
MP and brother of the fa mous (or more correctly, infamous) Ashok Singhal, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In response to a question from the presenter, Mr Singhal informed us that the VHP had nothing to do with the agitation against the film Water. That, in fact, it was the “people of Varanasi” whose “sentiments” had been “hurt” and if the newspapers said the VHP had either engineered or upported this agitation, they were lying. The very next day, newspapers carried reports that Ashok Singhal had declared that the filming would be allowed only “over his dead body”. 

When questioned further on the programme, it turned out (not surprisingly) that although Mr Singhal — in what has now become the BJP’s classic tactic of overt dissociation but covert support — denied that the VHP had anything to do with the agitation, he, his family and his political brothers, fully supported what the agitation was about. He had many objections to the film: it denigrated India, he said, it projected a bad image of the country for foreigners. 

He was upset that the director had chosen to make a film about a time as long ago as 1930 when there was such a rich present to hand. (He had no answer when I asked him why then had his colleagues not protested when the Mahabharata and Ramayana, which were about much more “ancient” times had been filmed). He said the film–maker had done no “scientific” research about the position of widows in India, and was not knowledgeable about the Hindu shastras — else, why would she say that widows were denigrated, called vaishyas, socially ostracised? 

According to him, while this may be something that was part of Hindu custom, it was not part of Hindu religion. 

He had other objections: the two or three lines that Deepa Mehta had agreed to delete were cited. One had to do with widows, the other with the Ganga. How dare she put these lines in the mouths of characters who had names like Narayan, he said. Why not in the mouth of someone called Javed or some such Muslim name? This led him to object about the names of the women in Fire. Why were they not called Uzma and someone else? Why Radha and Sita? 

If the status of widows was deplorable in India, he was asked, why be fearful of a film depicting that? Perhaps this might lead to a debate and discussion which are after all the precursors of any kind of change. But he said there was no scientific research on whether or not the status of widows was actually bad. The film-maker, he was convinced (he did not know this, it was just a conviction) had not spent any time at all with widows. How could she know anything? How could Shabana Azmi know anything? She was a rabble-rouser anyway. 

Then, another question was put to him: if a character in a film says something, surely that does not mean that that is the point of view of the director or the script–writer. The film, after all, is a fiction film. This elicited a vehement response: this film was not fiction, it was the director’s view, and it was part of a grand foreign plot to denigrate Hinduism. 

Was it not shameful, I asked him, that Varanasi was full of rapacious, avaricious, corrupt Pandits who were out to make as much money as they could from visitors? Did this not sully the face of Hinduism? Why was it that the continuing pollution of the waters of the Ganga had elicited no response from his party or his colleagues, but if someone referred to the Ganga as water (and if I am not mistaken, an Indian–French painter called Vishwanath has made a deeply moving film which features the Ganga as well as other rivers, called Water and no one protested) this became a cause for such heartburn and violence? To this, too, Mr Singhal did not have an answer. 

I mention all this because I was confused by his responses. I was not sure, at the end of this discussion (I think tirade would be a more appropriate word for it) exactly what the Hindu right’s objection to Deepa Mehta’s film was. Was it to the title? The film–maker? The subject? Surely they knew nothing about the subject — as Mr Singhal himself admitted, no one had really read the script. So all the noise was based on something else. At one point Mr Singhal said two things, and it was in these that I felt his (and that of his colleagues) deepest objections were rooted. He said, somewhat angrily, that there was no sanction for the ill–treatment of widows in Hinduism, and that what did those people who were making the film know anyway? After all they were women. 

Put like this, in cold print, this phrase does not carry any of the vehemence of speech. But when I heard it, I was struck by what to me sounded like a deep dislike and almost hatred that lay behind it. 

And political considerations apart, I think it would not be wrong to say that this, in many ways, is the motivating factor behind much of what is going on around this particular film, and also generally around the articulation of any voices of dissent, especially those that have to do with women. The status of widows in Hindu society is a shameful thing: newspapers in the last few days have been full of the widows of Vrindavan and the conditions they live in. It’s not the first time this kind of thing has figured in the media. But a brief spell of coverage and then nothing, is not what will help to change this. 

I remember, some years ago, being shocked by a three line reference in the newspapers, to the death of Bina Bhowmick, one of the best known of what were then called “women terrorists” of our nationalist period. She had died, unloved and unknown, in the widows’ ashram at Vrindavan. Where were our agitators then? 

Or, indeed, why did we not raise a similar discussion about the ills of widowhood when Charan Shah died on her husband’s pyre, or when Roop Kanwar was killed? 

Mr Singhal was emphatic that sati, or widow immolation, was not sanctioned in our shastras. But I don’t seem to remember leaders of the Hindu right making any such statement at the time. Rather, they did quite the opposite — not only the men but also the women. And the list does not end there — for every woman who is burnt as a witch in Jharkhand or elsewhere in the country, it would not come as a surprise to know that most of them are widows and behind their deaths lie very material concerns of property and wealth. For all their poverty, many of the older widows in the ashrams of Vrindavan are legally entitled to pension which is creamed off before they ever get to the women. But none of the so–called protectors of Hinduism protests about this insult to the religion. 

It seems to me there are many things that lie behind this agitation by self–styled protectors of the Hindu religion. The key issue here is this: how dare women presume to question their status? Further, how dare a “foreign” woman (Deepa Mehta) and a Muslim woman (Shabana Azmi) do so? While this is the case, I doubt they would be any more tolerant of the questioning had it come from a devout “Hindu” woman. More, in the minds of the majority of men, whether they are self–styled protectors of Hinduism or not, lies a deep anti–woman bias.

I do not say this irresponsibly — it may sound like an extreme statement, but I think we need to see this agitation, and the intolerance it symbolises, as part of a continuum of increasing violence against women which is taking new forms every day as women become more articulate and adept at claiming their rights. Clearly, they are transgressing the boundaries that have been set for them. Virtually every religion sanctions the terrible belief that a woman’s status is defined by her ‘belonging’ to a man: a woman without a man is deeply suspect. 

There is no way of controlling her sexuality, none of keeping her within the ordained boundaries, none therefore, of keeping her under the power of a man, or many men. This is why so much suspicion attaches to women who are single, or indeed those who are widows — the latter present a greater threat because, theoretically, having been in sexual union with their husbands, they might actually know what sexuality is about. What better way to keep these women in their place than to divest them of all rights and privileges (hence take away their sources of income such as pensions, land), or of all support (hence throw them out of their homes and send them off to ashrams) and to label them vaishyas, prostitutes, randis? 

Where widows are concerned, things are worse. Our society has been relatively successful in locking widows away into remote places, silencing their voices by claiming that they have no life, or no right to live a life, after the deaths of their husbands. Hence we have the ashrams, where hundreds of women live in penury and silence. Imagine the fear if these women were to suddenly rebel, to claim back their homes from which they have been thrown out, to claim back their wealth which they have been divested of, to claim back their rights from an indifferent State which discriminates against them in law. There would be chaos: sexual, political, familial chaos. 

We have the experience of Partition to tell us that this is a possible danger — that is why at Partition the Indian State took on the responsibility of looking after all the women who were widowed. They were put in homes, given training and jobs, pensions, and “allowed” to live a mainstream life rather than being socially ostracised like most widows. But the moment they became old and theoretically “useless” it was their families who threw them out of their homes and took over their properties. 

A single film is not going to change this shameful state of affairs in India. But it might just succeed in raising a discussion — something which we badly need. And yet, this is precisely the fear, and it is this fear that is the motivation behind the agitation by the self–styled protectors of the Hindu religion. 

They know, husbands and mahants and politicians and others, that if widows are allowed to enter and be part of mainstream society, they stand to lose not only the wealth that can be amassed through property and pensions, but also the control that can be maintained by claiming a monopoly over what the shastras say. And it’s very convenient to set up an agitation, and claim that it reflects the sentiments of the “people” of a particular place. 

A question we need to ask is: are women not people also? If the status of women is deplorable in this society and someone wishes to depict that in a film, it’s not something that reflects on the Hindu religion, but rather on those who see themselves as the protectors of that religion. And that’s why they are so opposed to it: for more than the religion, it is its self–styled protectors who are exposed by such questioning. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7  No, 56, Special Report 1

The post WATER ON FIRE appeared first on SabrangIndia.