Saturday, February 28, 2015
Parables of Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans
I
Once a man went to a certain place to see a theatrical
performance, carrying a mat under his arm. Hearing that it would be some time
before the performance began, he spread the mat on the floor and fell asleep.
When he woke up all was over. Then he returned home with the mat under his arm!
II
Once upon a time two friends were going along the street
when they saw some people listening to a reading of the Bhagavata.
“Come, friend,” said one to the other, “let us hear the
sacred book.”
So saying he went in and sat down. The second man peeped in
and went away. He entered a house of ill fame. But very soon he felt disgusted
with the place.
“Shame on me!” he said to himself. “My friend has been
listening to the sacred word of Hari; and see where I am!”
But the friend who had been listening to the Bhagvata also
became disgusted.
“What a fool I am!” he said. “I have been listening to this
fellow’s blah-blah, and my friend is having a grand time.”
In course of time they both died.
The messenger of death came for the soul of one who had
listened to the Bhagvata and dragged it off to hell. The messenger of God came
for the soul of the one who had been to the house of prostitution and led it up
to heaven.
Verily, the Lord looks into a man’s heart and does not judge
him by what he does or where he lives.
Image: http://www.manicksorcar.com/
Labels:
Ramkrishna Paramhansa
Trenchant yet compassionate
Earlier
this week I attended a roundtable discussion of the shortlisted authors for the
RBC Taylor Prize at the Toronto Reference Library. Of the five shortlisted
works, I’ve only read MG Vassanji’s memoir And
Home Was Kariakoo – A Memoir of East Africa.
The
other books are:
They Left Us Everything, by Plum Johnson
One Day in August: The Untold Story
Behind Canada’s Tragedy at Dieppe,
by David O’Keefe
The Last Asylum: A Memoir of Madness in
our Times, Barbara Taylor
Boundless, by Kathleen Winter
The
prize that will be announced March 2.
Mark
Medley, the books editor of Globe and Mail moderated the discussion.
The
discussion was lively and engaging, and highlighted the increasing popularity
of memoir, a genre that is often ignored or not taken seriously by the literary
gatekeepers. The authors explained their reasons for writing the book, and
delineated their (different yet similar) approaches to writing nonfiction, the
availability and accessibility of material for research to augment their
arguments, and their desire to reach out to a larger audience to enable a
deeper and better understanding of their subject.
Medley’s
questions were specific for some authors and general for others, and made me
wonder whether he had read all the five books. But he was able to sustain
interest of a packed audience at the library’s atrium on a cold February
evening.
Vassanji’s
memoir is an insider’s story of a changing Africa, and covers a large terrain,
both physically and metaphorically. It’s not an easy book to read because it
challenges many preconceived ideas especially of readers like me who have not
visited Africa. And I’m sure the book would make a reader familiar with Africa
even more uncomfortable (just as Rediscovering
India – A Place Within had made me).
Vassanji is both trenchant yet compassionate in And Home was Karikoo.
Here’s
a passage from the memoir (a long one) that exemplifies this duality of emotion
– anger and melancholy:
In
1961 as the “winds of change” ushered in the country’s independence, a euphoric
slogan was heard around the country. Uhuru
na kazi, meaning “freedom and work.” The idea was common sense. We had our
own flag and anthem, we had our beloved president; no longer were we an
insignificant part of the British Empire, a pink smudge on the map, overseen by
the colonial government and His Excellency the Governor, in a hierarchy where
the white man, the bwana, was superior. But freedom came with responsibility;
there was a price to self-respect and dignity: hard work. We should have to
work for ourselves to make progress. In the years that followed, growing up in
the postindependence heyday, we schoolboys and schoolgirls of the nation were
exhorted by another slogan: be self-reliant. Jitegemee – “Help yourself.” And yet another one: Nyerere’s words:
“It can be done, play your part.” There were many self-help projects in the
country. It was implicit in the mood of those Cold War years that it was shameful
to be reliant on other nations more powerful and consequently to be subject to
their demands. The British and the Europeans were, after all, the former
“colonial masters.” What sort of independence was it if we had to go to them, begging
bowl in hand, in order to feed ourselves? If they still told us what to do? In
1965 West Germany stopped its military aid to Tanzania in protest against an
East German consulate in the country; the country said, So be it, and refused
to accept all West German aid. The conflict was resolved in a few months, but
the East German consulate remained, standing large and solid, on Upanga Road.
Tanzania did need military aid from West Germany, especially after the scare of
the army mutiny of the previous year. But this was a matter of principle. We
ran our own country.
What has happened since then? A new
term came into circulation, donor; it
denotes a benevolent foreign entity that looks after you; and the head of the
state’s job description apparently includes touring the world seeking more aid
from “the donor community.” The donors make demands on economic policies, and
surely they have their political and strategic motives behind their
beneficence. A few years ago, I heard a news report that at an international
conference, the Tanzanian president had told the audience that his country was
so poor it could not afford mosquito nets for its people. Immediately a
benefactor came forward, a Hollywood actor, with an offer to donate the nets.
For those of my generation who have not forgotten the calls for self-reliance
and dignity, who volunteered to build houses during our vacations, and recall
the pride we felt at Nyerere’s rebuff of a pushy foreign power, this is
humiliating. Surely there are enough wealthy people in the country, those who
own office towers and insurance companies, who own mines and export fish, who
could make the donation? According to a news report in the Citizen, wealthy Tanzanians own a few billions stashed away in
offshore accounts. How can a government that purchases costly military
equipment, and pays its members lavish travel allowances, say it cannot afford
mosquito nets? One wonders, how does the leader of a nation feel, making that
statement at an international conference? Have we lost all dignity?
Here I must answer a rejoinder. I left
the country after high school, therefore I missed the hardships that others
endured in the years that followed. What right do I have to show this outrage?
It is easy for me, the comfort of my situation in North America, to condemn the
nation’s reliance on foreign aid. To which I answer that leaving a place does
not sever one’s ties to it, one’s feeling of concern and belonging. We are tied
to our schools, our universities, our families, even when we’ve left them –
then why not to the place of our childhood, of our memories? Surely a returnee
has some claim to the land which formed him – which is not in some godforsaken
corner of the globe but in the centre of one’s imagination. And surely distance
lends objectivity, allows one to see a place as the world see it.
I often find myself protesting that
media images to the contrary, Africa is not simply wars, HIV, and hunger;
people don’t simply drop dead on the streets out of sickness and hunger. (Just
as I had to explain to my host family in New Jersey, way back when I was a
student, that lions didn’t come roaming into our sitting rooms.) I speak of
East Africa, of course. Despite hardships there is life there; people sing and laugh and play music; they go to
school, they get married. In many towns, the markets are abundantly full; life
is teeming, so much so that Toronto, upon my return, often feels rather
moribund. Sitting on my coach at home I sometime find myself, a modern-day Don
Quixote, sparring with the television, railing against reporters who fly from
one starving place to another, presumably in helicopters – with all good
intentions, how can one even question that? – and, with the brand-name pained
expressions and sober voices that we know so well, point at the distended belly
of a toddler, the fly-covered nose of a child, the shrivelled buttock of an old
man. Why don’t you go somewhere happy, just for a change, I protest; report a
wedding, a taarb concert, a school games day; show a well-endowed man or woman
(but not a fat politician). People do celebrate, not only in Texas, but also in
Temeke.
Youngo Verma (1938-2015)
I met Youngo Verma only once –
at the launch of Picture House – The Art of Bollywood that Ali Adil Khan and
Asma Arshad Mahmood curated in 2011.
Ali introduced me to him, and
we exchanged pleasantries over a glass of red wine. In his flowing white beard,
the diminutive artist, seemed out of place in the gathering that was a mix of art
lovers, connoisseurs, and critics, with a few charlatans and poseurs thrown in
for good measure.
Then, in 2012, Ali curated
Youngo’s exhibition called Cosmic Energy and Tantric Enlightenment. This was
the second exhibition Ali's South Asian Gallery of Art had organized of Youngo’s works.
Along with Ameena Chaudhry
analyzed Youngo’s work for the exhibition’s catalog.
“Youngo Verma’s drawings
examine the complex phenomenon of cosmic energy. What is cosmic energy and how
can we tap into it? How are cosmic energy and individual creativity related?
Will exposure to cosmic energy heighten one’s consciousness and personal
creativity? What insight can be gained from an artist’s interpretation of
cosmological questions? Youngo uses lighter pointillism in the centre of darker
pencil work – this interplay is the magic of his artistry. He plays with our
perceptions of forms – it is hypnotic and expressive – the work standing out
distinctly for its chastity and austerity. Youngo subconsciously succeeds in
manipulating the medium to create an illusory, three-dimensional almost
palpable feel compelling the viewer to reach out and touch. His soothing
Tantra-inspired simple graphite drawings evoke a sensitivity towards both the
sculptural outward form, and the inner essence of a though process of movement
and stillness.”
Youngo died in January, and Ali
organized a celebration of his life at the Royal Ontario Museum in February.
It was a quiet program attended
by guests probably handpicked by Ali and Deepali Dewan of Royal Ontario Museum.
Dewan gave an evocative insight into Youngo’s work that ROM acquired (Tantra #21,pencil on paper, 1981), emphasizing upon its roots in Indian epic and folk
traditions.
She said that perhaps the staid
Canadian art market is not yet prepared for artists from the subcontinent such
as Youngo who are seen as radical; and perhaps that was the reason why Youngo didn't get the recognition he deserved.
Ali gave an insightful background
of Youngo’s journey as an artist. Youngo learned from masters
such as BC Sanyal and KS Kulkarni. He taught at Jamia Millia in Delhi, and then
moved to Germany in 1971 to work under Michael Croissant. He moved to Canada in
1981, and had made Toronto his home.
Asma Arshad Mahmood, the curator of
Promenade Art Gallery, recalled her many interactions with Youngo in a touching tribute. Other dignitaries also spoke.
Labels:
Ail Adil Khan,
Asma Mahmood,
Deepali Dewan,
Youngo Verma
Intolerance
I
did a feature on religion in Canada for the February 2015 edition of the
Canadian Immigrant magazine. I spoke to a cross section of the Canadian society
to get diverse views on how a multicultural, multi-religious society coexists
and the issues we should be aware of to retain our secular character.
If
you’re interested in reading the feature (which was the cover story), please
click here: Divine Diversity. Many of whom I interviewed for the feature said
that immigrants tend to become more tolerant of other religions and cultures
after they have lived in Canada for some time.
Then,
several incidents suddenly propelled the question of tolerance right back to
the centre stage. For instance, Prime
Minister Stephen Harper emphasized that women who wear a niqab should remove it
when taking the oath of citizenship. Another incident: Media also reported that many Canadian teenagers (from Edmonton and Montreal) have left Canada for the Middle
East to join the ISIS.
Harper’s
statement has surprisingly found support from a cross-section of the Canadian
society. And only a small (but vocal) segment has criticized the Prime Minister
for his narrow views. This is not a new debate; it’s similar to the issues that
were raised in 2013 when the controversial Quebec Charter was being discussed.
The Quebec voters rejected a narrow interpretation of religious neutrality.
The
Canadian Interfaith Conversation had then clarified: “Although the stated goal
of the proposed Charter is to emphasize and give legal recognition to the
neutrality of the state with respect to religion, the prohibition on wearing
religious symbols presents an unacceptable restriction on the fundamental
rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion guaranteed in both the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.”
Another
instance of institutionalization of intolerance is the anti-terrorism bill
(C-51). Thankfully, the opposition to the bill is strong, and expected to grow
more vocal and vociferous. Eminent academics have in a signed letter said that
the proposed bill is a “dangerous” legislation, and needs to be suitably
modified as it gives tremendous powers to the government and removes
constitutional and safeguards, and parliamentary oversight.
The
CBC reported: While introducing the bill, Prime Minister was
asked how the government would distinguish between ‘teens messing around in
their basements and someone who is radicalised, Harper said it would be a
serious offence “no matter who you are. It doesn’t matter what the age of the
person is, or whether they’re in a basement, or whether they’re in a mosque or
somewhere else.”
The
statement was roundly criticized for singling Muslims (as opposed for Jihadists)
being a terrorist threat to Canada and Canadians. This statement underlines the
government’s explicit bias.
It
is this systemic prejudice that is used by the astute proselytizers of Islamic
fundamentalism to recruit callow young boys and girls to abandon everything
that they can call their own, and offer to sacrifice their lives in a cause
that they don’t even fully comprehend.
On
a different note, the recent incidents in South Asia such as hacking to death
of Avijit Roy in Dhaka by Islamic fundamentalists, and the hounding of Teesta
Setalvad by the pro-Hindutva government in India, are also signs of a shift of
paradigm in the debate over freedom and security. Increasingly, it would seem,
that people are willing to keep quiet and hope for more security as
majoritarian views throttle democratic right that seek justice, advocate
secularism, and oppose religious intolerance, all in the name of fighting
terrorism.
I’d
much rather end the piece on a lighter note, only because that is truly the
Canadian way.
Here’s a piece from How to be a Canadian (by Will and Ian
Ferguson).
Religion
Here’s
everything you need to know about religion in Canada: when Jesus decided to
reveal himself to Canadians, He chose a Tim Hortons as his venue. True story.
It happened in September 1998, in Cape Breton town of Bras D’Or.
In
what became known as the “Miracle of the Doughnuts,” an image of Jesus began
appearing nightly on the wall outside the Bras D’Or Tim Hortons. Hundreds of
faithful flocked to the site (although, in honesty, some of them came for the
doughnuts). Stranger still, an image of the late Tim Horton began appearing on
windows in the Vatican. No, no. We’re just kidding. But the Christ of Tim
Hortons was real enough.
There
was even a movement launched on the Internet to create the Church of Tim
Horton. It wasn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. After all, the main elements
were already in place.
A. a departed saint (Tim)
B. a chain of churches (both drive-thru
and sit-in)
C. a hymn (“You’ve always got time for
salvation!”)
D. daily communion (a box of timbits and a
double-double)
E. a pilgrimage site (64 Ottawa Street
North in Hamilton: the very first Tim Hortons, opened in 1964 and still going
strong)
F. it’s very own Mecca (Moncton, New
Brunswick, with more Tim Hortons per capita than any other place in Canada), and,
last but not the least,
G. a faithful following (Canadians i.e., a
tribe of sugar-dependent, dough=addled caffeine addicts)
Sadly,
this ecclesiastical movement seems to have faltered, and Christ Himself has
left building. The miracle ended when the assistant manager at the Bras D’Or
shop changed some of the light bulbs outside and the image of Jesus
disappeared. Still, it is nice to know that even Our Lord and Saviour gets a
crawling for a maple glazed now and then. In Canada, it’s not religion that is
the opiate of masses – it’s doughnuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)