The road to Charminar

I have stayed in and been to many big and small, famed and little known lanes of Indian cities but none like Gulzar Houz, an obscure place which is host to one of the most famous historical towers of India,  Charminar. Recently I visited Hyderabad and my curiosity about Hyderabad Biryani took me to Shabad, a popular biriyani joint located near Gulzar Houz. But before I ate at Shadab I decided to walk to Charminar to knock off an item from my Hyderabad itinerary. On my way to Charminar, I started feeling I had been transported to another time and space.

I was walking through a bazaar which looked commercially active but totally devoid of anything even remotely modern or western. Not a mobile recharge shop (at least nothing that drew my attention), not a computer shop, not a shop selling jeans or any other western clothes. Perfumery shops sell attar, cloth shops, only traditional Muslim outfits. The road was a sea of humanity, only women with black veils and men in traditional Muslim garbs. What should have been a 10 minutes’ walk took me about half an hour to cover.  On either side of this bazaar you have narrow lanes, each one home to a mini market, selling essentially the same stuff as in the main bazaar.

When I looked up, there were old buildings which may not mind the lack of change they have undergone since their construction a few centuries ago but may complain about the lack of maintenance.  I shuddered to think that maybe beyond those rickety wooden balconies and giant doors, people still live. I saw some boards announcing the presence of dawa khanas (health centers).  

Actually, at a time when lanes change the way they look every two to three years, Gulzar Houz’s stubborn resistance to change may be refreshingly different for many but its complete renouncement of modernity may come at a cost to its residents. Hyderabad is going to have its metro in some time. And the residents of Gulzar Houz could have had the metro passing through Gulzar Houz but for the resistance shown to the project by Gulzar Houz locals – who feared that metro construction would spoil the old look of the place and threatened that if the administration went ahead with the project despite their opposition, they would destroy the construction.  

I visited Wikipedia on Gulzar Houz and found this photo. This is how Gulzar Houz looked in 1880.  The Gulzar Houz I saw last week was different only in three ways. It doesn’t have the fountain on the way to Charminar you see in the photo. (In fact, the fountain has completely disappeared and had it not been for Wikipedia I would not know there was ever one – the Wiki article says it’s the fountain and not the place which was called Gulzar Houz). I didn’t see any horse-drawn carriages. And the Gulzar Houz I saw was much, much crowdier.

David Copperfield - a very long canvas autobiographical novel

I recently finished Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield. I enjoyed the book – and found myself wanting to finish it only towards the end – and that too partly because my book purchases had formed a pile by now and it was demanding attention.

But let me first start on a note of disappointment. (It’s so difficult to admit to disappointment over a time-tested classic, isn’t it?) The book is an autobiographical novel and I expected it to tell how Dickens developed as a writer, his source of his early inspirations etc. It’s not that Dickens doesn’t talk about his beginning, development and finding of fame as a writer, but not as much as I had expected from a book which I had chosen to buy to read primarily about Dickens as a writer.

An eponymous and large-canvas novel, it traces the life of David Copperfield his birth onwards and takes you through the various phases of his life. The novel changes its mood several times over as David’s life goes through various phases, meeting and parting with friends.  

Dickens had called David Copperfield his best work. He had written it during the later phase of his career (after his visit to the US). The change in style and temperament is understandable if you have read any Dickens from the earlier part of his career. I read Oliver Twist many years ago and felt DC was a little more introspective, character treatment a little deeper.

One of the highlights of the book for me is how Dickens has handled the changing shades of relationship among different characters. There is a romantic sub-plot which runs across the story. David meets Agnes as a child at a school. Agnes’ father runs the school and David becomes very close with the family and remains so through the rest of his life – and what also remains is David’s soft spot for Agnes, an affection which changes its complexion over time and goes from brotherly liking, bordering on obsession and excessive admiration, to a full blown romantic feeling.

And finally, towards the end of the story, David’s first wife dies and he proposes marriage to Agnes and some bouts of indecision later she accepts. Dickens had a wide readership. And, in what were Victorian times in Britain, many would have frowned upon it.

Another is Mr Macabre, which Dickens modeled on his father. Mr Macabre flits in and out of the story, such that I felt Dickens used him to provide the reader a departure from the monotony of an ongoing subplot. Mr Macabre is one of the most famous characters of literature. And, I feel, the utter idiosyncrasy of Mr Macabre makes him so talked about.

His language is so erudite and sentences so convoluted as to be incomprehensible. He goes from bouts of depression to optimistic outbursts with lightening frequency, which is one similarity he shares with Dickens’ father. He moves from one professional disappointment to another, which is another similarity he shares with John Dickens, who was always hard up. Another one is both Mr Macabre and Dickens’ father were irresponsible with money. Finally Mr Macabre finds success and fame in a new country, Australia (this, however, he doesn’t have in common with senior Dickens).

David’s relationship with Mr Macabre changes its shades. David meets him as a boy and is left awe-struck by his world (so does the reader – there are wonderful descriptions of Mr Macabre’s life which are very visual). The Macabre family welcomes David into their lives with open arms and David finds a home. He is somewhat grateful for this generosity but later as he sees Mr Macabre’s plights David develops an understated sympathy mixed with affection for Mr Macabre – from a benefactor he starts seeing Mr Macabre as his friend who deserves his kindness and consideration. And these remain his emotions for Mr Macabre for the rest of his life.

David’s outlook towards Uriah Heep, another famous character of David Copperfield, remains the same throughout the book. He loathes him and treats him shabbily throughout the book, partly because during the book Agnes was betrothed to Uriah, a relationship which breaks later.  But partly also because Uriah is a greasy, scheming and opportunistic character who uses humility, he owes to his humble origins, as a decoy.  

David Copperfield is full of characters, sub plots – the canvas and sweep of time, in fact, are so large that when Dickens throws in a reference of a character long lost in the swirls of the plot, you feel a pleasant nostalgia. 

How we remember Nehru and why

On every birthday of Nehru, emotions spill over both from the Congress and BJP camps. BJP blames Nehru for all the ills that plague India, from economic to political, and the Congress credits Nehru for most of India’s successes as a modern nation state. 

While BJP wants to project Nehru to the current generation as an elitist who forced foreign ideas on India without much caring about the sentiments of Indians, the Congress says any departure from the path of Nehru (socialism and secularism) is a disaster for India. There is a grain of truth in all these accusations and approbations. All these also form how Nehru is remembered in India.

Some blame him for his political mistakes. Some call him a nation builder. Some say his socialist economic policies are responsible for India’s lack of economic growth. Some remember him as an atheist who had utter disregard for India’s religious character. And so on. But funnily, these views are not held sporadically across all sections of society. Different sections of society remember Nehru in different ways, but there is a uniformity of views within each section.

Generally academics and left leaning intellectuals see Nehru as a builder and guide of modern India. Communists remember him as a representative of bourgeois class to be hated because he suspended the first communist government in India, in Kerela. The business class dislikes him for his socialist model. The conservative middle class criticizes him for his romantic dalliances, videshi ways and, to an extent, his atheism. 

But to the current generation, in general, Nehru comes from so distant a past that he is not much worth caring about. There are several reasons for this.

There was hardly anything muscular about Nehru. He was a gentle, sober politician (his occasional mood bursts notwithstanding) whose speeches used to be inspiring and eloquent but without any thunder.

Like his daughter, war-winning was not among his achievements (in fact, he had lost one as a PM). Nehru disliked the Hindu right and also the Communists; but there wasn’t any campish  character to his loathing – it was a dislike based on ideological differences. The divide between the two sides became pronounced in later years due to self-styled Nehruvians and the progenies of Shayamaprasad Mukherjee.

The other chief reasons for his slide into oblivion with the current generation are the two ideals he stood for and is most remembered by – socialism and secularism.  Both socialism and secularism have had a rough time, in India, in post-Nehru years.

Indira Gandhi, unlike her father, had no sincere loyalty to socialism; for her garibi hatao was a political plank not an ideological obligation. Rajiv Gandhi moved away from socialism – in fact, his was the first Congress government (actually the first since independence) to flirt with market economy (now his son attributes the entry of computers into India to Rajiv, though the claim is contested by BJP).

In 1992 India opened up its markets to the world and with passing years the economic reality of India started shifting away from what it was in the pre 90s. And as India’s economic complexion has changed year upon year since then and the middle class increased, socialism has more and more looked like a relic of the past which is best kept at a distance.  

On the secular front, too, India has not fared any better in post Nehru years. Several provincial riots had taken place since Partition, but nothing had made national headlines.

That changed when Indira Gandhi fell to the bullets of two Sikh security guards leading to anti-Sikh riots - something Congress is still blamed for (and as later reports suggested rightly so).

Rajiv Gandhi, a few years later, by now a PM for a few years, dealt Indian secularism, which was already smarting under 1984 effects, another severe blow with the Saha Banu case.

In the post 90s, the rise of the BJP confronted the Congress with a new threat, a potential loss of the Hindu vote, pushing the Congress to reclaim its secular space. 

And secularism and whether the version of secularism followed in India is a departure from actual secularism borrowed by Nehru from the West – became a bone of contention between the two largest national parties.

And the two parties constantly clashing on the question of secularism divided the Indian political narrative into two halves – the Hindu right and the secular front. Gradually the Right narrative found legitimacy in national politics. 

In reality, Nehru may still be the founder of modern India, but, due to the follies of his very own, to the current generation, Nehru has become the grand sire of all that the Congress has done wrong since Nehru. And if his own have degenerated his legacy, the changing times (both globally and in India) have made the merit of his ideals a little contestable and  anyone representing them appear a little out of tune with times.

Haider, a film worth watching

When we talk about a land, we first talk about its culture and people, but surprisingly these two attributes drop off our list when the land is a disturbed one.  Politics takes the center stage and completely subsumes the land’s narrative, such that even if you want to tell personal stories, you have to place them within a political framework.

As time goes the political narrative becomes complex with various strands braiding themselves into a thick and intricate narrative.   Vishal Bhardwaj has had to deal with a similar situation for  Haider, his latest movie,  where he has had to tell a personal story, that of Haider, placing it within the complex political narrative of Kashmir. And he has successfully done so.

Haider is a beautiful film (or told beautifully) which manages to tell a personal story set in a political framework. Where the movie disappoints a bit is it at times bends over backwards to show the separatist movement in a positive light. You will see likable terrorists singing while grave-digging and shooting. 

No one should have any problem with this political lop-sidedness. It could well be the director's line of belief. But if he had explained the role of all the parties involved in Kashmir cauldron to the extent the plot warranted without taking political sides, Vishal Bhardwaj would have done a better job as a story teller. Instead, he chose the easier option. However, the redeeming point is that despite this political posturing, he has managed to tell the main story well. 

Haider is pursuing a PhD on revolutionary poets in India at Aligarh university, where he has been sent by his conniving paternal uncle (Haider’s father’s own brother) and mother so that Haider is not witness to their growing intimacy following Haider’s father’s disappearance engineered by his uncle who is an Indian army informer. Haider visits Kashmir in search of his father and gradually discovers how his uncle had laid out a plan to bring the downfall of his father and eventually get him arrested and killed. All to win over Haider’s mother.

The story unfolds in the first half amidst political problem, so that by the second half the political context is established with the viewer and the main story races up without the anchoring of politics around it. You can’t praise a film without the performances that make it possible. Haider’s transformation from an average guy to a terrorist has been enacted well by Shahid Kapoor… cold anger and determination come through very convincingly.

Transformation, in fact, is not unique to Shahid Kapoor’s character. Haider’s uncle played by KK Menon also undergoes a slow transformation, showing signs of repentance gnawing him from within even as he maintains his conniving exterior, trying to prevent things from sliding out of control as Haider is out to avenge his father’s death.

Although the song, dance, romance and loud comedy routine makes you feel it’s just another commercial movie, Haider has many redeeming qualities that make it worth a watch.

How European nationalism is different from Asian nationalism

Although the Scottish decision to forgo independence in view of economic security may have dampened the secessionist spirit in Europe, it has hardly been able to put the question of secession off the table.

The reason for this is that these independence-seeking pockets in Europe have a long history secessionism behind them. In the course of which their efforts to be independent have been thwarted many times by forces of history but never been put to rest for good.

Between 1640 and 1659, Catalonia, a part of Spain, stood up to the presence of the Castillian army in its territory, and became a republic under French protection. But unfortunately, a hundred years later, following the War of the Spanish Succession, Catalan institutions were institutions were abolished and replaced by Castillian ones.

Catalan past has the two ingredients – achievement and oppression - required to create a nationalistic feeling and sustain it. And the fact that Catalonia is rich (in fact, one of the richest in Spain) gives it the economic viability it requires for statehood.

Similarly, Belgium’s Flemish region, Flanders, which may be the next one to have independence referendum, represent 80 percent of Belgium’s economy and 60 percent of its population. The other 40 percent of Belgium’s population is Wallonians which Flanders has had to coexist with since the formation of Belgium in 1830 despite complete absence of cultural similarity.

Vlaams Belang, the only political party in Flanders which espouses the independence cause, says Belgium has been an artificial state from the very beginning which was formed by forcing into it two people (the Flemish and Walloons) who have nothing in common including political outlook; Flanders is center of right while Wallonia is socialist.

Another European place seeking self-realization is Veneto, one of the wealthiest and most industrialized regions of Italy. Veneto was an independent state which ruled over a series of city-states until, following Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna, Veneto was annexed by the Austrian Empire and later given over to Italy in 1866. Here emerges another profile similar to Flanders and Catalonia.

But is not nationalism, in any place in the world, always an outcome of the past as a source of pride and indignation coupled with economic viability? Yes, but what’s unique with European nationalism is the presence of EU.

55 percent of voters in a poll conducted to find out support for independence among residents of Veneto said they would want Veneto to remain a part of the EU and over 51 percent said they want to remain in the eurozone. A larger percentage said they would want Veneto to remain a part of NATO.

In Catalonia, according to polls, although there is strong support for independence among its people, there is very little support for an independent Catalonia outside of EU indicating diffidence about not having EU’s encompassing presence behind them as an independent country.

Some have argued that it’s the presence of the fatherly EU and the assurance that the father will come to the fiscal rescue of the hard-up child and ensure its survival on the dole out of another child which is doing well which gave the Scot independence seekers the mental cushioning they needed to clamour for freedom. 

It may not be so much the case with Catalonia and Flanders given their economic strength, but the presence of EU gives them the unique advantage of having a neutral body to moderate matters which is specific to Europe, unlike UN whose character lacks regional specificity. However, the support for NATO membership among the separation seekers is understandable given the new geopolitical challenges like Islamic terrorism and expansionist drives.

 The presence of EU as political, economic protection umbrella available to European countries seeking self-realization is absent for their Asian counter parts. What is also absent with their Asian counterparts is a strong economy which could make their statehood viable, except in some cases like Hong Kong. 

Absence of an EU-like body, NATO and lack of economic strength are reasons why Tibet, Kashmir, Baluchistan etc, if given separate statehood, will become vassals of Asian expansionist powers and be vulnerable to Islamic terrorism always looking out for new frontiers, while Catalonia, Flanders and so on will remain afloat as independent nations without hugely changing the configurations of European geopolitics. 

Rosemary & Thyme - a British detective TV serial with a difference - we need more like this

Youtube is a land of possibilities. Last month while browsing I hit a video link by mistake. As it started playing, I realized it was a recording of a British television serial. While browsing Youtube I accidentally hit lot of links but after the video plays for a while I lose my patience and close them.

This time I couldn't close the video. It drew me in as the story progressed and thinking that I would close it after I saw a little more, I ended up watching the whole episode. One of the things I couldn't have enough of was the locales it was shot in. You will just fall in love with the the English countryside, old estates, mansions etc. in it.

I Googled to check if my guess that it was a British serial was correct – and Wiki informed that my guess was not off the mark.

Rosemary and Thyme, which ran from 2003 to 2007, is a British detective tele-serial with a difference.  Rosemary and Thyme, two middle-aged women, one a former police whose husband has left her for a younger girl and the other a spinster, are professional gardeners. Their gardening assignments take them to different parts of England and beyond, mainly towns and countryside where we expect to find gardens or enough space to build one from scratch. And a murder takes place in the setting and Rosemary and Thyme find themselves solving the murder mystery even as they work on their assignment.

The plot lines are quite simple or only so much complex as much can be handled in a 30 minute episode. As is the convention of detective stories, there are some obvious suspects, some red herrings, some, minor plot diversions to neutralize the plot speed, some British humor and the murderer is mostly the person you are least supposed to suspect.

After watching some episodes you will start figuring out the culprit….But despite this simplicity there is something which will make you want to return and watch another episode – it’s the mesmerizing locales which give it a laidback feel and a little more . I have seen some American sitcoms; the crime ones are too gory and the comedy, too haa haa hii hii.  Rosemary and Thyme is quite a departure – gentle, relaxed, old-fashioned. There is another kind of departure from the American stuff – prudery.

Generally crime sitcoms are expected to have some sex in some form, either in the way of sexual innuendos or direct sex scenes, Rosemary and Thyme is stoutly celibate: even mild kissing scenes, included only when strictly warranted by the plot, are flitting and shown with a frowning attitude. I have not seen too many British TV serials or films but have read some 19^th and 20th century British novels – and even in them sex rarely finds a mention.

So it could be British restraint but it could also be because its target audience is not young people - a fact which is further confirmed by the middle-aged main characters it casts.

In India there were good detective tele serials in the 80s and 90s based on detective novels – Feluda, Bomkesh etc. Alas, the quality of mystery tele flicks has declined in last 10 years or so. They are mostly too glossy and robotic – without the slow build up and the subtle cultural nuances (dialogues, attire etc) and a credible detective (who has to be a good actor) at the centre.

Some of you may say Bomkesh and Feluda come from a different era and are too sophisticated and culturally rooted to have a mass appeal. I may be reluctant to admit this - as a whodunit works on the strength of the yarn and of course the credulity of the person playing the sleuth; but if you really want a light ‘low on substance and high on style’ stuff, then Karamchand (played by Pankaj Kapur in the 80s, if you remember. It still plays on Sony)  will work for you – an investigator at the center with his stylized idiosyncrasies with a lady assistant.   

But according to me, where Rosemary and Thyme scores above the conventional sleuth flicks is here you have two ladies who are not like conventional investigators. They solve cases almost accidentally after stumbling, fumbling and wrong-guessing. This trial and error or amateurish touch where the detective doesn't intimidate the audience with the pretensions of intellectual superiority – is a departure from the conventional detective who constantly patronizes. Not that this has not been tried elsewhere but with Rosemary and Thyme everything seems to come together.

Euthanasia - to be or not to be

After Supreme Court called for a nation-wide debate on euthanasia, there is lot of talk in the country around the issue. Given the morally ambiguous nature of euthanasia, it’s little wonder that multiple school of thoughts is emerging on it.

According to me, the Supreme Court’s suggestion for a nationwide debate is in acknowledgement of two facts. One is euthanasia has been in public discourse for many years. There is varied level of public awareness about it. Some may have a vague about about it, others may know a little more about it - that it exists in some parts of the world as an accepted practice followed when a patient is above all possibilities of survival. Awareness is not a problem.

But the other fact of the two is more interesting. If we debate euthanasia threadbare and it’s taken up by the media, more clarity will emerge and maybe the smoke around euthanasia, which gives it a sinister feel, making it something you are comfortable discussing but not accepting as a medical means which can be applied to a family member - will dissipate.   

Let us look at why we are resistant to this idea if we are aware of its existence and also accept its merit at least at an intellectual level. This idea flies in the face of the filial values we grow up with. At some level, we believe this may leave us to decide, one day, when and whether to withdraw life support to our parents, a decision which may leave us with a lifelong sense of guilt.

But this is where we are wrong. Whether life support will be withdrawn to a patient or not, is not decided by the close relations of the patient at the eleventh hour, but by the patient himself/herself when the patient is in a sound mental and physical condition to decide whether he/she would like to continue life, enduring unbearable physical pain when all possibilities of recovery are over, or terminate life by withdrawal of life support.

If someone decides to go for euthanasia, the person signs a contract called Living Will which includes such details as how and in what circumstances life support should be withdrawn, what kind of life support the person would be given, where etc. The Will may be signed by a person at any age, any time when he/she is eligible to sign a legal document.

But is it possible to foresee so many details about a health situation that is nowhere on the horizon when you are signing a Living Will?  Probably advocates of Living Will will say you are free to sign a Living Will when standing on the threshold of a treatment, a position that allows you to foresee, to a great extent, how a treatment can unfold and arrange details around it. 

Maybe but, with some health conditions, the course of a treatment may depart radically from what was envisaged before the treatment had started. Being a speculative document, how accurate can the Living Will be about a situation which it considers only hypothetically? Things become foggier if you consider the school of thought which argues that medical science is advancing every day and what is irreversible today may not be so sometime later. 

These questions would have to be considered very carefully before euthanasia was accepted as an alternative to continuity of life through support.