What is wrong with being apolitical?

The disturbing question every political philosopher or any serious observer of Indian democracy would be ‘where we are really heading at?’ The never-ending controversies, coupled with corruption cases made the people to have a strong disbelief in the democratic process. Even those who have some revival during Hazare movement also lost any small fragment of faith. In this juncture, I would like to ask this question: “What is wrong with being apolitical?”

Every politician and political philosopher would start criticizing the very idea of being apolitical, but can’t they see it is the need of our time. When all the systems that are working in the society befool us, when everything is corrupted, every politician, bureaucrat, media guys are under the shadow of doubt, will we not forced to discard the long-held beliefs and values? If we do not doubt the present system, if we do not question the essentialized notions, how can we think of an alternative?

Even after witnessing these mass homicides in the name of religion, race, caste and creed which are in tune with the results of the battle for power, how can we trust the system. Those who still follow the dictates of the party leaders have to understand one thing, i.e., they are making the country from bad to worse. Any ordinary party worker who claims that “we are right, others are wrong” won’t be aware of the cruelties they are inflicting upon the nation.

I would say only one thing that it is time to completely revamp the basic tenets of Indian constitution and political set up. Hazare might have asked only for a strong Jan Lokpal in which even the Prime Minister should come under. But the real issue is that we have to redefine even the basic principles, rewrite the constitution. There should be a strong governmental system..

The point is that while discussing about revamping the system, I am not an apolitical person, but very much political. I can’t help it. If we want to run our country successfully for some more decades, these changes are necessary, but we can’t give any guarantee how long it will last. The idea that one can rule, or lead another person in life itself is absurd, non-human. Man essentially is free, and he will always crave for freedom. Those systems of governments which failed to understand this can’t last long. The basic goal of governments should be to give complete freedom to humans ultimately
ASVDNC566ZG8

New Trends in Malayalam Novel: Reading "Aadujeevitham"

The novel Aadu Jeevitham by Benyamin foregrounds the life experience of the Malayalees in the Arabian countries through the shared experience of the life of the central character, Najeeb. For us, the image of Gulf countries often correlates with big buildings and luxurious life style. We often hear stories of fortune attained by many people and more and more of us are tempted to get to that ‘heaven’ once in a life time. The novel demystifies these generalised ideas about the Gulf countries and foregrounds the dark sides of mass migration and exploitation. My attempt in this review is not to discuss such sociological aspect of the novel, but just to mention the philosophical side of the experience of the central character. Throughout the work, we can see that the central character experiences the hardship more or less alone. Yet, throughout the story, an unknown power follows the character and helps him to confront the exploitation. A religious reading of it can chalk out the presence of an all powerful God in the life of each and every one of us.

Michael Bakhtin developed the idea of “dialogism” to show the importance of dialogue in a multi-cultural society. He interpreted ‘dialogue’ as an interaction “between mind and world”. The existence of humans is possible only through ‘dialogue’ and the absence of it will lead to death. As far as the structurality of the novel is concerned, it is not about dialogism as it does not focus on “hetroglossia(multiple voices)”. On the other hand, we can hear only one voice, the voice of the author. It goes to the extent that the voice of the author and the voice of the central character merge into one unified whole; a nullity of multiple voices. If we deal with the philosophical dimensions of the existence of the central character, it shows the significance of dialogism through its absence. From the beginning of the life of Majeed in the Gulf itself, he was prevented from any human contact; the only companions were the sheep that he was supposed to look after and his Arbab. As far as the character of Arbab is concerned, he is not talkative, and not at all humane in his relation with Majeed. Besides, language acts as a barrier between them.

Even in this complete absence of ‘dialogue’, Majeed manages to adapt to the changes because in the absence of linguistic dialogue, a psychological dialogue is possible for him. He communicates with the sheep, names them and at one particular situation, has sex with one among them. In his physical absence from his family and relatives, he had an exceptional relation with the sheep, so he names them as his acquaintances. He communicates with the sheep, to himself, to the god. It is this dialogue with his inner self, with the god, or even the non-human entities that made existence possible for Majeed. In the absence of dialogue, no life exists.

Using Figurative Language in Public Speeches

What is going on in the political arena of the country is worse than a farce. The art form “farce” is used to delight people, not just make them shame on themselves. Though politicians are always been criticized by both laymen and scholars alike, and regarded as the “last resort of a scoundrel”, it was never been subjected to vehement criticism than now. The words and deeds of the leaders are being thoroughly examined by the 24/7 channels, and they make us laugh at the leaders. From these live streaming and discussions, we develop the idea that the politicians are as a class, bad. This commonsensical notion tries to hide the fact that the leaders are just the representatives of the people and belong to the many classes and creeds among them. If one has to say that the leaders who represent the people in the respective legislative bodies are damned corrupted, it is equal to say that the entire people as such corrupted. One way to criticize the wrongdoings of the present is to take references from the past and then glorify it. It can be either the most glorious, most celebrated, or the most discussed the great Indian Civilization or even the later on “national” leaders like Nehru-Gandhi era. It may be because there were not this 24/7 channels in those days or even that the media people were not as greedy as now. The pathetic thing is that leaders are not even dared to open their mouth. I am telling this specifically with regard to the latest development in Kerala politics. The leaders of the left are being questioned and examined for their threatening words in the public meetings and even a murder case has been registered against a leader. While mentioning this, I am not at all supporting the events and crimes related to it, but just trying to mention something about language, my subject of study; the language that are used in public speeches. The first time I had taken interest in the art of speech, oratory, is after reading an article by Sukumar Azhikkode, and at that time, I was convinced that it is an art like any other forms of entertainment. As of literature, oratory also can be used to delight and to teach or profess though the main aim of it is to profess. However, this art form, like any other forms, may have to use some “ingredients” to persuade. In poetry, they will make use of metaphors, rhetoric, hyperbole and other speech forms. Usually, in literature, these speech forms will be analyzed by literary critics and will take those meanings not in the actual meaning of it, but the literary value of it. Whether oratory, including political speeches, should be considered as an art or not, I don’t have any doubt in it. But when it comes to the part of analyzing the speeches, I do think that, though with apprehension, those news readers, who may not have any notion about the literary aspect of the oratory, can analyze these speeches and pass judgments on it. However, they should understand from their part, that it is a speech event, so the speaker may have to succeed in arousing the interest of the listener, make him feel and think. If the media understand this, more than half of the problems in the present day will dissolve.

Revisiting Witches: Reading Aleph

O Mary Conceived Without Sin, Pray for those who Turn to You. Amen. “Here we are in the twenty first century, and yet the descendents of the real criminals, those who killed the innocent victims, still they have the right to grant pardons. Do you know what I mean, Haron?” Coelho, The Witch of the Portobello(page 2). The character sketch of Athena in the novel “The Witch of the Portobello” clearly recalls the witch hunt of Early Modern Period. Yet, the novel, some say, has nothing to do with the witch hunt in the those period. However, if someone raises a question, what is there in the mind of Coelho while writing this novel, or the recent one, “Aleph,” it is a complicated one. When I ask this question, my objective is not to conduct an investigation of the real motives of the author, something the New Critics termed as “Intentional Phallacy.” The books of Coelho has been viewed from different angles by different critics. Mostly, the novels have been termed as an encouraging, inspirational stories which talk about the individual powers and the success of human beings. However, when the characters like “Athena”, or “Hilal”, mention something about mystical experience and the past experience of prosecution in the Court of Inquisition, it is quite normal to have some doubts about the “intention of the author.” “Aleph” is an autobiographical story of Coelho, where he starts a journey back to his kingdom. He talks about the previous life in which he helped the Inquisition. His teacher/mender in the Tradition(which is quite ambiguous term for me) advised him to visit the past life through meditation. So, Coelho conducted a journey through the Russian provinces where he met the woman from his past life. In a moment of “Aleph”, he could understand that he was one of the reason for her cruel death in the past life, so he decided to request forgiveness to the woman. The rest of the story is clear, he asks forgiveness and she accepted it, so he went back to his native country and lived happily ever after. Here, whether the hero achieved mental peace after the experience completely is not that much clear. It is because in the beginning of the work, the author says that he started doubting the relevance of his own beliefs and started doubting whether the Tradition can answer his problems. Then, he hope that through the journey he had undertaken, he could overcome his problems and get back the peace of mind, or even salvation(what he wanted to achieve, his real quest is unclear for me, truly speaking). The thing is that happiness or peace of mind cannot be achieved permanently for anyone, except saints(?). If one achieves complete satisfaction in his life, achieves everything, the life ends there. The happiness achieved by Coelho cannot be permanent in my opinion, after a time, he may again start questioning the beliefs, and may again start a journey. So, whether he achieved anything by this journey is a question.

Another issue related to the work is the question of forgiveness and the way he approaches it. Even though he used many praises the ancient traditions which is mainly matriarchal, the idea of forgiveness itself is patriarchal. It is the nature of men to engage in sinful acts towards women; then they will ask forgiveness, and it is always the duty of the women to grant it. When Coelho got his kingdom back, it is not clear about the female character. Even though it mentions that she finds absolute solace in the presence of Coelho, she did not continue her career as a violinist. Coelho advices her to use it as a tool for forgetting everything, she give up the career. In the last part, the author says that he don't know why she decided like that, after all she has every right to do or choose her career. It is her kingdom, others can't enter into it. In other words, it is the novel about Coelho, and “his” journey back to his kingdom; whatever happens to the rest of the world or the female part is not his concern. The more serious issue of forgiveness is that, Coleho's journey is not complete. In the novel itself, he mentioned that he id responsible for the bad life of eight woman, Hilal is the fifth one. Even if he asks forgiveness to the eight women, he can't get what he wanted to get. It is because when he says he is responsible for the death of the girl in the previous life, he indirectly responsible for the misfortunes of her family as well. He did not ask forgiveness to the father of the girl, from whom he received many favors. After all, as mentioned earlier, asking forgiveness should be “a man to a woman”, not to the rest of the family. When the girl died by burning in the fire, the family died by burning in the society. If this way is correct, he is not only responsible for the woman and her family, but to the society which is forced to believe this idea of burning the witches. And what about his fellow culprits?

The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie


Salman Rushdie is one of the foremost Indian English writer who received the prestigious Man- Booker Price for Literature. He criticized the dominant ideologies which constitute the psyche of Indian nation, especially in his celebrated work “The Midnight's Children”. He provoked the conservative religious and political leaders across the globe with his pen. You can feel the power of his pen in the novel “The Enchantress of Florence”  also. 
 
The background of the novel is an incident happened in the court of Emperor Akbar; a young, yellow-haired European traveler calling himself 'Mogor dell' Amore' visited the court by claiming himself as the kin of the Emperor.  Then, the traveler narrates the story of the late Princes of Mughal court Qara Koz, the sister of Babar who is taken captive by different warlords. This story, with a touch of history, is served as a critique of the values of the so called progressed society, in the hands of Rushdie. 
 
Rushdie is always celebrated as the critique of the dominant ideologies of the modern society, but how far this novel deconstruct those notions or he simply serves as a tool to strengthen the same ideology which he is trying to resist. 

Reinventing History:

The novels of Rushdie are famous for his treatment of history and his reinvention of characters and events. Against the celebrated Grand Narratives of emperors and war lords, he wrote about the history of common man. However, in this particular novel he used the mighty kingdom of the Mughals. Even then, the central character is Niccolo Vespucci, an ordinary man from Florence. Rushdie used the post modern literary concept of “Historiographic Metafiction”. It is a term originally coined by literary theorist,Linda Hutcheon.

According to Hutcheon, in "A Poetics of Postmodernism", works of historiographic metafiction are "those well-known and popular novels which are both intensely self-reflexive and yet paradoxically also lay claim to historic events and personages".

The historic personages like Akbar, Jodha, Birbal etc are present in the novel, but apart from that what is the purpose of these characters in the novel. If the author used some of controversial ideas into the mouth of a common man, it lacks authenticity whereas if the criticism comes from the mouth of “Shelter of the World, Akbar”, it has the authenticity. Then, whether, he is against these power-centers or in favor of them. It is a question that worth answering.

The one central criticism that may arise against this novel is the treatment of woman in the novel. For some, it is the story of a woman's adventure in man's world. For some, it is a patriarchal narrative attempting to idealize woman. Since the freedom loving Qara Koz is a central icon, we can say it is a feminist novel, at the same time, the words and deeds of the charecters in the work give the other option. Both extreme is possible. For example, the lyric, “If she was a letter I would have sent her, If she was a coin I would have spent her”, was nothing but pure romantic lyrics. The words of Akbar also note down the same kind of ideal sexual body. That, the female body is nothing but a sexual device for the man, to enjoy, to crucify.

When analyzing whether Rushdie is accepting or resisting the hegemonic ideology, one more thing need to be questioned. His treatment of religion, and mainly the question of incest. Throughout the narrative we feel that, he is against the established religion. When he uses the symbol, Akbar, he is presenting two extreme pictures. On the one side there is Akbar who challenges all the orthodox belief system, who wants to synthesis all the major ideas in all religion and on the other hand the there is the conservative Baudauni, who favors strict religious dogmas. The point is the conservatives do not get much voice in the novel and the voice of the revolutionary Akbar is very weak(!). He is weak in the sense that whenever someone questions his core values, he became defensive and throw away the revolutionary aspect. The way he handled the revolution by using Birbal, without addressing the questions they raised is an example. “Because God is everyone and everything, it follows that all acts are divine acts, and therefore, because all acts are godly, there is no difference between right and wrong, good deeds and evil ones, and so we may do exactly as we please”(314). He didn't answer this question, but answered the other question, that of incest. The narrative of Rushdie is weak is at this point.

Akbar at this time decided, almost, to take the foreigner as his heir, but did not. He thought that Veppucci is a son from an incestuous relationship. There is no proof or ideas to believe so. Then why did he invent such a tale. The Akbar who thought about his grand aunt Qara Koz day and night, is worried about the birth of that foreigner. This is because of the strict religious faith he has. In Quran it is forbidden to think about the kins in sexual motive. “Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: … two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed” [al-Nisaa’ 4:23]

Here, more than the religious notion it is the purity of the Mughal blood that compell him to take such a decision. The re-enliven Qara Koz says that this traveler is not her son in an incestuous relation, for royal bloods never commit such an act! So, the purity of the royal blood is assured and the traveler was being transported to some other country.


Redefining Colonialism:

The main argument of Said's “Orientalism” is to unravel the colonial missions of the European travelers and writers and how they constructed the notions of exotic, barbarian east. Contrary to that, in this novel, it is the eastern king, Akbar, who thought about the west in that way;

"The emperor, listening to Mogor dell'Amore as he told the story, understood that the lands of the West were exotic and surreal to a degree incomprehensible to the humdrum people of the East. In the East women worked hard, lived well or badly, died noble or ignoble deaths, believed in faiths that engendered great art, great poetry, great music, some consolation and much confusion. Normal human lives, in sum. But in those fabulous Western climes people seemed prone to hysterias- such as the Weeper hysteria in Florence- that swept through their countries like diseases and transformed things utterly without warning."


The emperor thought about crowning Mogor dell'Amore as the king if Hindustan, to realise his idea of a global kingdom on earth, were all beliefs are united.

"It would be a further step in the culture of inclusion..........in which all races, tribes, clans, faiths and nations would become part of the one grand Mughal synthesis, the one grand syncretization of the earth, its arts, its loves, its differences, its problems, its vanities, its philosophies, its sports, its whims."

The Hindustan under Akbar was a superior force than any other European countries, may be that is what Rushdie's conclusion.



View all my reviews