Saswat Blog

As Lebanon bleeds, it kills.

It kills our conscience every single day,
as we carry on with our mundane plans
to further petty bourgeois career paths as usual.

Lebanon kills our ability to reason with truth,
as we carry on with our
CNN
and BBC
and New York Times.
Lebanon kills our faith in human good,
as we rationalize
that it is human nature to sustain warfare.
Lebanon kills our trusts in our own potential to rise up,
look into our comfortable shining mirrors on the walls,
and discover how unabashedly wretched we must look
if we smile to ourselves today.

Lebanon kills all that is beautiful,
all that is innocent,
all that is glorious,
all that is humane,
all that is kind,
all that is generous,
all that we mean by understanding for social good.

Yes, Lebanon kills, when it bleeds.

Lebanon kills our sense of empathy
when children of Beirut
are massacred in name of
democracy.
Lebanon kills our feelings of cooperation
when we indifferently watch
hapless humans murdered in name of
freedom.
Lebanon kills our pride in our identities
as we stoically listen to
blatant propaganda against Islam.
Lebanon kills our amicability
the moment we buy into
media definition of terrorism.
Lebanon kills our cognition
when we start believing
that there ever was a
kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.
That such kidnapping
has anything to do with the war
against humanity.

Yes, Lebanon kills, when it bleeds.

When we overlook Israel
as one of the biggest militarist regions
of the planet,
Lebanon kills.
Lebanon kills our intelligence
when we start assuming
a national defense establishment
is protector of anything human,
be it the armed forces of India,
America,
Pakistan
or Israel.
Lebanon kills our sense of proportion
when we mistake the grieving
agonized
and affected
peoples as the terrorists.
Lebanon kills our basic values of decency
when we have anger
at the defenseless
and support
for Abu Gharibs.
Because we think
the Iraqi prisoners
were terrorists
and invading military rapists
are victors,
Lebanon kills.

Lebanon kills our children
and their children
and theirs,
because we have taught them the history
invented by
Rupert Murdorch,
not history
relived by
Howard Zinn.
Lebanon kills our fathers,
and their fathers
and theirs,
because they did not teach us
not to discriminate people
or disown gods,
and Lebanon kills us,
because we have still not learnt enough.

Yes Lebanon kills, when it bleeds.

When the so-called world leaders call
their lavishly delicious meetings
and use profanities
to address the suffering people,
Lebanon kills.
When the leaders perpetrate military race
by aiding Israel’s quests,
Lebanon kills.
Lebanon kills our memory
when we conveniently forget
that Israel is the only country in the world
that practices Apartheid even today.
When its lost on us that Israel has not one,
or two,
but 11 different classes of people
who are required to carry identifications
with their ethnic categories
so that they can be officially discriminated,
Lebanon kills.

When its lost on us that Israel as a state
works to benefit its “first class citizens”,
whereas the rest are
condemned in different degrees,
most even not allowed
to own residence in
nine-tenth of the country,
Lebanon kills our knowledge
of contemporary racist history.

Lebanon kills our curiosity to know and grow,
when we conveniently ignore the fact
that Israeli citizens of the
lower classes are routinely arrested,
and tortured
without trial for indefinite periods,
by Israeli ruling class
just as the fascists ever did.
Lebanon kills our power to look beyond
when we do not think twice
even as Palestinians have been living under unethical
inhuman
military occupation since almost 60 years now,
without land,
without rights,
without hopes,
and any sense of belonging
in a land that rightfully belongs to them
and wrongfully occupied now.
That we do not pause
to think 60 years is a human lifespan,
Lebanon kills.

Yes Lebanon kills, when it bleeds.

We, the torchbearers of freedom
and trumpets of liberty
and voters of democracy
are fittingly comfortable
within our definition of these words
whereas using these words
we mandate our leaders
to go ravage millions of innocent women
and children
just because they do not want
our shallow words in their dictionary,
and that is why Lebanon kills.
We the killers of Edward Said
and annihilators of Mesopotamia civilization
are so proud of our conquering heritage
while leaving behind no history for “terrorist children”,
that Lebanon kills.
We visitors to mocking war memorials
and lying history museums
and readers of western civilizations
that validated slavery in name of gods
are so muted by our ignorance
that Lebanon kills.
We fanatic supporters of colonial
and imperial powers of Europe
that forced the Jews
and compelled the Arabs
and enslaved the blacks
and looted the working men and women
of the entire world,
are so happy to be psychologically numb,
and its so sad
that Lebanon kills.

Lebanon kills those that refuse to acknowledge
that revolution is the prerogative of the landless
against the landgrabbers,
just as
reactionary military occupation
is the prerogative of
the religious-military-industrial nexus.
And to those of us
who side by the authorized militarists
and take them for agents of freedom,
Lebanon kills.
Lebanon kills us
when we start believing in nationalities
as ends to human aspirations,
not as temporary means
to solve the question of bread,
so temporary
that after bread,
land
and peace,
we should know no nations
in order to embrace the worldwide working class.
And worldwide working class
should know
no national boundaries
and ethnicities
and religions,
because these are tools of the oppressors,
if it must come together,
and many of us refuse to believe this,
and hence Lebanon kills.

Lebanon kills us
when we blindly lend our support
to the orchastrators of global terrorism
in order to divide and rule our world,
and install their undivided Empire
those who for six decades
now in the name of war
against Communism
and “terror”,
had been working
to in fact cause wars
against working class humanity
in Korea,
in Vietnam,
in China,
in Italy,
in Greece,
in the Philippines.
Also
in Albania,
in Eastern Europe,
in Iran,
in Guatemala,
in Costa Rica,
in Syria,
in the Middle East,
in Indonesia,
in British Guiana,
in Soviet Union,
in Cambodia,
in Laos,
in Haiti,
in Algeria,
in Ecuador,
in The Congo,
in Brazil,
in Peru,
in Dominican Republic,
in Cuba,
when the militarist combines assaulted societies
and bombarded destabilization
in name of promoting “democracy”,
and yet we applaud their victories,
Lebanon kills.

Despite their illegal interventions
also
in Ghana,
in Uruguay,
in Chile,
in Bolivia,
in Iraq,
in Australia,
in Angola,
in Zaire,
in Jamaica,
in Seychelles,
in Grenada,
in Morocco,
in Suriname,
in Libya,
in Nicaragua,
in Panama,
in Bulgaria,
in Afghanistan,
in El Salvador
and now
against the American working class,
we keep silent
and worship their billionaires
and deride the working class communities
of immigrants
and the blacks
and the Muslims,
it really sucks;
and Lebanon kills.

Lebanon kills when it bleeds,
because through our callous indifference,
and our reactionary supports
to the national defense forces
that thrives on the military industrial complexes
owned by a handful of global capitalists,
we have allowed the free rein
to exploit the indigenous,
the poor,
the working class people
by infusing in us
vast sea of ignorance
so that we would not challenge
the structure.
In fact
Lebanon kills
our mere existence
as beings
as we so submissively let our minds
be colonized yet again,
by raising toast to their victory,
by worshipping their gods,
by using their profanities,
by playing by their rules,
by spreading their hatred
among ourselves
in the name of their religions,
their moral standards
and their male supremacist,
heterosexist,
individualistic,
self centered,
nationalistic,
oppressive,
religious,
capitalistic,
god-fearing,
inhumane
corporate orders.

Lebanon kills
because we live comfortably
in our racist,
anti-Islam
world of lies,
and we let our world leaders
orchestrate occasions,
deliberately neglect law and order,
and find reasons
to commit genocide
of innocent people
in months of
September
and July
and rest of the year,
in London,
New York
and Mumbai
and rest of the cities,
so that
they can carry on their own agendas
to conquer country after country,
oil fields after oil fields,
economies after economies,
peoples cooperatives after peoples cooperatives,
tribal lands after tribal lands,
indigenous peoples after indigenous people,
forests after forests,
and in fact declare our world as theirs,
as a capitalistic,
patriarchal,
conservative structure.
And hence Lebanon kills,
so that
when we are no more,
our children will at least
have got rid of us all
and a ravaged Lebanon
will guide a new world,
full of hope
because all despairs are getting rid of now,
each moment.

Lebanon must kill,
even as she bleeds.

-Saswat Pattanayak, Peoples’ Poet, 2006

“Yes, the celebration of May Day has truly been made official. It has been celebrated by the state. The might of the state was evident in many ways. But is it not intoxicating to think that the state, until recently our worst enemy, now belongs to us and has celebrated 1 May as its greatest festival?
And yet, take my word, if this festival had only been official, it would have produced nothing but coldness and emptiness.
But no, the popular masses, the navy, the Red Army all true working people put their efforts towards it. And we can therefore say that this festival of labour has never been so beautiful.”

Extract from A. V. Lunacharsky’s diary for 1 May 1918, describing the May Day festivities in Petrograd.

When some Australian workers in 1856 first decided to organize and celebrate a no-work day on May 1, they had no idea how much they deserved it. Hence, despite their intent of participating in the event just one time, the day gained such prominence, not out of a media publicity or government endorsement, but because of the growing needs of the times for the workers to assert themselves.

During those days, the average work hours per week was 70 hours! No wonder May 1 celebration touched the lives of millions and immediately followed the Americans. Early in 1886, the Chicago employers were filching away from their employed, the privilege recently unreasonable length than ten or eleven hours. Against this familiar device of the masters, many meetings of the men were held in Chicago in the earlier months of 1886. One of these meetings was called in the Haymarket, for the evening of May 4th. It was called by the anarchists. A special protest was to be made against the killing of seven unarmed workers a few days earlier, outside McCormick’s premises, by Pinkerton detectives. The speeches of the Anarchists before this particular occasion had been of the “sound and fury” type. There had been talk of bombs and the like. (To-Day, Nov 1887).

Even before it, on May 1 that year, working men mobilized in support of the eight-hour workday in cities across the United States. According to New York Times of May 2, 1886, in Chicago, “one good-sized procession, one small one, two small meetings, some gatherings too feeble to be called meetings, and less than 30,000 laboring men taking a holiday, either willingly or unwillingly, represent the first day of the era in which, it has been declared, eight hours shall constitute a day’s work and 10 hours’ pay shall be gotten for eight hours’ work. The red flag has bobbed up here and there, some incendiary speeches have been made.”

NYT reported that the furniture manufacturers of St. Louis formed an association and unanimously resolved to operate their factories on the eight hours per day system after that day, on a basis of eight hours’ wages. All the plumbers in the city, 200 in number, quit work that morning. They made a demand of the bosses that they adopt the eight-hour system without decreasing their wages, beginning to-day. Similar reports were filed from Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Louisville, Washington, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Troy, Hartford, New-Haven, Boston And Portland.

Soon after, the Resolution introduced by Raymond Lavigne, International Socialist Congress, Paris, July 20, 1889 summed up the intent for a truly International Labor Day. The International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam calls upon all Social-Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace. The most effective way of demonstrating on May First is by stoppage of work. The Congress therefore makes it mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May First, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers.

And as Leon Trotsky put it in 1924, the fundamental May Day demands were threefold: the eight-hour working day, for which generations of the working class have fought, the international solidarity of workers and the struggle against militarism.

And the visions, demands and struggles associated with May Day continue to reverberate in the collective hope of the entire working class of the world as they move from one form of industrial society to another! Long live, May Day!

May 1 has always been special to me. I am sure it is the same for many of my friends. More than 18 years ago on this day, we organized efforts to create an association of neighborhood children of Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar. We must have been young and innocent then. Rakesh (Sabir Mohammad), Mituna (Mitrabhanu Mohanty), Jaji (Jayajit Dash), Munlu (Spandan Biswal) were few of the driving forces. Back then, world was not yet unipolar. Misha magazine printed at Soviet Union was widely adored. Beautiful cartoon narratives in this colorful magazine were always a big draw. Books like Situational Grammar and Eleven Stories for Boys and Girls formed part of the library we created over the years. Most households proudly and yet most unassumingly read great number of books for children and adults, published in the USSR.

The Children’s Library of Fancy Club indeed was a culminating collective. The collective had few rules. We would pay a minimum monthly due and spend it towards organizing quizzes, buying comic books, English classics, Soviet books and organizing some periodic events. Of course we would play Cricket and badminton and hockey and football and chess…!

Three years after, we changed the name to Pacific Club and expanded the base to include other fellow students from different neighborhoods. Pacific, to us, of course meant a change in direction. “Promote peace and reduce conflict.” This was in 1990-91. By this time, world was leaving us behind. We knew an essential component of our childhood—the association with Soviet literature—would no more be a visible part of daily life. Indeed with the ‘failure’ and ‘demise’ of the ideology, we would no more find similar books any longer at the book fairs. Where some stores would have the old copies, they would be sold at such dirt cheap prices that even purchasing them would seem burdensome. After all, if they are this throw-away, then they must indeed be.

Pacific Club, despite changes in the world political shiftings, started on a May 1 morning too! And we did not exactly know why, except that this was still the day we identified with as the dearest for us. Two years hence, when we again revisited how we were naming ourselves, we thought a transition from Fancy to Pacific was a necessity. And hence a transition from ‘Club’ to Aces would possibly be logical too. So we abandoned any remaining elitism to make ourselves (expanding membership bases still all the more) become more organized. By this time, computers started making their presence. Hand-written and typewritten membership forms were replaced by desktop publishing. Monthly dues increased slightly. We were in the high-schools already and needed to discipline ourselves more into maintaining catalogues, entries, monthly updates of magazines and books. The library continued to make impacts nevertheless. Weekly quizzes continued to happen.

Into colleges, and some of us still were in schools, other changes were promising to happen. Perestroika and Glasnost were two familiar words by now. For good or worse, the world was changing rapidly and a third-world country children were slightly feeling the tremors. Some amount of cooperativeness still prevailed. Suicides among students were still low. More children still smiled at Chacha Chowdhury than they did few years after.

When we all found ourselves in a hostile and oftentimes indifferent world, Tanjug helped conceptualize a Red Peace Movement while in Delhi, in 1998, and May 1 was still the date of its inception. When three years later, work on the Ego Magazine started as a collective editorial process, May 1 again launched the journal. Only last year when Whosemedia started to offer alternative tidbits, how could I not start on a May 1?

In one individual life, or in several of ours (Amarendra Paital, Ziauddin Ali, Biswanath Patnaik, Tanjug Singh, Hemant Rohella, M Ravi Kumar etc etc….), May 1 continued to impact. Just incidentally…Or intentionally as well..

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am not sure if it was political. Or could it be at all political, when we were as young as 10 (and some of us were even younger!). But the only thing we could connect with May 1 was a word called ‘International’. It was the only international day of observance we ever knew. Among all the regional, religious and ethno-centric festivities that marked Indian society, May 1 was the single most international observation we could celebrate. And I guess, with the desire to know the world of Misha and Robinhood, we had somewhere fallen in love with the world itself. And May 1 stood out as the day of love.

With the resounding laughter of silent Charlie Chaplin, we were learning what an internationalist he was. With a Japanese-sole, British coat, a Russian hat, and an Indian heart, when Raj Kapoor died in 1989, we were too young to feel the loss. Or too international already to celebrate his legacy. Doordarshan (the Indian peoples TV) was not then corrupted by mythologies yet and it had great educational programs and solidarity serials. Biggest hit of the period was still Maine Pyar Kiya-one where the hero rejected his class society status and worked as a proletariat to prove his qualification as a worthy man. The 80’s India was a transitional period. One that killed Indira Gandhi, witnessed transfer of power in Soviet Union and one that paved the way for 90’s liberalization.

With globalization, one would have assumed that May 1 would become all the more celebrated. Ironically, the more liberalized we became, the less we felt passionate about international causes! African Fund or Non-Aligned Movement or SAARC—all lost relevance in the post-1991 era. Disarmament, Olympic Games or Parallel Cinema—all lost charm in the liberal age. The identification with worker’s movements in the local trade unions or in the larger understanding of 8-hour days were lost on us as we gradually entered the new era of free capital. And the sheer romanticism associated with peoples of the world was replaced by pragmatic failures of the utter money-market hardcore stoicism.

Today May 1 is a symbolism. Not a movement. In different parts, different strikes are being organized. Protest marches for variety of reasons. Just arbitrary dozens speaking-out and hundreds of people way scared to leave their workplace to come out. There is nothing international about the May 1 of 2006. Indeed the spirits are no more. Or are the spirits only there?

I don’t know about the future. For me, May 1 is a big day of introspection. May 1 spoke of the worldwide connection that we had. The Penpal friends we made out of intention. The postage stamps we collected to know the colors of the different lands. In the entire gamut of understanding how we were related to our families, our families to the society, the society to the state, the state to the country, the country to the continent, the continent to the world. May 1 connected us to possibilities of uniting with this world all the time, all the while. Not to connect superficially as hero-worshippers of western soaps or shopping malls. But to connect with other people “like us” who wanted peace and happiness for all.

May 1 helps me this year to think of what happened over the years. To connect the several associations and clubs and community organizations we formed while we were young, to the understanding of our global values. By recognizing ourselves more, we could identify with others all the more. The possibilities, and hopes for a better “world” was the mantra then. For a better world, we tried to learn of the world from the oppressed lenses. We never forgot we belonged to the third world. We never assumed the rest of the suffering population of the world as anything other than our dear friends.

What happened to the dreams of yesteryears when we all dreamt of equality of opportunities for all of us. When we talked of free housing, medical care and primary education. When we planned about free time to watch movies or read a folk story. When we thought of one world, one people, one public property sphere. When we envisioned there would not be some people too rich and too many people too poor. When working people will not live in fear of losing jobs, or getting underpaid or work as slaves in firms owned by slaveowners. When we dreamt we would respect each work with dignity, and not pay mental workers abnormally higher than we pay manual workers. When we thought we would not bomb countries endlessly, we would not destroy ecology mindlessly, and not make commodities off everything ceaselessly. We dreamt as much in the 80’s when we grew up in our early childhood and teens. With May 1 by our side!

As Nepal is declared normal, I find something is clearly missing…and I thought….

People of Nepal have finally “gained victory”
Although why the Crown relented appears a mystery
After weeks of active resistance; in face of military excesses
Took 14 deaths for the King to grant freedom to his subjects

Just when I thought, a specter was almost haunting Nepal
A specter of hope, and struggle to erase writings off the wall
The Monarchy has now heeded to its Big Brothers in crime
And the world media are already replacing remnants of grime

For the comrades: before the battle is won, the war has been lost!
Powers have hijacked the purpose of resistance at every single cost!
For I believe, freedom is ours to possess; not for the Royals to offer
Even as they recreate their myths, and even as we continue to suffer…!

Feel the power even of the anarchic online media? Let’s remind ourselves of the Pepsi-Kanye West chain mail. It claimed that the relationship had gone sour following his political rant and Pepsi had fired him. After a few weeks of online activisms, Pepsi declared that it was not the case at all. That Kanye West and the people of color should continue the support to Pepsi.

Recently the Oprah Winfrey and Tommy Hilfiger mail has started doing the rounds again. So once again, I received a mail that carries a subject line hailing Oprah in order to condemn racism. To substantiate it, there is a chain email which narrates her “interview” with Tommy Hilfiger.

But this time, it was from a friend in India. Clearly people in the Other World also got affected by racism. The accompanying text to condemn racism was the same: that a black man was discriminated against on a BA flight. Popularly known as “BA Flight anti racism” mail, you can read the entire content here:
And here. This piece has become sort of a joke to be appearing on even the humor sites! In fact the same narrative is offered on another page where it says it was not a black man, but a Hispanic man…

Since such attempts to “stop racism” has become so fashionable online, I wanted to offer a perspective. Also to correct bloggers like Adorable, who think Oprah said the same statements in a recent show (December 2005) although Oprah had denied it way back in 1999 (a fact which is never discussed since such emails are meant to be forever relevant…!)

Here follows the email conversation, slightly abridged.

“Let me offer an explanation. First off, you have not quoted the point of reference, as to where did you get this mail from. That way, the readers could have investigated the source for themselves. Secondly you should have yourself investigated the source too before sending such mails out, lest they end up misinforming.

Tommy Hilfiger is no social activist. He is in fact an elite designer serving only the capitalistic cause of wealth celebration. But clearly he never had such a show with Oprah and he has never given any such comments, let alone such blatantly racist ones. Oprah has in fact never met with him and had never him on her show.

This is part of the same junk mail chain letters that you receive increasingly about almost everything (from refinancing your house, to pay off credits, to get Viagra for cheap). It is well evidenced by Oprah’s own refutation of the incident. On a live “The Oprah Winfrey Show” taped on January 11, 1999, she had already clarified the same:
“So I want to just set the record straight once and for all. The rumor claims that clothing designer Tommy Hilfiger came on this show and made racist remarks, and that I then kicked him out. I just want to say that is not true because it just never happened.
Tommy Hilfiger has never appeared on this show. READ MY LIPS, TOMMY HILFIGER HAS NEVER APPEARED ON THIS SHOW. And all of [the] people who claim that they saw it, they heard it—it never happened. I’ve never even met Tommy Hilfiger.” Her own magazine cites this show.

And for the knowledge, Oprah is a big loyal fan of Tommy. She adores Hilfiger and personally gives testimonials to the public so that they can go buy them. There are countless examples.

On the online front, there have been disclaimers to reinstate Tommy’s lost image too:

So now that we know that Tommy is actually innocent and a “poor victim”, what do we learn from this recurring mail (which was already refuted way back in 1999!). Surely someone like me would have quite easily read between the obvious lines and sent proofs to the contrary, as they have done. Just like I read the exchange among the people on a BA flight. Was it 1934? Was it 1962? Or was it 2005? No one knows. But that chain mail about British Airways incident is also very unlikely. And no airhostess would make such comments: “However, given the circumstances, that it would be scandalous to make someone sit next to someone so disgusting.” At least not in today’s world as we know it. Not because the white airhostesses are not racists. Then why not? I am explaining.

If those two chain emails are so grossly wrong, what good do they achieve? What is the motive of the people who are originating such mails? To fight racism? Nah…actually to perpetuate it. You see, after the Tommy incident was deconstructed, people started celebrating his designer lines. “Oh you see, he is not a racist. He never said. So we folks should buy his clothes.” The negative publicity actually did quite good to Tommy. Tommy was known to be making white clothes, but was in need of the black market (just like Kellogg’s needs an Indian market for its corn flakes). It did quite good to Oprah too in promoting her television show (in 1999, more people were watching dumb Disney shows than they were watching her). Today, both Tommy and Oprah are big superstars without any merit. They have used numerous cheap publicity stunts like this to become the symbols of success.

Likewise everyone who lives in the US or western world (since these mails were primarily meant for the first world—not many in the Other World actually buy original Tommy lines in India and flies first class of BA) know that no one makes such racist comments and get away with it. So there is a celebration also to the point that we are not a racist world any more. If someone asks “Do you hear such racist thing anymore?” The honest answer is “Of course not. You must be kidding. Look at all those black people in the first class. They have bought those tickets. Look at the diamonds on the hip hop stars. They are not rented. Blacks are successes.” Even look at Oprah Winfrey.

Precisely, that is the whole point. A first class seat need not be considered so dignified as to create a class barrier among people. Quite the contrary folks should not feel happy or lobby for a black man to get into the first class. Or should not cheer for Oprah Winfrey for any matter. The reason is both smack of downright celebration of undeserved opulence. Oprah is no different from Tommy Hilfiger, in that she wears million dollars jewelries herself and walks with pride on those red carpets of elite Hollywood. Top line designers are her close buddies and the club of suckers make pathetic acting sessions on those shows on how people should have freedom to do what they want to do. They even offer personal examples of their past lives and how gloriously they have left them behind (in other words, left behind the poverty and the poor people).

You know the reason why they chose Tommy to be the point of scandal with Oprah? Precisely because both of them had never met (Oprah had other designers to her show before….). So they knew this myth will be broken and the public will sympathize with both businesses well. This is what the spin makers do for the capitalists.

Racism is not frivolous. It’s not counted in terms of who gave what slurs. Most black ignorant people sing “nigger” today and call their women “bitch”. That does not make them racists/sexists. But if the white racist folks will say the same terms, they will be sent to jails. That’s because the white supremacists have created a yardstick to judge what racism should constitute. They claim it has to be ‘uttered’ by the privileged class. Now there is a popular argument that if the blacks can say nigger (and that’s because they have been conditioned to speak like black folks—in order to star in a movie you should talk like “black people” using an accent), then the whites should be allowed to. But yet it finds no taker. They are no fools. They will not utter such words in public. Because they don’t talk. The white privilege is acted out. They practice racism in the way it was meant to be.

Part of the reason why racism has become so implicit. It’s very subtle in nature. How many people in India will come out and say that because they are Brahmins, they are superior than the “lower castes” (sic) or they believe in untouchability? Yet the Brahmins in India will make friend circle largely with Brahmins, they will protest against reservations (not in terms of caste, but in terms of ‘merit’—a word whose parameters they themselves define), they will certainly not invite a non-brahmin person to preside their religious functions. Are all non-brahmins actually uneducated about citation of Vedic hymns? Think of our own discriminations and how it works in India to understand the basic nature of racism.

Racism has to be so subtle, so illusory that it has to be normalized. It has to be normalized into our fabric without revulsions. Just like the ‘majority’ democracy or the ‘free’ market economy. Do you really think majority governs or the market is free? No, just like their social counterpart, racism also does not become visible.

If it becomes pronounced, racism becomes easy to be checked. All of us will get really angry if Tommy actually said that! Or if a tribal girl is actually raped. After taking action to an ‘event’ we are lulled to silence. And then we thank ourselves that “lo! We imprisoned that guy. Now, don’t call me a racist”!

What we don’t recognize is that we often lend our help to the racism that prevails by implicitly supporting it. Race is a social construct. A construct that emerged out of a class society. A construct just like religion, became instrumental in helping the wealth usurper class to subjugate people throughout the ages. India’s Hindu kings, Mughal rulers, Brahmin Prime Ministers—all used the same class/caste dynamic to continue the rule to their favor. They integrated in us a need to adhere to their laws, which were based on dominant religion of the time which were in turn, founded on clear superstitions aimed at keeping the mass helpless/predestined/oppressed.

Today’s universal companion to all religious power is capitalism. Just like it was feudalism or monarchism in the past. It was easy to revolt against the kings and the landlords because their exploitations were so obviously apparent. Very shocking. But the bourgeois capitalist ruling class partners which actually led many of such anti-feudal and anti-colonial and anti-monarchy battles (by claiming leadership and sacrificing poor peasants in the struggles) emerged as the power holder this time in the most sophisticated fashion. Indian mainstream (and thus the power hungry) freedom struggle shows the clear direction too. It was led by industrialists (like Birla’s money), Hindu supremacists (like Patel’s crusades) and Hindi Aryans (like Rajendra Prasad). Of course they were all so well mannered that we engage in a north Indian dominant culture without even questioning it (the respect for capital, power and fame in line with Mumbai and Delhi, as opposed to respect for communities, matriarchy and indigenous cultures of Orissa and Kerala).

The progress of humankind has always been in this direction. From crude to sophistication (not uncivilized to civilized). For another example, the ruling class had women in harems, then in brothels and now they have them objectified on peep shows and webcams. And this has a lot to do with the calm, compassionate, sympathetic approach that we have been imbibed to learn through religious discourses of the ruling agents. Because of which we clearly overlook the negativities of Oprah’s billion plus undeserved wealth, and pick on an uneducated poor street youth who robs a wallet for survival, and send him/her to jail and subsequently for ‘spiritual rehabilitation’. Because the white privilege structure has put a “model minority” section to legitimize its supremacy by claiming that everyone can become like Oprah if they went to church and believed in the power of religion (and hence the God blesses America, just like in the east the politicians have godmen frauds like Sai Baba and Chandraswami, if not a thousand other symbols of faith systems).

Clearly, we know that not everyone can become a billionaire. We don’t even have that kind of wealth in the world! And this elite club hardly changes much over the period to let others have a share. They control more than 95% of world’s resources…and they are a club of less than 200 people.

It’s a shame that we have to cheer for Oprah instead of questioning her for the privileges she enjoys by towing the white power line which has just succeeded in making her loyal to the free market economic structure, maybe to oppose it at times so that democracy can contain with a proxy pepsi vs coke war. But never to challenge its orders, for if she did that she would have had to let go of her expensive wardrobes and tickets to the elite fame.

This is a just crash course on racism. For more, we should question our own privileges and check if we were having more in life (and hence can check out internet deals), not because some God gifted us the favors, not because we are inherently superior, or “more intelligent” (sic), but because we supported our families in everything they did to convince us that there is nothing wrong with the privileges we had. The privileges we enjoyed while walking the streets when no one judged us because we were Brahmins, but definitely a “lower caste”(sic) person was judged because she or he was one.

The first step is then, to educate our own families to get rid of their “holier than thou” beliefs. If the basic units of our everyday interactions such as families do not recognize their unjustified privileges, we need to get rid of them from our worldviews; instead of passing those racist heritages to subsequent generations to perpetuate racism for longer periods.
Yes, what appears to be a political decision is actually always result of a personal struggle.

As an initial conversation with the Unrepentant Marxist Louis Proyect regarding the Indian revolutionaries, I produce in full a letter written by Bhagat Singh to his father Sardar Kishan Singh, who in the eve of judgment submitted a petition to the trial judges for permission to produce a defense witness to save his son.

I have typed it out from a chapter written by Bhagat Singh’s friend and comrade Bejoy Kumar Sinha. For reproducing this work, I am thankful to the Delhi-based People’s Publishing House for the book “India’s Freedom Struggle: Several Streams”, edited by Sarkar, Bardhan, & Balaram, 1986; and to my dear father who introduced me to this work of eternal significance.

The letter is being published online for the first time to commemorate March 23, 1931—the date that saw Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom. I am sure readers will go beyond the sentiments to view a glimpse of India’s freedom struggle, and yet understand that the deep seated well meaning sentiments do affect revolutionary goals negatively at many times. The line between professed selfish love and practiced social goals need to be one of the bold revolutionary nature, sans which it becomes quite easy to tow the line of individualistic aspirations and solely personal freedoms.

There are too many distractions in the world today, from Ayn Rand to God Blessed Flags; from salary hikes to Friday parties; from getting an Oprah ticket to being ticketed for drunk driving; from life on the celebrity fast lanes to life on edge of thrilling video games; and it’s quite easy to fall prey to the “good family”, or “happy couple” theories of the heterosexist preachers and the model minority status of the aspiring educated urban youths. Too many temptations, I am sure.

However, there are just a very few goals in order to attain social justice for the most, and despite that, its often invariably less taken. And they are not so difficult to head towards, if one knows that individual life is as precious as one’s convictions would lead one to believe. Bhagat Singh as an instance, clearly overlooked, ignored and trampled the individual yardsticks (and came down heavily on his ‘good-family’ background in the following letter) when it came to deciding between the individual liberty and social equality principles, and clearly upholding the need of social equality, he took the road less taken.

At the same time, its important to remember that he never acted alone, and never on an impulse. Never as a terrorist. Never as a trigger-happy war-monger. Never as a violent reactionary.

He was a great organizer and agitator, and to educate his own self and that of his comrades, he looked into oceans of progressive literatures. His was a planned commitment to attainment of freedom from imperialistic designs, not just a national liberation that would have transferred power from the colonialists to petty bourgeois. As this following letter would amply show: he was “pursuing a definite policy”.

I am always deeply moved by Bhagat Singh’s sacrifices and so have at times found his death was in vain. There have been such occasions while looking at the state of affairs among today’s youths when it has seemed so very hopeless. Yet, revolutionaries do not look backwards to proceed, they look back only to learn so as to march forward even with greater vigor. Hence the reality is that Bhagat Singh must continue to be an inspiration to many of us in our different worlds and we must feel the resonance every time there is a struggle against religious fundamentalism, against irrational superstitions, against orthodoxy, against conservatism and against narrow nationalists. Every time there is an uncompromising battle against the warlords, the police states, the rogue powerholders, a battle that has international sentiments echoing with the courage of Che Guevera and valor of Salvador Allende. All of them have represented the need of global unity against forces of injustice, against mighty powers of economic and social exploiters.

I am sure the following letter is a good prologue to the example we need to exemplify:

“Respected dear father,
“I was astounded to learn that you had submitted a petition to the members of the Special Tribunal in connection with my defense. This intelligence proved to be too severe a blow to be borne with equanimity. It has upset the whole equilibrium of my mind. I have not been able to understand how you could think it proper to submit such a petition at this stage and in these circumstances. In spite of all the sentiments and feeling of a father, I don’t think, you were at all entitled to make such a move on my behalf without even consulting me. You know that in the political field my views have always differed with those of yours. I have always been acting independently, without having cared for your approval or disapproval.

“I hope you can recall to yourself that since the very beginning you have been trying to convince me to fight my case very seriously and to defend myself properly. But you also know that I was always opposed to it. I never had any desire to defend myself and never did I seriously think about it, whether it was a mere vague ideology or that I had certain arguments to justify my position, is a different question and that cannot be discussed here.

“You know that we have been pursuing a definite policy in this trial. Every action of mine ought to have been consistent with that policy, my principles and the program. At present the circumstances were altogether different but had the situation been otherwise, even then I would have been the last man to offer defense. I had only one idea before me throughout the trial, i.e., to show complete indifference towards the trial in spite of the serious nature of the charges against us. I have always been of opinion that all the political workers should be indifferent and should never bother about the legal fight in the law courts and should boldly bear the heaviest possible sentences inflicted upon them. They may defend themselves but always from purely political considerations and never from a personal point of view. Our policy in this trial has always been consistent with this principle. Whether we were successful in that or not is not for me to judge. We have always been doing our duty quite disinterestedly.

“In the statement accompanying the text of the Lahore Conspiracy Case Ordinance the Viceroy had stated that the accused in this case were trying to bring both law and justice into contempt. The situation afforded us an opportunity to show to the public whether we were trying to bring law into contempt or whether others were doing so. People might disagree with us on this point. You might be one of them. But that never meant that such moves should be made on my behalf without my consent or even my knowledge. My life is not so precious – at least to me – as you may probably think it to be. It is not at all worth buying at the cost of my principles. There are other comrades of mine whose case is as serious as that of mine. We had adopted a common policy, and have so far stood shoulder to shoulder, so shall we stand to the last—no matter how dearly we have to pay individually for it.

“Father, I am quite perplexed. I fear I might overlook the ordinary principles of etiquette, and my language may become a little bit harsh while criticizing or rather censuring this move on your part. Let me be candid, I feel as though I have been stabbed at the back. Had any other person done it, I would have considered it to be nothing short of treachery, but in your case let me say that it has been a weakness—a weakness of the worst type.

“This was the time when everybody’s mettle was being tested. Let me say, father, you have failed. I know you are as sincere a patriot as one can be. I know you have devoted your life to the cause of Indian independence; but why at this moment have you displayed such a weakness? I cannot understand.

“In the end I would like to inform you and my other friends and all the people interested in my case, that I have not approved of your move. I am still not at all in favor of offering any defense. Even if the court had accepted that petition submitted by some of my co-accused regarding defense etc., I would have not defended myself. My applications submitted to the Tribunal regarding my interview during the hunger-strike were misinterpreted and it was published in the press that I was going to offer defense, though in reality I was never willing to offer any defense. I still hold the same opinion as before. My friends in the Borstal Jail will be taking it as a treachery and betrayal on my part. I shall not even get an opportunity to clear my position before them.

“I want that the public should know all the details about this complication and therefore, I request you to publish this letter.
Yours obediently,
Bhagat Singh”

“So what do they have to say?”

“Didn’t you read the paper? The American president visited us.”

“What does that mean?”

“Of course, it means we are finally making progress. In your days, only heads of the third world countries used to come to India.”

“But we are a third world country, my child. Don’t you..”

(Interrupting..) “Yeah that’s what you think. Come to Bangalore and you will see. Everyone is having a party”

“How many more parties do we need? I think the Congress and the Communists were two big enough parties..”

“Oh no..not those parties. Who needs ideology? I am talking about parties. The late night parties. India rocks. You have to come out of that village. Come to Bangalore. This time you really need to visit my city. It’s where the future of India lies.”

“Future of India? What’s that going to be like?”

“Of course, just like us. We are the future. We got the FDIs.”

“FBI? Are they now concentrating on foreign lands too? I thought it was only CIA.”

“Hell, no. FDI..Foreign Direct Investments.”

“Oh, it’s the same thing, I guess. By the way, why are they investing on us?”

“Well how else shall we make progress?”

“You mean, how else they will make progress? Because we never needed anyone in the history for our progress. They always came after us.”

“Oh come on. They are already developed. They don’t need to make any more progress. Now they want to take care of the entire world.”

“You mean like the way the Kings took care of the subjects, after they had conquered…”

“Yeah, whatever. But remember there are just 7 to 8 countries today who are helping the rest of the world. They have taken up the responsibility to save the world.”

“Like James Bond did in his old movies…”

“Well, even in new ones that you have not seen since some time now…”

“So what do these countries do in Bangalore?”

“Well they have set up big offices. They give us well paid jobs. We work night and day, and earn good money.”

“Do they understand your language? How can they work in Bangalore? I don’t believe you.”

“Come on…they don’t have to understand our language. We have mastered their languages and cultures already. I have a map of Maryland right here beside me. The weather is 37F. Feels like 28F…”

“You can feel Maryland weather? How so?”

“Oh, that’s a lie. But we talk in American English. So it doesn’t matter anyway.”

“So the world is being saved by training the poor people to become expert liars?”

“Don’t start off there again. I am not poor. I have everything with me. I have a car. A flat, a laptop and even an ipod.”

“Oh so, you mean you can actually afford to buy all that? How do you do that?”

“Simple, I buy everything on credit.”

“You mean there are money-lenders in Bangalore?”

“Yeah, but not like the ones in Mother India. So relax. I just pay some interests. At times they are a lot. But then, this government sucks too. They also charge a lot of taxes. But then, it’s ok. You know, I get to own. I have the visa power.”

“Power. You mean you actually have some power by going on debt?”

“Yeah that’s real power. Why else would President Bush have visited India?”

“You mean to make you more indebted?”

“Come on, didn’t you read the papers? If not, at least watch the TV. You should have seen our Manmohan Singh. He was so grateful. Actually we all are.”

“All are? Where? In Bangalore?”

“Hello”

“—Hello …”

“Darn..these Indian villages…they will never improve”

“Hello, my child…I think the line got disconnected. You know your village has a very weak telephone system. But our neighboring village is even worse. So don’t worry. Just send me a letter. Sounds very exciting. This visit of one president to another.”

-hung up—

Rang De Basanti, the biggest movie to come out of Bollywood in years is a landmark in Indian cinema history. It created records on its revenue collections in the opening week at least in 10 cities. On the opening weekend it made a phenomenal $4.79 million. In the UK alone, after its fourth weekend it raked in GBP 700,000. In India, some theatres had to start a 6am show just for this instant blockbuster!

A commercial success of a cinema does not reflect its artistic values. Indeed money-spinners are not known for their social-realism value either. But going by the critics and their almost undisputed claims about the stature of this movie as both an eye-candy and an old warrior, I am unflinchingly affected. My close friends and associates back in India have been urging me to watch the film, few have narrated how much they are shaken out of their shell from watching this film, some have even told me in jest that it was as good as what Nirvana was supposed to be.

They are not alone. The various reviewers have been unequivocal. Just watch this: “A phenomenon of sorts... would be an apt way to describe this movie. One of the most unique, touching and awe-inspiring movies…..More a tale of humanity, morality, and taking a stand rather than being part of the silent majority. Its audacious spirit becomes its beauty. ‘A Generation Awakens’ – It surely does.”
Then: “It is rare that such a well-crafted and beautifully told story is seen in Hindi cinema.” And : “A well-made film, it caters more to the elite and the thinking viewer than the aam junta or the masses.”

Again: “I don’t remember when I last saw a movie that had a story to tell and a message to give—and did so in a real, gritty manner without being either preachy or dreary.” and : “One of best movies of recent times. Makes you sit up and think about what you can do to help the country better !” More: “A thought-provoking, soul-stirring wake up call to the youth of India…Engrossing entertainment meets taut social comment with perfect timing in Rang De Basanti. Wake up India, Rang De Basanti is here! A pure delight, Rang De Basanti is a cult film - the sort that comes along in a long time, and will raise the bar for everyone.”
Viewers say: “We would have got freedom faster, if Gandhi wasn’t standing in the way” and the BBC: “An entertaining mix of romance, history and social commentary, this quality production takes Hindi cinema in a fresh direction… Accomplished and universally appealing, this is the way Bollywood films should be made.”

There is a flip review theme too which invariably rejects the movie’s approach to solutions of modern Indian crises: “the bloody violence”. These could be purely Gandhians, or Gandhi-bashers depending on what side of the political fence they come from, since the movie does quite a bit to expose the right-winger communal and corrupt agendas, even as denouncing Gandhian tactics as counterproductive.

The more thoughtful ones might contemplate over the subtle genius that is at work in a movie that’s both here and there, both happy and sad, both anti Gandhi, and anti-rightists. They will even, as a reviewer above states, gloat over the fact that here is finally a movie not meant for the “aam-junta”!

My Take:
True, this movie was not produced for the “aam-junta”. Its elitist bias is evident reel after reel, and this is something that could have made the audience throw up. But it turns out that the ‘educated’ class of India is far more eager to dissociate itself from the aam-junta (the masses) and this movie provides just the outlet.

I full agree with the reviewer’s comments that this is a movie that’s about Bhagat Singh and his comrades and yet it actually produces an effect that creates a class society of the elites and the masses! I also agree that here is a film that reminds people of their forgotten patriotism, that makes them call Gandhi names, and lets them think they don’t have to be the part of the silent majority!

Ironic, but if we read between the lines, we can get the essence of such a film that clearly creates an intellectual division, it rouses people to abandon the silent majority, it definitely takes a stand in favor of the “thinking elites”. And in doing so, the movie does an irreparable damage to the young generation’s worldview.

Postcolonial Ignorance:
Rang De Basanti, in my humble opinion, is one of the most uncritical movies ever made on postcolonial India. It not only centers around a bunch of disoriented well-to-do youths, it even normalizes them as representative of the Indian youths in general. In doing so, the focus is again exactly in line of the commercial Bollywood ideology: the privileged class as the representative voice. In doing so, it silences the majority effectively ( hence, there is nothing called a ‘silent majority’ by default, films like this which focuses on the ‘model minority’ class actually creates and perpetuates the concept of a silent majority). So its not that after the movie, people do not want to be part of the silent majority, its just that the movie has made them the vocal minority now. As vocal minority they do not want to carry on an agenda with the silent majority. What a smudge.

In the post-1947 period India has treaded more on the colonial roadmap than on the sweet will of a majority population. The colonial roadmap is one that’s founded on the British-gifted bureaucratic structure that continues to hunt to this date, but yet it forms the minority elite class in India. The majority of people of India are largely disgruntled, frustrated, angry and never silent. It’s just that their voices are never heard on the media, press and film industry owned by greedy industrialists and producers. These myth makers then go on to form the core of Bollywood thought control industry. As a result RDB focuses on an elite minority in few cities who actually bike around and booze late into nights at campfired elite colleges, and supposes these are worth the screenings. That there is nothing wrong with being rich and spoilt (I still don’t understand why rich kids are called ‘spoilt’ with a wink, instead of being called as ‘horrible greedy money launderers’, with scorn), indeed when the aam-junta could not pass the screening test, the rich kids end up giving best of their lives.

A clear case of ignorance of the director lets the film center around only the ‘educated’ youths who despise education. The truth is a huge majority of students in India still are poor strugglers for a decent education through sheer willpower. The problem is we are so enamored by the exceptions (as they appear newsworthy) that we forget the rules. And our commercial film directors have invariably always focused on the exceptions as the desirable rules so that it draws attention (the shock factor and sensation sells).

To sum it, Rang De Basanti, is not reflective of the Indian youth. It may be valid only in case of some educated drunkards in big cities who in fast career fascination or in idolization of pep culture might have preferred to say ‘Who Bhagat Singh’? And the media by playing on this cliché has almost turned it into an irrefutable truth that people now find easy to identify with. As a pointer, just look at any annual Independence Day issue of India Today and Outlook magazines, where the lousy reporters go interview some students of Hindu College or Lady Sri Ram and then conclude that Indian youths do not know what happened in 1942 or what was the real name of Mahatma Gandhi. And mind you, these magazines sell for this enlightenment piece—to resonate/reassure either an ‘oh at least I know’ or ‘see, I told you, I am not alone’ feeling. Rang De Basanti follows this extremely conventional model. And the students then think “its hip not to know about Gandhi—after all he was such a failure, omigosh!” Needless to say, to fight Gandhi, the media have now got Bhagat Singh, not as a anti-religious, communist hero, but quite the contrary, a business brand for the coke generation that wants an “instant young handsome trigger-happy Gandhi-basher”. Most of the things being projected about Bhagat Singh in the media is factually inaccurate and painful, yet Bollywood goes on cashing his name as it is cashing Emraan Hashmi’s serial kisses.

Colonial Amnesia:
Let’s presuppose that no Indian youth actually thought twice about the martyrs. Now, after our British lady explains their sacrifices, what do the young converts have to say? “My dear Sue, what the f**k was your grandfather doing on our land?” Hell, no. Not even a sentiment remotely connected to anti-British feeling has been expressed, which they should have logically said. To much cheer, they plan, the murder of a corrupt defense minister…

Naturally, they did not air the anti-imperial, anti-colonial speeches of Bhagat Singh. Else the well-meaning Mehra could not have made a ‘universally appealing’ movie that could rake in million pounds in the United Kingdom! In the face of a lip-treated critic of British rule, this constant fascination with Britain is one of the most shameful produce to have come out of the Bollywood garbage can. Exactly in line with all those Hindi movies where the actresses proudly flaunt Union Jack on their tops and denims to dance around the trees and clubs, this movie ends up almost glorifying a British filmmaker. The white woman in the movie is the only character without a fault. She is the only one who apparently knows everything about Indian history. She is the one who informs the Indian youths about what their history was. In the face of indifference of the youths, she is the one to remind them of Indian freedom struggle. And nowhere does she draw a critic of the British Empire as the most ghastly episode in India’s history that has left behind a culturally rich society of India as a today’s English speaking paupers’ call center den.

Nowhere has she felt that she is the opportunistic researcher taking her participants into a ride she has no control over, by creating inspired terrorists out of them. If Mehra would have studied how the classical anthropologists from the West have historically traveled to India to study and civilize their hostile “tribes” who were of course systematically oppressed by the former’s ruling classes, then he would have thought twice before hiring a British actress to educate the Indian youths.

The grander narrative of the white rescuing the brown from the brown has been such an overplayed theme since the days of the Raj, that to see a similar theme after all these years is at its best a despised déjà vu.

The Essentialism Fallacy:
Not only the Indian youths never question the postcolonial roadmap, they are depicted to be wise when they plan to attack the elected representatives in power, and when they die, they are shown as parallel to the freedom martyrs. Nothing could be more absurd than this. It’s not the violence which is a problem here. Indeed no revolution in the world has been non-violent in nature. But no revolution is based on murdering of few oppressors either. The sacrifices Bhagat Singh had made was part of a constant struggle against the imperialists. Historically at that point it was required that he had his revolutionary thoughts recorded well in the court of law so that more organized efforts could take place. He formed left wing political platform to recruit people, to train them, to disseminate Lenin’s speeches among them. He drafted future constitution for an independent India of his dreams, with lots of careful planning. To sensitize people about the need of revolution and to sow the seeds methodically is the mantra of the martyrs everywhere, so that the fruits of their labor won’t go waste. This is what Che Guevara did, or nearer home, this is what Safdar Hashmi did. They educated the people wherever they went. They organized and they agitated them. That is cardinal to revolution.

But to call a popcorn film that waits for suspense at the end where solution comes in form of murders, as a revolutionary cinema, is an insult to the concept of revolution. It’s an insult to the concept of social realism or socialist realism cinemas. If it had to glorify Bhagat Singh et al, the intention was noble. But at the same breadth to glorify a British filmmaker, and some inspired terrorists, is a shame in the name of politically sensible cinema. For the records, Bhagat Singh had flatly refused to accommodate any person who was describing his/her self as belonging to any religion, be it Hinduism or Islam, or Sikhism etc. He had flatly refused entry of any British into his party (just like Malcolm X had refused the Whites, not because he suspected them all the time, but because he did not want to waste time after exceptions, when he had the rules with him). Bhagat Singh had categorically differentiated his philosophy from the philosophy of terrorism and acts of violence. He had always denounced the terrorists as counter-revolutionary. A revolutionary does not kill to eliminate. Revolutionaries kill to replace structures. They plan well ahead like Castro did, they organize mass scale taking the “aam-junta” into account like Mao did, they help the needy people through social activism like Black Panthers did. The heroes of Rang De Basanti were neither of these. And that’s why they are a shame. And hence, at the least, Bhagat Singh would be deeply shocked to see a British woman filming his legacy using these useless parasites as substitutes, if he were to visit today.

The Gunga Din Factor:
Remember Gunga Din story by the racist Kipling. In the movie produced in 1939, the British colonialists face tribal uprising in India. Of course tribal are the savages who were being “civilized” by the British. The British soldiers were well meaning, humorous, and full of life (just like our Sue in RDB). And the tribal are the ignorant and arrogant. So on every occasion the British used their fists to knock some brains into the tribal, the audience had a good time. (Just like the audition session in the RDB where none of the Indians could follow Sue, and everyone failed to speak out “Inquilab Zindabad” correctly and it led the audience on a roar.) And when one of the Indians then betrayed his fellow people and sacrificed his life so that his people could be defeated, the audience was all moved! Bertolt Brecht, the soul of the great peoples’ theatres said: “Throughout, Indians were considered as primitive creatures, either comic or wicked: comic when loyal to the British, and wicked when hostile.”

Such was the power of colonial, propagandist cinema that moved people back those days. Such continues to be its power that we feel enlightened by British education still, and ashamed of identifying with our “aam junta.” Instead of finding out the root cause (that’s called radicalism—going to the roots) of the corruption and poverty in Indian society—which is largely due to the irreversed British power structure, we hopelessly cheer a group of idiots who go and kill an element of the society (that’s called fanaticism—kill the personal enemy at all costs). RDB is disturbing, to say the least, for it proposes a solution to the audience—a so-called solution that’s dangerously counterproductive.

People need to know that it’s not the nature of George Fernandez that leads him to do business with the coffins of the air force officers, or the inseparable trait of the BJP to buy cracked weapons from Russia. And it’s not going to change if we just go kill the defense minister or murder a couple of rightists. That’s reactionary action—an action the ruling class is quite adept at exercising to rule over us (think awhile, the defense minister in the movie would have just killed these people—like the government of India eventually did)..These solitary murders at such arbitrary phases of anger do not maketh a revolution of any nature. A systematic, methodical overthrow of the current bureaucratic structure and a replacement of the same with peoples’ cooperatives is the first need of the day. And to even understand this, one needs to study the unique history of India, which has not been based ever on mindless violence, but rather on very strategic, organized mass efforts by people to force the colonialists out of our lands. People did not emerge as freedom fighters because of personality clashes with their parents. Certainly not because someone’s father was guilty of corruption as the film showed. But because they were supremely rooted with the social problems of the age and wanted to eradicate them through freedom struggles. Likewise, our minds need to come out of gross ignorance of the factors leading to corruption. For that to happen, we shall need a complete dissociation with the global capitalists, as well as a staunch refusal to accommodate their domestic partners in crime—both of which bribe our ministers and bureaucrats well enough to take all of us for a ride. The business barons, the staunch capitalists, are ruling the orders of the day today by maintaining the anti-people democratic regimes in power, which in turn benefit their own similar class interests.

The businesses pour in millions in election campaigns of their favored politicians who win the polls even without visiting the constituencies. This is the biggest sham in the world today in the name of democracy. By killing a couple of political stooges, nothing will ever be replaced. Maybe, some leaders will change the seats. Like they say in Britain: The King is dead. Long live the King. We need to replace the power structure, not change hands of power from one Morarji Desai to one Charan Singh.

Indeed, the very film producers who dine with the corrupt politicians of Maharashtra will continue to spin millions of dollars by making so-called ‘different’ movies to intoxicate the masses into thinking that the solution lies in the surprising twist at the end of the movie, not at beginning of their organized resistance against the unequal society funded by capitalistic economy. We need predictable revolutions, not unpredictable acts of terrorisms.

Hyderabad is always as good as one could get. Hustle bustle of a rural life felt across the atomized civic livelihoods, Hyderabad is the classic paradox in many senses. The celluloid dreams of the star-struck ones come into virtual slides through the millions of auto-rickshaws; the amazement of the erected few buildings get diluted via the hundreds of human scavengers amidst rubbles of abandoned dust bowls.

In my last visit to the city, under the dynamic leadership of a leader bent upon to convert the ancient city to Cyberabad, CM Naidu was busy ordering for the evacuation of street beggars from the city. Garibi Hatao (‘eradicate poverty’) had started sounding stale. Maybe ‘Garib Hatao’ (eliminate the poor) sounded more promising since Mr Gates was scheduled to arrive!

Four years had passed in between and this time when I went to attend an international conference on technology and society, the whole gamut of social dimensions of technology could find no better platform of continued contradictions. The detachment of society from technology is never a natural outgrowth. It’s on the contrary a manufactured disconnect. Just like the life-saving drugs exuberantly priced, the IT avenues are also kept elitistically above reach. The technology is used to produce more technology. One program leads to another, one language needs the other. The whole spectrum of IT then becomes conditional upon success of IT itself. And with the growth of IT outpacing itself, as a self-serving panacea, focus on the usability of IT to further human causes gets diminished.

Amidst the angst that characterizes the world of capitalism today, I found two amazing friends with unbridled hopes—Vivek and Shaheen. Whereas Vivek could well teach the geek squads a few things or two as a software professional, Shaheen is a liberal arts student hoping to educate the needy someday soon. What struck me the most was their unequivocal pledges for social responsibility—neither of them adhering to the standards of neo-fascist order of selfish well-being nor growing ambitions of the individualistic Roarks.

After my brief stays in Delhi and Hyderabad, this is Bhubaneswar, my hometown. In many ways, the trip to India this winter will show some lights throughout the tunnel and I will shed some of that here.

Now, over to Tookie’s murder. Subseqent to some comments in the previous post, I got this message from a female reader:

Well I guess both David and Miguel are white guys….if not it is surprising and not a good surprise.

Tookie Williams was murdered by a system democratically elected by less than 25% of the country’s population. He had asked for forgiveness for the crimes he admitted to have committed and had turned his life around and given back to the society more than most law abiding citizens have (including David and Miguel I am sure). Correction facilities are meant for repentance and becoming a good citizen and Williams was a blazing example of that. And when it came to the matter of life and death don’t you think he would have accepted the alleged crime of killing four men, since that is what Governor Schwarzenegger wanted in order to grant him clemency?

If the four men had not been white, Williams would have had some chance of getting clemency……..just a thought. His defiance to admit to the alleged crime till the end proves that he was wrongly convicted. Conscientious citizens and young people around the world will suffer his loss.

Capital punishment, a.k.a. state sponsored murder, seems so fair when people in designer suits and professional attire decide that someone needs to be killed, it’s so class. Then we have well dressed people being witnesses to an execution and coming on live TV to express their feelings about an unfortunate yet just event. And then we have those people who enjoy the twisted vicarious pleasure of murdering people, who worship capital punishment.

Most poeple in the civilized world, the ones with the resources to live life as planned by the system have the liberty to judge others, who are less fortunate, for the crimes they do (or allegedly commit). Such people do not once take into consideration the prevailing conditions, sustained by the socio-politico-economic system of a given country, which foster youths to join gangs, do drugs, or commit so called crimes. If anyone is to be blamed for most of the crimes it is the system; a system that is unable to provide its youth the resources, opportunities, and hope in abundance to ensure they become responsible and productive individuals.

And please don’t talk about Gandhi, King and Mandela…it does not suit guys who are in favor of capital punishment to use icons of peace to prove their despicable view points. And moreover no one is born great, prevailing conditions trigger the passion of some people to do things extraordinarily and then some gain the support of the masses in order to be revered as great.

Despite the fact that US has the largest prison system and highest number of inmates (mostly people of color), it still has a competitive crime rate compared to any other country. David and Miguel like people can best explain this situation I guess…….and I will not be surprised again if one reason they might give is the increase in the number of minorities and poor people in the country.

It is not always about ‘don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’, because most often even if one does the time and turn his/her life around, one has a minimal chances of living a normal life if he/she is not white, rich and politically ignorant/right.

When we read history and call people in the bygone ears barbaric for the way they treated the culprits or fought war. Hopefully things will change for better in the next 200 or so years and our forthcoming generations will learn what opinions guys like David and Miguel held regarding capital punishment. Oh! Won’t they be proud of you guys?

For the rest of us who are experiencing the loss of Williams and likes will have little parts of us executed for the rest of our lives until things don’t change for better, socially, politically, and economically.

First snow this winter in Maryland;

and the first snow shower.

Why have I not gone beyond the cars? Well, the snow’s gone now from the greenery.
Plus they recently killed the neighborhood forests and erected shopping complexes.
And also because December is just not here yet.
Still, here is an old pic! So, keep warm!