You, me: We : Fashion and Self-fashioning in Ramjas English

This paper will analyse the dynamics of the self and other to illuminate markers of identity in the Department of English, Ramjas College. It shall identify and critically comment upon the salient features of the three major yet inter-changeable sub-cultures – the conventional, the indifferent and the avant-garde – which make up the said Department and presume alongside to project this analysis onto other Departments in other colleges to give it the long-lost status of (near) universality. It shall conclude with an overview of the arguments thus presented, claiming therefore that self-fashioning in a self-aware department of higher education such as this is dependant largely upon processes more or less inclined towards ritualised forms of alienation and identity crisis.

I begin with identifying and defining first of all the key concepts and ideas used herein, my theoretical toolbox as it were. For self-fashioning, I cannot but go back to the author himself, he who first consolidated the concept and gave it its current currency. In his seminal Renaissance Self-fashioning Stephen Greenblatt introduces self-fashioning as compound of those “control mechanisms… [and] cultural system of meanings that creates specific individuals by governing the passage from abstract potential to concrete historical embodiment.” In effect, therefore, in using self-fashioning we refer to that entire range of institutions, processes and interactions – or discourses – which make one what one is. In context of the said Department, we will refer to those practices, customs and institutional beliefs and interactions which influence a student’s evolving and changing conceptualisation of his/her self as a member of such an institution.

The second key concept, or idea, being employed in this critique is the idea of sub-cultures. The term is self-explanatory and seems to me a particularly post-modern, deconstructive and materialist conceptualisation of society as being constituted not as a homogeneity of the normative façade of the ideology in power but as a heterogeneity of various groups and sections of society in simultaneous and continual contention for power and hegemony. For my purposes, I feel it imperative to further qualify this in the sense that these groups, or sub-cultures, need not necessarily be tangibly involved in active interaction with and struggle against and for the institutions of and authorities in power: conformity, as we all know, is also enmeshed in the infrastructure of power so that even to be is to be implicated as, if not anything else, a part of the system.

The third premise on which this critique is based is the old, weather-beaten one of self-criticism. Some may argue this is not suitable for the purposes of an academic seminar and that my energies should’ve been directed to a more literary pursuit wherein I myself would not have had a personal, and so necessarily subjective, stake in the subject of my criticism. To them I say, yes, I agree and concede as much; yet, I still qualify and claim that it is neither unnatural nor surprising that the critic’s roving eye should at times alight on his own house, that then a little analysis never hurts oneself and that a stage as bejewelled with such a wide and interesting expanse of humanity as an Indian Department of English cannot but be the subject of one’s admiration and comment. The nature of this analysis, therefore, is modelled on the cultural studies of Roland Barthes in his Mythologies and Aijaz Ahmed in his problematic on the characterisation and categorisation of Indian Literature.

The fourth and final idea which will find resonance in this critique is not as much as a theoretical concept as a feeling. This critique was carried out with a feeling of adventure, with a keen sense of doing something new and charting a domain left more or less sacrosanct and unexplored. There are, of course, those who have said much upon the institution – and Ahmed, as my ever so theoretical colleagues are well aware, is one of them – but to my limited knowledge nothing substantial has been written in the way of how Department policies, politics and worldviews – literally and metaphorically; we have them all – affect those for whom the Departments – ostensibly at least – are in the first place: the students. Indeed, if I was to take recourse to that doyen of Marxist theory, Monsieur Althusser, I would say that in commenting upon the Department of English type of ideological apparatus my analyses is just as descriptive as theoretical: i.e., I work on what is said and developed as theory and consolidate and construct it then in a vocabulary more theoretical than otherwise in use. Whether I succeed in this or not is, without the least possible modesty, for you, my intelligent audience, to decide.

Let us, therefore, start. We will consider as of now the two categories of conventional and indifferent and begin with the former. Unlike what it’s generally used as, I use conventional here to denote those who are in much of what they do quite the opposite of what I choose to label them as. This is the group of students which belongs to the materialist and deconstructive school of thought and is as such the progeny of those who had some thirty and twenty years ago fought pitched battles against the then dominant ideology of New Criticism. It is keenly aware of this history and its own position as a carrier of a subversive legacy and so exults in interrogating well nigh all that can be questioned. In doing so, it displays a confidence and enthusiasm – in the criticism at least – in the veracity of its judgements and in its own potential to affect radical change, if not on ground level then at least in the intellectual arena of discourse. More often than not this enthusiasm peters down in some way or the other with the passage of time, but in as much as student years are concerned most of this group show a passion and a thirst for radical ideological change.

Similarly, therefore, while unconventional in most aspects, the group is conventional in our categorisation because it is a product of those battles which are in many places over and done with. In any discussion of a Department of English some thirty, twenty, perhaps even ten years ago it would’ve been fruitful to have considered a division on the lines the New Criticism and the new brood of materialists and so on. To do so now, however, would only be to paint the present with stale colours. This is not to say that the struggle’s over and all converted; no, rather, it’s to imply that where those Departments are concerned wherein are teachers of this new generation who fought against the old, students, regardless of the presence in the faculty of those of the old guard, will gyrate towards them. However institutionalised, subversion has its own rewards and pleasures and to defy the world and its norms thus is what very many adolescents and young adults wish to do.

Opposed to these are those I call ‘indifferent’. The word connotes a thousand possibilities, and without meaning to limit its horizon I would like to typify it with a few universal characteristics. First and foremost being that such a group is to be found in each discipline and is by and large a major constituent of society as a whole. These, in short, are those who will not be bothered by those ideological currents which so inflame the minds of our conventionals and as such survive three years of ideological indoctrination with as little impact on their perception of the world and of themselves as is humanly possible in such conditions. Many of these are of the class which my Marxist friends scorn as the petty bourgeoisie and in thus remaining immune to the primary thrusts of their training they display remarkable resilience to theory and to all the power of rhetoric and engagement. Indeed, marks and a degree are of prime importance to them and in making Literature a stepping stone to socio-economic betterment they betray a shrewd practicality which our conventionals take specific care to disdain.

However, just as the conventionals, they too do not form a single, homogenous group and are instead divided by varying degrees of ‘indifference’. Simply put, there are those who attend classes and make note of what is being said, those who attend and sleep away to glory and those who do not deign to attend at all. A considerable portion of this is of this first sort, those who come and take note: their attention is more often than not motivated by the ambition to score and do well. They are linked to the conventionals in the sense of espousing their causes and ideologies in public but caring not much about them in their own personal lives. There is not much difference between them and the second sort and classroom snoring being in not a few cases contingent upon the skills of the teacher, the fact of their being inattentive does not take away the underlying desire to successfully economise their association with an English Department. The third sort, of course, is the embodiment of this spectrum and boasts as such of near-complete imperviousness to the onslaught of a post-modern literary training. We must, however, be careful in not confusing these with those who do not attend on a regular basis and yet belong by virtue of their strong ideological affiliations to the conventionals.

Moving on, we come now to our third category or sub-culture. The avant-garde are those who comprise of those sections or groups which challenge extremely visibly one’s own conceptualisation as a scholar of English Literature – or Literature in English as the case might be. They are avant-garde not in sense of ideological belief; no, for all that can be ideologically contested is already subsumed in the discourse of the conventionals and the academia. These, then, are those sections of the Department which do not conform in behaviour, language and appearance to those norms which the Department sets for itself. At this stage I momentarily marginalise the faculty and imply it to mean those vocal sections of the student population which arbitrate taste, style and demeanour as being properly characteristic of students of English. By the very virtue of being different, the avant-garde further the ossification of this image.

Thus so, for in breaking norms the avant-garde engender new ones. More often than not these are the new entrants, the freshers, who by being as yet untrained and being not as yet assimilated into the system prompt value judgement from their seniors. These judgements, on interaction, often end in introspection so where at first reigns open hostility may later come cheerful camaraderie. Of course, what a Literature student should be like is heavily contingent on the ideological moorings and attitudes of the faculty, but as more visibly vocal carriers of these values the students appear as bigger and greater arbitrators of English Honours-ness. Exposure, then, to the so-called avant-garde forces both the conventionals and the more attentive of the indifferent to introspect and, more often than not, alter their conception of a Literature student. By the same virtue, exposure to the latter causes changes in the former and so in time the avant-garde lose some of their difference and become part of the system. Needless to say, this is an ongoing process which continues from one batch to another and thus in affect ensures that no fixed, rigid typification of an English Honours student occurs. Others, outsiders and those of other courses, may impose stereotypes and the faculty engender in generation upon generation certain of its own choice ideas and beliefs but the internal processes of change and dynamism ultimately allow of no finality.

The cycle, therefore, is year upon year the same. The avant-garde, usually though not necessarily freshers, puts strain on the conceptions of the conventionals and the attentive indifferent and through interaction refreshes these without closing them off for further reinvention. Something, indeed, remains constant, but with teachers themselves not all being fully impervious to outside influence with time, and age, new constants come into shape. This same can be claimed for our analysis of the conventional and the indifferent: both these groups, heterogeneous to the core but still threaded by a common link, respond to and interact with their training in ways – and these ways themselves have a repetitive, cyclical pattern which, with variations, plays over long periods of time – which influence their conceptualisation of themselves as Literature students.

Admittedly, all this is not much of an identity crisis. However, in as much as it results in change and in attitudinal shifts and produces much discourse – some of which trickles down onto bits of paper and sheets of bytes – on norms and their normativity, these processes and interactions are constituted as “systems of meanings” which do lead onto “historical embodiment”. Further, the materialist mission well on its way to victory and the socio-economic spectrum of undergraduate entrants steadily widening, it may be safely assumed that an analysis such as this can, to a varying degree of success of course, be applied to very many other Departments of English besides this one in Ramjas. Nothing, of course, is fixed and the future is sure to warrant a different classification, but fashion being such as it is, self-fashioning, literally and metaphorically, may safely be taken such as it is presented– thus, but open ended and bound to change.

Ram Naam Satya Nahi Hai

This paper will attribute to mythical narratives and structures an essential, inescapable fluidity which makes their ossification impossible. To do so, it’ll begin with commenting upon the animated movies Hanuman and Sita Sings the Blues as artefacts in contemporary culture which illustrate by their very being this flexibility that allows for multiple interpretations of a received mythical heritage. Next, it shall critique Hanuman as a consolidation of popular perceptions of the Ramayana and thus, in this way, a retrograde step towards the ossification of these opinions. Thereafter, Sita Sings the Blues shall be analysed as an unconventional, intensely personal yet universally applicable reading of the Ramayana which threatens the creation of the aforementioned monolithic verities. Finally, it will conclude with an overview of the arguments thus presented, contesting therefore that the very conception of originality and reinvention in context of myths is, in spite of being a catalyst in their evolution, essentially fallacious.

In this post-structuralist world it would not just be difficult but also unadvisable to attempt a conclusive definition of myths. Tracing the etymology of ‘myth’ to the Greek muthos, meaning ‘utterance’, G.S. Kirk opines that “Myths are an uncertain and vague category, and one man’s myth is another man’s legend, or saga, or folktale, or oral tradition”. Just so, even as there is no concrete defining what is a myth and what not, there cannot be forwarded without sweeping assumptions any single mythology, or methodology, to understand myths. That myths are a reflection of a society’s anxieties and give it valuable tools for self-realisation is apparent and almost universally applicable; however, beyond this, to assert for a homogenous understanding as sacred archives or primeval science or ritualised nature or kinship concerns would be dangerously redundant. What is a myth and what constitutes a myth was, is and will always be a matter of contention…

This, however, in the case of Western scholarship, particularly dealing with so-called classical mythology. In our own context as a predominantly Hindu nation, such questions as regards the nature of myths do not generally arise in the popular imagination. The very connotations of the word myth, conveying in this English language a sense of the falsified fantastic, gets ameliorated in our own context of a culture more or less in sync with the dynamism of the past- our myths to us are sacred verities, truths unquestioned precisely for the deep rooted religious sacrosance invested in them. The myth-rather the series of myths-I take up here is immortalised conveniently as an epic- the Ramayana. I will assume, not totally without justification, that everybody here is acquainted with the barebones of the plot and that a detailed exposition of the same will be unnecessary. Instead, I shall plunge directly into the primal-and not primeval-concern or this seminar and this paper- the reinvention of myth in contemporary culture.

When it comes to the Ramayana, the word reinvention does not fully hold: the connotations of discovery and originality it evokes come in direct confrontation with our rich legacy of unceasing dynamism with the past. The works which I’ll discuss here are therefore not as much as reinventions in this sense of creative extrapolations upon a dead past as varying interpretations of a living, continually evolving heritage. That they’re both different types of a genre of entertainment which comes from a so-called twentieth century Western tradition of reinventing and disseminating classical as well as urban myths in ways amenable to the masses is further indicative of the uniqueness of their position within our own context of multiplicity of form, narrative and plot of the said epic. Indeed, for in thus being widely circulated animations on a myth still central to Indian communal life and public consciousness, these artefacts embody that spirit of syncretisation of cultures and narrative styles which increasingly typifies our lives and which reflects the fluidity of mythical structures within an overall, ostensibly unchangeable framework.

Hanuman conforms to this. It is by and large a saleable condensation of the Ramayana which shunts through the entire epic in order to visualise those areas of the story which would bring in the maximum of profit without affronting public sentiment. Hanuman is born as part of a grand design to rid the good earth of foul rakshakas who plague honest Aryan souls with perdition and hinder yagnas of the pious rishis: his ultimate calling in life is to assist Ram in the annihilation of Ravan and his Lanka and so restore the reign of righteousness on earth. All here is black and white, overlooking even that deep shade of grey which first in the Sundar Kand and then the Uttar Kand of the epic proper render Ram dangerously human. In Hanuman the demarcations are clear cut and it’s just a matter of time till our hero grows up and fulfils his glorious tryst with destiny.

Here we make another interesting observation. Though it deals with one of our most venerated myths, Hanuman is widely marketed as a children’s movie. This indeed is its USP- it caters specifically to the preteen audience of four to ten or so year olds for whom the fascination with myths and stories has not yet been challenged by the fashionable atheism of adolescence. The initial half an hour or so which deals with Hanuman’s childhood seems to be constructed specially to satiate the emotional needs of the projected audience: a child prodigy who fights all kinds of demons, Hanuman is also an easy going lad who roams the forests singing catchy songs and playing pranks on innocent rishis deep in meditation. Consider, for instance, the sequence akadam bakadam which depicts him doing exactly all this; notice then the terminology employed here, the inclusion of phrases like jadu ki takat and hawa se tej na bijli se kam which evoke Western concepts of magic and the superhero and so help the middle class audience, already exposed to all these in school and through popular culture, make another connect our protagonist. Being as he is thus-every small boy’s dream come true, a superhero who saves the world during the day and gets tucked in by Mummy at night-there’s no wonder that the movie did well.

Therefore, with that impressionable section of society which will grow up to represent our civilisation as its target audience, Hanuman is particularly effective as a carrier of culture. By thus guiding the interaction of this section with our mythical past and heritage it plays a vital role in determining what our future as a community and a culture will be.

However, as it is, Hanuman’s success is one which threatens in the long run the existing fabric of society as we know it. By essentialising personality and narrative as morally unquestionable truth, Hanuman takes away whatever space for open interpretation the popularly acceptable form or version of the myth has and thus consolidates it for the generations to come. The perception one is to form about the Hindu religion and mythological past is bound to be linear and simplistic. In fact, the very nature of Hinduism is being changed by such movies which exclusively glorify a single deity in the pantheon and thus erode slowly the diversity which has been its hallmark ever since its conception. Of course, one can argue that the movie generates interest in mythology and so paves the way for future intellectuals like those present before me in my audience, but the numbers who will get affected thus will necessarily be much lesser than those who will be silently co-opted into the system and its dominant ideologies.

Ideologies which our next case study Sita Sings the Blues challenges. Made by American Nina Paley, the movie functions at two levels: first at the intensely personal level of. Paley’s relation with husband Dave and then at the ostensibly universal, timeless relation between Ram and Sita. Ostensible because even as Ram and Sita are acknowledged ideal the fact of their failed relation is delved into and paralleled with that of Nina and Dave to bathe them in a light quite characteristically human. Ram cannot bring himself to trust his own wife’s fidelity and is convinced only after making her go through an agni-pariksha.

Of course, an interesting detail to be noticed here is that while many renditions of this episode will make it part of Ram’s grand design of defeating Ravan and proving his wife’s chastity to the world, Nina sees it clearly as the first portend of failure in their marriage. Be it some great design or not, something has clearly soured in Ram; as likely as not, it’s his very vibrant sense of masculine pride as a Kshatriya prince hurt at facing the wife taken away him: he could not defend her earlier and now seeing traces of that defeat in her form he transfers his own guilt to infidelity in her. Ideal son, ideal warrior, ideal prince, Ram fails to be the ideal husband.

This motif of estrangement is rapidly developed hereafter. Ram and Sita return to Ayodhya and to all appearances settle down to a happily married life; tensions, however, abound and soon he starts getting ‘cold’ to her. Here again must one draw attention to Paley’s delineation of Ram: while in accounts of this particular section of the Ramayana he’s usually shown devoted to Sita, Paley will have this devotion more a surface attachment, even pretension, than the deep-rooted affection Sita has for ‘her man’. As Ram’s abrupt, almost relieved tone suggests, the dhobhi incident is just a valid excuse to be rid of Sita. The fact that she’s pregnant at the time he turns her out causes him no great regret- such is his suspicion of her fidelity that in his vengeful indifference he literally tramples across Sita. Even at the end when he’s united with his two sons he’s hesitant about acknowledging the wife in Sita and says instead in a casual, hasty voice that she must yet again give a test of her chastity. This, of course, is the last test Sita gives: she calls Mother Earth to take her back as proof of her fidelity and so ends her tragic life on earth. Wife of an ideal man, ideal wife herself, Paley’s Sita leaves without understanding the reasons for their failed marriage.

Sita Sings the Blues, therefore, challenges our received notions of the Ramayana, especially those which seek to garb this one inexplicably traumatic episode in the altruistic light of a universally beneficial grand design we as Indians are accustomed to: no, this is rather to assert that what Paley does in imaginatively identifying with Sita is drastically different from anything done before even though it is admittedly not too radical in itself. By this we imply that though the work is created from a woman’s perspective and presents as such Sita’s reaction to the happenings around her, it does not give any corrective measures to ameliorate the pain she experiences at the hand of an uncaring patriarchal society. However conventional, Paley does give the female subject a voice and that itself is a revolution of sorts considering the strict gender mores of traditional Hindu society. For the first time Sita sings her blues in a way that is essentially hers as a woman and it is in this, the particularisation of the timelessness of her relation with Ram as being universal and by that virtue local and human that Paley’s interpretation differs from the others.

It would be easy in conclusion to claim that Hanuman and Sita Sings the Blues are two very different interpretations of the same source and so be done with it. It is indeed true, but as I had remarked earlier in this paper the very idea of source with all its aura of incorruptible authenticity and authoriality is in fact a convenient illusion. What we regard as the source is just the earliest known record of the tale so that a myth is ultimately untraceable and must remain, for this very virtue of being so, somewhat shrouded in uncertainty as regards its precise origin. The whole idea of reinvention comes from this comfortable assumption of source so that without that the very basis for dialectics such as these would fall. What would one then call a seminar like this, a paper like mine? Do we not create our own snug myth, the workability of the academia, the pertinence of discourse? Are we not all myth makers then, inventors rather than re-inventors?

I’d like to end, therefore, with a correction: Hanuman and Sita Sings the Blues are two very different myths in a long, continually evolving series of myths roughly centred on the same plot. The difference is vital.

Death of Theatre

It has been in the air for some time now. A decade or so at the least. Theatre, widely acknowledged by its own dwindling proponents as a dying art, is on its last legs.

It can be traced back to the 1950s when television and cinema came in a big way all over the world. As their appeal intensified over the years and more and more televisions and movie halls found their way into homes and communities, the importance of theatre steadily declined to the point that today it is no longer significant in our social life.

Indeed, for all its functions have been successfully taken over by these two mediums. Where earlier theatre served as an accessible medium of mass entertainment, diffusing societal tensions and propagating ideologies as it made people laugh and cry, now television and cinema act as carriers of culture and propaganda.

Of course, it was television much more than cinema which really struck the fatal blow to theatre. It stripped it of the mass popularity which it once enjoyed before its advent, and by thus usurping its vital role as the propagator of popular culture it pushed it further onto the margins of the entertainment industry. Television was cheap, widely accessible and convenient, providing all that drama right in your living room without the hassles of going to the playhouse. No wonder general interest in theatre declined as the reach of television increased.

No wonder too that an increasing amount of plays produced from the 1950s onwards were shown on T.V. For all their dedication to the institution the producers could not resist tapping the immense potential of this wide-reaching medium. Yet, even as it opened avenues it narrowed them down so that while the producers made greater profits the people got another incentive to stay at home glued to the box. A move meant to bring theatre back to the masses ultimately succeeded in furthering it from them.

Deprived of its primeval foundation, its watching audience, all theatre today is, to a great extent, redundant. What purpose remains to a communal art which fails to attract people to it? One can read plays, yes, but that essence of communality so integral to any dramatic performance is lost in any easy-chair appraisal. To feel theatre, to be moved fully by its power, to even strip that illusionary power, one must see the action unfold before one’s eyes. The binary is quite simple: no audience, no theatre.

Though it was not just this pervasive disinterest which brought theatre to such a pass. The death of theatre has also been precipitated by the death of its two distinctive genres, tragedy and comedy.

It was Modernism which took its toll on the genres. Before the reductive, unifying pressures of a modernity which laughed at all things great and grand and which sought to locate the source of life, its very greatness, in the routine life of normal, everyday subjects these primary distinctions had to fail and fall into each other. It became imperative to recognise comedy in tragedy and tragedy in comedy and so came about the genre of tragicomedy, an in-between form which best reflected the absurd realities and tensions of everyday life. What came about was the Theatre of the Absurd.

Which, as can be guessed, was not spectacularly popular with the masses. Critically acclaimed as the movement was, it was typically urban and drew only a small section of that population towards it. The middle and working classes remained more or less isolated from it, caring as little for it as the movement cared for them and their tastes. Once initiated, this process of alienation of the art form from the masses only picked up speed and though in the late 1960s and early 1970s Agit-prop and the Theatre of the Oppressed brought it momentarily close to the people the old days of regular, popular theatre were over.

Indeed, for what has emerged is basically a queer, eclectic residue of the Absurdist and Agit-prop, a brand of theatre which adapts, modifies and re-enacts. Theatre today is more or less black, satirical tragicomedy, reflecting a bleak worldview running short of hope and despairing of change. Most new plays are adaptations of established classics, attuned to (post) modern sensibilities by changes in language and costumes. Some of these are comic, ridiculing the older tragic works through mock-heroic imitations. Others, loaded with sarcasm and generally cynical, are openly political and critique society through juxtaposition of an essentialised past and present- a tried and tested dramatic trope wherein a figure from the past miraculously appears in the present and laments about existing social evils. Others still present tormented subjects trying to bring change but failing in face of the overwhelming social superstructure.

Be that as it may, it is these types of productions which have further contributed to theatre’s alienation from the general public. Whether justifiably or not, theatre is widely perceived to be an elitist institution, the refuge of be-cigeratted khadi and jhola clad (pseudo?) intellectuals: subversive malcontents who wish things to change but have nowhere else to go and no one else to listen. It has gone back into a niche, an exclusivity reminiscent of the isolation which Restoration Drama enjoyed, though, of course, the seclusion here is much in the manner of an irrevocable exile than a voluntary migration. Consequently, it has again become a predominantly urban middle-class art so that only those connected with theatre through familial ties or attracted by extraordinary curiosity find their way into playhouses.

The abiding irony of this situation is, therefore, that while on one hand theatre screams to be listened it gets only the converted as an audience. Talking about poverty, safe sex, unemployment, caste, communal and regional politics, female foeticide, corruption, dowry and so on to a section which deliberately maintains a distance from governance, is educated enough to generally have nothing to do with these social evils and does, on and off, try through civil institutions to bring change is ultimately redundant. When theatre should actually be diversifying and reaching out to the masses our self-appointed messiahs remain stuck in the comfortable campuses of the Universities and the NSD, so much so that even street plays-nukkar natak-are usually organised in air-conditioned halls in posh localities.

Consequently, theatre has become an easy and convenient way for naturalising the society’s dramatically-inclined malcontents, for by giving them an exclusive space for expression the State on one hand effects a sort of cumulative catharsis and on the other furthers their marginalisation. Indeed, as far as the State is concerned, nothing can be more beneficial than this sort of hermetic containment which ostensibly encourages the form but in the long run only works towards its ultimate doom. As it becomes more and more a part of a system whose ideologies it takes pains to oppose, theatre will only loose its importance and become gradually redundant.

It has already started. We’ve come to the last act; the curtains are about to draw- we near an end.

The end.

The end of theatre.

Turning Tables: Classroom Subversion through Table Art

All through its long, chequered and shadowy history, graffiti has been a tool of supposedly anti-social articulation. As an artistic form of expression predominantly in the public domain, it still carries with it connotations of rebellion and subversion…

In the classroom, table graffiti serves as one of the effective mode of subversion. This paper will analyse how the almost unlimited creative license afforded by this form of cultural expression enables the student-artist to give a free reign to his/her imagination, critiquing not just the immediate context of the teacher and the class but also umpteen other current and past issues, related as well as unrelated to their own socio-cultural context. It will examine the table as a neutral space which allows students to adopt different identities in order to articulate things which they otherwise leave unsaid…

It will begin with a short history of graffiti as a subversive medium of expression. Thereafter, it will move on to examine graffiti in the immediate context of Ramjas College, particularly in rooms 8, 6 and 27. It will also discuss some of the factors which motivate students to adopt this form for expression. It will conclude with an overview of the arguments so presented.

*

Coming from the Italian graffiato, graffiti, as defined on dictionary.com, refers to “markings or inscriptions, as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted, or sketched on a sidewalk, wall of a building or public restroom, or the like”. By this very virtue of being “markings or inscriptions” in the public domain, graffiti’s origin cannot be traced back to any single era. Indeed, from

wall paintings of pre-historic, cave dwelling humans to

the inscriptions preserved on the walls of Pompeii, from the carvings on the temple walls of Tikal to

the verses immortalised on the Qutub, the diverse range of graffiti makes it difficult, and also unnecessary, to draw a unilinear history of the same.

Long though its history is, graffiti’s strong association with subversion are only recent. We can see graffiti emerging as a tool for the anonymous oppressed when we consider

Victorian London and its chalk writings. Slogans against colonial rule during our own Indian freedom struggle too can be considered as graffiti.

In the Second World War, Kilroy made an appearance all across Europe and the US and baffled one and all.

However, modern graffiti as we know it was born on the subway trains of New York in the late 1960’s. Using spray cans, the new age graffiti artists let loose their imagination on staid subway cars and deluged the Metropolitan Transport System with a riot of colours. Taki183 will always be remembered as an early pioneer of spray-can art whose influence led to a boom in graffiti the world over.

Teens and young adults followed his example to ‘get up’ by having their name in as many places as possible. Graffiti also became one of the integral elements of hip hop and a favourite medium for political activists to express anti-war, radical feminist, anarchist and, in general, anti-establishment messages.

The mid-80’s saw graffiti declining as New York’s Metropolitan Transport Authority ushered in its Clean Train Movement to win the so-called war against graffiti. Municipal authorities the world over continue to perceive graffiti as a threat to peace and graffiti artists as wanton vandals who deface property. Nonetheless, graffiti is slowly gaining acceptance as a legitimate art form- this is apparent not just through spurt in graffiti style art on/in T-shirts, posters and computer/video games but also through the fact that some communities have actually designated places for artists to express themselves (like Stroud).

Though well past its golden age, graffiti survives as an art form being increasingly accepted as a part of urban street architecture.

*

Just as street graffiti enables the artist to ‘get up’ by breaking through rigid societal boundaries and categorisations, so does table art allow the student-artist to subvert the teacher-student hierarchy by silently, yet creatively, breaking through the façade of discipline imposed upon him/her by a largely uncaring, indifferent and insensitive system. Research in the previous decade has shown that doodling carries messages from the unconscious, with different symbols and patterns suggesting different personality needs. However, table art is not just about doodling when bored in class- it encompasses or addresses a whole range of issues, from tabooed sexuality to concerns about pollution to mimetic beauty and truth.

By virtue of being a neutral, unbiased public space free and open to all, the table is first and foremost ground for articulation of dislike, hatred and other such baser passions. Be it the teacher who’s boring or irritating the artist to death or be it some other personal enemy, the table acts as the canvas for expression of the artist’s pent up emotions. Responses may range from

simple, straight forward statements of disgust like “BMS sucks”

to cries of despair like “I am bored/Being bored”

to supercilious, sarcastic instructions like “Get a life RGM”

to threats like “Ishaan, you better mend your ways”
to lampoons in rhyme, like-

“There was a boy named Anshuman
I would have shot him, if I had a gun
I’ll shoot him that day
When I find out that he’s gay.”

Having gone through some horrendous experience her/him self, the artist warns the world at large to be ware of some person. One such piece clearly warns us, for reasons unknown, to be

“Beware of/ Rengleen/ English Hons, II Yr”

On the other side of the spectrum, there are expressions of admiration and love, things fit enough to gratify anyone’s vanity. An unknown and unknowing suitor immortalised her/his love for me thus-

“I love Anubhav Pradhan!
Thank you immensely
But would you care to reveal your identity”

It is, of course, very possible that this is subtle sarcasm.

However, it is not just unrequited love which finds its way onto the table. People happy in love too express their joy in blank verse-

“Coz u bring out
D best in me
Lk noone else can do
Dats why m by ur side
Dats why I love u!”

Moving on, the table allows the artist to adopt another identity, to put on another hat so as to say and in this guise explore his/her hidden sexual needs and desires.

Nudity,

swear words,

and violent demands for intercourse

comprise this genre of table art.

Similarly, in an arena as (supposedly) liberal and forward-looking as a Literature class, there are sexist and misogynistic, or pseudo-misogynistic comments like

“Gals are all bad/Guys are all good”. Another sexist remark claims that

all but 2 of the girls in a particular year are boring and hence should be kicked off.

Taboos like homosexuality and oral sex are also brought up. For example, in room 27, constant attempts are made to establish one Tarun as gay.

Normally, this can be identified as a perverse form of ragging by differentiating or ‘other-ing’ a student, or a group of students, from the majority of the heterosexual population. In this context, however, it is interesting to note that this group of students, with Mr. Tarun as their head, actually wish to project themselves as gay and therefore these open declarations of their sexual orientation. It does not matter here whether the said gentlemen are really gay: no, what matters is the fact that the artist here is clearly playing upon the stereotype by ridiculing society’s fear of the other by openly declaring himself to be one of the ‘other’.

Significantly, even in the midst of seemingly frivolous and obscene banter, the artist addresses a serious issue.

As answer to the question “Kya Gay hai” is listed, amongst others, the name of Dr. B.N.Ray, into whose tragic history one need not go. The artist further adds, with a tinge of unmistakable sarcasm in the tone, that Dr. Ray is his “role model”. An issue of great topical interest is thus satirised by this unknown table artist thus.

Another piece satirises a boring lecture in context of a topical issue, successfully merging the microcosm of the class with the macrocosm of the international issue.

The artist claims that the class is as toxic as Chinese dolls.

The table is also a repository of axioms and truths. Example range from

universally shared emotions like “Hate monday mornings”

to insights like “Beware! Studying Economics is injurious to health”

to truths of life such as “Being happy doesn’t mean that everything is perfect. It means that you’ve decided to look beyond the imperfections”.

Then, there are times when the artist introspects. One articulates his/her frustration at being perennially misunderstood and denied the freedom to greater expression, saying “90% of the stuff written here makes sense 10% of the time.” Another mocks his/her seniors while becoming part of the ongoing tradition with “Btw seniors were you guys good enough to never write on tables or were these painted before the term?” He/she therefore mocks not just the seniors but also him/her self and thus shows extraordinary self-awareness.

Lastly, distinct from these scribblers is that class of table artists which draws and sketches. From

beautifully done, calligraphic pieces celebrating the Renaissance

to idyllic scenes from a pastoral, Alpine romance

to good luck Tibetan Buddhist charms,

the table displays many great works of amateur art.

A renowned table artist in the second year class opines that graffiti for him acts an anti-depressant in boring classes and that drawing beautiful things in the midst of the general, overpowering anarchy on the desks affirms his belief in the existence of beauty in even utter Chaos. Highlighting the dynamic nature of table art, he says that he has always found it interesting to see how others have added on to his pieces and given them new directions. The ethos of table art, therefore, makes it possible for his creations to become alive as they evolve in the search of higher beauty and truth.

This piece illustrates this point about artistic evolution, showing how various people added on to his original sketch of Hitler, thus enriching the entire piece with multiple perspectives…(the cross, the goggles, the names of concentration camps on the left, the swastika above, the messages below and on the right, all of these have been added to the original by numerous, unknown artists).

*

Whatever the form or genre, table graffiti strikes at the very heart of classroom teaching. Indeed, the very act of even thinking to take up one’s pen to doodle, scribble or sketch goes against the basic premise of this system which demands the student’s undivided attention to be centred only on what the teacher is saying in class. Further, the artist’s use of sms-language helps him/her to ridicule and easily break through communication barriers. This becomes of even greater subversive import in a Literature class wherein the barricading of communication by the mainstream, so-called legitimate body of language is all the more rigid.

The amount of table art in a room may, therefore, be roughly taken as an indicator, qualifying not just the teacher’s calibre as an engaging instructor but also the receptiveness of the student community as a whole. The anonymity and the resultant scope of the form give students freedom to not just indulge in bloodless vendetta but also to bring down teachers from their high pedestals and hold them up for universal ridicule. Student-artists therefore create an inverted world order in which hierarchies are suspended: a surreal, anarchic, macabre world where teachers, and everybody else, are/is at the mercy of the student and not vice-versa. It is through this, the absolute break down of reality and its fusion with fiction, that table art subverts all norms of classroom education and, by extension, society at large. It is because of this that I now end this paper with this last piece- “I love graffiti”.

Those Brilliant Black Eyes: Physiognomy in English Literature 4

*

…while mediating on the very great pleasure which a fine pair of black eyes in the face of a pretty woman bestowed…

*

Divination, alchemy, astrology…the human mind has always had a fascination for these extraordinary arts outside, as it were, the established order science, arts which present the possibility of knowing more than what is sanctioned by the mainstream. Physiognomy, the art of judging character form the study of facial features, too is one such branch of learning which has attracted scholars and quacks alike throughout human history. This paper will analyse physiognomy as a significant reflection of the Victorian worldview by critically commenting upon its role as an important character delineation tool in the four prescribed novels, namely Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Hard Times and The Mill on The Floss, in English Literature 4. To do so, it will begin with a brief discussion on the Victorian outlook to life, go on to establish physiognomy as a paradoxical substantiation of the same and proceed then to examine in separate sections each of the said texts in context of their reliance upon physiognomy.

*

The Age of Science and Reason, the nineteenth century, was characterised by a comparatively extraordinary zeal for knowledge in all spheres. Rapid advances in technology were extending the frontiers of scientific knowledge, just as aggressive colonisation was furthering the sway of the British Empire. The almost sudden burgeoning of the middle class, the rise of the nouveau riche from amongst this class and the emergence of a new, industrial working and lower-middle class put the existing framework of society under tremendous pressure: industrialisation had led to a comparative democratisation, a progressive loosening of bonds in the socio-cultural hierarchy, and as a consequence mobility and advancement became the watchwords of society.

In fact, the nineteenth century can be seen as one remarkable epoch, an age wherein the continuing quest for knowledge got fresh momentum. The world was changed, hugely different from what it was just half a century ago: knowledge and ideas were pouring into Britain from all corners of the world and these same, combined with the socio-political developments taking place in British society, made the Victorian intellectual put all existing ideas about ethics, morality and culture under intense speculative interrogation. Faced with a reality of crumbling institutions, growing strife and increasing cynicism-in short modernity-definition and categorisation became one of the vital ways of setting a topsy-turvy world back in order. In this sense, the Victorian intellectual was somewhat like the Victorian colonist: driven by an almost uncontrollable urge to explore, to find out and annex by definition.

*

Physiognomy caters to this very ideal of precise knowledge. The idea that a person’s character can be divined by a study of his/her features has always been a captivating one: the Victorian passion for exploration and annexation combined with the utilitarian ethics of mathematical precision made it almost irresistible. Here was an ancient art which reflected the quintessentially Victorian motifs of order in flux, of permanence in mobility: such and such shape of the skull meant such and such thing, no more, no less, quite fixed, not subject to the vagaries of time and space, almost immortal. The Victorian mind, trained to be precise and accurate, could not have helped getting attracted to this art which could, by reference to some charts and supposedly unquestionable, immutable facts, reveal, magically as it were, a person’s character and personality, the innermost inclinations of his heart.

Of course, as a ‘magical’ revelation of character, physiognomy is actually at odds with the typically Victorian refutation of superstition and condemnation of fables and stories as fanciful and misleading. Indeed, it stands out as a yet another paradox in the Victorian worldview, a milieu wherein on one hand wo/men put extreme emphasis on rationality but on the other took as substantiation of their beliefs in order and utilitarian precision an art coming from the most fantastic traditions of divination.

*

We will now turn to examine the said texts. First to Pride and Prejudice.

Jane Austen, of course, is not a Victorian author when it comes to strict periodisation. Yet, in her works, and in the world which she portrays in them, the seeds of Victorian mercantilism can already been discerned as sprouting. In Pride and Prejudice itself we can see the nouveau riche rising- Bingley’s family, in spite of their claims of being a “respectable family from the North of England”, owe all their money to trade, presumably colonial trade. Victorian ideals are yet not firmly in place- after all, this is 1796 and the Romantics are at their height, yet the steam engine has been invented and we are already moving towards

In any case, Pride and Prejudice, or First Impressions as it was originally called, is very much about highlighting the deceptive nature of appearances-first impressions-and so there is little reliance upon physiognomy to draw out characters. Indeed, as far as appearances go, Austen actively disproves their validity- witness this in the introduction of Wickham as having an “appearance greatly in his favour…a fine countenance, a good figure and very pleasing address”. Later, Elizabeth is appalled at Darcy’s cruel and insensitive treatment of Wickham, “a young man too, like you, whose very countenance may vouch for your being amiable”. Just how good and amiable he proves to be later is common knowledge...

Next, to Jane Eyre. Charlotte Bronte’s reliance upon physiognomy and, to a lesser extent, phrenology is abundantly apparent in the way she delineates characters according to what their eyes tells about them.

Mrs. Reed has “cold grey” eyes, “devoid of truth”- correspondingly, Mrs. Reed herself is a hypocrite with double standards, somebody who presents herself to society as a good charitable woman but is actually something else. Then Dowager Ingram and her “precious” daughter Blanche- both have “fierce and hard eyes”, amply indicating to a good reader of faces their ambitious pursuit of the rich Rochester. Blanche’s love for him is, in spite of all her coy and pretty mannerisms, naught but a show, Jane assures herself and her readers: this judgement is later proved to be true when the Ingrams break off as soon as news of Rochester’s fortune being not even half of what they had imagined reaches them.

Rochester, a complex, multi-faceted character has, true to his personality “very fine eyes with hidden depths” and though he’s “not beautiful, according to the rule”, his inner beauty is reflected in his “brilliant and gentle” eyes when his “stern features” soften under a smile. He is emotional, prone to sin, yet a streak of nobility underlies him. Just so, for his foil St. John has no such streak of gentleness. His eye is a “cold, blue gem”, as he is himself a cold, doctorial, ambitiously ruthless man who’ll tolerate no hurdle in his road to glory.

Finally, Jane. As is Rochester multi-faceted with shades to his personality, so is Jane a princess trapped in a pauper, a figure full of the most endearing contradictions, on one hand a common governess, on the other a marvellously powerful and spirited woman, emotional and rational…her eyes are “soft and full of feeling”, “shine like dew” and a “flame flickers” in them. Clearly, eyes are the true windows of the soul in Jane Eyre.

Interestingly, through this discourse of eyes, Bronte, like Austen, disproves the validity of impressions. Rochester’s “square, massive brow” and “firm, grim mouth” establish him as a harsh, brooding, wilful man-of-the-world, yet he has those “hidden depths” which only his eyes betray. Similarly, Jane, in her Quakerish dresses and black, brown and grey coats, is as plain and as dull as a woman can be, yet her dewy eyes have a “flame” in them that shows her to be not what she appears to be. Here, as in Pride and Prejudice, appearances are proven to be deceptive.

Dickens employs physiognomy to create remarkably flat caricatures in Hard Times. The novel begins with caricaturing of Thomas Gradgrind, that extraordinarily square character. Everything about his person is mathematically square, right from his “square legs” to his “square wall of a forehead”. He has a “wide, thin and hard set” mouth and his head is “all covered with knobs”…with such a body, his voice, not surprisingly, is “inflexible, dry and dictatorial” and he himself is as rigid, obstinate and unimaginative as can be.

Of course, Dickens’ most flat character is that “Bully of Humility”, Josiah Bounderby. “A man with a great puffed head and forehead, swelled veins in his temples and such a strained skin to his face that it seemed to hold his eyes open and lift his eyebrows up”, Bounderby is the cartoonist’s delight. Just after this unflattering description we are told that he has a “metallic laugh”, a “brassy speaking trumpet of a voice” and, the final nail in the coffin, that he is a “Bully of humility”. The connection between his features and his personality is hard to miss: it’s almost as if the latter was a consequence of the former.

Then there’s Bitzer, “light-eyed and light-haired”, his skin so “unwholesomely deficient in the natural tinge” that sunlight seemed to “draw out of him whatever little colour he ever possessed”, his “short-cropped hair…a mere continuation of the sandy freckles on his forehead and face”. With features such as these, it’s not surprising, if not expected, that he grows up “into an extremely clear-headed, cautious, prudent young man”, his “mind so exactly regulated, that he had no affections or passions”, all his proceedings the “result of the nicest and the coldest calculation”…indeed, so cold that he sends his mother to the workhouse- and this was the sort of self-made man who was, as he later does, “sure to rise in the world”.

Curiously enough, the motif of appearances being deceptive is carried over here as well. James Harthouse is “good looking”, has a “good figure…good breeding” and “bold eyes”. So far, so good. One might have expected Harthouse to have been good as well. That, of course, is not to be. He puts “no more faith in anything than Lucifer”, is completely honest about being dishonest and is very much the “trimmed, smoothed and varnished” Devil who, being “aweary of vice and aweary of virtue”, goeth about “according to the mode”.

Lastly, to The Mill on The Floss. Though George Eliot was supposed to have been influenced by physiognomy, very little of it is apparent in The Mill, excepting, of course, Maggie’s eyes.

Admittedly, Maggie has the most brilliant eyes of all the heroines in this paper, “dark eyes which remind you of the stories of princesses turned into animals”, full of “unsatisfied intelligence and unsatisfied beseeching affection”…these are “such uncommon eyes” which somehow make you feel “nohow”, eyes “trying to speak- trying to speak kindly”.

These of the girl Maggie. As a young woman, they develop, just as Maggie does, to become “full of delicious opposites”, carrying forward the motif of paradox. Rightly are they described as “defying and deprecating, contradicting and clinging, imperious and beseeching”, like a “lovely wild animal struggling under caresses”. Maggie’s persona, her changing moods, her captivating charm, all of these lie in those brilliant dark eyes of hers...

*

Reintroduced into modern consciousness with Lavater’s Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe, physiognomy’s influence steadily increases as one comes into the nineteenth century. A science quintessentially Victorian in its paradoxical underlying assumption of immutable universality beneath confusing, maddening diversity, physiognomy as a delineation tool served well to not just create gripping characters but also project, consciously or not, some of the primary Victorian outlooks to life.

Teri Ma Ki: An Analysis of Common Swear Words

To You Know Who and would-be Bhaybheet’s father, thanking them for their valuable inputs.
To TVS R S: thanks for the encouragement!

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ‘abuse’ as “insulting and offensive language” and the phrase ‘swear word’ as a “an offensive or obscene word”. In common parlance, a swear word is a ‘dirty word’, something odious and vulgar used to express anger, astonishment, shock and other such like extreme emotions; a medium of not just expression but also of pleasure, if on may say so, sadistic pleasure- of hurting people, of taking out one’s frustration by attempting to degrade somebody/thing else in a given socio-cultural context. It is a word which essentially evokes stock images and ideas: indeed, it’s very strength lies in hitting the receiver with very powerful sexual taboos and bamboozling him/her with great, onerous challenges, things in essence the cornerstones of society. A swear word is, therefore, extremely subversive, a sign of marked rebellion against established social norms and customs.

This paper will critically analyse five genres of the commonest Hindustani swear words in context of the socio-cultural make-up of Indian society so as to establish the same as a genre which subverts by direct attack at the fundamental constructs in a society as well as a set which reflects attitudes towards numerous contentious issues of topical interest. To do so, it will begin by ascertaining the nature of Indian society and then move on to discuss in separate sections the import of each of these terms with reference to their etymologies. It will conclude with an overview of the arguments so presented.

*

Indian society, to an overwhelmingly large extent, is patriarchal. Since the writer happens to be Indian and the readers, if any, too will be Indians, or at least those well acquainted with India, it will be not only redundant but also extremely tedious if a comprehensive description of Indian society is brought in this work. Yet, for purposes of this study, it will be useful if some salient features of this patriarchy were discussed briefly.

The father is undoubtedly the most important member of the family. The sole breadwinner, he is the solid bedrock upon which the entire family is built. The family, each of its members, derives expression, identity, from the central father figure: without him the whole structure breaks down, dissolves to nothingness. The honour of the family is reflected in his person and conduct; further, as the only link between the microcosmic family and the macrocosmic society, his role as the ‘protector’ is of prime importance.

The notion of honour, of course, is central to this analysis. The Hindustani word izzat, which is translated as “honour, respect or dignity” and hence means more or less the same thing, has various connotations. A man’s, and by extension his family’s, izzat is determined by numerous factors, most significantly by the izzat, or honour, of the women under his care. It is his sacred duty to protect and uphold the izzat of his womenfolk and it is his performance in this field, as a protector of his women from the sexual dangers outside the safety of the home in the wide world of men, which ultimately decides his mardangi, manliness, and establishes him as a mard, man, in society.

Hence, though ambiguous, honour, specifically men’s honour, can, and usually is, defined through the aforementioned parameters of chastity and conjugal faithfulness.

*

Let us now turn to our case studies. We will begin with one of the most elementary of all Hindustani swear words (hereafter referred to as gaalis)- haramzada.

This is a composite made of haram and zada; while the meaning of the latter is not very clear, some taking it as signalling agreement, the former refers undoubtedly to forbidden, sinful activities- things not exactly permissible in the normal framework of society. This comprises of a lot of things, including extramarital sex: the same is apparent from the connotations which the word harem brings to the mind. In fact, the word harmazada itself means progeny of an illicit sexual relationship, someone who in English is known as a bastard. To call somebody a haramzada is to question his/her (the female equivalent is haramzadi) parentage: specifically, to question the identity of his/her father. As children derive expression and identity from the father, this gaali, by effectively de-stabilising and jeopardising the same, seeks to establish a person as a social outcast, one who stands out as an ‘other’ in hordes of ‘acceptable’, ‘respectable’ people…

The very nature of haram makes it a convenient prefix for a number of other gaalis. Notable amongst these are haramkhor (one who refrains from doing what is right) and harami (an illegitimate child or one who refrains from what is acceptable), both of which attempt in their own ways to establish a person as an aberrant break-away in society and thus disorient by dislocation.

*

Other commonly used gaalis include kutta, saala, kameena, chutiya and thukai. The first of these means dog, the second brother-in-law, the next bastard, the fourth ignoramus and the last refers to violent sexual intercourse. As is apparent, the first two are more or less incongruous, with no evident reason for causing offence except for the fact that they are now part of genres of “obscene” language. However, the last three, with clear sexual implications, do have basis for causing offence and hence their presence in this study.

*

Next on the list is chode, taken unanimously to be the Hindustani equivalent of the English fuck. It, like fuck, refers to sexual intercourse in a derogatory sense, having more to so with sex that is the consequence of not love but lust. Forced sex and perversions, all of these come under the ambit of chode. Further, as for haram, the graphic universality of chode makes it a suitable descriptive suffix for numerous types of sexual intercourses, all of which, needless to say, fall outside the domain of accepted sexuality.

Chode usually refers to incestuous, extramarital or casual sexual intercourse: hence the gaalis bhainchode (one who has sex with his sister), machode (one who has sex with his mother), betichode (one who has sex with his daughter) and ladkichode (one who has illicit sex with a girl). The intention here is to establish a person as a licentious misfit with a dangerously aberrant sexuality, something which threatens the existing order of society. The fact that all of these gaalis are usually directed at men makes this genre all the more interesting as one which, by attempting to show the man disastrously incapable of performing his duty of upholding the existing moral codes of society, exploits fully the old motif of protector turned predator/assaulter. This further attempts to strengthen the ‘otherness’ of the unfortunate receiver, making him a creature who deliberately breaks one of the worst possible taboos for his own gratification.

*

While chode includes all types of sexual orientation under its ambit, there is another genre of gaalis that deals specifically with anal sex, something which, continuing from the nineteenth century, is widely held to be unnatural. Prominent amongst these are gaand marane aya hai, gaand sil de and gaand phat rahi he kya, both of which clearly have connotations related to anal sex. This, combined with the fact that these are generally used in context of male homosexual relationships, makes the two extremely loaded terms. All of this helps advance the aura of unnaturalness which these gaalis attempt to create.

*

Till now we had been considering genres of those gaalis which attempt to establish those at whom they are directed as deviants indulging in or party to some of the worst possible sexual taboos. We will now briefly consider those which directly attempt to undermine their honour by challenging their mardangi, i.e. their capacity to defend/protect the honour, izzat, of their womenfolk.

Popular amongst these are the fill-in-the-blank gaalis teri/uski ma ki… and teri/uski ma ki aankh[in this context vagina]…, both of which attempt to pose grave challenges to a man’s mardangi by threatening to violate the izzat of his mother, or mother-figure. For one, leaving the threat incomplete, by not mentioning what dire fate awaits the ma, heightens the sense of insecurity. Then, issuing such a threat, of the destruction of that cornerstone of familial and, by extension, social life- the sanctity of the mother, is in itself one of the gravest possible challenges to a man’s mardangi and therefore, to his izzat.

*

As these arguments conclusively establish, gaalis or swear words are essentially subversive terms which bring into public consciousness some of the fundamental taboos in a society and hence, by exploiting these fundamental fears, attempt to threaten the very fabric of that society. Not just that, by the very virtue of being exploitative, they also highlight attitudes towards, amongst other things, gender and sexuality and so provide valuable insights into the socio-cultural framework of a society.

Afterthoughts and Clarifications-

Being stuck on damn for quite some years and not in the mood to proceed, doing this was pretty difficult for me…in any case, since I have done this I intend to forget it. It’s quite a horrid thing!

To all those people who’re ready to condemn me to eternal damnation after reading my ‘description of the Indian society’- hold your horses/curses! I have described society as it is seen through the prism of conventionality: these do not happen to be my own views.

And yes, I know that nobody thinks of all of these things while swearing because unfortunately, that has become, and is increasingly becoming, quite an acceptable habit of so many people. Perhaps, though that’s not likely enough (yet there’s nothing wrong in being optimistic!), these will give them second thoughts…

On Love

An Apologia-

Though this is exposing the central weakness of all my arguments beforehand, but still, I would like to confess in the beginning itself that most of the claims made her, most of the cases argued under the following heading, are pure speculation. Not exactly pure though, for there is a little bit of personal experience as also that which has been personally witnessed. Along with this, I have drawn heavily from all the as-of-now-insufficient information/knowledge of the real world which I have gleaned from the modest number of books which I have read in the course of my small (as in temporally) life. All that I have said here is more or less a hunch, and hunches can never really either substitute the real experience of life or act excuses for a glaring or otherwise lack of it…

I also pray tolerance for the obviously didactic tone in this, an article which talks, or at least attempts to talk, about a thing so personal that no definite pedagogy can be applied to it!

*

To Mamma, Dadi, Nani, Maggie, Terence and all the other writers whom I
had the honour of reading in my life- without them this would not have been possible.

*

“To be in love is merely to be in a state of perpetual anaesthesia- to mistake an ordinary young woman for a goddess.”

-Anonymous

Even though it is has been described umpteen times as the most exalted emotion known to this feeling race of human beings, even though its powers have been held in the highest possible esteem by some of the brains known to this thinking species of homo sapiens, love, like all others of its ilk, resists all attempts to a clear cut definition and thus, in spite of being one of the most talked and thought of things in the world, remains ambiguous, subjective and hence, difficult to define. Indeed, it would be not just extremely ambitious but also extremely injudicious to even attempt define an experience so rampant and so widespread that it is personal to the last alphabet and has different connotations for every other individual.

Nevertheless, as for all things mortal and human, it is really not too onerous to observe various types and patterns of love. Here, I intend to talk about all those types which to me appear as the most common and the most easily recognisable.

Sociological and psychological critics have often used the terms ‘spiritual love’ and ‘sexual love’. While quite ambiguous themselves, these two terms do give us a starting point to embark upon this investigation.

*

The word ‘spirit’ is generally held to refer to all those feelings/emotion/beings which belong not to the world of material desires but to that higher one where all is sublime and wherein one loses all ‘human’ (and by this (in this context) degrading virtue, worldly) attributes/qualities for divinely inspired peace, calm and bliss. The word ‘spiritual’, therefore, would refer to such a blissful state of existence above, and hence, free from all the struggles and strives of common, petty life and the term ‘spiritual love’ would, in its most general meaning, be seen as a selfless sort of love wherein one devotes oneself entirely to the unconditional service of one’s idol of-as is in this case-worship. This can easily be recognised as the love of the sages and the saints for their Lord, the love of Lakshman for Ram, of Peter for Christ, of Meera for Krishna…this is the sort of love which, for a few queer reasons-for here happens a complete abnegation of the self, total abandonment of one’s life for that of one’s beloved-has been and still is held as the highest order of love which a human being can possess. Herein on would become the seraph, completely immersed in the bhakti of one’s idol…

In polar contrast to this is ‘sexual love’ which, as the name very obviously suggests, is completely carnal, having only to do with all those desires and urges which fascinated Freud-and which fascinate all of us at some point of our life-so much. Even though an amateur, I feel no hesitation whatsoever in claiming that all religion would tell one that this is one of the greatest weakness of this race, that this indeed was, is and will always be the cause of its downfall. While the theological and mythological aspects of such a statement are debatable, it is undeniable that the type of love based completely on physical (or sexual) attraction does more often than not culminate in that now open characteristic of this race- casual sexual intercourse. By the very virtue of being ‘casual’, this is devoid of not just long term commitment but also of any sort of feeling/emotion in the participating couple(s) (except, of course, raw desire and lust)…

*

However, the analysis does not end at this. As for life, so for its upholder love- reality is often a complex mixture of such extremities.

*

“The mark of a true crush is that you fall in love first and grope for reasons afterwards”

-Shana Alexander

“Deceiving others. This is what the world calls romance”

-Oscar Wilde

The typical love story is about the handsome young man falling [notice here the defining role of religion- this type of love, which is physical and human to human, is described as a ‘fall’] for the beautiful woman or vice versa. This is love at first sight- the couple meets accidentally, falls for each other immediately, pines for each other in separation and in general acts in a manner oft described as ‘bewitched’ (so to highlight the so called ‘magic’ of this state). All time spent in the absence of the beloved seems dull; all routine tasks seem dreary and monotonous- in general, life seems impossible without that one person of one’s hearts desire…

Though cloaked since antiquity under the pleasantly familiar epithet of romance by umpteen creative writers (poets, playwrights, novelists…), this is nought but another nuance of that extreme type of sexual love which borders on lust. This is not to say that love here is replaced by love. No, in spite of its possessive undertones, this does not usually happen in this type, the thin line demarcating love and lust is hardly ever crossed here.

Nevertheless, it really is unquestionable that this sort of love-‘love at first sight’-is, when it happens, i.e. initially, entirely physical. There are variations to this, but it is more or less certain that the desire for sexual relationship(s) is/are often the catalytical motives for this type of love.

The confidence with which I make this claim is founded on the observation that initially in this type of love, one hardly ever knows anything about one’s person of desire except for his/her physical characteristic which strike him/her as attractive and desirable. Emotional (by this I mean intellectual) compatibility-which may (leading to fairy tale romances) or may not (ending in bitter divorces or hellish conjugal lives) be discovered later-is always a secondary consideration, often so much so that it does not figure in in the beginning at all. Furthermore, the archetypical adjectives used in this umbrella type–fair, handsome, beautiful, smart, blonde, gorgeous, dusky, cool, buxom, hot, healthy, sexy, rosy, slim, lovely, petite…-refer not to the intellectual or ‘inner qualities’ of the beloved but essentially (as if by default) to his/her physical characteristics (all of which are in turn determined by the social make up of the person concerned and hence, are different for different societies). Love at first sight doesn’t necessarily mean that one gets blatantly amorous like the heroes of Terence-the romantic poetry of the Victorian ‘Lady’ writers as well as the oh-so-romantic sensibilities of filmi, read Bollywood (and to an extent, Hollywood also), scriptwriters does as well…

*

It can be argued that there are shades of sexual/physical love in some cases of spiritual love as well. We may hesitatingly exempt from this all those who never actually see their idol of worship but where human interface occurs, i.e. where the devotee sees his Lord, then the physical aspect of his/her love becomes significant. Rare indeed is the ugly God- Shabari was old and wrinkled, not her dear Lord Ram!

*

“True love comes quietly, without banners or flashing lights. If you hear bells, get your ears checked.”

-Erich Segal

The sort to which I now come may or may not find its beginning in love at first sight. The beginning is more often than not in indifference, or in friendly cordiality- certainly not in the head over heels situation of love at first sight. Physical attraction gets superseded by emotional and intellectual compatibility- it now becomes a secondary consideration. This sort can better be described by words like ‘liking’ or ‘affinity’-words which, though synonymous, do not mean exactly the same as love. The couple fully knows each other by the time it realises it has fallen-no, why fallen?- risen in love- sexual attraction leading to desire is the culmination, and not the kick starting agent, of this type of love.

Oh yes, this type cannot be described as a fall. It has elements of both the extremes and its ideal is a perfect amalgam of the two- neither absolute renunciation nor unbridled lust. Emotion here is tempered with reason, service and devotion are a part, but a token is required in the end.

*

In fact, this which I discuss now is a feature common to almost all sorts of love, except, of course, the extremes. Once again, the idea of token of love is highly subjective and even though it is shaped by one’s background, one’s social construction, it does vary from person to person. Many hold children as the foremost token of a couple’s affection for each other, yet there are those whose views vary. More often than not, there is a degree of reciprocacity and sensitivity involved in this- love for love, care for care…

One’s ability to adjust, to compromise and to change is also seen in the light of the wide-ranging idea of ‘tokens of love’. Indeed, considering that changing one’s habit’s and tastes-which very nearly accounts for changing oneself-is one of the most difficult things, be the person concerned be fifteen or fifty-five. Changing oneself for one’s beloved-as long as it does not infringe upon other human beings’ rights and fundamental privileges-my be considered as an exemplary token of love, a instance of sacrifice sans renunciation. Since intellectual (discussed above) and familial love establish emotional bonds beforehand, it can be argued that people who ‘rise’ (and not fall!) in this are better off than their counterparts.

*

“Love doesn’t make the world go round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile”

- Franklin P. Jones

As far as familial love, especially parental and sibling love, is concerned, the most significant remark which can be given after due observation is that they are ‘there’ from the very beginning of life (i.e. in a considerably significant number of cases). Freud has given it hidden, yet sufficiently strong sexual connotations and motives and the Romantics have ascribed to it a (divinely) pre-ordained reason, but fact still remains that where and when ever it happens, this is the first experience that one has of love. A parent’s love for his/her child as also a child’s love for his/her parent(s) has a considerable number of reasons, all of which are discussed by theorists of the mind. Amongst these, duty and responsibility figure in as factors not devoid of importance.

*

Insane love is yet another type of love, a type under whose umbrella can be included unnatural (read uncustomary) possessiveness as well as fetish-ness and quirky-ness. This sort is usually force upon one or more persons by one or more individuals- this is the type which fascinates (as also horrifies) the psychologist and the sociologist, experts who study aberrations in society.

*

Even though an attempt at classification, and so, simplification has been made here, it would be foolhardy to even suggest it as either absolute or a success. The range of emotions experienced by the human animal is as vast as it is diverse and when it comes to love, the greatest of them all, no attempt at definite categorization can be judiciously claimed as comprehensive.