பிரபஞ்சன் - நினைவுகள்

பிரபஞ்சன் மறைவின் செய்தி இன்று மாலை கேட்ட பொழுது என் பதின்ம வயதின் ஒரு நினைவு உதிர்ந்துவிட்ட உணர்வு.

'வானம் வசப்படும்' தொடராய் வந்த பொழுது வாசித்தது நினைவுக்கு வந்தது.  பிரபஞ்சனா அல்லது பிரஞ்சு பாண்டிச்சேரியின் மீதான ஈர்ப்பா என்று புரியாத நிலையில் வாசித்த நாட்கள். சென்னை வந்து சேர்ந்த நாட்களில் பாண்டி ஈர்த்தத்திற்கு இதுவே காரணம்.

பிரபஞ்சனின் எழுத்துக்களில் இருக்கும் மென்மை கலந்த அன்பு மனத்திற்கு தந்த அமைதி விவரிக்க முடியாது. ஒவ்வொரு நாவலின் பெண் கதாபாத்திரங்களும் அன்பின் பிரதிகளாகவே இருந்தார்கள். அவரின் எழுத்தே அந்த அன்பின் ஊற்றாய் இருந்தது.

அந்த அன்பின் வழியே மட்டுமே அவர் பெண்களையும் பார்த்தார். அதனாலேயே அவரால் பெண்களின் நிலையை உணர்ந்து எழுத முடிந்தது. பெண்களை புனிதத்திற்கும் வேசித்தனத்திற்கும் இடையே ஊசலாடவிடும் கலாச்சாரத்தை விமர்சிக்க முடிந்தது.

"மனைவி என்பவள் இங்கு துணை இல்லை ; சரி சமம் இல்லை; மாறாக அடுப்பறை அரசி ; படுக்கை அறை பத்தினி.
நமது திருமணம் பெண்களை கொன்றொழித்துவிட்டது. "

குடித்துவிட்டு கழுத்தை நெறிக்கும் கணவன்களோடு இன்னமும் வாழ்ந்து  கொண்டிருக்கும் பெண்ணிற்கு புதிய அறம்  விதைக்க வேண்டும் என்று சொல்ல முடிந்தது.

'இன்பக்கேணி ' நெடு நாள் கழித்து வாசித்த ஒன்று. ஆயியின் அன்பின் கேணியாய் இருந்த அந்த கதை பின்னொரு நாளில் பாண்டிச்சேரியில் ஆயி மண்டபத்தை தேடி போய் பார்க்க வைத்தது.

'மரி என்கிற ஆட்டுக்குட்டி' கற்றுக் கொடுத்த மனித நேயம் , அன்பின் வீர்யம் எல்லாம் கொஞ்சம் மனிதத்தையும் கூடியவரை பிறரிடம் அன்பையும் செலுத்த கற்றுக்கொடுத்தது.

பிரபஞ்சனை பற்றி எழுத வேண்டுமெனில் அன்பை தவிர்க்க முடியாததே அவர் எழுத்து வாழ்வின் சாராம்சமாகும். பிறிதொருமுறை அவரின் எல்லா நாவல்களையும் வாசிக்க ஒரு காரணமாக அவரது மரணம் இருக்கும்.

The Buddha and the Sahibs

The Buddha and the Sahibs by Charles Allen
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I am not a believer of a benevolent colonialism as per the likes of Niall Ferguson or John Keay. However I also do not believe in the pure evilness of the British colonial enterprises as well. Like everything I think there is a big grey area in between which defines this rule. There are positives and there are negatives.

Charles Allen has been a favorite author for telling the stories of the erstwhile Raj from the days of reading 'Ashoka'. He tries to walk this grey part of the history without being judgmental and that's what makes this book fascinating.

I've read the stories about James Prinsep, Alexander Cunningham, "Oriental" Jones and quite a few of the interesting individuals who came here to conquer and ended up uncovering a large portion of Indian history which was neglected and unknown for reasons which are not relevant here.

'Buddha and the Sahibs' tells the story of the re-discovery of Buddhism in India in the late 18th and 19th centuries and the people who did that. The book reads like a detective fiction and expertly puts together the pieces of the discovery.

The story of Buddhism is an inspiring one and above all, the story of the King 'Devanampiya Priyadasi' - the most humane of all kings ever ruled otherwise known as Ashoka is another that defies belief. And what is more amazing is the way the king was identified after the masterly deciphering of the Ashoka Brahmi script by James Prinsep. This is a story that can be read again and again.

More than my infatuation with Ashoka, the book introduces a host of characters who are unbelievable to start with and astoundingly curious and meticulous to the end. James Prinsep who started as the assay master in the Benaras Mint and ended up deciphering the Ashoka Brahmi and identifying the King Ashoka as the Devanampiya Priyadasi of the inscriptions and dying by his 40. Alexander Cunningham - in between his constant part in the frontier wars - manages to trace the entire travel route of Huan-Tsang and identify a host of lost cities and write a long series of books as well.

They may be the product of the imperial era and may have had their prejudices (which are common to that era) but like William Jones - who founded the Asiatic society and be a judge as well - are all driven by the scientific curiosity of the day and there is no just reason for not being thankful to them at all.

It is not just those who are named here, I actually went through a few volumes of the Journal of Asiatic Studies (JAS) published by the Asiatic society founded by Jones and most of those who wrote about the flora and fauna of the country or the ruins of some regions are all local tax collectors and soldiers with some regiments. It is a testament to their interest that they not only observed what was around them, they recorded them as well.

The discovery of Buddhism in the Indian main land by all these people and the discovery of the ruins and location of the holy sites makes for very interesting reading. Charles Allen goes through the steps and the way the entire story unfolded with exciting discoveries. The various events and the unlikely heroes (Hastings or Curzon, anyone?) and of course, M.K.Gandhi and Ambedkar make a cameo as well.

The one part that I find missing is the how Buddhism was obliterated in the country where it was born and how the holy sites were laid waste or taken over by the local Mahants (as in the case of the temple at Bodh Gaya). That is a story that gets mentioned in the passing - like the story of the discussion between the Lama and the Shankaracharya - but is not pursued. I thought that would've made the book more complete.

Overall, a very interesting book..

Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World

Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World by Ramachandra Guha
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As I finished the book, the struggle was to how to write about it and where to start. Gandhi lived a very crowded and active life and it is difficult to find what to write about it all as there is a sense of missing out on a lot of detail. The 900+ pages of the book amount to Guha's dilemma about the same. How to account for all the events of his life and those lives he touched upon and the events he shaped must have been a daunting task to set for oneself.

Guha's narrative encompasses the political events of the day, the personal life of Mahatma and how the world looked at him. The problem with all that is that Gandhi lived his life in full public glare and didn't bother to hide away anything. Hence most of what he wanted to say and do, he did in the public leaving nothing much of interest for an enterprising biographer writing 70 years later.

There are some new material from the archives which are interesting to read about and the correspondences but was a little disappointed by the non-judgemental tone of the entire book which even Gandhi would've found unacceptable.

A self-proclaimed 'Philosophical Anarchist', Gandhi's life was what he called his autobiography - his experiments with truth. He was one who was experimenting with the truth always - trying to change his perception of it if the results are not to his liking. He was open about it, wrote about it, keep talking about it and changed his views if he was convinced.

However, his basic principles of non-violence or civil disobedience did not get to change. He experimented the methods in which they can be taken to the masses (which experiments were mostly completed during his time in South Africa) but never changed the basic principle underlying them. However he was ready to talk about them to everyone, wrote tons of articles about them and practiced till his death.

So, the political part of the book has to tell the story which was well-known to everyone. To me, Gandhi's relationships with Rajaji or M.A.Ansari are the new. The movements he spearheaded, the reasons he pulled back the agitations are all well-documented and known. So Guha takes the path of showing the responses to these events from the press and the outer world. While that adds to the story, it does not alter it in anyway.

What I would've preferred is probably for Guha to place the events of Mahatma's life in a frame of the events of the day and try to make sense out of it. But sadly, the biographer stops at telling the story without a larger concept or a viewpoint of what happened. The latter part may have been a conscious decision but the former one was a missed chance.

Two personalities stand out in the book as important - one politically and the other on a more personal front.

Gandhi, Ambedkar and Jinnah

Dr B.R. Ambedkar comes out as a churlish, petty politician at the start of the book but seem to have had a change in status by the end. That I think, is doing injustice to him. Ambedkar's life took a different arc than the ones by the brahmins and banias of the day and probably Gandhi was the only person in that time who understood that and treated Ambedkar as more of an equal when others tend to look at him as a small time politician from the hinterland. Mahatma understood the significance of what Ambedkar is standing for and the truth of it - the injustices done to the untouchables - made him turn tack and focus on the reformation after the Poona pact than any other politician in those days.

The impetus given by Ambedkar's stand helped in the opening of the temples and wells for the lower castes and helped in moving forward the reformation needed in the Hindu religion as a whole. This is a relationship and issue that resonates more in the current India - which is still struggling to move forward on these reforms and has to handle the resurgent backward castes along with the rest of the Brahminical hierarchy and the Dalit identification has made it more difficult to implement any now. A deeper analysis of these chapters would've made a lot more sense as a book for the modern India.

Saraladevi

The episode of Gandhi's romantic liaison with Saraladevi Chaudarani is something that was new to me. I never heard or read about it before now. So it was interesting to read about this part of Gandhi's life but as Guha admits there is little material available - their correspondences seem to have been destroyed with only a few letters left and so a lot of the story seems to be surmises from the references to their relations in other people's letters and writings. So while it is interesting, it is also the part where there is not much data. However, based on what I read, the affair lasted about a couple of years with no physical consummation but Mahatma keep referring to the episode in later years as when he came close to physical lust (though without any direct reference to the lady). But how important it is in the overall life of Mahatma is a question that never gets asked or answered.

Surprisingly, Nehru gets a minuscule part in the book (less than Patel or Bose), but Jinnah gets his share but the nuances of the discussions and dissent in Congress with Mahatma over partition are glossed over.

Overall, I was left a little dissatisfied with the book as I would've expected Guha to tell a little about the relevance of Gandhi's life in the modern India with the resurgent Hindutva in power and the Hindu-Muslim harmony is in more danger than any other period of the free India. That would've made the book a little more than a biography but made a lot of sense .

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

Bleak landscapes and the morbid story lines are nothing new to the Coen Brothers. I remember the night I watched 'Fargo' exactly for the same reason. Cooped up in a downtown apartment in Omaha with a few feet of snow making it impossible to go out, the movie pretty much summed up the mood of that night in 1999.

It is exactly for the same reason that I love the Coen brothers as well. They can show a ray of sunshine now and then like they did in 'O Brother, Where art thou?' but then it is when telling sordid tales coupled with desolate landscapes that they actually shine.

So it was with that expectation that I started watching 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs' which I have to say is probably the grimmest of the tales told by the Coens and the most frivolous as well. There are no happy endings but just a reminder of how most of the tales end in real life.

The film is structured as an anthology of six different stories happening in the American west of the yore and is told as chapters of a book. All six stories handle different parts of the hard life in the west  the wagon trains, the saloon fights, the coach travels, the gold rush but all are held together by dark humor and dark drama.

The film opens with a cheery note nevertheless with the story of the quick draw Buster Scruggs a.k.a San Saba Songbird , making light work of the outlaws in a bar and a saloon before unwittingly killed by another young gun. As Buster in his whites with a angels wings and a lyre bursts into a duet with his killer admitting that he cannot be the top gun forever - the whimsical notion of death and the life in the west itself comes to the fore.

However, to me the best of the six stores have to be the one called 'The girl who got rattled' which combined a bit of everything and threaded a story which just have to end in tragedy. Zoe Kazan, as the sweet Ms. Alice Longabaugh who loses her brother while on the Oregon trail and was looking forward to a marriage with the trail hand before everything ends in a misjudged fight with the Indians. The reaction of Zoe when marriage was proposed is a delight to watch and the life they start imagining in Oregon before everything crashes down is a reminder of how lives are lived.

The final story of the anthology is also the one which tries to make sense of all the other tales by some philosophical discussion and it is interesting to follow the discussion which goes from being silly at the start to a discussion about love into the inevitable death as they stage coach riders reach their destination. As Rene, one of the riders, tries to explain the dichotomy of the life away and define the way love is perceived by different people, the conversation ends with the inevitable dichotomy of those living and dead.

The exceptional beauty of the landscape is contrasted with the lives of the people who try to make it there. The loving thing about any movie by the Coen brothers is the witty wordplay combined with sleek edits to tell  the stories. The whole thing is attenuated by the beautiful Prairie landscape and the never ending lands of the west.

In the 'Meal ticket' this beauty of the land and the brutality of life itself is brought out through the repeated talk on the Ozymandias and the story of Kane and Abel. There is no moral scale here but only a question of surviving the rugged life.

The movie eventually take one look at the life and the morbid ending awaiting everyone and laughs at the whole charade of living it.

Persepolis

The Complete Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

'The Complete Persepolis' tracks the life of Marjane from about 10 years till 24 years. Thats about the most conservative way of saying it. This is a book which tells her story just like the way she is in real life - loud, opinionated and doesn't give a damn about anyone.

That is the reason to love and hate the book. The book is actually in a graphic novel format - while I've read more comics in that format - reading a real-life story in the format was novel. But the drawings, though in black and white, convey clearly a lot more than mere words ever do. That is probably the reason to read it as well.

This coming-of-age of Marjane happens to be from about 1979 till about 1993 - in Iran and Europe - crossing over the tumultuous period of the nations history - first the Islamic revolution and then the war with Iraq. It is also the period Marjane is continuously in a rebellious mode both in Iran and in Europe where she is sent for schooling.

In a way, the book also documents the life of the upper Iranian middle class as they try to survive through the religious persecutions and the war and also try to live the life. Marjane's family is prosperous at the start of the revolution and though they go through the difficult times of the revolution and the economic despair of the later times, they are comparatively well-to-do in comparison with the others in the story.

However, this is strictly the story of Marjane as she tries to make sense of the sudden religious restrictions like the veil being applied everywhere and the punishments they have to go through for non-compliance and she picks up trouble wherever she was asked to conform.

To me, the book at least broke some of the perceptions we've about the people in these countries. Other than a few Iranian movies, there is very little documentation around about the people of the country. Thus it is interesting to read about the liberal views of the middle class and still that excludes how the rest of the country - the majority - lived through these times.

Marjane's personal experiences are reflective of the way the country was governed - she loses uncles and friends to the war and they joke about the disabled to overcome the sickening scenario of the country. For a while, she tries living in Austria but ends up hating it and comes back.

Marries a guy - with the whole family expecting her to get a divorce - and dutifully fulfills that expectation in a couple of years. She doesn't grieve over that episode rather dissects why that marriage was a failure in a rather curiously detached way. Like a mistake we make and then realizing it.

There are moments I thought it would be better if I have some backstory but overall a superlative read..

Museum of Islamic Civilization - Sharjah

I usually get the looks when I tell anyone that I am visiting the museum there. It is like 'why would you do that'. Usually I do not answer that look but what I read today answers that very well - 'Culture and Education are the lethal weapons against fundamentalism' (Marjane Satrapi in 'Persepolis').

So, if one were to understand a people to any extent, it is important that one try to understand their culture to whatever extent possible. The culture of the land at any moment reflect the people who inhabit it at that time. Hence, our pride in all those big temple builders and poets of the eon. However, it is also imperative to look at what we are leaving behind for a future world to wonder at. That anyway is for another day.

So it was that when I came into Sharjah, the first instinct was to look for the museums of the city.

I stayed near the Al-Qasba area and it was actually quite a surprise to find a vibrant art scene in the city. From what I gathered from the locals, the Emir of Sharjah is a man of taste for art and culture and so the active art scene in the city.

Al Qasba Canal

Al-Qasba, in itself is such a place of beauty and houses its own contemporary museum with displays of some modern art installation which were interesting to look at but mostly ended up scratching the head wondering what it might be. The garden and pathway along the Al-Qasba run till it meets the Al-Majaz waterfront facing the Gulf.

Al-Majaz

However, what I was interested mostly in was the Sharjah Museum of Islamic Civilization in the heritage area of Sharjah. I happened to have visited the other wonderful museum on Islamic civilization in Doha and wanted to check this one out as well.

The Museum itself looks very traditional in its outlook from the outside with the traditional Islamic architectural parts of it looking distinct in the contrasting sandstone tiles on the wall. The museum is huge with six distinct galleries on both sides of the structure and took me close to 3 hours to go through the entire building (one of the galleries - the Islamic science and technology wing was closed and that was a disappointment).

The Islamic faith displays form the first part of the museum covering one full wing of the ground floor. The displays cover the history of Islam, how it spread, the written history and calligraphy of Quran and all aspects of the faith and tenets of Islam. What was fascinating is the way the entire thing was spread out across the displays - the different Qurans, the history of Ka'aba, the Kiswahs that were there. This covers the interest to learn the basics of this fascinating religion. It was interesting to read through to understand the basics of this religion.

Qandil from the Kiswah

Kiswah from Ka'aba

As  the other wing in the ground floor - the Islamic science and engineering block was under maintenance, it was time for the four galleries in the first floor.

The first floor galleries cover the periods of the Islamic civilization in two parts - the first 10 centuries and the more recent history. The history of the spread of Islam to the growth of the art and culture of the Islamic world is detailed in the four large galleries.It was also a good thing that there was not much crowd in the galleries giving one the time and space to enjoy the displays.

The Cut glass set - the most exquisite piece in the gallery

While the amount of artifacts in the museum is not overwhelming, it is also to be noted that the conceptual arrangement and detailing of the artifacts in the museum were very good. Some of the curating could've been better - the indexing and numbering of the collective exhibits was confusing - but that is a small thing compared to the overwhelming amount of information to be digested.

The Samarra Mosque

The most interesting part - to me, at least - was the architectural section of the galleries. Probably, it is where the entire Islamic world excels beyond comparison. The section on the Mosques from the initial days of Islam to the modern, contemporary ones is not just interesting but very enlightening as well. The modern structures make use of the basic structure of mosques in very unique and artistic manner.

The battle standard

It takes about 3 hours to cover all five galleries and the sixth one would've added another 30-45 minutes. But probably, the best place in Sharjah to understand the local culture and customs of the people of this part of the world.

The modern Souq

Dhows lined up in the gulf

After that overwhelming experience, took a walk , in that burning sun , around the heritage part of Sharjah - called the 'Heart of Sharjah' - and the dhows on the gulf and the souqs lining the streets reminding one of the many parts of those galleries that I just noticed. A very enriching experience!

புலியின் நிழலில்

புலியின் நிழலில் by Namdeo Nimgade


'புலியின் நிழலில்' நாம்தேவ் நிம்கடேயின் வாழ்க்கை வரலாறு.

கைர்லாஞ்சி படுகொலைகளின் பின்னணியுடன் துவங்குகிறது. தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட, தீண்டத்தகாத சாதிகளின் பின்னணியும் கொண்டு எந்தவித பொருளாதார பின்னணியும் இல்லாது - சமூக விழிப்புடன் தன பங்கையும் ஆற்றி வாழ்வில் ஒரு நிலைக்கு வருவது என்பது அதில் ஒரு பாதி பின்னடைவை கொண்டு முன்னுக்கு வரும் எவருக்கும் கொஞ்சம் புரியும்.

பாபாசாகேப் அம்பேத்கருடனான தன்னுடைய உறவை ஆவணப்படுத்தும் நோக்கமே தன்னை எழுத வைத்ததாக சொல்லுகிறார் நாம்தேவ். எனக்கும் இந்த புத்தகத்தில் பிடித்தது அம்பேத்கர் என்னும் மனிதரே. அவரின் பிம்பங்கள் இன்றி ஒரு அளப்பரிய தலைவராய் வருகிறார்.

சாதி பற்றிய எந்த உரையாடலும் அரசியல் சார்ந்தே நடக்கிறது. இந்த புரிதல் முக்கியமானது. இந்த உரையாடல் நிகழாமல் - நம் நிலையிலும் கீழாய் ஒரு உலகம் தினசரி அவமானங்களையும், வன்முறையையும் எதிர்கொண்டு இயங்குகிறது என்ற விழிப்புணர்வு வராது இந்த உரையாடல் முழுமை பெறுவதில்லை. இந்த உணர்வு வரவிடாமல் இருக்கவே ஊரும் சேரியும் பிரிக்க படுகிறது. சாதியத்தின் கொடூர நிதர்சனம் பூசி மொழுக படுகிறது.

இன்றைய நிலை இப்படி இருக்க நாம்தேவின் ஸாத்கவ் கிராமம் 100 வருடங்களுக்கு முன் எப்படி இருந்திருக்கும் என்று நாம்தேவ் ஓரிடத்தில் சொல்லுகிறார். உயர் சாதி கல்யாண மாப்பிள்ளை - பெண் ஊருக்கு வண்டியில் போகிறார். இருட்டுவதற்குள் போய்விட வேண்டும் - அவர்கள் வண்டிக்கு முன் கீழ்சாதியை சேர்ந்த இருவர் ஓட வேண்டும். அவர்கள் உயர்சாதி கூட்டத்திற்குள் வந்துவிட கூடாது. எனவே மாடுகளை விட வேகமாய் ஓடவேண்டும். பெண் ஊர் சேர்ந்தவுடன் மாட்டு தொழுவத்தில் தூக்கம் - தூக்கி எறியப்படும் இலைகளை பொருக்கி சாப்பிட்டு கொள்ளவேண்டும். இப்படி மனிதனை மாட்டிலும் கீழாய் நடத்திய சாதி முறையை இப்போதும் எங்கும் தூக்கிக் கொண்டு அலைகிறோம்.

இப்படி இலை பொறுக்கும் நாம்தேவ் , பதினாலாவது வயதில் பள்ளிக்கு செல்ல தொடங்குகிறார். அங்கிருந்து நாகபூரில் கல்லூரி. அம்பேத்கரின் இயக்கத்தில் இணைகிறார். நாகபூரிலும் எதிர்கொள்ளும் சாதிய அடக்குமுறைகளை தாண்டி படித்து முடித்து - IARIஇல் வேலைக்கு சேர்கிறார். PhD பண்ண விஸ்கான்சின் பல்கலைக்கழகம் அழைக்கிறது. முனைவர் ஆகி , அம்பேத்கரின் பாதையில் பௌத்தம் தழுவுகிறார்.

'மதம் மனிதனை மிருகமாக்கும் - சாதி அவனை சாக்கடையாக்கும்' என்று சொன்ன பெரியாரும் , 'கற்பி, ஒன்றுசேர், போராடு ' என்ற அம்பேத்கரும் இணையும் புள்ளி - கல்வி. சாதீய கீழ்மையிலுருந்தும், பொருளாதார கீழ்மையிலுருந்தும் கல்வி மட்டுமே வெளிக்கொணர்கிறது. அதை மறுப்பதன் மூலமே சாதீயம் சாத்தியமாகிறது. நாம்தேவ் வகுப்பறையின் வெளியில் நின்று பாடம் கேட்கிறார் - உயர் சாதி மாணவனைவிட அதிக மதிப்பெண் பெற்றதற்கு அடித்து தூக்கி போட படுகிறார். அதையும் தாண்டி படித்த ஒவ்வொரு நாம்தேவிற்கும் ஈடாய் வேறு எத்துணை பேர் கொலை செய்யப்பட்டும், திரும்ப கிராமங்களுக்கும் சென்றிருப்பார்கள் என்று தோன்றாமல் இல்லை.

நாம்தேவின் அம்பேத்கர் வெகு சன சித்தரிப்பில் இருந்து விலகி ஒரு உயரிய தலைவராய், எப்போதும் தான் நம்பிய ஒன்றை வலியுறுத்தும் நபராய் வெளிவருகிறார். தன படிப்பின் மீதான நம்பிக்கை அவரை ஒரு பெரும் தலைவராய் நிலை நிறுத்துகிறது. நாம்தேவ் அவரை தன் தலைவராய் காண்கிறார். அவரது அரசியல் அதிலிருந்தே வருகிறது. கல்வியின் முக்கியத்தை அம்பேத்கரை பார்த்தே வழி நடக்கிறார்.

இத்தகைய புத்தகங்கள் சொல்வது என்னை பொறுத்த வரை ஒன்றே. சாதிய ஒழிப்பு என்பது அனைவரும் படிப்பதனால் மட்டும் வரப்போவதில்லை. அதையும் தாண்டிய மனிதம் வரவேண்டியும் இருக்கிறது. 

First Man (2018)

After some time into the movie 'First Man' - the Titan lifts off with the Gemini 8 crew. The entire lift-off visual starts within the capsule of Armstrong and the traditional rosy lift-off is turned around. For a minute there, you travel up at the immense speeds escaping Earth's velocity with the entire capsule knocking off like crazy till the eerie quite of the zero gravity sets in and Armstrong switches off the lights to search for Aegena.

That sequence is what is interesting about the movie. The entire mission to the moon has been documented multiple times in the past - from documentaries to movies. The linear story telling and the adventurous spirit of the missions are there for all to see. 'First Man' takes a very familiar story - with the end known to everyone - and tells it very differently and succeeds.

Neil Armstrong - probably the least adventurous person in the Gemini Astronauts and probably the most methodical of the group - is not a perfect fit for a movie about a landing on the moon. So the movie takes the cues from his personal life and try to make the moon landing about something of a redemption and closure moment of Armstrong.

A stolid and determined man, Neil Armstrong comes out as a cold and calm person who even as a test pilot for X-15 bounces into atmosphere and coolly injects himself back into the atmosphere. If there is any emotion shown by him, probably it was not known outside his family. So the movie heavily focuses on who the man underneath that mask is and connects with the mission he was entrusted with.

The loss of his daughter probably pushed him into that mask more at the start of that eventful decade and the movie shows him being unable to bring to a closure that loss and withdrawing into a shell more and more. The coolness with which he handles the pre-launch press conference is one.

The movie works because it keeps the landing on the moon as a sideshow and chooses to focus on the man himself more. The technical parts of the landing are told over quickly and the emotional drama between Neil and his wife plays out more with some stunning visuals being thrown in.

The Man on the moon program brought forth a bunch of colorful astronauts who are legendary and of course, men who did a lot of crazy stuff in the space. Starting with Chuck Yeager (though he didn't fly) to men like Gus Grissom or John Glenn or Jim Lovell, the men were all desperadoes seeking adventure in doing crazy things and a lot of them paid for it with their life as well. Strangely, you don't hear such stories of heroism about Armstrong - he is the guy who made the whole man on the moon thing look simple. He just went there and said a few words and came back - no big deal.

May be, that is why it is interesting to see him as a grieving father unable to get closure and shrinking into his emotional shell more and more. And though it was not clear on the way the final landing sequence on him is done - with the dropping of the bracelet in moon - whether it happened really or not - but it was poetic. It is impossible for anyone to be standing on the moon and not do that.

If you really want to learn about the whole 'man on the moon' program, you still have to see 'From the Earth to the Moon' series - that is the best there is. But if you would like to see a human drama unfolding around the man who did that first, this is the movie to watch.

Conversations with hate - Jayamohan - Part 3

Conversations with hate (Contd.)
Jayamohan

(Go here for Part 1 & Part 2)

The history of Geo-politics of the past hundred years is the destruction wrought by these movements. These movements are born usually as an idea with a few intellectuals and nurtured by the various power brokers of the world. They take a life of their own during the course of time and grow bigger through the struggles for power and the hate which begets more violence and the cycle continues.

Today we can identify at least fifteen countries destroyed by internal warfare in the African continent. Congo, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Rwanda and the list goes on. What caused these civil wars? The distrust between the ethnic or religious groups is the common answer. How did this distrust came into being? because of the weapons. And we go back to the countries which supply these weapons for the peace.

We are distraught that the world did not do anything when the Tamils were killed indiscriminately in Eelam. What we fail to understand is that a quarter of the world is mired in these kind of conflicts today. We do not discuss any of those conflicts. It is a sad state of affairs that the group that tries to instill that violent mindset in relation to these conflicts here with the people is considered to be the progressives here.

So does Africa to be torn away by these civil wars? Is there no way other than these ethnic groups killing each other in their quest for a country and power? If Europe can overcome and compromise and be together as a single entity, why is that not a possibility for the African nations?

There is an excellent example in front of us. It is not an example for Africa alone but for the whole world. If there is anyone who had an excellent reason for taking forward a violent struggle, it was Nelson Mandela. The oppressive apartheid regime was reason enough to push him toward a violent struggle. There was a constant stream of individuals parting from him over this direction of the movement.

Nelson Mandela by Richard Day

However, Mandela learnt the path of the struggle from Gandhi. What he gave his people is to improve themselves during the course of that struggle. The biggest Gandhian struggle of the century was the imprisonment of Mandela for twenty seven years. That Satyagraha of him at the Robben Island prison brought his people into the political movement and started the dialogue process.

But the most important dialogue he had was with his captors. We know that the participation of the White-majority countries in this struggle during the course of his captivity. South Africa got its independence through this process of dialogues. That independence was not only for the Blacks of South Africa but also for the whites of that country. This freedom came non-violently and this is a history for which we were all witnesses during our generation.

The history of Mandela's life is an example of the compromises he made during the course of this struggle. He was constantly in dialogues with the government and with the various groups of the African National Congress.   Historians hail him as the master of finding the common ground for everyone.

When there was blood on the streets of Eelam and the destruction of Congo was happening, a peaceful transition of power was happening in South Africa. We are too hesitant to learn the lessons of a non-violent struggle.

What if Mandela chose the violent path? South Africa would've become another Congo or Rwanda - only many times worse. I remember watching the inauguration ceremony of Mandela after those historic elections in South Africa. The Zulus were out in the streets in force fearing that they will become second-class citizens in the new, independant South Africa. I was watching it in television and was saddened that this may be the start of a new blood-shed in Africa.

But Mandela faced that moment with his Gandhian weapon. He was ready to compromise by sharing the power with the Zulus. He converted a tense moment into a historic one through his patient dialogue. That is why South Africa remains the only active democracy in that dark continent today.

This is the live example for the permanence of the Gandhian way and the importance of it in today's world. The failure of the violent movements in the history of the world is self-evident. But we keep facing the hate of these people. This hate is the one that make them chose those murderous weapons. But we have to keep conversing with this hatefulness. We will always extend our arms to them at all times.

May 26, 2009

Conversations with hate - Jayamohan - Part 2

Conversations with hate
Jayamohan

(Go here for Part 1) 

Secondly, the Gandhian struggle always keeps an open mind to correct its ways and policies when they were found to be not in the interest of the people. There is always a possibility of human errors creeping into the way a political movement is organized. Apart from the human errors there is also possibility of policy errors, the misunderstandings that can come into any movement - all these can make following a movement impossible.

Social struggles encompass people with hundreds - if not thousands - of years of history, culture and individual lives as baggage. Creating a movement which can understand all these micro factors and be absolutely faultless is not possible. So there is no path that is going to be completely error-free as well.

Gandhi has always pulled the movement backwards whenever he felt that the movement is not understood properly or that the moment is not opportune enough for the same. He usually re-analyze the movement and taken corrective steps and re-started the movements in a different way. This is possible only in the Gandhian way of struggle.

Thirdly, the Gandhian movement understands that there is no final solution to any historical and/or social struggles. This is probably the most basic vision of the Gandhian movements. Any proclamation in the nature of understanding of a final solution to the struggles tend to be based on the haughtiness of an individual rather than on a proper understanding of the society or history. Gandhi understood this contradictory nature of the struggles. There is always a reaction to the way a struggle goes and the movement has to be ready for continuous dialogues and compromises with these reactionary movements. This - Gandhi understood clearly.

Gandhi never stated it as his intent to remove the British completely from the Indian soil or eradicate them from the face of Earth. His movement was nothing but a long conversation with the British rulers. It is surprising that he was always ready to start the talks with the British. He compromised some, got some and then had further conversations to get more. He never said that the British are his enemies - in fact, he said the opposite. He always claimed that he is struggling for the British as well.

This is the reason why though the British gave up the power in India, we still have the democracy, judiciary and a journalistic system, all based on the British. They are now part of the Indian civilization. He appropriate those who he fought against.

Finally, Gandhian movement is not a single faceted one. It is also a big social construct which while taking for the struggle for independence, also managed to identify the multiple social evils that formed the reasons for the state of a slavish society and fought continuously against each of them as well. When he traveled across the villages of India, it was not only to carry forward the fight against the British government but also to preach about the necessity of toilets in those villages. The religious reforms and the struggle to bring back a self-sufficient village economy became part of the same struggle because of this face of the movement.

Today, India stands as the strongest democracy in South Asia - however much its inadequacies and challenges may be. The democratic norms of the Modern India was made possible only because of the Gandhian movement.

Those who reject the Gandhian way of struggle need to show a few examples of the success of violent struggles and movements across the world. If we look back into the last 100 years with some amount of historical neutrality, it can be seen that these violent movements have accomplished nothing but the killing in millions of the same people they were sworn to protect.

The reason for the directions the violent struggles take is because of the lack of those characteristics of the Gandhian movements as outlined above. What were the accomplishments of the biggest revolutions of the last century - Russian and Chinese - other than large scale destructions and slavery to its people? But those who defended these revolutions till yesterday are the ones who are at the forefront of criticizing Gandhi today.

From the Russian and Chinese revolutions to the struggles of African national movements, they have one common denominator. These movements have given more importance to the killing of their internal enemies and removing the reactionary elements of their movements. Every movement driven by violence has killed indiscriminately its own people on the basis of suspicions, betrayals and revenge. There is no exception to be found to this rule till now.

Because violence stifles dialogue and kills any way forward which involve compromise and taking everyone forward. This basic tendency to stifle creates an environment of  fear and distrust resulting in the internal conflicts and the paranoia towards its own people.

Today people who support these movements go past by apologizing for the 'excesses and errors' of the revolution without answering for the millions of people killed by it. Every violent movement burns the bridges behind while moving forward. The errors of such movements are paid with the lives of poor people. Cultural revolutions and Gulags may have been mistakes but those mistakes killed millions.

The lack of dialogues in a violent movement means that it moves towards an end which was determined much earlier without taking into account any of the counter-forces or events that might happen. Anyone who can look back at 50 years of history can realize the amount of changes and possibilities that has existed. Every movement will have to take those into account while moving forward and that will happen only through a continuous dialogue.

All sorts of opinions and criticisms have been placed on about the Gandhian way simply because it permits it. Even today, we do not have a clear records around Subhash Chandra Bose's INA movement. It can be seen that he was used by the world powers as a pawn in their struggle for control during the world war. Till the end, it was the Japanese who determined the way the INA will take. Per official record, INA played a role in only one front.

More than that, Subhash also kept his silence about the thousands of Indian workers killed during the construction of the Siamese railway and did not record any kind of protest against it. Would Gandhi have remained silent against such an atrocity?

(To be continued)

Conversations with hate - Jayamohan - Part 1

Jayamohan is one of the foremost writers who believes and writes about the Gandhian philosophy in Tamil today. So, when I thought I have to do something on this day (October 2) - commemorating the one true hero of Modern India - I remembered this article written some time back and read around the same time. I thought this is an important article and need to be translated.

This is my first attempt at translating anything - so I am open to suggestions and I've not got a prior permission - though I have written to Jayamohan on this asking for his permission to host the same. Since, I've not received any replies, I am going ahead with publishing it. If I get any objections in the coming days, I will take it down.

The original article in Tamil is available here - வெறுப்புடன் உரையாடுதல் 

This is an answer to an letter written by a person in Nigeria asking about the hate he encounters while talking about Gandhi or his principles and the hate propagated against the idea of an Indian Nation as well. 

--------------
Conversations with Hate - Part 1
Jayamohan

Dear Palanivel

The hate you've encountered is a natural reaction. Gandhian philosophy is defined by its stance against hate. So it is hate that meets it every time. Gandhi, during his times, lived with the maximum amount of hate and defamation that can be spewed against him. But he kept on talking to that hate again and again till the end of his life time.

Hateful minds have no principle or policy or a philosophy. By nature they spew the venom of hate. To spew the same, they find a political reasoning as well. This reasoning is shown to be the moral and social basis for the hate. The hunger for power and the hate for the other are justified using this. But the underlying force for this is just Hate.

The proof for this is that these hate mongers will not hesitate to abandon the philosophy at a moment's notice if they think that it comes between their hate. Those who take up arms on behalf of the people will end up killing the same people. Mao did the same in China and today we can see the Maoists doing the same in Andhra and the north Indian villages.

Social revolutions lack the impulsive and glamorous nature of a violent struggle. Those who speak of these violent struggles are usually those who cannot take in any amount of violence in their personal life. A violent struggle gives them a way to channel their daily life's frustrations and also satisfies their egos as being the 'uncompromising' and 'serious' intellectuals. They will be ready to sacrifice the lives of others to satisfy that ego.

Also it is easier to bringforth the violent nature of one's self. So it is the way for the second-rate politicians and intellectuals. It is easy to create a split with in the society by channeling this hate. This is what Hitler did and explains in his autobiography. He says that if a person can passionately invoke the negativeness, he can channel the same to the listening crowd. The crowd does not evaluate whether those feelings are legitimate or fruitful. This is human nature.

How to get that 'genuine' negativity in one self? It is possible only by building hate within oneself. That hate will come out of him and this is the power of Fascism. Today's politics is built on this hate. Religion, ethnicity or anything can be used as the basis for building this hate. The blood that is being spilled around the world today arises from this hate.

Gandhian philosophy is the voice of the human virtue against this politics of hate.
--
There are three basic principles for the Gandhian way of struggle.

First one is that the Gandhian way of struggle is that the struggle itself is to bring forward a people by educating and improve them. Every society is made up of different components and it is natural that there will be contradicting viewpoints within these different components. When a struggle for a common goal is taken up, it is important that it generates a lot of arguments and conversations are brought forth between these components bringing a equilibrium among them.

The nature of any Gandhian movement is to mobilize people again and again. This brings the contradictory viewpoints of the people to the fore for discussions. The strength of the Gandhian movement is that it finds a compromise through these contradictory view points and brings forward a common goal, a common dream to be attained for everyone. This is the inherent strength of the Gandhian movement. However, this is a long process and that is why, Gandhian movements are organized through a slow but a sure step by step process.

The half century history of the Indian Independence struggle clearly shows this process. The internal contradictions of opinions and the internal fractures of the Indian society are brought to the common space for discussions and compromise during this entire period of struggle. Gandhi has spent all his spiritual energy to attain these compromise throughout this period. The struggle which was confined to the upper classes till Gandhi's arrival in the scene, moved quickly to encompass all sections of the Indian society through his leadership.

C.Atchutha Menon, the veteran Communist leader told me once that Gandhi politicized the Indian society through the Independence movement. He showed the millions of Indians that they have the power of participating in a political struggle. The leftist movements of India were built on this politicization brought forth by the Gandhian movement. Ambedkar also realized that the Indian Dalit movement was also brought to life by the same movement.

So the Indian Independence movement is only a logical next step of this politicization of the masses by the Gandhian movement. Once Gandhi showed the politics to the millions of Indians, who until that time were content to live in their corners, they naturally wanted the political power. It became untenable for the Zamindars and the local Kings and in extension the British, to exert power over these masses of people anymore.

So the first basis of this Gandhian struggle is by realizing one self and by that realization, start removing the impediments that stand in the way of that struggle.

(To be Continued)

Anna Karenina

Vanathy wanted to read 'Anna Karenina' and asking for it. I told her that it may not be appropriate reading for her age (she is 12) and suggested some other classics she can try out. And found today that she has added the book in the queue in Iloveread.in for reading. Like me, the girl does not take 'no' for an answer. So, I just took the book out and kept in her bookshelf for her reading.

I am no prude and I have read more intense graphical books when I was twelve anyway. It was not a question of the appropriateness of the content but the emotional weight the book carries. 

"Is it really possible to tell someone else what one feels?"

I remember the night I read 'Anna Karenina' - it was a big book and I just couldn't put it down and it was worse the next day as the fate of Anna kept reverberating through the mind. If there is one book that can wreck you emotionally, it is this one (of course, 'Crime and Punishment' and the 'Brothers Karamazov' will run a closer race here!).

It is not the moral quagmire the book gets into - but rather the juxtaposition of pride versus humility - which forms the backbone of the book and in the characters of Anna and Levin, this contrast comes out to the fore.

" I've always loved you, and when you love someone, you love the whole person, just as he or she is, and not as you would like them to be."

The story of a fallen woman is not a novelty. It was told to death - literally and metaphorically - by the French (is there a French novel without some sort of a scandal?). What Tolstoy is so good at - is to bring the philosophical musings of that state of affair and show the progressive change from a calm, poised women that Anna is at the start of the novel in the train to the depressed, unhappy women who meets the carriage of another train close to the end of the novel.

" He stepped down, trying not to look long at her, as if she were the sun, yet he saw her, like the sun, even without looking."

The love triangle of Anna, Karenin and Vronsky is poised to end in tragedy and it sure does in the end. However, Tolstoy tells the story completely in a sepia tone. There is nothing good or bad here - but just a relative telling of the truth. That the novel muses a lot on this will make the reading tedious at times but reading as an adult reader, it is easy to understand the 'windiness' of the book.

The book, though is a love story, like every other novel of Tolstoy, is also a philosophical work which explores love, guilt, desire, happiness and the socio-economic conditions of the day. That may seem a lot to cover but the book moves into everything with everyone professing opinion on everything and a lot of descriptions of those olden days of Russian life.

"They've got no idea what happiness is, they don't know that without this love there is no happiness or unhappiness for us--there is no life"

Levin's life is shown in contrast to Anna's and Levin is a heap of contrasts - proud at first - and at some point, flirts with Anna as well. But it is his musings on his life as a landowner and his life with Dolly which forms the contrast. Levin has his faults - he acknowledges each of them - but also is willing to work on them and correct himself. The Christian righteousness is the path he chooses - however difficult it may be for him to traverse.

The concept of happiness - as it applies to an individual - is explored by the failure of every character in the novel to find it. Vronsky, when he finally gets Anna, does not feel overwhelmingly happy as he expected to be. Anna, when joining Vronsky, grows more depressing and suspecting rather than being happy.

"Rummaging in our souls, we often dig up something that ought to have lain there unnoticed. ”  
 

The complexity of being in a 'happy' state is a recurring theme in Tolstoy's novels along with being 'guilty' of something. The guiltiness of doing something - here, Anna's love for Vronsky or Levin's guiltiness for being a landowner - comes in the way of achieving happiness always. 

The Christian morality of the society (or the morality as defined in every society) thrives by associating guilt with any activity that brings happiness - thus, as Levin finds out in the end, choosing to be a Christian (or to obey the societal norms) is the way to keep the guilt at bay. But this righteousness is as much Christian as Nihilist. This Tolstoy understood and probably abhorred. He explores this nihilist tendency of the self-righteousness in 'War and Peace' in more detail though.

“Love. The reason I dislike that word is that it means too much for me, far more than you can understand."

However, the book for me, is more an exploration of happiness than about guilt. Tolstoy - at least in the days of writing Anna - is trying to balance between love and the associated guilt produced by the society on love itself and was exploring the plight of Anna as caught in it. He does not ,mercifully, engage in sermonizing as in his later works ('The Kreutzer Sonata' comes to mind with a shudder!).

So, the emotional baggage you are going to be saddled with by the time the book is finished is a burden to bear but it is one's choice to bear it happily.

நிலவு மணல்

இன்று முழு நிலவு. அலுவலகத்தில் இருந்து திரும்பி வரும் போது பள்ளிக்கரணை சதுப்பு நிலத்தின் குறுக்கே இருக்கும் சாலையில் வரும் போது மெதுவாய் எழும் நிலவு ஒரு மஞ்சள் நிறத்தின் சாயலில் அழகாய் இருந்தது. அந்த வாகன நெரிசலில் எத்துணை பேர் அந்த நிலவை ஒரு ரசனையுடன் பார்த்திருப்பார்கள் என்று ஒரு யோசனை. அப்படியே ஒரு சிலராவது பார்த்து ரசித்திருப்பார்கள் என்று நினைத்துகே கொண்டேன்.

கூடவே ஒரு பயம் - நேற்று பாபாவை பார்த்தவர்கள் இன்று எதை பார்ப்பார்களோ என்று? இருந்தாலும் இன்று பல முறையும் நிலவு பார்க்க நேரிட்டது.

அழகியலின் உபயோகம் என்பது மனதிற்கு மகிழ்வு தருவது மட்டும் தானா? அதன் பொருட்டே அது ஒரு விதத்தில் இந்த பண்ட மாற்று உலகில் உபயோகம் அற்றதாய் பார்க்க படுகிறதா? சிபியை திரும்ப கூடி வரும் போது சாமி-2வை பற்றி பேச்சு வந்தது. அதனுடன் கலையின் நேர்த்தி மற்றும் பொது புத்தியின் வீழ்ச்சி என்று பேசிக் கொண்டே வந்தோம். நேர்த்தி அற்ற ஆபாசமான கலையை தவிர்ப்பது என்பது நமது தேர்வு மட்டுமே என்று சொல்லிக் கொண்டு வந்தேன்.

தரங்கம்பாடியில் என்றோ ஒரு இரவு

"புணரி பொருத பூ மணல் அடைகரை
ஆழி மருங்கின் அலவன் ஓம்பி
வலவன் வள்பு ஆய்ந்து ஊர
நிலவு விரிந்தன்றால் கானலானே." (நற்றிணை 11)

தலைவன் தேரில் ஏறி தலைவியை காண பூக்கள் சிதறிக் கிடக்கும் கடற்கரையில் மெதுவாய் வருகிறான். ஏனெனில் அந்த நிலவு விரிந்த முழுநிலவு நாளில் ஓடிக் கொண்டிருக்கும் நண்டுகள் மீது பட்டு விடாமல் தேரை மெதுவாய் ஒட்டி வருகிறான் என்கிறார் உலோச்சனார். இந்த பாடல் கொஞ்சம் பரிச்சியமானது. அந்த 'நிலவு விரிந்தன்றால்' என்பது எப்போதும் மறக்க முடியாதது.

அதில் இருந்து நிலவுமணலிற்கு சிறிது தூரம்தான். அகநானூற்றில் இதே உலோச்சனார் இன்னொரு பாடலிலும் இது போலவே தலைவனை கடற்கரையில் தேர் ஓட்ட விடுகிறார்.

"கொடிது அறி பெண்டிர் சொல் கொண்டு அன்னை
கடி கொண்டனளே தோழி பெருந்துறை
எல்லையும் இரவும் என்னாது கல்லென
வலவன் ஆய்ந்த வண் பரி 
நிலவு மணல் கொட்கும் ஓர் தேர் உண்டு எனவே." (அகநானூறு 20)

தலைவனும் தலைவியும் காதலில் இருக்கும் நேரம் ஊராரின் அலர் கேட்டு தலைவியின் தாய் தலைவிக்கு தலைவனை காண தடை விதிக்கிறாள். அது கேட்டு தலைவன் தேரில் இரவில் 'நிலவுமணலில்' வருவானே பார்ப்பதற்கு என்ன செய்வது என்கிறாள்.

நிலவு மணல் என்பது நிலவின் வெளிச்சம் பரவிய கடல் மணலா அல்லது நிலவு போன்ற வண்ணம் கொண்ட கடல் மணலா ? எதுவாய் இருக்கும்.

முழு நிலவின் இரவில் கடல் ஒரு மாய உலகமாய் காட்சி தரும். கடல் நீரின் எல்லையற்ற பரப்பில் சிதறும் நிலவின் வெளிச்சம் இரவு முழுதும் பார்க்க வேண்டிய  ஒன்று. அது போன்றே யாருமற்ற முழு நிலவின் இரவில் கடலின் கரையில் அலை வந்து போகும் போது சிதறும் நண்டுகள் மணலில் காட்டும் நிழலின் நடனம் கண்களை ஏமாற்றும். மினுக்கும் அந்த மணலில் நிலவு பல்லாயிரத்துண்டுகளாய் சிதறும். எங்கு நிலவு முடிந்து மணல் தொடங்குகிறது என்பது மயக்கமாகும்.

இரவின் இந்தக் காட்சியை பார்ப்பது மட்டுமன்றி அதை நினைவுறுத்தி எழுத்தில் வடிப்பது என்பது கவியின் திறம் மட்டுமன்று - அழகியலின் நேர்த்தி என்பது இதை கண்டு கடந்து செல்லாது அதை உள்வாங்கி கொள்வதும் ஆகும்.

இந்த பாடல்களை தேடிய போது இன்று வைதேகி ஹெர்பர்டின் வலை பக்கத்தில் இந்த நிலவுமணலின் குறிப்பொன்றை காண நேரிட்டது. சங்கப்பாடல்களில் 12 இடங்களில் இந்த பதம் உபயோகிக்க பட்டிருக்கிறது. அதில் இருந்தே இந்த குறுந்தொகை பாடலை கண்டுகொண்டேன்.

"இருள் திணிந்தன்ன ஈர்ந் தண் கொழு நிழல்
நிலவுக் குவித்தன்ன வெண்மணல் ஒரு சிறைக்
கருங்கோட்டுப் புன்னைப் பூம்பொழில் புலம்ப
இன்னும் வாரார் வரூஉம்
பன் மீன் வேட்டத்து என் ஐயர் திமிலே"

நிலவுக் குவித்தன்ன வெண்மணல் - நிலவை (நிலவின் ஒளி) குவித்து வைத்தது போன்ற வெண்மணல் , ஒளியை எப்படி குவிப்பது - அதுவும் நிலவின் ஒளியை - கடலின் மணல் நிலவின் ஒளியுடன் விளையாடுவது எத்துணை அழகானது.

அழகியலின் பயன் என்பது மனதின் மகிழ்ச்சி.

Scipio

Scipio: A Novel by Ross Leckie
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I often wonder what is it about the Roman Republic that is so attractive that I keep coming back to it. Its probably that this is the first of the many experiments in Republicanism which has left extensive records from the times of its birth till the fall. Probably, the next one that comes close to it is the French republic (Numbers 1 till 4) that comes in the Eighteenth century.

More than anything, it is that the history of the Roman republic repeats itself over the past thousands of years - in the words of Marx "first as tragedy and then as a farce". It is incredible that so much of what has happened 2000 years back keep repeating itself - only with different actors. However, that is for another day.
I picked up "Scipio" in a used book shop. I couldn't resist the fact that the book is about the period when the Republic was at its zenith and that it is the story of that irresistible military genius Scipio Africanus. There is just not enough books about him.

The book is a fictional account of the life of Scipio from about the time Hannibal starts his invasion of Italy till he is beaten decisively by Scipio at the Battle of Zama. However, the book focuses more on Scipio - the man than the famed Scipio Africanus.

The tomb of Scipio's is something I've read about and have always wondered about the family which called itself the 'Staff of Rome' and the role they had in the continuance of the Republic. Scipio Africanus - hailing from that family which has served Rome already for more than 300 years and the most famous of Scipio's - juxtaposes his life with the other most famous general of his age - Hannibal Barca.

The book is part of a trilogy but the book can be read independently without worrying about the backstory. While the book covers a lot of history - from the times of Scipio A's father - it also glosses over a lot of details and misses out on a lot of personal narrative of Scipio.

The book feels incomplete because of this - there is no reference to the marriage of Scipio for example. How can such a thing be completely skipped over is beyond me. In fact, Scipio marries the daughter of Paullus who dies at the Cannae. While the lost battle - Hannibal's biggest victory in Italy - is described in some detail, the aftermath is covered with haste.

That is not what makes the book bad though. It is the fact that it does not do justice to Scipio - either as a history or as a fictional account - is what does it. I kept waiting for something interesting to happen - till the book ended. A lot of war and atrocities happen and explained in detail as well but there is a lack of substance in all that which stops you from caring for anyone in the story - including Scipio.

Cato comes out as a bad villain and has no role to play other than showing up in letters and as some bad guy whose intentions remain unclear till the end. While the history explains it for those interested in it, there is no clarity for those reading it as fiction.

When I started, I was thinking of reading the trilogy in complete but am not sure now. I might still read the first one 'Hannibal' - just because of the fact that he has always fascinated me. However, I am more inclined to read the real history and be done with it.

வெண்ணிற இரவுகளும் வேட்டைக்காரனும்

சென்ற வாரம் மும்பை விமான நிலையத்தில் நேரத்தை கடத்திய போது செக்காவின் ‘வேட்டைக்காரன்’ (The Huntsman) சிறுகதை வாசிக்க தோன்றியது. கடைசியாக எப்பொழுது வாசித்தேன் என்று நினைவில்லை. இணையம் தான் எவ்வளவு உன்னதமானது. 

செக்காவ் இக்கதையை குளியலறையில் எழுதியதாக கேள்விபட்டிருக்கிறேன். அது எவ்வளவு உண்மை என்று தெரியாது. அது கொஞ்சம் மிகையாகவே தெரிகிறது.

'வேட்டைகாரன்' கதை எளிதானது. எளிதான கதைகளே மிக அரிதாக எழுதப்படுகின்றன. இகோர் ஒரு வேட்டைக்காரன். வேட்டைக்கு வந்த இடத்தில அவனது 12 வருட மனைவியை சந்திக்கிறான். 12 வருடத்தில் அவன் சில முறையே அவளை பார்த்திருக்கிறான். பொருந்தாத அந்த மணத்தில் அவனுக்கு நாட்டமில்லை. அவர்களின் சந்திப்பு, அவள் கெஞ்சல்களிலும், அவனது மறுதலிப்புகளுமாக கழிகிறது. அவன் இன்னொரு பெண்ணுடன் இருப்பதை கேட்டுக் கொள்கிறாள். அவன் பிரிந்து செல்கிறான். அவள் அவன் செல்வதை பார்த்துக் கொண்டே இருக்கிறாள்.

தாஸ்தாவ்ஸ்க்கியின் 'வெண்ணிற இரவுகள் (White Nights)' மனதிற்கு பிரியமான கதைகளில் ஒன்று. இதுவும் ஒரு எளிதான கதைதான். கதையின் நாயகன் ஒரு நாள் இரவில் செயின்ட் பீட்டர்ஸ்பேர்க் நகரில் ஒரு பாலத்தில் நஷ்ட்டங்காவை சந்திக்கிறார். அவள் ஒரு வருடம் கழித்து அந்த பாலத்தில் சந்திப்போம் என்று சொன்ன காதலனை காணாமல் அழுது கொண்டிருக்கிறாள். அடுத்த 4 இரவுகள் அவர்கள் இருவரும் அதே பாலத்தில் காத்திருக்கிறார்கள். அவன் அவள் மீது காதல் கொள்கிறான். நான்காவது நாள் இரவில் திரும்பும் போது அவனது காதலை சொல்கிறான். அதே நேரத்தில் அவளது காதலன் வருகிறான். நஷ்ட்டங்கா அவனுடன் சென்று விடுகிறாள்.

இரண்டு கதைகளும் காட்டுவது காதலின் ஒரு குறுக்கு வெட்டு தோற்றத்தை. ஒரு தலை காதலின் துயரம் இரண்டிலும் வெளிப்படுகிறது. 'வேட்டைக்காரணின் மனைவிக்கு அவன் வீட்டிற்கு வருவதால் அவளுக்கு ஊருக்குள் கிடைக்கும் சிறு மரியாதை, அவன் வேறு ஒருவளுடன் இருப்பதை அறிந்து கொள்ள அவள் கேட்கும் கேள்விகள், இறுதியில் அவன் பிரிந்து செல்லும் போது அவன் தொப்பி மறையும் வரை அவள் அவனை பார்த்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறாள்.

சந்திப்புகள் எல்லாம் பிரிவில் தானே முடிகின்றன? அதுவும் ஒருவர் மட்டுமே துயருறும் பிரிவுகள் எவ்வளவு கடினமானவை.

நஷ்ட்டங்காவின் பிரிவும் அவ்வாறே நிகழ்கிறது. அவள் நாயகனை காதலித்தாளா என்பது ஒரு சிறு மர்மமாகவே இருக்கிறது.  அவனோ தொடங்கும் முன்னே தோல்வியுற்ற காதலுடன் தன தனிமையான வாழ்வை தொடருகிறான்.

பெலகயாவோ - இகோரின் மனைவி - காதலற்ற திருமணத்தில் கணவனை காதலிப்பவள். அவனை விட்டு விலகவும் முடியாமல், கிராமத்தில் தனியே வாழ்பவள் என இருக்கும் பெயரின் பின் ஒரு மரியாதைக்காக அவனின் வருகையை எதிர்பார்த்து ஏமாறுகிறாள். 

இரு கதைகளும் காட்டும் காதலின் ஒரு வெட்டு தோற்றம் சோகமானதாக தெரியலாம். ஆனால் வெள்ளை இரவுகளின் இறுதியில் அதன் நாயகன் சொல்வது போல் 'காதல் என்பது ஒரு கணத்தின் மகிழ்வே..ஒரு முழு வாழ்க்கைக்கும் இந்த ஒரு கணம் போதுமா?'