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)