Women and India

In India we have a peculiar perspective of the feminine gender.  On the one hand, we revere them as goddesses and deities and on the other they are one of the most suppressed and marginalised in the society.  In classical Hinduism, there is the hierarchy of gods and while the male gods have their supremacy, it is their wives or consorts who wield a great amount of influence on their better halves.  So much so, these goddesses have their own temples and rites.  Moving away from the structured religion, even among the tribals and other castes, female gods supersede their male counterparts not just in influence but in numbers as well. 

But when it comes to actual living, women find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchical structure.  Worse if they belong to any of the already marginalised communities: tribals, dalits and other religions.  Double suppression.  In spite of having the most number of female gods across any country in the world, India also stands out for the number of rapes that are carried out in the country. 

On the one hand, the mother in the family is the one most loved and considered the backbone of the family, women in general are the least respected in society.  Prior to becoming a mother, a woman right since her birth is merely a burden, or a risk which constantly needs to be supervised, protected and 'preserved'. 

The feminine gender is revered but not respected; and this lacunae needs to be addressed not in the society as a whole but in the family.  No amount of laws and ordinances will change the scenario unless a girl - and a boy - is treated fairly at home by all the members of the family.  

The human voice

A simple reminder of the declining human presence in the world of technology and progress...

Anyone who has traveled in Europe, especially those like me from India, where public transport is anything but quiet, will certainly vibe with the sentiments brought forth in this video. 

The Queen and the Royals

Today on the feast of St George, the patron saint of England, is born the third child of the royal family of William and Kate.  The new born is said to be fifth in line of succession to the throne. 

Prior to my arrival here in the UK, I never thought much of the royal family or the Queen.  Never thought that they'd mean much to anyone.  However, in the time that I've been here, I've noticed how deep a bond the English share with the Royal family.  Honestly it initially appeared a bit old fashioned and odd, that too for a modern and progressive country like England to still hold onto 'kings and queens'. 

In the course of time, I've begun to notice the influence the royal family has on the nation.  Having no real knowledge about the whole story, I still do not know where exactly does the Queen and the royal family fit - but their presence means much.  Gracefully away from politics, the family beautifully serves as a moderating pivot of the English society as a whole.  With the administration and politics left to the bureaucrats and politicians, the Queen and her family represent the English society to the world.  The respect people have for the Royal family, even in today's liberal society, is something amazing.  That respect is not something merely inherited, but certainly gained.  It is something like they have the privilege, but no power (political, I mean); the respect, but no authority;  the affection and the bond, but no legal or administrative duty.  

Inclusive governance

One of the new things I noticed today on the new 10 pound note is that it can braille script on it too.  That's very noble indeed. So anyone, even the ones without sight can easily identify the currency they have or are handed.  The fiver is polymer and small.  The tenner has the script and is polymer. The twenty pound note is still paper and longer than the ten pound polymer.  (Know not of the 50, since I've never seen one). 

That reminds me of an information board at Winchester cathedral.  There is a small garden tucked and almost hidden beside the cathedral, marking the place where once stood the dormitory for the seminarians/monks.  The garden is dedicated to the memory of the dean of the Cathedral and hence named the Dean Garnier Garden. The garden itself was no very spectacular or special (at least in March when I saw it), but what struck me was the information boards therein.  One was in English the other was in Braille.  The first thought that came to my mind was 'what's the point?'  'What would one describe a blind about the garden?' But soon it struck me, 'Why not?'  After all, it was about the historical significance of the place.  So why should a visually challenged person be deprived of knowing that bit of history.  Then I said to myself, even if it was about the beauty of the garden why shouldn't it be in braille!  I really chastised myself for the immediate thought. 

The garden is on the right, through those arches

It is such things as these that make society inclusive, that makes everyone, especially those disadvantaged and those pushed to the margins feel part of, have a sense of belonging.  These braille boards, access routes for wheelchairs on maps, access points at stations, parking lots marked 'disabled', even pavements for easy navigation (even those special slabs marking the slopes), and the other amenities offered for the disadvantaged are truly praiseworthy.  It goes to show the society cares.  That we do not discriminate someone merely for some physical deformity and let things be difficult for them, because it would be "too much" to think of, by "normal" people. 

Poverty and happiness

I watched the hindi movie 'Hindi Medium' today.  Am quite impressed.  A very unlikely situation, but a very realistic one.  Without getting into the debate about the ethics of 'special' schools and education for the 'qualified' - for fear of fast running short of any serious valid arguments - I wish to dwell on the aspect of community support and the role of poverty.

While there are some hyperbolic cinematic liberties in the movie concerning education and living, the one that spot on is that there is greater happiness and joy among the poor than those blessed with material wealth.  While poverty is considered the curse of society, it also offers the most likelihood for happiness.  Living with the minimal brings people together.  It helps one keep one's feet on the ground and one's heart in the right place.  Too much of a comfort brings about distance among people and fosters a sense of suspicion among neighbours.  Most importantly, it is only in dire need that one truly discovers ones true friends and well wishers - something one will never be able to do when one has all one's material needs fully met.

Divergent worlds (really?)

For once, I'm beginning to feel the pressure (in a good way) of living in two divergent worlds.  There is the world of religious life, not just the one I lived in India which is considered a religious place, but the whole ambiance of community life, seminary, Salesian literature and apostolate... The one that I am still living consciously living. The literature that I still subscribe to (though tend to glide past it more often now).  The world of what I know for sure, mostly and feel secure about; am comfortable with.

On the other hand is the world which has nothing to do with the previous world.  It is a world that exists and operates as if the other - my predominant world - does not exist at all.  No charity-mode, no religion, no religious life, not even God.  But it isn't in chaos or bad.  There are values and principles at work - just as in the previous world.  The realisation that this world, unlike earlier experience or perspective, is not 'bad' or something to be avoided.  On the contrary, the 'other' world too is good and has great lessons in values to teach. 

The struggle however is to connect the two.  Innately I feel a great connection but am unable to consciously see or formulate it.  It still appears binary. But am feeling more and more convinced it isn't.  My research certainly has much to do with it.  But there is more that is fueling this dilemma.  Wish I could lay my finger on it.  But then wonder if I'd still feel the thrill of this 'ignorance' (or comfort?).

Trump and the absent other self

Ever since the name Donald Trump started doing the rounds in the elections leading up for the presidency of the United States of America, not a day has gone by with people feeling bad, uncomfortable - if not shocked and 'disgraced'.  Every time he says something, official or unofficial, which is mostly through twitter, the media all over the world goes abuzz with speculation and analysis.

Perhaps the main reason for this sort of distaste for Trump rises from our personal preference of a 'public mask' - a sort of refined self that we put on and expect others to do likewise, when in public and especially if holding some demanding and challenging responsibility.  We feel we need to dress in a particular way, speak in a polite and refined manner, behave courteously, not let anything that upsets others surface even if it means putting on a smile when under our breath we use the most degrading profanity.  Well, Donald Trump does not have such a self!  He is blatantly his one self, even in public.  What he feels he says, he does not polish his language to 'suit' the world taste.  What he is thinks is important is carried out, irrespective of whether other world leaders agree with him or not.  More than his words and actions, it is his care a two hoots about accepted and established norms of the president of the USA that irks most people.  The former is only a bonus!

Hannah and childlessness

In the readings of the day, we see Hannah re-visiting the temple to offer Samson to the Lord.  She meets Eli, and reminds him that it she was the same woman whom he found desperately praying for a child not so long ago.  She thanks him and offers her son for service of the Lord at the temple.

The clock has come a full circle today, when we hear parents not wanting to have children at all or having them aborted. In most early civilizations barrenness was conceived as a sin or a punishment from the gods.  Any woman not having children was often looked down upon and being cursed.  For the woman herself it was a big social stigma.  Times have so drastically changed that women today no longer want to bear children.  Couples who do not want to have children.  Women undergoing abortion merely to ascertain that their body is theirs and they have the right to decide what best to do with it.  Couples deciding to bring home a puppy instead of starting a family with children!  Woman bearing more than three children are seen as 'supermoms'!

Today's prayer: for all aborted children and the women who live with the adverse consequences of abortion.

Love your neighbour

The leader of a church music group practiced his trombone almost daily late into the night and sometimes in the early hours of the morning.  Someone complained this to his parish priest and asked, if such a man could be called a good christian at all.  "It's possible for the musician," replied the priest, "but not so easy for the neighbours!"

The power of words

Prior to Trump's election as the president of the US, it was the tension between the US and Russia.  Now it is the US vs North Korea.  And I still don't know why is it that there is the tension?  Did the US invade any part of North Korea?  Or did the North Koreans attack any part of the US?  The tension seems to spring and get escalated merely on the exchange of words... far more than the experimentation or military drills and tests.

No doubt words of provocation work so efficiently.  Wonder if words of peace and harmony too work with such finesse and effect.  Our sensitivities are so heightened that any small slip of tongue or gesture is enough to thrust us into war.  But the same sensitivities remain callous when it comes to discussing matters concerning the well being of the suffering, poor, marginalised and struggling folks within our circle of daily experience.  Even with enough and evident reasons and arguments for eradicating social evils and suffering, we still don't see the point.  We need Harvey and Irma and Jose to get our attention to more important and deeper issues than frivolous things like war and military exercises.  

'Limited' Cooperation

Came across a weird article trying to explain the process of increasing cooperation and decreasing non-cooperation (leading to destruction), using mathematical language.  Well, know not about the mathematical implications, given the author's acknowledgement that some facts look great on paper but prove an utter failure in practice.  However, the main point of the article does make some sense.  The author seems to suggest that cooperation when reciprocal between like-minded individuals is more influential than cooperation across everyone in the society.

Cooperation flourishes best when each individual has strong, reciprocated connections to a small number of others. In this case, cooperation spreads locally, along these connections, leading to clusters of cooperators who share benefits with each other. In contrast, if all individuals are equally connected to all others, the benefits of cooperation become diluted in the sea of non-cooperators, and the behaviour cannot spread. Thus, for cooperation to thrive, a few strong ties are better than a myriad weak ones.

Read the full article on Aeon.

C standing for cooperation and N for non-cooperation

Reverse colonisation

Many many years ago, it was the Europeans who went across the globe and colonised most of Asia and Africa.  What began as trade soon turned into political gambling, ending up as supreme authority.  India is a typical example of this historical process.  Once the Europeans established themselves in a particular country, they began to 'harvest' its resources for their own betterment back in England.  The foreigners 'white people' thus came to be hated and abhorred for their treatment of the local people, their traditions and ways of life.  After years of struggle the locals managed to drive out the colonisers and regain political autonomy.  Some are still struggling to come to terms with this new found freedom.  Some have never recovered from years of oppression and enslavement.  It has grown so much into their DNA that they cannot think of themselves as independent capable individuals/nations.

Colonialism in 1945

The picture today is more or less the same. Only this time, Europe is at the receiving end.  People from across these very places which once used to be colonies of Europe are flocking to Europe for a better life.  Same reason, the Europeans left their shores.  Only that Europeans left their homeland to 'get more'.  People coming into Europe come with the hope of a life better than the one they have back at home... These 'coloured' people are hated for being in 'my country'.  So were the 'white people' once upon a time.  One rarely saw fair skinned foreigners in the 'dark world'.  Today the 'white world' is no more a homogeneous 'white' population.  More or less the same story, only the setting is different and the roles reversed.  Guess this is what 'getting a taste of one's own medicine' or 'history repeats itself' means.

The ongoing crisis of 'immigration' is nothing short of a reverse colonisation.  The story is no different in the Catholic church with regard to missionaries.

In a pub

Imagine a priest in his cassock going to a bar or a even a restaurant in India...!  Any burglar can loot the whole place because everyone would be staring at the priest!  Not so in Europe.  Pubs are a place of socialising and even priests and religious visit it often, sometimes in their clerical dress.  And everyone is fine, beginning with the priests themselves.

I personally still find it odd.  That's certainly because I have a totally different image of pubs and drinking, even if it is 'just beer'.  So when I read this following trending news article on BBC, I almost fell off my chair laughing: Apology to Cardiff priests...

Critical press

Compared to India, here in the UK, the press enjoys a much more free hand.  The freedom of the press sometimes borders vulgarity, direct insult and even outrageous comedy.  The following are some of the cartoons published in well known and reputed newspapers across the country.  They all take a shot at the none other than the Prime Minister, Theresa May, directly (for her role in the Brexit process).

Honestly I can't imagine such cartoons of our Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appearing in large colour print (and originals sold in auction!) in our daily papers.  Not only the cartoons, most likely the paper itself may never appear again!  Even if it did, it would be under a different editor or set of journalists. Even if none of this happens, the offices of the newspapers are sure to be vandalized and the offenders never caught.

That people have a right to know, is perhaps the most underlying principle journalists and editors here in the UK go by.  While some newspapers are full of gossip, there are papers worth their ink and even these do not spare some fun and chastisement of those in power.  However, I guess they also ought to be careful of the veracity of what they print, lest they be sued and end up paying through their nose.  Not only the public views and policies of these politicians but even their private lives are not spared from appearing on front pages.  Such high levels of scrutiny by the press of each and every word uttered by the political leaders, ensures that there is a wide range of views expressed and issues discussed in public domain.  

Fearing imagination

No sooner did I complete reading the first reading of the Mass then it did strike me that the situation therein was not very different from the present situation of the West.  The reading from the book of Exodus, speaks of the fear among the Egyptians of the growing number of Israelites.  

The situation today of the West too is similar.  In the context of the immigrants and migrants, there is a sense of 'fear' among the residents that they would be overrun by these 'outsiders' sooner or later.  Hence the animosity, anger, protests, ill-treatment... The strange but true fact of human nature - then and now - is that when I fear, I start oppressing the other.  Rather than tackle the fear within me, I begin to make others frightened of me!  

The gospel offered very mixed and strange response to this dilemma: those of the household shall become enemies;  whoever loves life will lose it...; whoever receives you, receives me...; whoever gives a cup of cold water to these little ones....  Interestingly it does not mention of fear.  

I guess there is a logic in the statement that fear clouds clear thinking. 

Cultural roots

During my lengthy and exciting discussion with Vlastik today, it struck me that the whole hierarchical style of functioning in the Salesian world, as experienced and lived in India is not primarily of the Salesian heritage.  It is actually more of the Indian culture than the Salesian tradition.  That the Italian Salesian tradition which we inherited also happens to be a hierarchically based is an added reason, not the primary reason.

This fact dawned on me when I realised Vlastik's predicament as to how come Salesian religious life in some parts of the world is hierarchical.  However elaborately I explained to him, he found it baffling. Then it struck me that his European culture and upbringing has a different set of prioritized values wherein even children are consulted in families.  Naturally in a Salesian house, even the youngest confrere is respected and treated with the same privileges as a senior confrere.  He is not treated differently, as we do back in India.  Here in the UK, a temporarily professed has the same privileges as the one celebrating the diamond jubilee of his profession.

Back in India, our culture considers the father as the head of the family.  He makes all the prominent decisions.  The mother is at times consulted.  Children are rarely even informed.  Moving from such a a general ambiance into the seminary life with its superior-student dichotomy is not very difficult, unless one had a different upbringing or is a late vocation who has moved out of his parents shadow and learnt to make his own decisions for his life.  In this continued ambiance, no one has any 'problem': the rector and staff take decisions and the students follow.  Ask the students to get involved in the decision making and they're baffled or at a loss!  Because all along they've been told 'virtue lies in obedience'.  The rector is happy to make the decisions and the students is happy to follow!

From this perspective, I see the great difficulty of what Fr TD is trying to bring in, in our Salesian system: participation.  What he is fighting is not rooted merely in the Salesian religious tradition, but in our general cultural heritage.

Found this in an interesting article I happened to come across on the net... read here.

Rorty, sentiments and human rights

Richard Rorty, speaking of human rights, believed that reason was not an effective means of communication in a human rights discourse. Anti-foundationalist that he was he did not believe in human rights being founded on some moral or eternal principle, which everyone ought to recognize and admit.  He rather preferred to speak of a 'human rights culture' something that we socially have agreed to.  And the best means of building this culture? Through sentimental education, not rational argumentation.

I see a very valid point in what Rorty is trying to build.  The sentimental appeal is much stronger than any rational argument. We are affected more by our sentiments than our logic and rationale. The idea is to make people see that others are not "like us", but "us".  However, there seems to be a sort of drawback lurking just round the corner in this argument.  Am not really able to pinpoint it, but I can feel it.

• Is it that convincing someone of human rights using emotions is more of a blackmail than a real conviction? 
• Would I be using the suffering of others as a 'lesson' plan? If no suffering or pain with which I can appeal to the sentiment of others, do I not have a valid means of conveying the worth of human rights? 
• Seems more like claim-rights... only when 'we' agree to something.  What if 'we' agree to what is convenient for us?  Slavery and dowry was very convenient once upon a time.  Even to those who were burdened by it, because it was a 'socially accepted norm'. 
• What of those who 'understand' the language of reason?  Learned men and women who know what is being said and discussed?  
• Can international and national policies ride on the strength of emotions and feelings? 

My stand?

Palm Sunday

Of the large group of people that welcome Jesus into Jerusalem for the feast there would certainly be present also for the scene where Pilate offers the choice: Jesus or Barabbas.  And perhaps some of the same people who acclaim Jesus as the king, later bay for His blood.

A mob is fickle-minded. It does not have a stand of its own.  It is swayed by a few who wield the power of attraction. Most often a society is nothing but a mob, with most people either being bystanders or sitting on the fence.

Where do I stand? Among the few who manipulate the crowd for my own selfish plans? Or the few who inspire and lead others in the right direction? Or am I one among the spine-less persons with no standing of my own, willing to be swept off my feet by the first attractive idea I hear?

Fruit or vegetable?

Yesterday we had an interesting lecture about the validity of 'truth-statements'.  The discussion was about which norm to follow.  Since we were speaking of pragmatists the notion of supra-material or metaphysical was out.  But even in normal affairs there was this dilemma of science or social?  The example that Huw Price quotes in his book Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism (ch. 2) is that of tomato.  Now scientifically it is a fruit, but in ordinary usage it is used as a vegetable.  So the question, how do we treat it?  Go by science or by social usage?

What if someone sent me a gift: a basket of fruits ... tomatoes? Would I be wrong in feeling odd? Or is the person who sent me in the wrong?  What if I ask someone to get me some fruit to eat, and he gets me aubergines (English term for 'brinjal')? Would he be wrong? Would I be wrong in thinking he's gone nuts?

Or should we treat both, the scientific and the social understanding to be right? That'd mean that a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable?  

Rules and norms

Rules are valid only in a society which accepts rules and in which the situation is such that rules are applicable. Where rules don't apply, rules don't have power. When the situation is anything but normal, no rules apply.

To create tranquility, security, and order and thereby establish the normal situation is the prerequisite for legal norms to be valid. Every norm presupposes a normal situation, and no norm can be valid in an entirely abnormal situation (Schmitt 1966, p. 46).

However crazy it may seem, but the inverse of it is also valid.  That rules, standards and strict policies are needed to bring an unruly situation under control and establish normalcy.  To create a peaceful society, one needs rules!