It is the "reel" that impacts the "real".

Does art imitate life? Or the other way around? Or do they reinforce each other as in resonance?

This has been a much-discussed topic. I say: it is the "reel" that impacts the "real".

This is because: the visual medium is very strong. We may read something or hear something. But when the same disgusting, regressive and negative aspects are projected on the big and small screens relentlessly and then glorified (however subtly) - it makes a huge impact. When such things become a trend, they become the harbingers of... and bring about (negative and regressive) cultural changes: changes in perception, thinking and behaviour; which in turn results in the glorification of machismo and a forcibly advocated subdued position of women. [Though our big-and-small-screen-worthies have been happily propagating such negative stuff under the garb of 'our ancient culture and tradition'.]

Glorification of violent and regressive behaviour on the big screen, especially by big heroes (who act as the reference point or idols for a large chunk of the population) - gives it social acceptance. This is indisputable.

Remember: It has always been far easier to bring about negative change than positive ones... since the former creates formidable vested interests. 

Therefore, when filmmakers quip that films have also been talking about peace, amity and communal harmony... but that doesn't mean that communal discord has been wiped off India - they are simply trying to skirt and/or deflect the issue, by deftly defending the role played by the big screen - in bringing things to such a pass. 

'Coz: It is much easier to think and behave in a negative or regressive manner with the female of the species than to bring about peace in society. And it is much easier to resort to crude language and lewd gestures, or to indulge in domestic violence et al than to bring about communal harmony. [However, if the regressive, misogynist and negative values (as propounded by the big and small screens) were to be curbed, or at least were to be largely curtailed, it will undoubtedly contribute towards peace in society and in our lives - but this will take years rather generations to happen, provided there is an all-round sustained effort in that direction. Changing negative mindset/perception is not easy. There is no switch that can be turned-off.]

One must also examine the films depicting peace, amity and communal harmony, viz: 

1.   How many such films are there? And how many of them depict these noble virtues in a pristine manner? 

2.  What percentage of each of these films are dedicated to these noble aspects, and what chunk of the same films are occupied by "other narrative", including jingoistic and violent behaviour; regressive values, gestures and dialogues - especially with respect to women; misogynist jokes; crude demeanor of the hero (the male lead/star/super-star/mega-star); depiction of women as objects of titillation - including raunchy 'item numbers' and 'songs' with crude and suggestive lyrics... and the like.]

Trust me, once we take a closer look at our films, including the ones supposedly propagating noble virtues, doodh ka doodh aur paani ka paani ho jayega. :)

[The role of the small-screen too should not be ignored. Their reach and impact is equally powerful - and has been utilized to the hilt.]

Granted, that one or two films will not make much of a difference. However, if such regressive films depicting women in a derogatory manner become a trend, they bring about a (negative) change in perception and alter mindset - without much ado.

For example: If big heroes are shown slapping or demeaning women, such behaviour gets the seal of social acceptance. If dialogues like, 'only a husband has the right to beat his wife' gets woven into the narrative, and is then mouthed by big heroes, they make a powerful impact - albeit a negative one. Ditto - if big heroes/stars glorify machismo as something that is naturally ordained, and propagate the subjugation of women as part of 'our ancient culture and tradition'.

Once these toxic aspects are injected into society, they result in negative mindset and negative perception. These in turn bring about regressive cultural changes that also include violent behaviour towards women. Rolling back such poisonous aspects is a Herculean task; it will take hundreds of years + sustained efforts throughout. Are we up for it?

The big and small screens have a huge impact on the society and on our lives - whether we acknowledge this or not. They are the major vehicles or channels for creating mindset and perceptions; and have been used to the hilt.

The last four decades have been particularly nasty, and has had a very negative impact on society; despite huge hits having been delivered, mass heroes garlanded, and umpteen jubilees celebrated. Prior to that, negativities have been injected in small doses (possibly as a "warm up" exercise). E.g. a harmless looking old man (usually playing the role of a respectable family elder or a learned school master) sagely blames women - for all disputes or unhappiness within a family and/or society. Or stresses on how 'in their times' women did this or that - and thereby 'upheld our ancient customs and traditions'. There were references to the 'western clothes' (jeans, trousers) worn by loose/immoral women - the ones that did not 'uphold our ancient customs and traditions' - by wearing those 'western clothes'. However, nothing has ever been said about the jeans and trousers worn by the men-folk on screen and all over the country. Umm, were/are these not 'western clothes' then? :)

The tone and tenor of the dialogues, the slant of the scripts, the demeanour of the heroes et al has been very different in the last four decades. Contrast this to say Shammi Kapoor in his heydays. You notice the difference, don't you?

Also: if we are to rewind a few years (rather: decades) and trace the etymology of the obnoxious behaviour displayed by a certain section of society (like ricksha-wallas, bus drivers, mechanics et al) - towards women and their other passengers, we can trace them all to the impact of the big screen. More specifically, to the on-screen shenanigans of much-garlanded "mass heroes" and their glorification of such behaviour (via their on-screen demeanor and crude dialogues.)

This section of society (ricksha-wallas, bus drivers, mechanics, and the like) take pride in watching "first-day first-show", love to display posters and stickers of their favourite heroes, and try to imitate their matinee idols' on-screen style and behaviour. Sadly, this trend has not only endured but continues to this day via regional films and serials. [Yes, the small screen does play its part. Diligently.]

Women coming out of homes will not make much of a difference; so long there is no negative and/or disgusting perception(s) about them.

Misogynist jokes and dialogues, "item numbers", regressive advertisements et al are just part of this whole game of creating negative mindsets. Do scrutinize the regressive dialogues, crude and misogynist jokes and clichés; so-called comedy and laughter shows (once again filled with clichés + misogynist jokes), and the negative body language of big heroes and comedy show participants. The message sent out is relentless, besides being extremely potent.

And all of these - things/aspects/behaviour - catch on very fast and very easily. Undoing them is a Herculean task though.

Incidentally: many people try to point towards the restrictive societies and then innocently ask (in an effort to absolve the big screen no doubt) - as to how come rape and violence against women are rampant within restrictive societies as well.

The answer is: these restrictive societies (where rape and violence against women is rampant) have always been not only restrictive, but violent too. These societies have essentially been savage societies; though members of these societies may have now gained greater influence through certain means, their ancestors have always been barbaric people that mistreated their women, buried them alive, coveted other people's spouses and forcibly took them away. These societies have always treated women as dirt; as nothing more than child-bearing machines. So the cultural influence has always been there, and hence, such regressive perception and disgusting behaviour vis-à-vis women is de rigueur.

As for 'item numbers' (including suggestive body language and gyrations), the heroine or the female swaying to such 'songs' is of course partly responsible - for their impact. However, the ones that insist on incorporating such repulsive stuff should shoulder the lion's share of the responsibility; the onus lies on them, since they are the ones that supply the Vitamin M.

Plus: 'item girls' - unless they are big names/heroines, are NOT role models. Neither are the villains.

Hence: the major impact-makers are the big heroes; the big male leads/stars/super-stars/mega-stars/the matinee-idols/the screen gods. 'Coz, they are the role models/idols for a large chunk of the population and so, their on-screen shenanigans (dubbed and celebrated as herogiri) are the reference points - for their legions of worshiping fans.

Regressive aspects, negative values and violence - once glamorized by these big heroes/stars - automatically give all of it the cloak of respectability... and thence, instant social acceptance.

However, the focus should also be on the ones supplying the Vitamin M, besides on the ones penning such sad dialogues and lyrics, as well as on the ones directing such drivel.

"Patriarchy" per se is not to be blamed, since it does not have a life of its own. It is the caliber and quality of men that has fallen sharply.

Relationships and intimacy has been so degraded that retrieving it is practically impossible. What kind of words and phrases has become part of our psyche and our vocabulary? How do we think and/or view certain events, or rather have become accustomed to thinking and viewing them?

Rape and violence has been injected in such a manner, and in such large doses, that we have been completely de-sensitized. We do not even blink: when daughters and sisters are raped by their fathers/uncles/brothers! Strangely: either the 'debate' is firmly steered towards the "victims' clothing" or is centred on the "victim having ventured out at night"... and hence having "asked for it"...! Always.

Surely, a sister or a daughter never "asks for it" from her father, uncle or brother, right?

And a baby, a toddler, a little girl or the elderly too does not "ask for it" - from anyone. Is it not?

Rape is a heinous crime. Yet the perception has been successfully created that it is the victim that is somehow to be blamed. So: the rapists' faces are covered to 'protect their identity' while the victim is ostracized. Else: a debate is initiated about the feasibility of punishment or the rapist being a "juvenile". Someone capable of committing such a horrendous crime is a "juvenile", how odd is that?

We come across lots of instances of guys fighting over girls in colleges and localities. And this violent behaviour and regressive mentality (of viewing girls as objects) can be traced to the deluge of movies that have gloried violence and such negative behaviour.

It is not about venturing out at night, since these incidents are happening at all times - 24/7. It is not about clothes either: since babies, toddlers, little girls and senior citizens are being regularly molested and raped, even by their close relatives.

It is not about alcohol too, since no drunken man has ever lain in the middle of the road. So they clearly retain their senses and faculties sufficiently enough, don't you think?

It is not about subjugation of women or women's empowerment per se.

It is about what is being done under this garb. If a woman sheds clothes, mouths strange dialogues, does suggestive dance numbers, or 'acts' in nothing-left-to-the-imagination bedroom scenes - all of it is hailed and labeled as "liberated", "bold", "daring", "glamorous", "empowered" and so on. 

So you see?

It is a double-edged sword; the impact - both ways - is detrimental for women in general... and society - in particular. [In light of what has been done to words/phrases/perceptions/gestures like: "bold", "daring", "liberated", and the like... families will not even think of providing the necessary wherewithal to their daughters - so that they can become truly "empowered" or "liberated". And what do you think all this will eventually lead to?]

Recently, there were a couple of ads: one was about 'whitening' a certain area of the body - to make one look much more 'attractive' to the male of the species; another was about 'feeling like a virgin' - after undergoing a certain procedure. Women were being used to depict these strange concepts, and both these ads worked under the garb of "women's empowerment"...!

So?

A fairly recent mega-buck-grossing 'super-hit' has the pumped-up hero mouthing: "pyaar se de rahe hain rakh lo, warna thappad maar ke bhi de sakte hain."

Implying: the woman should be grateful, since the man is giving something nicely/politely, 'coz he always has the right to slap - the "thappad". [The concerned female is shown blushing and thereafter a love affair ensues...!]

What values are being conveyed and what mindset nourished? And where is all this leading?

Here's a heroine-speak: "If a particular song-dance sequence shows a woman being stalked and wooed by a bunch of men in a playful and romantic manner and she is enjoying the attention that she is getting then it in no way sends out a wrong signal."

Need I say more?

BTW: these days we also have someone claiming to have "revered women" since his childhood - via interviews in various newspapers. Bhatt naturally...!!

And a certain super-duper-mega-star became a much fawned-over "matinee idol" through a specific brand of cinema. What kind of cinema do you think this man with the carefully cultivated gentleman image has been a willing part of? And what impact did those films have on society? I mean: what has been the lasting legacy of all those fiery dialogues and gestures?

Picture: Courtesy link.

The 'Rethdootam': An Ode to Jam Rethmalani and ilk.

There is a popular joke that goes like this:

Question: Kalidas ka ek bhai joote banata tha. Uska naam kya tha?

Answer: Adidas.

Kalidas (Kālidāsa), as we know is considered to be one of the greatest Sanskrit poets. He penned the 'Meghdoot' (Meghadūta) or the 'Meghdootam'. 

[Meghdoot means: the Cloud Messenger; Megh = Cloud, Doot = Messenger.]

However, off late his seminal work is facing a tent-tative challenge from an even bigger seminarian work: the 'Rethdootam'.

[Rethdootam or Rethdoot means: the Sand Messenger. Reth = Sand, Doot = Messenger.]

Therefore: Move over Kalidas, this 'doot' of sundry desert-sand-and-desert-winds (and their backers and chela-s) rule the airwaves and the reams of print.

To the hapless rainforest: My sincerest apologies.

One may ask: Has Jam Rethmalani been ingesting too much hing lately... or is it some sandy desert wind whispering in his ears?

Umm, here's the answer:

Rethmalani - the greatest liar-liar - that defends a-b-c-D-e-f-g-h, is now trying to show his loyalty towards Swami Vivekananda... while blithely trashing Shri Ram!!

What next:

Guess we now have to brace for wheelchair activist, Ms. De-lite, namesake of river (working under the garb of innocent NGO), certain ace journalists (the usual suspects), curly-haired-activist-cum-award-winning-author et al - to join in, in this 'script-reading' session, soon.

Instead of naming missiles after Afghan heroes, certain entities (of a certain nation of course) should start naming them after these above-mentioned characters, to commemorate their services rendered. Moon-bucks rule! :)

With such wheelchair-revolutionaries, prolific authors, crusading activists, well-meaning journalists and Rethmalani-type 'doot' - of sundry desert winds, India does not need 'friends', what? :)

Wonder who has launched these hot-air missiles now, and what is the agenda?

... And to think that we only consider the dragon to be our enemy. Ha!

Not that there is no such thing as dragon-bucks. 'Coz without that, it would be tough for certain authors and charitable folks to maintain their hemoglobin levels. And as you know: health is wealth.

Umm, given that we are a 'free' nation with no sign of moon-bucks-nourished media, showbiz, sundry 'doots', it is a small wonder that our ancient texts and heroes/heroines have been twisted and are shown in such a sad light. Their glorious legacies and all that they have done have been washed away under a tidal wave of 'books' penned by phoren authors and (constant) blistering sandy blizzards. It is also no wonder that they are (not only) ceaselessly demeaned, but have been turned into protagonist/lead characters of lewd jokes, strange epithets, et al. All nicely camouflaged in the garb of 'entertainment'! Scholarly 'doots' chip in too, their valuable contributions cannot and should not be ignored. :)

No smoke without fire? 

Well, Rethmalani and ilk are those dhuandhar batsmen.

Jam Rethmalani is our version of Comrade Bariq Ali, 'HMV'.

Parting shot: Jammy, jinke ghar lies-damn-lies-aur-statistics ke hon, woh dusron per damn-lies nahin phenka karte...

Note: Any resemblance to tics and locusts (in human-form) - is purely coincidentally coincidental.

Picture: Courtesy: link.

Notes on 'Mainland India' and the "unknown" part called 'the North East'.

Authors Note: You may read: Notes on 'Chinky' and this thing called 'racism' (Part-I) - HERE and Part-II: HERE.

In this post, I intend to address a few of the media-created-and-sundry-activists-and-talking-heads-fueled perceptions, since going by their longevity, these are very 'popular' indeed. Here are a few that regularly do the media rounds:

1.   Indians, the new terminology being: 'mainland India' - are unaware of the seven states that make up the "remote" North East (i.e. the North-Eastern parts of the country);

2.  'Mainland India' is hostile or is prejudiced towards 'North East people' (i.e. towards Indians hailing from the North-Eastern parts of the country);

3. Sportspersons hailing from the North-East (NE) are neglected.

4.   'Mainland India' thinks NE women are promiscuous.

5.   Why people from the "unknown" part called the North East feel out of place in 'mainland India'?

Frankly, all of these are incorrect perceptions; but before I begin my latest post in right earnest (and interspersed with wistful nostalgia), let's have a sneak peek at the perception-creators.

They are: failed filmmakers, sleazy-film makers, living-life-king-size journalists, frothing-at-the-mouth anchors, non-authors that are responsible for the deluge of drek in our bookstores, bad book writers that are somehow awarded top international prizes, habitual opinion dispensers, couch experts, apart from sundry other hired voice-boxes, rented pen-pushers and keyboard bashers.

All of the above are hungry for publicity, 'coz that is their route to survival - via remaining in the public eye. Perhaps we can also infer that their relationship with the media is rather symbiotic.

As for the media (read: television) the less said the better. We have undoubtedly come a very long way from those good ol' pre-liberalization days, when news was just news and not audio-visual bombardment.

In the glory days of DD (Doordarshan), everything was in moderation. News meant: no breaking news, no tickers, no cantankerous cacophony ... and no high BP. What we received instead was polished anchors: dignified, elegant and well-turned-out, and they brought to us uncluttered news, in simple English, which made sense even to those who were not very familiar with the language.

Think: Sunit Tandon, Geetanjali Iyer, Rini Simon nee Khanna, Usha Albuquerque, Sukanya Balakrishnan, Sangeeta Bedi, Komal G.B. Singh, Kaveri Mukherji, Neethi Ravindran, Tejeshwar Singh, Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, Shivendra Kundra, Nalin Kohli, et al and their clear diction and delivery?! Awesome, right?

[Here is a slice of nostalgia: LINK.

And here is DD's telecast of the first Indian cosmonaut, Rakesh Sharma's message from space: LINK.]

Known as newsreaders, news presenters or news anchors then, they were all casual staffers, selected primarily for fluency of language and correct diction, but there was emphasis on general knowledge too. They came as news presenters. Those who could cope with change evolved into news anchors. However, all of them were multifaceted personalities involved in theatre, PR, Education or Event Management and the like. What set them apart from the current lot is that, they were NOT a pack of bloodthirsty newshounds; churning out 'news' was not their full-time job. Needless to say, their silvery voices with clear diction left the listeners impressed, so much so that without much media attention or ado, they gained an enduring fan following; their voices are not likely to fade from public memory that easily.

We miss the heydays of DD and the difference between how the news was cast then and now is drastic.

Think Prannoy Roy (of the late 80's) and his widely viewed 'The World This Week' on DD. It was the best news program of all; with its stunning title jingles to the way they presented world stories. Even the international advertisements were refreshing: Cathay Pacific, MasterCard, JCT Fabrics and Gillette. Remember Appan Menon reporting from Golan Heights? There was a time when 'The World This Week' was the only India-based program that looked out at the rest of the world. It propelled Prannoy Roy and NDTV into super-stardom!

Now compare it with Roy's current avatar. You get the drift, don't you?

This is what Sunit Tandon (presently the director-general of IIMC, the Indian Institute of Mass Communication) has to say; "I still prefer my news delivered in an authoritative and calm way, but then, who am I to decide? It seems the majority like sensation. It used to disturb me earlier but a lot less now. The current bunch is very talented. And there is no standard accent, which is acceptable. Even BBC, which used to have a standardized accent, has all kinds of accents these days. Things have changed, and it's all for the better," he smiles.

Tandon is lost in the theatrical shouty sea of Arnabs, Rajdeeps, Sagarikas, Suhasinis and Barkhas. The much-vaunted 'liberalization' has not been kind to the icons of the Doordarshan era. Sadly. [Perhaps the liberalization genie was let loose without proper checks and balances. What do you think?]

Usha Albuquerque (now a Consultant and one of India's best known Career Counsellor) says DD was an excellent launch pad. "We didn't have visuals for every news item, so articulation and diction were very important." Nonetheless, with no competition, DD had all the TRPs to itself.

"Today, with so many channels vying for the same audience, it's not surprising that they have to depend on sensationalizing and blowing things out of proportion," says Albuquerque. "Competition has brought plenty of unsavoury aspects into journalism - unwanted intrusions, judgmental reporting, news anchors who behave like moralists, and news that is also politically motivated."

Albuquerque believes DD had a lot to offer. "We never coloured the news."

"Today, news anchors have to operate in an extremely competitive scenario," says Tandon. "The emphasis of channel owners is on grabbing eyeballs at any cost. There is less emphasis on voice and language skills, balance and journalistic accuracy."

[Do listen to Mr. Tandon's thoughts: LINK.]

News these days is big business, and so, it's a small wonder that it has been turned into a 24/7 monster with a huge appetite; so much so that news has to be actually manufactured and then dispensed at the top of one's voice with all sorts of sound effects, racy visuals, astonishing headlines, jumping anchors and all.

In the game of TRP, Vitamin M is the Emperor. And in order to attract loads and loads of the latter, the humble news has to be jazzed up with spicy content, the spicier the better.

Therefore, uncluttered news, in simple English, which made sense even to those who were not very familiar with the language, was passé. Sadly, for the last decade or so, even DD replaced "bland" news, which has been its signature style for years, with a more "viewer-friendly" format (apparently designed to win back at least some of the viewership, which it lost to others.) To cut to the chase, DD decided to imitate the more 'successful' private channels: a case of "join-'em-if-you- can't-beat-'em" syndrome.

Just who provides all this Vitamin M, meaning: whether it is star-bucks, moon-bucks, dragon-bucks or some other bucks, is not yet known. But given the trends - it's not difficult to decipher, no? [Aside: It's not just Japan or Vietnam that has been hit by 'Radia-tion', if you know what I mean :)]

Not unsurprisingly, the print media too takes a cue (from it's colourful and snazzier audio-visual counterpart) and follows suit, just like the sunflower follows every movement of the sun.

Result: Not only are path-breaking new terminologies like, 'mainland India' coined, but 'intellectually stimulating' debates on 'interesting' topics like:

1. Whether 'Mainland India' is unaware of the "remote" part called the North-East?

2. Whether 'Mainland India' is hostile or prejudiced towards the 'North-East people'?

3. Whether sportspersons hailing from the North-East (NE) are neglected?

... Et al are first conjured up, and then debated full throttle, with an 'appropriate' cast of 'experts' and sundry other professional opinion-dispensers!! [What type, I have already mentioned at the beginning of this post.]

Frankly, all of these sounds like (to my mind at least) repackaged tactics employed by the erstwhile 'East India Company' - that besides discovering new definitions, possibilities and opportunities offered by something as innocuous as trade, also found time to take the principle of 'divide and rule' to hitherto unheard-of heights. [Note: Please do read this paragraph slowly ... and then ponder over it.]

Some sane folks have been saying that the people running the show should be aware of their social responsibilities; that they can be catalysts for positive change, and if that is not happening, something is clearly missing, etc, etc. But then being aware of one's social responsibilities would automatically mean no Vitamin M chappar phaad ke (or at least a drastic fall in it's inflow) and that would in turn result in 'downsizing' (also known as 'rightsizing'.) You get it, don't you?

As for point # 2, i.e. whether 'mainland India' is hostile or prejudiced towards the 'North-East people' ... frankly, this one reminds me of the scene in 'Chak De! India' where the caretaker of the stadium (Sukhlal) asks one of the NE girls, Mary Ralte (Kimi Laldawla) from Mizoram - which country she belongs to. She mentions her state and then turning towards another fellow player, Molly Zimik (Masochon "Chon Chon" Zimik) from Manipur, says - "imagine being treated as a foreigner in your own country?!" - or words to that effect. And then they both ask Sukhlal, how he would feel if he were to be treated as a guest in his own country.

But before anyone amongst you decides to jump into clichéd conclusions or puts on the smug I-told-you-so expression, please remember that in the same film, the girl from Andhra Pradesh, Nethra Reddy, tells Sukhlal that the difference between Telugus and Tamilians is the same as that between Punjabis and Biharis - when he insists on calling her a "Madrasi".

[Note: How North Indians view South Indians? - the assumption that everyone hailing from the south of the Vindya Ranges are "Madrasis". And how South Indians view North Indians? - the assumption that everyone hailing from the north of the Vindya Ranges are ... well, what else but "North Indians"!!]

Umm, in my humble opinion, these (Chak De! India) scenes, rather dialogues very aptly capture or sum us up. By 'us' I mean, 'WE - Indians'. In short: These scenes/dialogues are succinct about the way we think, perceive and treat our motherland, per se.

Why this has happened? Unfortunately, it is a fast culture that is prevalent today (post liberalization, that is.) And though people (including students) have greater access to information through print and electronic media, besides the Internet of course, they prefer to remain content with shallow, incomplete knowledge and information - so long as they are able to find suitable jobs. They do not want to penetrate the depths of subjects, nor are they keen to gather information - for the sake of knowledge. That IS perceived as 'a waste of time'. Yes, you read it right, 'a waste of time'.

Students these days are more focused on their specific subjects, but specialization has made their visions narrow. They are more concerned about collecting information related to their profession/careers etc. Modern day education system has been geared to finding jobs. THE be-all and end-all of education IS to get hold of a good job or career. As for the parents, they are too busy pushing their wards toward professional courses that would (according to them) result in a fat pay packet: i.e. towards medicine, software engineering, management and the like.

Where all this will eventually lead? Well, none have the time to ponder that over. [Since, you see the mall-culture too is an impediment to clear thinking!]

As for sports ... what's that? With apartments and shopping malls coming up on whatever parks and playgrounds we have left, Xbox and video games - have taken the place of outdoor games. Only the thumbs are exercised ... and that's enough. In future, we are all set to scoop up all the gold medals that are available or can be manufactured - in thumb wrestling!!!

Moral of the story: Given our job-induced culture, we do not give any importance to sports, or even to learning about our own country, heritage and history. [Do read my earlier post: 'Our Culture, History and Heritage - Some Thoughts': HERE.]

But since TRP reigns supreme and we are champions in the fine art of kabaddi - the art and science of 'leg-pulling', we have done and are doing what we know and do best. This 'leg-pulling' bit is not playfully ... but more like: bringing someone or something down. As in, bringing down anything that should have been carefully nurtured, fortified and if not, then at least should have been left untouched; like merit, like talent, like excellence, like peace, like harmony, like ... a nation.

Parting shot: Perhaps one is born to be part of the proverbial rat race only; nothing else matters. Perhaps owning tons of Vitamin M, several swanky residences, fancy hot wheels, exotic vacations and being kitted out in Haute couture, patent leather shoes and snazzy wrist-and-eye-wears are far more important than one's motherland. Perhaps copying or parroting some script is the ticket to lucrative book deals. Perhaps playing politics and creating artificial rifts and issues - is THE right thing to do. Perhaps becoming puppets and dancing to the tunes of some or the other neo-East India Company is far more desirable than unprofitable and intangible things like, one's motherland. Who can say?

PS: The 4^th point (i.e. whether 'Mainland India' thinks NE women are promiscuous) - I will discuss later. In the next post, lets talk about how things were a couple of decade or so ago. Do stay tuned.

Photograph: Indian Women's Hockey Team after winning the 2002 Commonwealth Games Hockey Final. Pic. courtesy: Link.

Notes on 'Chinky' and this thing called 'racism' (Part-II)

Author's Note: As promised, I am back with the 2^nd part of this series. In this post, I will attempt to discuss the etymology of the word 'Chinky'.

You may read the 1^st part: HERE. 

Chinky - this word as you may know has become well entrenched and keeps cropping up everywhere: media, talk shows, blogs, newspapers, magazines, interviews and what have you. Talking heads go blue in the face trying to emphasize how racist Indians are ... since 'they refer to people from the North-Eastern parts of the country as Chinky'.

But for whatever reason, none have so far tried to understand the etymology of this word or even made an attempt to. So lets do it! [Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.]

'Chink' (also: chinki, chinky, chinkie) is an English ethnic slur referring mainly to a person of Chinese ethnicity but sometimes generalized to refer to any person of East Asian descent. The use of the term is broadly considered offensive and has been compared in degree of offensiveness to terms such as 'nigger' and 'kike'.

However, the word 'Chinky' has its origins in the Indian reference to Chinese people.

Since the times of the Mauryan Empire (i.e. over two millennium ago) - there was continual contact between ancient India and ancient China. As for what the maps of ancient India and ancient China looked like, lets put that aside for a while.

In the North Indian languages (and even in Bengali), China is referred to as 'Cheen'.

And her people with the suffix 'ke-log', therefore 'cheen-ke-log' literally translates as 'people of/from China'.

Chronologically this word (cheen-ke-log) was popularly shortened to 'cheen-ke'. [Just like say, thank you has been shortened to thanks.]

'Cheen-ke' meant: anything of/from China (usually but not limited to people).

However, with the subsequent English colonization of India, one can speculate that: the (Indian) word 'cheen-ke' came to be adopted by the Englishmen, who then proceeded to develop their own connotations for it. [What those connotations were I leave you to speculate in solitude - in light of words like: Nigger, Kike, Black, Brown, White, Yellow, Coolie, and the like.]

The word, Chink's first usage is recorded from about 1890 but 'Chinky' had first appeared in print, as far as can be ascertained, in 1878. Chinky is still used in Britain as a nickname for Chinese food.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Chinese immigration was perceived as a threat to the living standards of whites in North America and other similar nations. The Chinese were seen as invasive, and this mounting xenophobia culminated in Yellow Peril hysteria. In the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, banning Chinese immigration, within a few years after the first recorded use of Chink. The dehumanizing use of the word is argued by one author to be a racist justifier for the passage of the Exclusion Act. [However, a persistent labor shortage on the west coast meant that Chinese workers were still needed there; and apparently Alaskan fish canneries were so short of workers, that appeals were submitted to the US Congress to amend the Exclusion Act - but sadly nothing was done to quell the destructive xenophobic psychology.]

When Edmund A. Smith patented his mechanized fish-butchering machine in 1905, he named it the Iron Chink; some saw this as symbolic of the anti-Chinese racism during the era. Usage of the word (Chink) continued, such as with the story "The Chink and the Child" by Thomas Burke, later adapted to film by D.W. Griffith.

Although Chink originally referred only to those appearing to be of Chinese descent, the meaning expanded sometime in the 1940s to include other people of East Asian descent. During the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the word was frequently used to refer to Korean and Vietnamese soldiers, with numerous examples of news reports attesting to this. In addition, literature and film about the Vietnam War also contain examples of this usage of Chink, including the 1986 film "Platoon" and the 1970s play (and later film) "Sticks and Bones."

As in other English-speaking countries, Chinese people were belittled in Australia too. The terms Chinaman and Chink became intertwined with one another, as many Australians used both of them with hostile intent when referring to members of the country's Chinese population - which had swelled significantly during the Gold Rush era of the 1850s and 1860s.

Assaults on Chinese miners and racially motivated riots and public disturbances were not infrequent occurrences in Australia's mining districts in the second half of the 19th century. There was some resentment too, of the fact that Chinese miners and labourers tended to send their earnings back home to their families in China rather than spending them then and there, and supporting the local economy.

In the popular Sydney Bulletin magazine in 1887, one author wrote: "No nigger, no chink, no lascar, no kanaka [laborer from the South Sea Islands], no purveyor of cheap labour, is an Australian." This was not an isolated opinion. Eventually, since-repealed federal government legislation was passed to restrict non-white immigration and thus protect the jobs of Anglo-Celtic Australian workers from 'undesirable' competition.

As with other ethnic slurs, associations with violence and discrimination are often made which may amount to hate crimes. Needless to say, the Chinese people (as well as other people of East Asian descent) considered the term offensive from the outset. Unfortunately, this psychology is still thriving well in the United States, Europe and Australia; so much so that even during the 2012 London Olympics there was an incident involving a sportsman of Chinese descent, if you remember? Else do look it up.

With this, I believe we can clearly understand the etymology of this term - Chinky; that is to say, how this term came into being, who coined it and the psychology behind it (that helped in its coining.)

With a lot of sadness in my heart, I would also like to add that, WE (Indians) - not only let our lands be colonized, but (what was and is much worse) WE allowed our minds to be colonized too.

And WE have not been able to shirk this colonization off completely. In fact, some of us are so much in thrall of it that whether consciously or not, they have been welcoming it and emulating it too.

Who coined the phrase, 'people with mongoloid features'? Certainly, no Indian! But some of us have been using it - nonchalantly :(

That is to say: some of us have been adopting aspects of an alien culture blindly, simply aping without giving it a thought. [My blogger friend, Sunil Balani (of expressions fame) has captured this very aptly as " ... a distorted form of collectivism attenuated by conceit of omniscience."]

Racism - is a mindset that has been born out of, is part of, and has come from a culture that has indulged in colonization and slave-taking. Now, does India or Indians have such a heritage or history?

No, neither India nor Indians have such a history. Therefore, the real connotations of this word - Chinky, or rather the psychology behind it - IS unknown to us. And no matter how much we endeavour, we will never really know.

And though I have said this before, let me say it again: this term 'Chinky' is NOT homegrown but a colonial hangover that has been lovingly adopted by neo-Curzons - who love to 'think in English'. [Do read Part-I of this series HERE, so as to understand what I mean by neo-Curzon.]

However, when I say 'think in English' - it should not be construed as my attack on the English language per se. You see, all I am trying to understand is: how did terms like Bitch, SoB, Coolie, Black, Brown, Fuck, Fucking, Sex-Worker, Retard, Loser, Queer, Adult Porn, Child Porn, Paedophilia, et al enter OUR vocabulary. ['Coz we did not even have such concepts in the first place!]

Let me elaborate on a couple of specific examples. Have you ever wondered as to how this word 'dialect' came into use, or why it has been rolling off our tongues effortlessly?

I am asking since we simply do not have this concept of dialect! For us, it has always been 'bhasha' or language. Many bhasha-s have co-existed in this land, and even if a handful of people spoke it, it was still bhasha (language) - never 'dialect'. This very concept of dialect is alien to us, so why have we been using it?

I would say: 'thinking in English' - is the cause.

Lets come to another much-in-use phrase: "sibling thing creeping into a marriage."

Now, though a lot of people (especially high-profile ones, like: sundry Page 3 birds, matinee idols, know-it-all celebrities, media savvy authors and hot-shot journalists) have been using this phrase - left, right and center; I am still keen to know your views on it.

'Coz to my mind: a sibling and a spouse are two totally different entities that cannot and should not be mixed - if you know what I mean. A marriage has many sides or dimensions, and love is an emotion with myriad hues and shades; but how can "a sibling thing creep into a marriage"??

Frankly, I have not a clue. But then yours truly is not a Page 3 bird, matinee idol, know-it-all celebrity, (self-proclaimed) conscious-keeper author or a much fawned-over journalist :)

[Note: Perhaps, such a phrase can only emanate from a culture that sees a mother breast-feeding her 2 or 3 year-old son, immediately jumps to the conclusion that it is 'sexual exploitation' or 'pedophilia, or some such ... and promptly goes to town about it! Frankly, it leaves us speechless, to say the least. Therefore, it is best that WE remain careful, choosy and alert about anything emanating from such a land and culture ... and think twice before adopting aspects of it blindly. In short: WE must refrain from simply aping without giving it a thought.]

Here's some mind-chow for you, until the next post:

1. Why do terms like - Chinky and Racism - rear their ugly heads every time there is a discussion about Indians that hail from the North-Eastern part of this country?

2. Are we adopting aspects of an alien culture blindly? Simply aping (that too nonchalantly) and without giving it a thought?

3. But what mystifies me no end is to see respected western newspapers, magazines and books spending reams and reams on 'how racist Indians are towards people hailing from the North-East'; while simultaneously choosing to ignore not only their own glorious history of rabid xenophobic psychology but also the veritable wealth of racist terminology - that have abounded and still abounds - in the English-speaking world (for centuries)!!

Why this Kolaveri Di? :) What say you??

4. I am even more mystified as to why respected and renowned western scholars, analysts, experts, authors, thinking tanks (as opposed to Patton tanks) and journalists too never tire of speaking or writing about 'how racist Indians are towards people hailing from the North-East'? [While maintaining a studied silence about the glorious history and veritable wealth of youknowwhat - that they have been and are sitting upon ... especially since all of that youknowwhat is thriving very well. *Scratching my head*]  

5. Also, if you have noticed, certain respected and renowned Indian scholars, analysts, experts, activists, authors and journalists too never tire of speaking or writing about 'how racist Indians are towards people hailing from the North-East'; they even speak the same language as their counterparts half-way around the globe!!

Umm, does that mean telepathy is a criteria for anything, research grants and patronage included?

6. How is a mindset created?

Parting shot: The famous Bhajji episode, involving a dread-locked cricketer from the land of the kangaroos, created much storm; with racism making it to the airwaves and news-prints all over the globe - quite predictably, I would say.

But while many fingers were conveniently pointed at Bhajji and through him, towards Indians in general, and while several voice-boxes went hoarse talking about 'the racist attitude of Indians'; strangely, none brought up the plight of the so-called Aborigines in that shining kangaroo-infested country, to which even the purported 'victim' - the dread-locked cricketer himself, belonged !! [Even HE never spoke about it !!!]

Now, we all are quite familiar with the popular saying, 'there is much darkness under the lamp', aren't we? Here: lamp is a metaphor for people who do not see their own shortcomings, and utter the 'all is well' mantra instead. Meaning: they preach to others what they do not practice at home.

Wonder what dark shadows can be found under all those glittering lamps of freedom, democracy and equal rights - that certain nations and scholars hold aloft and zealously guard?

And last but not the least, does this word, racism, help certain folks and nations to project rather deflect their own ills, on us? Does all that convenient finger-pointing help in making those chimera-like glittering lamps to appear real? What do you think??

(More later…)

BlogAdda's Spicy take: In the wake of the riots in Assam and the panic prevailing among north-easterners from the city of Bangalore, Roshmi shares her view on racism that our fellow countrymen have to face. She explains the etymology and the psychology of why  people from the seven states in the north-east are called Chinkies.

Photograph: Combat at Guangzhou (Canton) during the Second Opium War. Picture courtesy: link. The Opium Wars also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, divided into the First Opium War from 1839 - 1842 and the Second Opium War from 1856 - 1860.