Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Doordarshan or rather,television broadcasting in India.On the occassiom,here was a wonderful documentary on DD about the evolution of television in India.There were clips from old time DD productions like Hum Log,Buniyaad,Tamas,Mirza Ghalib etc.
Seeing those clips made me realize the amazing amount of crap that passes as entertainment these days.And also the transition of 'television' to 'idiot box'.How did we move from 'Tamas',which raised the issue of communalism in India,to 'Rakhi ka Swayamwar'.When did interviews by Noam Chomsky get replaced by those of Payal Rohatgi.It's indeed a sad state of affairs.The only kind of people you see on TV today are hyper/boorish/dancing punjabis(and being one myself,I seriously can't tolerate another ounce of pseudo punjabis on TV/films) or funny accented South Indians,overtly traditional women or out rightly evil/westernized vamps.When was the last time you saw an Assamese doctor or a Muslim engineer or a Punjabi intellectual.Why can't TV move out of stereotyping.And yes I agree,private channels have to market to consumers but can't the messages be delivered in a subtle manner.
Until then all I can say is,'Is Jungle se mujhe bachao'
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Was Muhammed a Marxist?
Note:The following article is an exercise in pure speculation.My knowledge about both Marxism and Islam is optimistically speaking,limited.I hope the readers forgive me for my incompetence.
A few days ago,I chanced upon a biography of Muhammed by Maxime Rodinson.It was a scholarly work and quite a refreshing change from the diatribes or the adoration that he seems to generate on the internet(and I tend to find both a little repugnant).As I was reading about his life, it dawned upon me that initially,his movement stemmed from socio economic causes(rather than divine ones) and the class struggle that engulfed Arab/Meccan society at that time.
Now what I understand of the pre Islamic Meccan society is that it was a tribalistic society and each tribe had it's own God whom it would appease. Thus, to Muhammed,these idols of these Meccan/Arabic gods probably became symbols of the struggle between these tribes,which is a rudimentary example of the modern day class struggle[between the haves and the have nots].The difference lies in the fact that while Muhammed replaced all these Gods by one God in order to unify society,Marx did away with the whole 'God' business altogether.
Also the concepts of 'Ummah' and the lack of statehood in Islam has striking similarities to the concept of 'Pure Communism',which envisions a stateless,classless society(much like Islam).The 'Proletriat' or the democracy of the masses is a lot similar to Ummah.Now coming back to the 'God' concept,this is probably where Marx and Muhammed diverge.Marx's theories,being purely intellectual conceptions were and as a matter of fact,still are open to scrutiny.However,Muhammed's theories covered a whole spectrum,from being purely political to out rightly religious.Thus it added a religious and divine dimension to his theories which made them impervious to scrutiny.
To sum up,we could say that the only difference between Marx and Muhammed was that the latter believed in one God more
A few days ago,I chanced upon a biography of Muhammed by Maxime Rodinson.It was a scholarly work and quite a refreshing change from the diatribes or the adoration that he seems to generate on the internet(and I tend to find both a little repugnant).As I was reading about his life, it dawned upon me that initially,his movement stemmed from socio economic causes(rather than divine ones) and the class struggle that engulfed Arab/Meccan society at that time.
Now what I understand of the pre Islamic Meccan society is that it was a tribalistic society and each tribe had it's own God whom it would appease. Thus, to Muhammed,these idols of these Meccan/Arabic gods probably became symbols of the struggle between these tribes,which is a rudimentary example of the modern day class struggle[between the haves and the have nots].The difference lies in the fact that while Muhammed replaced all these Gods by one God in order to unify society,Marx did away with the whole 'God' business altogether.
Also the concepts of 'Ummah' and the lack of statehood in Islam has striking similarities to the concept of 'Pure Communism',which envisions a stateless,classless society(much like Islam).The 'Proletriat' or the democracy of the masses is a lot similar to Ummah.Now coming back to the 'God' concept,this is probably where Marx and Muhammed diverge.Marx's theories,being purely intellectual conceptions were and as a matter of fact,still are open to scrutiny.However,Muhammed's theories covered a whole spectrum,from being purely political to out rightly religious.Thus it added a religious and divine dimension to his theories which made them impervious to scrutiny.
To sum up,we could say that the only difference between Marx and Muhammed was that the latter believed in one God more
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Capitalist God.
ham ko maʿlūm hai jannat kī ḥaqīqat lekin
dil ke ḳhush rakhne ko ġhālib yeh ḳhayāl achchhā hai
The other day,I was watching the documentary 'religulous'.I found it rather funny and though provoking but sadly,it had a rather monolithic view of things.However, it did manage to arouse the skeptic in me.One of the points the documentary made was the flawed concept of God in most religions.Although they did have a strong argument, I still found it difficult to debunk the concept of God altogether. There were still many things which can't be left on chance. Take the whole DNA concept, for example.Billions of molecules ordering themselves with a perfect arrangement trillions of times per second. I am sorry,but I refuse to buy that they just fell together 'by chance'.
So I thought, maybe God is the 'intelligence' which governs the world around us. The concept looked elegant and beautiful at the first glance, but soon it lost much of it's charm. Because if that's true then this intelligence is responsible for everything from the creation of the Himalayas to the holocaust.
It was after this that this intelligence started resembling a rather complex and brutal algorithm which has a particular objective which is to be attained with maximum efficiency.
So if this intelligence governs the natural world then we can conclude that this intelligence is highly capitalistic.Look around you, and you'll observe it's all about maximizing profit.The whole process of creation of life is itself grained in capitalism. The male gets attracted to a female he/she deems attractive. The female goes for the fittest male ensuring the healthiest offspring. The rest, like feelings,emotions etc. are just convenient human abstractions.Maybe this is why communism is inherently dead. It is against the law of nature.
ālam ġhubār-e vaḥshat-e majnūñ hai sar-ba-sar
kab tak ḳhayāl-e t̤urrah-e lailā kare koī
Meaning
The second aspect is to determine the objective of this central intelligence.Even if we assume my oft mentioned 'law of entropy'(which assumes things fall into disorder',the fact is that things can't get disordered beyond a certain limit.After a while,even randomness becomes predictable and things tend to take some shape of their own.
haiñ zavāl-āmādah ajzā āfirīnish ke tamām
mihr-e gardūñ hai chirāġh-e rahguzār-e bād yāñ
Meaning
***********************************************************************************
Prejudice
All this talk about ending 'prejudice' is inherently meaningless.Everyone has a prejudice(Indians especially).Even the pseudo liberals(e.g.me) have their skeletons in the closet.Many people scoff at others who have gender prejudice. In fact, most people whom I have met protest vehemently against any gender prejudice.However the same person might make a casual remark about blacks/people of African origin without batting an eyelid.It's just that people with a gender prejudice are on the wrong side of political correctness.
This reminds me of this time I was having a conversation with a driver.He was from UP.It was that time when Raj Thackeray's anti North Indian rhetoric was at it's peak.So he was complaining about the Maharashtrians ill treating the North Indians and how it was unfair that they were getting prejudiced for no reason. A few days prior to this, the same guy was ranting something about how the Muslims were the root of all problems. Most of us are like him. We all have our prejudices and no one gives a sh*t until he/she becomes the victim himself.
dil ke ḳhush rakhne ko ġhālib yeh ḳhayāl achchhā hai
The other day,I was watching the documentary 'religulous'.I found it rather funny and though provoking but sadly,it had a rather monolithic view of things.However, it did manage to arouse the skeptic in me.One of the points the documentary made was the flawed concept of God in most religions.Although they did have a strong argument, I still found it difficult to debunk the concept of God altogether. There were still many things which can't be left on chance. Take the whole DNA concept, for example.Billions of molecules ordering themselves with a perfect arrangement trillions of times per second. I am sorry,but I refuse to buy that they just fell together 'by chance'.
So I thought, maybe God is the 'intelligence' which governs the world around us. The concept looked elegant and beautiful at the first glance, but soon it lost much of it's charm. Because if that's true then this intelligence is responsible for everything from the creation of the Himalayas to the holocaust.
It was after this that this intelligence started resembling a rather complex and brutal algorithm which has a particular objective which is to be attained with maximum efficiency.
So if this intelligence governs the natural world then we can conclude that this intelligence is highly capitalistic.Look around you, and you'll observe it's all about maximizing profit.The whole process of creation of life is itself grained in capitalism. The male gets attracted to a female he/she deems attractive. The female goes for the fittest male ensuring the healthiest offspring. The rest, like feelings,emotions etc. are just convenient human abstractions.Maybe this is why communism is inherently dead. It is against the law of nature.
ālam ġhubār-e vaḥshat-e majnūñ hai sar-ba-sar
kab tak ḳhayāl-e t̤urrah-e lailā kare koī
Meaning
The second aspect is to determine the objective of this central intelligence.Even if we assume my oft mentioned 'law of entropy'(which assumes things fall into disorder',the fact is that things can't get disordered beyond a certain limit.After a while,even randomness becomes predictable and things tend to take some shape of their own.
haiñ zavāl-āmādah ajzā āfirīnish ke tamām
mihr-e gardūñ hai chirāġh-e rahguzār-e bād yāñ
Meaning
***********************************************************************************
Prejudice
All this talk about ending 'prejudice' is inherently meaningless.Everyone has a prejudice(Indians especially).Even the pseudo liberals(e.g.me) have their skeletons in the closet.Many people scoff at others who have gender prejudice. In fact, most people whom I have met protest vehemently against any gender prejudice.However the same person might make a casual remark about blacks/people of African origin without batting an eyelid.It's just that people with a gender prejudice are on the wrong side of political correctness.
This reminds me of this time I was having a conversation with a driver.He was from UP.It was that time when Raj Thackeray's anti North Indian rhetoric was at it's peak.So he was complaining about the Maharashtrians ill treating the North Indians and how it was unfair that they were getting prejudiced for no reason. A few days prior to this, the same guy was ranting something about how the Muslims were the root of all problems. Most of us are like him. We all have our prejudices and no one gives a sh*t until he/she becomes the victim himself.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)