News, Views, & Reviews
So before I get on to the more serious bit, get a load of this crappy, ridiculously pretentious review of Asha Bhonsle's Grammy award-nominated album, You've Stolen My Heart (if Mere Sona Re is on this, I think I heard it this morning and it's DAMN good). Sajit from Sepia Mutiny (where I got this link from) is similarly annoyed at the use of the food metaphor to describe Indian music.
The title sounds like some frickin new-age Westerner who has discovered Deepak Chopra and Bollywood and some RAAvi Shankar and mishmashes them all in his brain together to create an image of an India he will never understand. "Dreamful of Asha" also a wordplay on the song "Brimful of Asha' by Cornershop (incidentally, doesn't the way the British pronounce 'aa' at the end of a word as 'aar' (like 'Asher', instead of 'Asha') annoy you? It certainly does me! Anyway, this writer goes on to ignorantly wax eloquent -
"And Bollywood musicals—with their obligatory context-obliterating production numbers dropped like bursts of more nocturnal pleasures into three-hour films—are dreamier still...
The music is an electric curry of sweeping overdubbed strings playing a blend of devotional music and action film motifs. The high, heavenly Urdu vocals belong to Asha Bhosle..."
Anyone can pretentiously praise something lavishly when one has no knowledge of it. Hence we have the arty farty 'art for investment' wannabe collectors springing up out of nowhere thse days.
"One imagines Bhosle, who provided the singing voice of countless actresses who've remained forever young while she ages, approaching this classic material—think deeply poetic Cole Porter meets deeply eclectic Bernard Herrmann—with an inevitably contemplative spirit. The oneiric ambience continues on "Rishte Bante Hain," where her overlapping phrases float like clouds over Kronos's swelling strings,"
Please excuse me while I gag over this saccharine-sweet farcical sensuality.
Oh wait! There's more! Have you ever seen so many bafaats (sorry i cannot translate this - the closest I can is verbal goofs) in one article?
"His music for the recent musical-historical epic Mangal Pandey: The Rising, however, proves he's not just Jack White to Jimmy Page. Rent the movie, a rich, controversial, and often cartoonish history lesson (Pandey has been mythologized as India's first anti-colonial martyr) punctuated by cannabis-infused bhang swigging and dancing nautch girls (courtesans);"
Oh.... so heroes must only be solemn, is it (Hehe Ehun!) ? Westerners don't understand the concept of an unlikely hero. Nautch girls. Hah! like juggernaut! (another example of the corrupted 'aa')
"Dig the rusticated Punjabi beats, the smooth mujra numbers, and my favorite, the groovy qawwali track "Al Maddath Maula," where Rahman (as Burman sometimes did) makes a rare vocal appearance."
*snigger* Have you ever heard of a qawwali being called 'groovy'?
"However, I sense Indian fans would dismiss the tracks I like most: Kansas-Karnatic psychedelia such as "Saamne Rati Ho" and the oozingly sensual "Jaaniye Ve."
*Sigh* He's adopting an imperialist stance in his review. He is not able to negotiate the intercultural space he implies his intimacy with (evidently his review was written for Westerners), and implies he has better taste than the masses because he likes the more classical based ones. Because they're more different to his ear and alien to his cultural sensibility he must establish them as more 'authentic' thereby elevating his position to that of authorised insider.
Infectious indeed, and don't be surprised when the sweet science behind dancefloor sizzlers like "What's Goin' On" and "My Dil Goes Mmmm" bounces right back to its Western source material.
HUH???
(I know some people may take objection to my view, calling it defensive. Maybe I am. His patronising tone annoys me intensely.)
Okay, on to more serious news. Yesterday I was sitting and reading an article... this one. It is basically about how this Muslim inspector Shamsher Khan Pathan, father of two sons and a daughter, cannot adopt a Hindu girl he rescued from her abusive parents (just because she was their second daughter. Freaks.), because of the respective laws forbidding it - The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and the Muslim Personal Law.
Now this isn't really about the religion/communal thing, as a commenter accuses the journalist (and which tone I personally didn't get in the article) of making - but about the obsoleteness of the laws in point themselves. Basically, (if you don't want to read the article) Hindus can adopt Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist children (I guess because all these religions had their roots in Hinduism, though they may have meandered vastly different paths) but not Muslim, Christian Jewish or Zoroastrian ones. I wonder if this applies to inter-country adoptions? Like if a Hindu parent adopts a Surinamese or Indonesian Hindu child? Hmmm.
Muslim law prohibits ANY adoption at all. Because it prohibits all unnatural things, and adoption is unnatural. Hmm... what about adoption of a blood relation - your brother's children for example, as many Hindu families tend to do? Hmmm. Must find out. However, it does allow for provision of such children, but does not allocate propoerty rights to them. Hence other both laws Pathan can only apply for foster parenthood. What's the difference?
According to the US's National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, the difference between foster parenthood and adoptive parenthood is that adoptive parents bear full legal, financial and decision-making responsibility for the child, and work to incorporate the child as a permanent member of their own family.
CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) is established in New Delhi under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. It helps facilitate inter-country adoption, among other things (I wonder if it allows adoption of Indian children by non-Indians, whether they are Hindu or not? oh, they can. See here. They can do so under the GAWA - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890) But they dont encourage inter-country adoption unless the child has been considered in-country first! Isnt that unfair to the child?
I guess in some way these laws are protectionist - of one's own religion and the rights of one's natural offspring/family. (And i kinda like the rule about adopting a child of a different sex if you already have a child or two).
But why wouldn't religions allow the adoption of (essenttially friendless) kids from different religions? From the way politics seems to be progressing (or regressing) in India, with Hindu extremists believing that Muslims are trying to increase their population and overrun Hindus and therefore Hindus should have more kids. (HELLO... Muslims are what? 14% of the population? Don't be ridiculous), one would think that such people would want to get as many people into their religious fold as possible (cheaper and more insidious than having VHP groups go out and try to convert tribals, who have no resources to fund them, and who don't really care about religions I'm sure as long as they have food (I believe a tribal interviewed even said this was why they converted to Christianity before the Staines murder - here's the case so far. It's been 6 years!), and when their land is being usurped by money-grubbing corporations).
And if it's a question of preserving the child's religion when s/he grows older, s/he is constititutionally free to practice any religion s/he chooses, convert back to his/her original religion, whatever. But religion is such a touchy topic in all contexts! I used to have arguments with my slightly more hardcore Jain friends just to get them riled up (mean I know, but I didn't really believe what I was made to practice). My parents tell me not to talk about religion in front of prospective men (my beliefs are my beliefs. It's not like I'm interfering with theirs! I believe children should have the right to explore and learn about other religions and pick the best tenets of each that educated reason can offer - that's humanism ultimately). No one has a right to pressurise anyone to do anything. So any arguments to the contrary hold invalid.
Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope the laws get updated soon and that Deepika Ratan and Inspector Pathan are happy with the final arrangements. And that he continues his good work of youth mentoring and she is not adversely affected by her childhood trauma.
The title sounds like some frickin new-age Westerner who has discovered Deepak Chopra and Bollywood and some RAAvi Shankar and mishmashes them all in his brain together to create an image of an India he will never understand. "Dreamful of Asha" also a wordplay on the song "Brimful of Asha' by Cornershop (incidentally, doesn't the way the British pronounce 'aa' at the end of a word as 'aar' (like 'Asher', instead of 'Asha') annoy you? It certainly does me! Anyway, this writer goes on to ignorantly wax eloquent -
"And Bollywood musicals—with their obligatory context-obliterating production numbers dropped like bursts of more nocturnal pleasures into three-hour films—are dreamier still...
The music is an electric curry of sweeping overdubbed strings playing a blend of devotional music and action film motifs. The high, heavenly Urdu vocals belong to Asha Bhosle..."
Anyone can pretentiously praise something lavishly when one has no knowledge of it. Hence we have the arty farty 'art for investment' wannabe collectors springing up out of nowhere thse days.
"One imagines Bhosle, who provided the singing voice of countless actresses who've remained forever young while she ages, approaching this classic material—think deeply poetic Cole Porter meets deeply eclectic Bernard Herrmann—with an inevitably contemplative spirit. The oneiric ambience continues on "Rishte Bante Hain," where her overlapping phrases float like clouds over Kronos's swelling strings,"
Please excuse me while I gag over this saccharine-sweet farcical sensuality.
Oh wait! There's more! Have you ever seen so many bafaats (sorry i cannot translate this - the closest I can is verbal goofs) in one article?
"His music for the recent musical-historical epic Mangal Pandey: The Rising, however, proves he's not just Jack White to Jimmy Page. Rent the movie, a rich, controversial, and often cartoonish history lesson (Pandey has been mythologized as India's first anti-colonial martyr) punctuated by cannabis-infused bhang swigging and dancing nautch girls (courtesans);"
Oh.... so heroes must only be solemn, is it (Hehe Ehun!) ? Westerners don't understand the concept of an unlikely hero. Nautch girls. Hah! like juggernaut! (another example of the corrupted 'aa')
"Dig the rusticated Punjabi beats, the smooth mujra numbers, and my favorite, the groovy qawwali track "Al Maddath Maula," where Rahman (as Burman sometimes did) makes a rare vocal appearance."
*snigger* Have you ever heard of a qawwali being called 'groovy'?
"However, I sense Indian fans would dismiss the tracks I like most: Kansas-Karnatic psychedelia such as "Saamne Rati Ho" and the oozingly sensual "Jaaniye Ve."
*Sigh* He's adopting an imperialist stance in his review. He is not able to negotiate the intercultural space he implies his intimacy with (evidently his review was written for Westerners), and implies he has better taste than the masses because he likes the more classical based ones. Because they're more different to his ear and alien to his cultural sensibility he must establish them as more 'authentic' thereby elevating his position to that of authorised insider.
Infectious indeed, and don't be surprised when the sweet science behind dancefloor sizzlers like "What's Goin' On" and "My Dil Goes Mmmm" bounces right back to its Western source material.
HUH???
(I know some people may take objection to my view, calling it defensive. Maybe I am. His patronising tone annoys me intensely.)
Okay, on to more serious news. Yesterday I was sitting and reading an article... this one. It is basically about how this Muslim inspector Shamsher Khan Pathan, father of two sons and a daughter, cannot adopt a Hindu girl he rescued from her abusive parents (just because she was their second daughter. Freaks.), because of the respective laws forbidding it - The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and the Muslim Personal Law.
Now this isn't really about the religion/communal thing, as a commenter accuses the journalist (and which tone I personally didn't get in the article) of making - but about the obsoleteness of the laws in point themselves. Basically, (if you don't want to read the article) Hindus can adopt Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist children (I guess because all these religions had their roots in Hinduism, though they may have meandered vastly different paths) but not Muslim, Christian Jewish or Zoroastrian ones. I wonder if this applies to inter-country adoptions? Like if a Hindu parent adopts a Surinamese or Indonesian Hindu child? Hmmm.
Muslim law prohibits ANY adoption at all. Because it prohibits all unnatural things, and adoption is unnatural. Hmm... what about adoption of a blood relation - your brother's children for example, as many Hindu families tend to do? Hmmm. Must find out. However, it does allow for provision of such children, but does not allocate propoerty rights to them. Hence other both laws Pathan can only apply for foster parenthood. What's the difference?
According to the US's National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, the difference between foster parenthood and adoptive parenthood is that adoptive parents bear full legal, financial and decision-making responsibility for the child, and work to incorporate the child as a permanent member of their own family.
CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) is established in New Delhi under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. It helps facilitate inter-country adoption, among other things (I wonder if it allows adoption of Indian children by non-Indians, whether they are Hindu or not? oh, they can. See here. They can do so under the GAWA - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890) But they dont encourage inter-country adoption unless the child has been considered in-country first! Isnt that unfair to the child?
I guess in some way these laws are protectionist - of one's own religion and the rights of one's natural offspring/family. (And i kinda like the rule about adopting a child of a different sex if you already have a child or two).
But why wouldn't religions allow the adoption of (essenttially friendless) kids from different religions? From the way politics seems to be progressing (or regressing) in India, with Hindu extremists believing that Muslims are trying to increase their population and overrun Hindus and therefore Hindus should have more kids. (HELLO... Muslims are what? 14% of the population? Don't be ridiculous), one would think that such people would want to get as many people into their religious fold as possible (cheaper and more insidious than having VHP groups go out and try to convert tribals, who have no resources to fund them, and who don't really care about religions I'm sure as long as they have food (I believe a tribal interviewed even said this was why they converted to Christianity before the Staines murder - here's the case so far. It's been 6 years!), and when their land is being usurped by money-grubbing corporations).
And if it's a question of preserving the child's religion when s/he grows older, s/he is constititutionally free to practice any religion s/he chooses, convert back to his/her original religion, whatever. But religion is such a touchy topic in all contexts! I used to have arguments with my slightly more hardcore Jain friends just to get them riled up (mean I know, but I didn't really believe what I was made to practice). My parents tell me not to talk about religion in front of prospective men (my beliefs are my beliefs. It's not like I'm interfering with theirs! I believe children should have the right to explore and learn about other religions and pick the best tenets of each that educated reason can offer - that's humanism ultimately). No one has a right to pressurise anyone to do anything. So any arguments to the contrary hold invalid.
Well, I guess all I can say is that I hope the laws get updated soon and that Deepika Ratan and Inspector Pathan are happy with the final arrangements. And that he continues his good work of youth mentoring and she is not adversely affected by her childhood trauma.
posted by Princess Joya | 1:20 am
2 Comments:
It sounds ridiculous that he cannot adopt her just because she is hindu and he is muslim, but probably it makes sense, u really do not want to create some other controversy if in the future someone decides ot just manipulate the entire matter....U know how hard it can be, here with the hindu v/s muslim thing!! Lets say the girl decides to convert to islam as she begins identifying herself with her new family religion, then the groups like VHP just will probably make his life miserable or may create some other massive political fued!! Of course I agree these rules are ridiculous but then again, in a country so sensitive to this topic it is better left like this, she can definitely find some other hindu family(and i think many are ready) to take care of her, well but i dont think anyone can adopt her legally until her own parents are dead/or agree to give up their rights altogether!!
I am not too sure if VHP converts tribals to hinduism,never heard of that!! Yes what I have heard and read is of christian missionaries giving poor people money to convert to their religion...One thing I have observed, mostly its the christians or the muslims who are so worked up about converting people, as a matter of fact Iv hardly heard or seen anyone converting to be a HINDU...its the hindus,jains, that convert to the other religions whether or not for money, makes me think, is it because we are not as aggressive and rigid about our prayer routine? After all I think hinduism is the only religion, which has more than that one GOD...SO maybe that leads to all the confusion and disillusion...aah who knows?
And about Asha getting a grammy nomination, I really dont know what is the big deal?? Just what i feel....
cheers
So by that logic you imply that everytime an inter-religious marriage occurs the VHP comes and creates a ruckus. You're right I can see teh scope for controversy.. but in such a case these selfish groups are not considering the individual happiness of a person. Which should be more important than the nominal question of what group he or she shoudl belong to.
I don't think many would be ready to adopt her. And why shouldn't she have the right to be given in care of someone who already knows and cares about her and has established a bond with her?
Her parents porbably wouldn't be allowed to take her back into their custody until they have been put into some sort of counseling (and with their attitude towards girl children, they probably don't even want to).
This VHP trying to convert tribals to hinduism is true. APparently tehy were a bit pissed off that the tribals preferred to convert to christianity for food and money. Look, they have their own animistic religion that keeps them one with nature, and when they're already marginalised by society, a religion makes no difference to them when they're simply trying to SURVIVE. Religion and all is for people who ALREADY have their basic needs fulfilled.
I don't care about Asha getting a grammy - I'm just cheesed off at the author's high-faluting language!
Post a Comment
<< Home