Erotic sculpture: Bhubaneshwar and Konark

Please click on the pic above for album.


A sample from Bhubaneshwar and Konark. The Jagannath temple at Puri has sculpture of a similar style, and is better preserved; sadly though, photography is not allowed inside the temple complex.

Bhubaneshwar, Puri and Konark

Please click on the pic above for album.

Benign indifference

I was in Sikkim for a couple of months earlier this year. While the entire experience was interesting, one thing stood out for me: it was how different the place was from everywhere else in India. Every state I've been to in India has given me a unique experience, but I never doubted any state's compatibility, its place in the Indian Union - however different it was from my own state - because there was a definite Indianness about each of those places. But Sikkim was different. The people looked different, their language was different, their culture was different, and more importantly they seemed distant somehow, almost self-sufficient. Not self-sufficient in the material sense - obviously, given that they are dependent on the road connecting them to Siliguri for most of their basic needs - but in an emotional sense: I did not sense that attachment that Indians have to the idea of India, not to the same extent that it exists elsewhere in any case.

Now, Sikkim interacts heavily with West Bengal economically. So I got to thinking, if Sikkim, with its constant interaction with Bengal (and increasing tourist movement), has so little emotional attachment to India, then what is the case with the rest of the North-East? For the most part only Assam interacts with the rest of India directly, the other North-Eastern states interact with Assam. And that has been the case for over sixty years. Before Independence, movement was much easier, but after East Pakistan (and later Bangladesh) came into existence, only a narrow stretch of land connects the North-East to the rest of India, and even that route is not always usable, given the regular landslides that block it. So movement is minimal: I can honestly say that before Sikkim I had never interacted with a person from the North-East.

A recent article on the hunger strike being carried out by Irom Sharmila for over ten years now against human rights abuses in Manipur showcases my point: I didn't know who she was before. No wonder the North-East is emotionally distant, the rest of India isn't that attached to them either, apart from that feeling of possessiveness that overtakes us whenever talk of separation or terrorism arises. India hasn't invested much in the North-East emotionally or financially (the Government has, perhaps, but only for security, given that they  are border states).

Given that the inclusion of this region in the Indian Union was problematic in the first place (Nagaland primarily), and how much trouble it has with some of the states still, I am surprised that the Government hasn't been more proactive in promoting interaction between the North-East and the rest of India. Easier communication makes for easier trade, and trade is the best ice breaker. In any case, the North-East needs to move from the periphery to the mainstream of the Indian consciousness if it is to genuinely feel like a part of India, rather than only in name. Whether it is the Government that does it, or the people of the North-East, or those of the rest of India, it is better if it is done while we still have the chance.  

Muddling through to...?

We have suffered. With barely sufficient education we toiled to get out of remote villages, to provide for our family. And we have succeeded. We are not rich, but we do not lack either. But our children, they will have a different life. They will not struggle, we will make sure that they end up living comfortably, with no regrets; unlike us.

Engineering and Medicine, that's where the jobs with good salaries are. And to get there the kids need to be good with the sciences, and even then the exams can only be passed after extensive preparation. So, that's what we're going to do: put them in schools that train them from the get go, and get them extra tuitions in the evenings. The loss of play time and such does worry us a little, but it's all for a good cause, it's for the kid's future. They'll thank us one day.

I have struggled, I have toiled...for nearly ten years now. But it's all good. I'm finally here, a reputed Institute, studying Engineering like I've always dreamed of. I'm settled now, my parents are happy. The freedom I now have though, never had it before, it's tempting. But, no, have to study, still have places to go. They tell me I need to write GRE and TOEFL to get into a school abroad. Need good English for that...odd though, I'm learning basic English now, wonder why I didn't when I was in school, can't even form a proper sentence to be honest. And there's CAT too. That needs good speaking skills too, social skills they call it. Hmm, never really had a chance to talk to people before, those self help books might help...they teach you how to engage in a conversation.

The self help books, they tell me I need to know stuff to talk to people, but I don't know stuff...all I know is maths, physics and chemistry. So, I start reading the paper, watch films, read books, go out with people: that's my education now. Education I have missed, I think. But it is really hard. They say all this stuff is easier to learn when one's a kid. Oh well, what's done is done, anything for success. Would have been easier if I had a chance to get a more rounded education though. But success, a comfortable life, that's is what the struggle is for. Can't help wondering sometimes though, if it is all going to feel worth it when I finally get there.

Where history stops

I ordered a couple of books titled 'Modern Indian History' a few weeks ago: I was looking to read about recent developments in India. So, I was surprised and disappointed when I found out that the books dealt with events starting with late Mughal period, the most recent event discussed being the Indian Independence. I went back online, and after some searching, found a book titled 'India After Gandhi': so figuring that I could not go wrong here, given its title, ordered it. Interestingly, the prologue of the book reflects on this very same problem: the seeming end of Indian history with Independence. The author quotes Krishna Kumar who wrote that 'for Indian children history itself comes to an end with Partition and Independence. As a constituent of social studies, and later on as a subject in its own right, history runs right out of content in 1947... All that has happened during the last 55 years may filter through the measly civics syllabus, popular cinema and television; history as formally constituted knowledge of the past does not cover it.'

Yes, our history books in school dealt with the struggle for Independence at great length, but that was where it ended. I find myself lacking anything more than a vague idea of most events after Independence (those that I didn't live through myself, that is), even major ones. Only recently did I look into and find out, say, as to how Goa or Nagaland came to be a part of India or why Indira Gandhi was assassinated. And I find that very odd, primarily when contrasted with the economics or civics syllabus, which deal with events after Independence. The civics texts talk about Indian involvement with the UN and its international policy, and the economics texts talk about India's five year plans and the opening up of its markets in the 90s. So, does the school board think that these nuggets of information gleaned from disparate sources make up for a holistic view of recent Indian history?

But of course, Guha (the author) argues that the problem is not the school boards as such, that in fact there is very little work being done on recent Indian history, and that most of the texts published pertain to India before Independence. Compare this to the US or Europe where new books come out after every major event. Incredibly, most Indian states, some larger than any European country, haven't even had their histories written. 

So, does this have to do with Indians being stuck with the idea of the day of independence as the start of the present? Or maybe it has to do with Indians being bad historians in general: we do have a rather notorious reputation for not writing things down, and being lazy about facts - given that Indians have such a long history, we only find accounts of ancient India in foreign texts (of course, we do find accounts in mythological poetry and prose, but that is not exactly factual history, is it?)