Stormy passage

The 11th Amendment to the Civil Code Bill, popularly known as the women’s property rights bill, is facing the prospect of delay in the National Assembly, the upper house of parliament, and a stormy passage altogether. Passed by the House of Representatives where the ruling Nepali Congress has a comfortable majority, the controversial bill has run into entrenched opposition from women’s rights activists and sympathizers who see it as a betrayal. The bone of contention is the surprise provision requiring daughters to return their share of inherited parental property once they get married. The pros and cons of this particular issue and of property inheritance rights in general have been discussed and debated threadbare, including in this space. There is little point in going over some of the same ground again. What calls for attention now is the manner in which the upper house is apparently positioning itself to waylay the nation’s legislative agenda whenever it so pleases.

At the very least this is going to delay things considerably. In a worst case scenario, it will even bring into question the role and composition of the upper house, something which has already come in for scrutiny more than once. It is true that the upper house should not be a mere rubber stamp automatically endorsing whatever floats up from the House of Representatives. That would make it totally redundant. But gunning for anything it dislikes would be going to the other extreme. If the upper house membership can cause such mischief by virtue of the ruling party having lost its simple majority in their midst and if such a majority would only render it into a pale reflection of the lower house, it will amount to a dilemma requiring serious attention indeed. The way the main opposition party, the royal nominees and upper house members from some of the other parties have seemingly ganged up on the ruling party over the property rights bill only adds to the gravity to the situation.

The National Assembly has already helped to land in temporary limbo the citizenship bill, a bill about which national opinion is seriously divided. The upper house is well positioned to cause the government similar trouble over the land act amendment bill which has also already cleared the lower house and is a key component of the Deuba administration’s entire agenda. Enough confusion and uncertainty has been caused among the public by the government’s flip-flop over the freeze on land related transactions pending passage of that particular piece of legislation. Any further delay in passage, whatever the inherent merits and shortcomings of the bill, will bring further confusion and uncertainty. The way things now stand, the women’s property rights bill will most likely return to the lower house for further discussion and possible amendment. It can still be pushed through the house a second time. But by that time parliament might already have recessed for the Dashain festival. And come to think of it the bill as a whole does represent a step forward. It does not go far enough, it skirts the main issue altogether. But it contains provisions concerning abortion and, yes even property rights, that are a clear plus for the Nepalese woman.

Terrorism, bin Laden and America

By Lok Nath Sharma

Ido not think the US civilization of these last 40-50 years is a successful civilization. I think this country is destined to succumb to failures which cannot be other than tragic and enormous in their scope." George Kennan, US envoy to Stalin’s USSR.

The Sept 11 kamikaze attacks quickly dissolved a sense of overconfidence of the American people into utter disillusionment. We all of a sudden happened to realize how vulnerable is the mightiest America that rose to global power and influence. How easily it was turned into a sitting duck by small groups of angry people who are prisoners of their own zealotry. America hitherto considered an impregnable fortress in terms of security turned into a "paper tiger!" How false a notion they were holding on to that they were in a safe haven!

The jet planes ploughed into the Pentagon and World Trade Centre blew to smithereens pride of America. Shocked, frustrated, President George W. Bush declared that though the attacks shook the foundation of the buildings, they cannot shake the foundation of America. This was the only option left with him to galvanize the sagging spirit and helplessness of the American people, to turn their grief
and shock into strength. The US had never known attacks of such magnitude except in Pearl Harbor during World War II in 1941.

We don’t have a universally agreed definition of terrorism. It is more so because there are so many political, social, ideological, economic intricacies involved. The old adage that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter still holds. An act of terror is killing, maiming the innocents, striking fear and panic into people with the objective of making themselves heard. Terrorists are always guided by the notion that a single deed is better propaganda than a thousand pamphlets. They always chart a new course, adopt unconventional methods and possess an element of surprise.

Terrorism is deeply entrenched in social, political, economic inequalities and discrimination, localized or international in nature. It feeds on anger, desperation, hatred, frustration born out of oppressive policies pursued by powerful nations against the weaker ones or by government against its people. Terrorists who plant bombs may be few in number, but sometimes score points by whipping up the sentiments of the common citizenry. However, the line drawn between terrorism and revolution may get blurred. Revolution stands for larger political objectives and cannot be mistaken for terrorism.

Without credible evidence, US-led allied forces swung into military action and started bombarding on October 7 the once most verdant and beautiful Afghanistan, which is already teetering at the edge of total collapse, forcing the common people in thousands to flee their places. Bush has already announced to the world that he would "smoke" bin Laden, the prime suspect in the gruesome attacks, out of his hole and arrogantly challenged the world that "either you are with us or with terrorism." Of course, nobody in his or her right mind can take sadistic pleasure from such attacks and these need to be condemned as such. Some quarters believe that the arrogant America, the so-called custodian of democracy, got its comeuppance, though. But the question writ large is- will Bush be able to score victory?

Bin Laden, I think, is not worried whatsoever about the war. If he dies, he dies a hero and if he survives at all, he survives a hero. He has succeeded in whipping up sentiments giving the slogan of pan-Islam. He has appealed to the Muslim communities the world over not to spare even a single American, and he has many takers, given the scale of protest demonstrations in those countries.

Perhaps the root of terrorism lies with America itself. The global network of terrorism runs so deep that it is nothing more than naivety to think that "smoking" out a particular terrorist will put a complete check on such activities. The time has come for deep soul-searching. There can be no dichotomy of opinions that terrorism should be condemned in strongest terms and banished from the world. But it should not be and cannot be defined in a way to suit one’s own interests. America must have tolerance to look at things on equal footing. We can have an access to a host of events if we turn the pages history where the US has played double standard. For America, only those acts can be called terrorists that put in danger its interests.

Global initiatives are taken up only when these interests are at peril. Helping Nepal or India and Pakistan for that matter which are vying against each other to curry favour with the US does not figure anywhere in Bush’s list of priorities. Bin Laden was the pampered son of America during the 80s when it started pumping in money and materials in Pakistan for building up the mujahiddeen and the Taliban to check the spread of the erstwhile USSR. And now it is paying the prices for the same!

If America wants to ensure a safe and secure world for its citizens, then it must confront the legacy of its flawed policies such as the pro-Israeli stance in the conflict with the Palestinians, the crippling sanction against Iraq which has been in place for the last 11 years and claimed half a million civilian population, its support for repressive, autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia, etc. If America is not ready to rectify such policies, global coalitions howsoever strong will remain impotent. It is said those who are ready to die are seldom defeated. None can overcome a sense of victimhood. The Palestinians, for instance, are ready to blow themselves up just to kill one Israeli in the process.

In fact, America’s interests go beyond the bounds of Afghanistan. It has no interests on the rugged terrains of Kabul or Kandahar or Herat. It just wants to carve a foothold so that it can spread its influence in the former Soviet Republics, so that it can stake claim to the gas-, oil-rich areas. The recent defence pact between Russia and China may have jolted the US. But knowing full well all this, Russia has extended the US full support. Behind this may be its own constraints like getting financial support from America, quelling the Chechen problem and not allowing the US in pulling weight in Afghanistan.

Given the scale of amassing of warplanes, bombers, missiles, etc in the region, one does not need to think twice that preparations are too big for the war-torn nation. Kabul’s military might can in no way be a match for the allied forces. Then why so much preparation? The answer lies somewhere else, and certainly not in Afghanistan only. If America continues to doggedly look at others as it has been doing all along instead of looking at the world from others’ perspective, it is bound to face tragedies more serious and destructive in nature. It has got to make its foreign policy more even and balanced in order to buy security for its people. But it is only the Americans and the oppressed people of the world who can exert pressures on the US to do so. Such horrendous acts of terrorism will not ensure anyone’s interests. Bin Laden the bugbear and the al-Qaeda are just a speck in the wide spectrum of international terrorism.

Hideous beauty

By Aditi Giri

Beauty is hideous. It is, more than often, the motivating factor that drives people to extremes. But why do people want to be beautiful? Any Marxist would say, "It’s all because of society. If people don’t give value to someone’s appearance, no one would strive to be beautiful. "However, that would mean blinding everyone. Looking for beauty is an innate quality in humans. No one can change it. So why even try? It is the definition of beauty that is the real culprit. Again, the unanswerable question arises- what is beauty?

Throughout the history of human civilization people have been trying to answer this question. The most convincing definition, I think is- "Beauty is what lies in the eyes of the beholder." Beauty is pure opinion and nothing else. This opinion changes from country to country, culture to culture, and person to person. Thus, the definition of this indefinable word is constantly fluctuating. In the process of fluctuation, this word came to a stop in China for nearly a century. Its definition then, was- "Beauty is small feet." This may seem like a very simple if not bizarre definition. But in actuality, it wasn’t so simple.

This definition of beauty in China had very profound roots. Chinese men and women then, took it very, very seriously. Men found small feet radically attractive and women did everything in their power to make their feet look small. So, they made for themselves, extremely small shoes. When their feet did not fit into these miniature shoes, they virtually folded their feet into two. The situation festered so much so that men would not marry women without feet that would not fit into these wee shoes. Their obstinacy would lead to the crippling of nearly half the giant country’s population.

Parents of Chinese girls began to fear that their daughters may not get good, wealthy husbands if they did not have small feet. They began to fold their daughters’ feet into two- or bind them. Soon this practice transformed into a traditional heritage. The process of foot binding turned into an art form almost. Each step in this process was given a name. Small girls’ feet were folded, toe after toe, with profound precision. They were not allowed to take off their bandages, even if they were dying of pain. Very often, a girl’s hands were tied up together to prevent her from taking off her bandages. Blood and puss would seep out from the bandages. The girls could hardly walk without a supportive stick. But if the parents removed the bandages, their daughters would not get married to proper, rich men. In time, the bones in the feet would break and the toes of the feet would rot and finally, in extreme cases, fall off. Now, it all seems inhumane. But then it was the ultimate goal for the Chinese.

Today, this abhorrent practice is not followed. However, there are some Chinese who still value this traditional notion of beauty. One such Chinese is a young dancer and acrobat, living in the United States. Her words- "Beauty is pain." She binds her feet once in a while and keeps them so for about three hours. She says that the hours go by very slowly as her feet hurt recklessly. She doesn’t walk during the three hours. When asked why she chose to endure so much pain, she simply stated: "I like the way my feet look when binded." This is an example of the extremes that people go to, just to look good- just for beauty.

However, is beauty worth it? Do people have to give themselves all the pain just for the sake of looking good? I don’t think so. Beauty does not make people look good. It makes them maniacs- hideous maniacs, like the Chinese feet binders.

Wreck and ruin

By Jug Suraiya

Progress, I said, is a wonderful thing. We were walking through the ruined city of Orchha in Madhya Pradesh, near Jhansi. In Khajuraho, we’d had a human guide in the form of Sharmaji; in Orchha, Sharmaji, was replaced by Sonyji, a Walkman tape-recorder with dual headphones which breathed in our ears a running commentary on the history that shimmered around the abandoned stone battlements like the evanescent heat haze.

Unlike Sharmaji, Sonyji could be stopped in mid-patter by the pressing of a button, to be rewound or fast-for-warded at will; Sharmaji would not have taken kindly to such liberties. Isn’t progress wonderful?

I repeated to Bunny. Sonyji informed us that Orchha had been founded in the 16th century by Rudra Pratap, leader of the Rajput Bundelas, whose name was derived from legend. To appease a goddess who demanded a blood sacrifice, the chieftain pierced his breast with a dagger. As the first drop (bund) of blood fell, the goddess stayed his hand.

Built on blood and glory, Orchha flourished. The voice of the court singer Rai Praveen harmonised with the lilting flow of the Betwa river. Summoned to Agra by the covetous Akbar, the intrepid poetess sang to her would-be captor: Only vultures and jackals feast on leftovers — tell me, oh Emperor, which of these are you? Abashed, the Great Mogul allowed Rai Praveen to return to her beloved, Raja Indramani of Orchha.

To commemorate the visit of his imperial patron, the emperor Jehangir, Raja Bir Singh Ju Deo built the opulent Jehangir Mahal, flanking the palace of his devout predecessor, Madhukar Shah. Under Bir Singh, Orchha reached the zenith of its prosperity, with a revenue of Rs 20 million a year.

And then one day the Orchhans packed up bag and baggage and left, not even coming back to make sure they’d turned off the water tap. Overnight, Orchha became a deserted ruin. We waited to hear why, but Sonyji was mute. I gave Sonyji a sharp rap to jog reluctant mechanism. But no, it was the end of the tape; it was the end of Orchha.

We looked out on the jettisoned city. Where sentinel steel had barred the way, the vagrant wind roamed at will. Where brocade and silk had whispered their seductive conspiracies, there was only the slither of a lizard on inert stone. On a shattered cupola a vulture brooded, perhaps on hooded-eyed emperors and golden-voiced singers long gone.

I reflected how wrong those people were who said that we Indians have no sense of history. If anything, we have an inordinate passion for history and can hardly wait for it to happen. Perhaps the Orchhans realised this, and translated themselves into ruins as speedily as they could, the greater to be appreciated by posterity. And keeping up the good work this self-same posterity has been
busy gouging out on the walls of Orchha messages echoing the ancient wisdom that history is only as dilapidated as it looks: Rajesh wedding Shalini; Vijay love Nitu; Avinash Goel - Class XI, Bhopal, 1993.

Spoilsports in the department of archaeology and in Madhya Pradesh Tourism try to discourage this dismemberance of things past to make them look even paster than they are. But those bent on making our history ever more historic are not to be fazed. The conveniently placed notice boards saying: This is a protected monument, anyone found defacing it will be fined Rs 3,000 and/or face jail term of up to six months, are used for brush-work practice by the unsung folk artist who finally creates his life’s masterpiece by scrawling in black paint across a 400-year-old mural Hullo Rinku sweetie - Sd/- Sunil. Eat your heart out, Rai Praveen. Bet old Indy never laid it out on the line quite like that for you, baby.

Yes, we’ve come a long way from Orchha. It took Orchha some 200 years to achieve the status of a historical ruin. Today our public edifices — architectural or ideological — seem designed to reach this end even before we can create them, instant history in the making. Ruins have become a growth industry in the country. On the premise that history need not actually be old, so long as it looks old, construction contractors have developed the science of instant decrepitude to an indigenous art form; buildings that cave in even as they are being built and bridges that collapse before they can be commissioned. Why wait for the tardy alchemy of time to turn an unremarkable edifice into a revenue-earning ruin? Why not make instant ruins, and eliminate the laggard middleman of history?
No, there’s no doubting it, I said yet again. Progress is a wonderful thing. And Sonyji’s stolid silence resonated with eloquent consent.