Last month I saw a performance called ‘Ismat, Manto hazir hain’ based on some short stories by the two eminent Urdu writers of the mid twentieth century India. They were notorious in their time for having written candidly and in graphic detail, about sexuality including homosexuality, subjects discussed only in the most delicate manner, if at all, by writers writing in India at the time. The country was shocked by their ‘baseness’ of their writings and they were tried by the government of the time for obscenity.
The performance, by Heeba Shah, Jameel Khan, Ankur Vakil and one other actor whose name I don’t recall, was engrossing and exceptional, as were the stories themselves. It made me wonder about how ahead of their times the two authors were, and in fact continue to be almost half a century later, for I daresay, our society is still not ready to accept their kind of writings in the mainstream, even if as pointed out by Manto even back then, and rightly so, his writings were but a reflection of the times…
It is sad but true still that our society, while on the one hand, is as sexually active as it is, proven amply by the population explosion, as also the prevalence of sex trade, and its attendant ills, such as sexually transmitted diseases including the dreaded AIDS, and on the other, we are as truculent as we are in discussions on the matter in the public sphere.
The performance, by Heeba Shah, Jameel Khan, Ankur Vakil and one other actor whose name I don’t recall, was engrossing and exceptional, as were the stories themselves. It made me wonder about how ahead of their times the two authors were, and in fact continue to be almost half a century later, for I daresay, our society is still not ready to accept their kind of writings in the mainstream, even if as pointed out by Manto even back then, and rightly so, his writings were but a reflection of the times…
It is sad but true still that our society, while on the one hand, is as sexually active as it is, proven amply by the population explosion, as also the prevalence of sex trade, and its attendant ills, such as sexually transmitted diseases including the dreaded AIDS, and on the other, we are as truculent as we are in discussions on the matter in the public sphere.
6 comments:
i was reading this book by dan brown .. its quite famous, but i've never been good with names, so we'll let the title of the book be .. the book talks about this huge lab hidden below a country in europe .. and how a member of the vatican is invited there by a scientist to witness the birth of matter, something that the church denies, as it questions the existence of god (if man can create matter, then maybe god didn't start the universe, and, by inference, doesn't exist) .. surprisingly, the envoy doesn't seem to be that put off by the event and goes on to outline the vatican's position (which ties to your post quite well) .. says that the church/vatican is not as dumb/backward as it looks .. that the church is not averse to scientific discoveries .. however, the church does feel that it is its duty to *moderate* science to a pace that can be absorbed by people at large without actually going crazy .. the envoy then goes on to give examples of how the vatican knew of certain scientific aspects that it denied in public, but later accepted over the decades/centuries, when it felt that the general junta was mature enough to accept what was in front of them rather than playing around with it and ruining themselves .. a good example of their current jhagda seems to be cloning .. : ) .. they deny it, but will surely accept it in a few years, with an explanation of how this ties back to what the bible says about god's work .. anyways, back to your post .. hypocricy does have its positive points .. i guess it provides a boundary of sanity to things which could otherwise explode into everyone's face .. like sex through the internet .. : ) .. regulation through hypocricy .. what an interesting thougth .. hahaha .. : ) ..
But then the question arises, who sets these limits? Who decides what things can explode and how, and the boundaries that therefore need to be applied to them?
And that is where the problem begins...
What for instance, are your views on censorship?
Pooja, hope this will not sound like blowing my family's trumpet, but my mom has a book on Ismat which was published by Katha:
http://www.scholarswithoutborders.in/item_show.php?code_no=BIO041
Even if I say so myself, it's quite an interestingly done book. See if you can lay your hands on it sometime.
Thanks! Will certainly try and get hold of it...
i think censorship is good .. self censorship is the best of course .. lekin ppl don't really like to think before they say or do something .. they just go ahead and do it and then sit back and wait for the reactions to come in .. a simple threat of censorship brings in a sense of responsibility amongst ppl .. i guess that in a mature society, one would not need to carry out that threat of censorship as ppl would be intelligent enough to take the hint and go for self censorship .. the real clash occurs when something passes self censorship, but not the official censors .. that means that one of the two elements (censor vs. censored party) is out of sync with the other .. again, in a mature society, a debate will normally result in a new (harmonic) balance .. on the other hand, in a society like america or pakistan, it will result in a high handed self righteous approach to censorship where even the most basic and sacrosant liberties are subject to censorship .. wouldn't you say that in this case, the censors need to be moderated ? .. : ) .. so the answer to your first question is that either you set the limits yourself, or be ready for debates that reset the limits .. that's what the church was doing (in the da vinci code) .. it decided that the ppl researching cloning/bombs/blah blah blah, were doing badmaashi in the name of science and were going too fast for the age that they were in, without the necessary checks and balances in place .. hence the inference that they were not applying the appropriate (self) censors .. enter the church as a censor/moderator/debator .. end result is a new balance within the eco system .. : ) .. again, not a bad thing at all .. one needs measures and balances and counter balances .. its what civilization is all about ..
More than the post... I simply loved the conversation below between you and Anupam...
Amazingly loud thinking Anupam!!!
Post a Comment