Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Bhutan Diary 11: Onwards to Paro

(Back, after a rather long break...)
Back in Thimphu, and this time we ran out of luck with the Centre Lodge. We parked ourselves in Tandin, a hotel we had checked on the very first day. We decided to eat there as well, for lack of a better option, and I am happy to say, were pleasantly surprised. We sat at a corner table, away from the loud talking Indian crowds that seemed to be the most common of all travelers to Bhutan, and ordered a vegetable sizzler and vegetable fried rice. I remember being very happy with both dishes, so much so, that we ordered another plate of the fried rice, which we could not finish. This is mostly unthinkable for me, for I hate wasting food, and Ramya too had begun to respect this thought and all through the trip, mostly finished all but the most inedible of things on his plate. But we really were greedy that day, and paid a price for it with a heavy sense of guilt.
Over dinner Ramya told me stories of his earlier travels, most of which were undertaken alone, and were singularly unplanned. In the absence of any financial management, he had frequently run out of money, and resorted to all sorts of measures, such as borrowing from friends’ families, traveling in unreserved compartment on trains, and going without food! This trip of ours was proving to be luxurious in comparison, with me taking care of most financial management. He was occasionally piqued by the division of ‘duties’ that I did all the time, but mostly put up a brave, even smiling, face. Another interesting thing about him was how he always managed to find cigarettes. When we had started this trip, he had been most disturbed about the fact that the sale of cigarettes is banned in Bhutan. However, as far as I can recall, he never had a problem finding them.
Our next plan of action was to head to Paro. This we thought we would do by a shared cab or a bus. The next day we headed for the bus station, bag and baggage, and had no trouble finding a bus to Paro. Big mistake. The buses are mostly for the locals, who get on and off the bus anywhere, and all along the way. I lost count of the number of stops we made along the way, or the number of times I cursed myself for the unnecessary inconvenience. On the upside, it was a slice from the life of a regular Bhutanese, and to that extent, interesting. We witnessed (possibly) the first argument between two Bhutanese, the conductor and a passenger over the charges for carrying a wooden box on the bus.
Once in Paro, we started our customary search for a decent accommodation. Ramya waited with the luggage, while I looked around, but the best I could find in the deadline we gave ourselves was the Hotel Perjoling. There was another, cleaner, more spacious hotel, but it had no heater. This, as I mentioned before, was just unthinkable. We dumped our bags, and promptly headed out to grab a bite.
Paro seemed even more spread out than Thimphu, with the town centre, which is where we were at, smaller than Norzin Lam. Like Norzin Lam, there was one main street here as well, lined with shops and hotels on both sides. And needless to say, all around us in the distance were the mountains.
We looked up our printouts, and settled for the first place we saw that featured in the list. This happened to be Sonam Trophel, on the first floor, in the main street. There was little choice for vegetarians, and the gum chewing hostess seemed less than interested in serving us, even though we were the only customers in the restaurant. But the vegetable noodles, when they arrived, made up for everything. It was a delicious meal; its reputation is obviously well earned. And we finished it with tea as usual. While we were there, a big, noisy joint family came in and occupied several tables, and seemed to order every non vegetarian dish on the menu, which miraculously took no time at all to appear. Our order had taken a good fifteen minutes. Ah, I guess we were simply out of place.


At the Sonam Trophel. The restaurant had cheerful interiors and excellent food

We decided to walk around, as usual, and headed out towards the Paro dzong. Someone mentioned that it was walk-able, though I wouldn’t advise it unless you have a lot of time on your hands. We weren’t in any hurry, and it being Sunday, the Museum next to the dzong was closed. So our trip was not going to take us long anyway. We walked along the road until we came to a small wooden bridge full of prayer flags. Across the bridge and up a narrow paved path, we were directed to go by an old man hanging around. The walk up wasn’t much but it tired us out, and we had to stop along the way. I was already getting the jitterbugs just thinking about Taktsang.




Asking for directions to the dzong... one of my favourite pictures

The entrance to the Paro dzong, much like the one to the Punakha one, was up a long flight of steep steps. I suppose it was a sort of statement to build dzongs at a height and make people climb up to reach them, as these were seats of power. It was also probably out of security considerations, for the dzongs that we saw (personally or pictures of), were invariably perched on cliffs with only one point of access from the ground. The walls were high revealing nothing of the interior, and painted white, while the window frames were usually combinations of a deep brown and black, interspersed with bands of drawings in earthy shades such as ochres, oranges and reds. The entrance itself wasn’t ornamental, just a pair of huge plain wooden doors, though the long flight of steps did give it that sense of exclusive authority.












This small door was to the right of the entrance to the dzong. Beautiful view of Paro town


View of Paro

Paro dzong is smaller than the one at Punakha, but similar in every other way. Once you step through those huge wooden doors, you are immediately greeted with bright, intricately painted walls. There’s a wealth of stories on those walls which, unfortunately, we could not understand. It has a staggered entry, like in Punakha, in that when you enter you first encounter the aforementioned wall, while the door to the inside is placed to the left, out of sight if you are standing outside the doors, looking in. You enter a courtyard, which is lined on all sides with rooms on the ground and first floors. The colour scheme is the same as the outside, white walls, with wooden door frames, steps and balustrades, all painted a dark brown or black, with bands of earthy shades. In the transition spaces between courtyards, and inside the prayer rooms however, the walls are covered from floor to ceiling with paintings, depicting incidents from the lives of their mythological figures. There were monks here as well. We tried talking to a young boy monk, but he didn’t seem to understand Hindi. This seemed strange, for most locals do. Or maybe not…

Thursday, August 21, 2008

The right to life and such matters

There was this furore sometime ago about Harsh and Niketa Mehta’s right to abort their child. It died down after the miscarriage but left a few questions unanswered. The couple wanted to abort the pregnancy because of medical test reports that showed a high probability of the child being born with a heart defect that would necessitate the use of a pacemaker from an early age, thus effectively ruling out a normal childhood, or indeed a normal life. The couple got to know this in the 24th (if I’m not mistaken) week of pregnancy, way after the 20 weeks deadline that the abortion law in India allows for. This made the Mehtas appeal in court, asking permission to abort the foetus in view of the circumstances. The court asked for a second medical report, and eventually rejected their appeal. Sometime later Niketa had a miscarriage.
That’s the story.
The court’s ruling and the logic behind it, is beyond the scope of this piece. I simply wanted to pen down my thoughts on the matter. And they are really rather simple. The logic against taking away a life is indisputable. However in circumstance such as the one that the Mehtas found themselves in, facing a lifetime of pain at seeing the misery of their child, and the impossibility of a normal life, for both child and parents, it seems to me that an exception could have been made. It’s unfortunate that the Mehtas learnt of the defect after 20 weeks of pregnancy, otherwise there would never have been this controversy in the first place. But in light of the situation, it seems logical to grant their request. I come to this conclusion from the following line of thought: What would I have done in the same situation? Not an easy decision at all. While it seems criminal to take a life, let alone the life of your child, it seems equally unfair to have a child who will surely be chronically ill. One can argue that some defect might have surfaced after the birth, which of course is true. And we all live with that reality anyway. Who’s to say if a medical defect will not show up, or an accident occur and incapacitate a close one at any stage in life. We don’t abandon people then, but to know in advance, even before birth, puts the matter in a different light.
Then again, I am not able to reconcile with the idea, at a humanitarian level, that abortion is okay till 20 weeks, and not after. It’s a legitimate life being taken away, even if it is before 20 weeks, how does a few days here and there make a difference? (Maybe a doctor can shed some light on the logic behind 20 weeks?) And if both acts are equally criminal, and yet one of them is legal, why not make an exception in a special case? One hopes that it’s a well thought out and responsible decision on the part of the parents or mother, as the case may be, in either scenario. It’s a decision that may well have life altering consequences for people. Certainly it’s difficult to imagine that it would rest easy on anybody’s conscience. Of course I also concede that the world is full of all kinds of people, making it essential to have all kinds of laws, but then such people have little regard for the law in the first place. Must be have laws that are designed to bring genuine offenders to book, while ignoring how simple law abiding folk can get affected by it? It’s tricky for sure, for after all, the people writing the laws, defending them and passing judgments based on them, are not always in the clean… have I gone completely off track here??
Anyway, this made me think of another case that had surfaced some years ago, and which was equally controversial, if not more. It was the death sentence for Md Afzal Guru, one of the prime accused behind the attack on Parliament in 2001. This isn’t about Guru, it is about the right to take a life, however heinous the crime committed by a person. In my personal opinion, I am against the death sentence, though of course he deserves the worst punishment possible. I realize that I am probably in a minority, but my argument is not in his favour in anyway, it’s just against playing ‘God’.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Attaboy Mr Ramadoss!

One of the front page news items in the TOI today took me completely by surprise. I had all but formed an unfavourable opinion of our Union Minister for Health, Mr Ambumani Ramadoss. In the last few years he has caught on my attention several times, but most notably for his stand on two matters.
The first concerns the depiction of smoking in films, which he wanted to remove altogether irrespective of content and suitability to the story, a rather bizarre take on the matter. Needless to say the film community was united in its protest to the idea. (I also remember him publicly advising Shahrukh Khan to give up smoking and to be a more responsible actor, like Aamir, referring apparently to Om Shanti Om as opposed to Taare Zameen Par. Now I am no fan of Shahrukh the actor, but what he does in his personal life is his business. And why make any such comparisons? Aamir has his place in the industry as does Shahrukh as does Govinda as does the last extra dancing behind these leading men. Maybe he should launch a tirade against Govinda’s pelvis thrusts as well? There I might even support him!)
The second was a public spat with the Director of the AIIMS, Dr. P Venugopal. I don’t remember it too well, and in any case it was difficult to react to. Enough details about such cases are often not available in the media, to really form an informed and unbiased opinion, and even if they were, is it really possible to do as much reading and research about every story one reads in the papers? But given the negative light I already saw the honourable Minister in, courtesy his earlier stand, I remember sympathizing with the good doctor who was Mr Ramadoss’ target, and being more than a little pleased when he was reinstated in his position in spite of Mr Ramadoss’ efforts at dislodging him.
But his latest comments about legalizing homosexuality come as a pleasant surprise. Is this the same man talking? It was while addressing a gathering during the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City that Mr Ramadoss spoke about Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes homosexuality, and said that it must be repealed. Such a statement, welcome as it is, is sure to invite public ire, and have long term political consequences.
I hope he sticks to his stand in the face of all that he will surely have to face. For now all I can say is, attaboy!