The Sublime and the Mundane
Tuesday, 11. August 2009 - 12:22 AM
A good way to take a break from sickening news, never ending political crap and even mundane life, and recover sanity is to turn the mind towards the more refined appeals. The kinds that we’ve lost the time and solitude to enjoy at will: music, painting, sculpture, plays, and literature. More specifically, the classical variety of these arts. Long-time readers of this blog know my inclinations–and biases–mostly veer in that direction. While I don’t need to justify these inclinations/biases, it helps to clarify–for myself–why I tend to favour the Classical Elements. One reason is their timeless quality and their independence from fancy ideologies and theories. While I don’t distinguish the worth a work on the basis of language, I must say I favour classical Indian literature (includes works in regional languages) and music over others. Perhaps I identify with them more intimately because I was born into it, but in my (limited) readings of classical world literature, nothing gives me the same experience that our classics do.
Which is why I’m both amused and angry when I hear/read people waxing eloquent on ghazals. I’ve listened to scores of ghazals with an open mind–with a sincere attempt to appreciate them. Every single such attempt only ended up reaffirming my conviction that ghazals are mundane at best and repetitive crap at worst. I do appreciate some film-based ghazals but that’s more for their musical, than lyrical quality.
The classical theme of a ghazal focuses on the failure of attaining illicit or forbidden love. Equally, the Sufi/mystical ghazals also hold no appeal for me. The theme of illicit love isn’t unique to ghazals but that’s where the difference ends as we shall see. I view Sufi/mystic ghazals–yes, that includes Rumi, sorry to break your heart–as pretty much incomprehensible. As I’ve said elsewhere, a classical, lasting work has a universal quality to it. None of the ghazals meet this criterion at the least. As far as I discern, ghazals are mostly centered around various facets sensual love: unattainable illicit love, longing for the beloved, the sensual and mental state of lovelornness, and the pain of unrequited love. Almost every such ghazal is sung in a uniform, melancholic monotone devoid of any feeling except sadness. I mean, an average Bollywood film has at least five songs, one for each occasion–joy, celebration, romance, and sadness. But I’m yet to listen to a peppy, zestful ghazal: as the theme so the tune. After continuously listening to more than a half hour of ghazals, you can almost predict the same, piteous mourning that makes up as the tune of the next number.
If that sounds harsh, it wasn’t intentional: a country’s society and culture is reflected in various aspects of its life including the arts. Thus, ghazals, which originated in the Arabian region reflect the culture of that region, which primarily involved conquering, subjugating, and enslaving other cultures and in times of leisure, given to utter sensuality. Such a culture can obviously produce only such literature (on a related note, SL Bhyrappa has written a pithy analysis on this subject). Thus, ghazal-poetry never rises above the sensual and the mundane: food, drink, and the rest.
The entire corpus of ghazals doesn’t match the sublimity or heroism of this verse of Bhartruhari:
Yaam chintayaami satatam mayi saa viraktaa
Saapyanyamicchati janam sa janonyasaktah
Asmatkrute ca parishushyati kaachidanyaa
Dhik taam ca tam ca madanam ca imaam ca maam ca
She, upon whom I meditate perpetually is detached from me,
She desires Another and the Other desires yet another–
Thus it always goes,
This desire to always desire Another–
Fie on her, on him, on Madana (God of Love),
Fie on all this and fie on me too!
[Ed: A very crude translation]
We have ghazals, which now–since I began writing this post–resemble an assemblage of sensual love-elegies and we have Bhartruhari, who dismisses even the notion of this kind of love because in the end, it is futile.
You can argue that there’s ample sensual love in Indian classical poetry starting right from Kalidasa. Sure, but what ultimately distinguishes Kalidasa’s love poetry from wine-and-tear dripping ghazals by several light years is one word: Rasa (emotion, feeling, experience). What you derive after reading Kalidasa elevates you. The verses describing Lord Shiva in deep meditation right up to burning down Kama (God of Love) is worth reading in the original. The emotional elevation that it gives you? Priceless. Or the episode of Yayati, where after a sensual feast of a thousand years, he realizes that you cannot extinguish fire with ghee. Majority of classical Indian literature deal with such themes: of taking the quotidian and levitating it to unimaginably subtle levels. This does two things: it does not discount the importance or significance of the sensual/material by giving it a healthy respect. Simultaneously, it demonstrates the possibility of a happier state beyond the sensual. Again, these works possess this quality because it is already present in the Indian culture.
Ultimately, you get only what you look for.
11. August 2009 - 4:57 AM
I can’t stand gazals either! They remind me of a product of a society where women are in burkas and people not in control of their lives…But I like the poetry of Omar Khayyam and Hafez and other Persian poets. I read Rumi…I guess much is lost in translation. But regardless Farsi is a beautiful language. I believe Persian mysticism arose because Persians are naturally a mystical peoples and when Islam was imposed on them after Arab conquests, they gave mysticism to a matter of fact religion like Islam. In Kashmir you can see the influence of Hinduism on Islamic mysticism…
As for classics, in addition to the Indian classics and our mother tongue which is Sanskrit, I love the old Greek classics–Greek tragedy is sublime–Sophocles! I also love Homer, Greek philosophy and Greek lyrical poetry–a product of a time when the Western world was not influenced the by mid-east mono-theisms…
11. August 2009 - 5:16 AM
As for Rumi–he was from Balkh, where there was a confluence of Zoroastrian, Brahmanic and Buddhist cultures before the people were converted to Islam…I always think this is where his mysticism arises (being from Balkh–) and it transforms even Islam! I see him as a poet whose original Persian nature transforms an imposed religion!
11. August 2009 - 5:33 AM
contd.
But you are correct in that literature and the arts reflects a society in which they arise…
But even if you do not like a particular genre of literature, I guess it can teach you a lot about a society from which it came forth…
It is sad that many of our Sanskrit plays have been lost in time or survive in fragments…but what survives of Sanskrit literature is vast …Its the same way for Greek literature…what survives (a fraction) is enough to enrich you for a lifetime…
11. August 2009 - 5:48 AM
I meant Sanskrit as mother tongue in the sense of the language of ancestors before they switched to the various dialects…
11. August 2009 - 6:22 AM
Sorry for so many posts but can you post Bhyrappa’s view that you write of? I am interested in what he has to say on this topic.
I recently went to a middle eastern restaurant and they had a belly dancer–I did not like the dance form at all–nothing but pure sensuality–
11. August 2009 - 7:11 AM
I don’t think I’ve liked any Gazal barring maybe: Hazaro Khwahishein aisi (I hope I got the spelling right). That too because of genius of Jagjit Singh. Of course, I find refuge in Pink Floyd.
I never could understand Classical Indian Music, maybe it’s time I gave it a shot!
11. August 2009 - 7:36 AM
I guess any system is ultimately “defined” not by how it starts or how it develops, but where it chooses to put the full-stop.
I liked the way this post highlights the essence of Indian classics, which do pass through all sorts of stages, but don’t stop until they attain the ultimate, the all pervading Ananda.
11. August 2009 - 8:32 AM
Piteous mourning! Well said….
11. August 2009 - 9:12 AM
I am very much into Carnatic music, though my knowldge on it pretty mimimal. The pity here in Sydeny is total lack of interest in Carnatic concerts by the Indians. A non profit carnatic music organisation run by brother in law here finds it hard to make ends meet when sponsoring overseas artists(ie; Indian artists from India). But,any Gazal concert here is a sellout. I know a lot of Indians who flock to these concerts who have no clue about this music but will happily pay a hefty price to attend. For whatever reason, these Gazal concerts(totally unrelated to our Indian culture) attract ordinary Indians but the same Indians find Carnatic music boring.
11. August 2009 - 9:59 AM
Very interesting. Could you please introduce more classical Indian works on this blog. It would be a great starting point for interested people. I have personally been spending a lot of time on vedantic texts, and I’m blown away by both the logical as well as literary quality of these works.
Also: I’m guessing that to appreciate ghazals, one needs to be a failed lover at that point in time. It sort of glorifies that self pitying state.
11. August 2009 - 11:07 AM
Why are food, drink, and the rest mundane?
11. August 2009 - 12:00 PM
Hey, how true.
I just dont understand what people actually like about ghazals… what makes them go waah waah on hearing something in a language they dont even comprehend.
Ironically and funnily, they carry the air of a connoisseur if they can manage to “find” the meaning, a meaning so obvious and mundane that it cannot even make you spend some thought. Ohh I am happy being an unrefined boor, than tolerate ghazals and pretend to be refined – based on the idea of refinement of some sundry Delhi sultanate court musicians and jesters.
Good to see that someone else has also noted that ghazals seem to be centered around very few themes – women or wine. The music is almost like playing the same track in a loop with slight variations in tempo. Again, ironically, Islam has primitive, – repulsive, rather – ideas about both wine and women
11. August 2009 - 12:04 PM
>>> I’m guessing that to appreciate ghazals, one needs to be a failed lover at that point in time. It sort of glorifies that self pitying state.
Mk,
sounds interesting. I just noted that all those ghazal “connoisseurs” I know happen to be the kind of lovers who would write love letters with blood
11. August 2009 - 1:52 PM
I like ghazals, make good listening when you decide to commit suicide with all the extra work that you get dumped with. You listen and realise, there are far worse things that extra work at office.
but of course moi kids.
here’s a ghazal link for you. Laments the loss of love in the world. Im sure you will enjoy it.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/adcea4a3-f258-4886-ac35-23e04799a702/Ab-kaha-pyar_Runa-Laila
11. August 2009 - 6:05 PM
I have never understood the attention paid to “urdu” when native Indian literature is so much better…You know even many of the great urdu poets such as the naional poet of Pakistan were originally Kashmri Pandits who had been converted to Islam forcibly at some point in time…tells even you where the poetic gene came from…
I like some Persian poetry–the style of the ones by Hafez influenced even Goethe into writing the East-West divan…
But overall, it is easy to see that with Persian poetry that it was the Persian talent(an artistic peoples and not tribals) trying to come out of an Islamic shell that had been forcibly imposed on them…
11. August 2009 - 6:11 PM
I must thank the author for this post, since this gave me a chance for such a hearty laugh, that my wife, sitting next to me was startled. The ignorance of the author about ghazals drips from this post as much as wine drips from ghazals.
The author displays his crap of ignorance when he affirms “The classical theme of a ghazal focuses on the failure of attaining illicit or forbidden love.”. Ghazal is not about illicit or forbidden love. This “classical” theme is about any kind of love and about the celebration of extreme longing and passion felt for such a beloved one. This beloved one can be anything, ranging from a human, an ideal, or Infinite. As an example consider the following couplet
Har jarra chamakata hai, anwaar-a-ilaahi se,
Har saans yeh kahati hai, hum hai to khuda bhi hai.
(Everything resonates with the reflection of God. Every breath says, if I exist, God also exists. The last line is deeply sublime. God must be found in our own existence. This resonates more with classical Hindu-Buddhist philosophy, where every sentient being is considered to have either a spark of God, or a Buddha nature. It does not resonates with Islamic God, who is detached from his creation.).
Or a further example, which is both sensuous and sublime
Khil uthe gunche, ya khule dast-e-hinaai tere,
Har taraf tu hai to fir tera pataa kis-se kare.
(The blooming flower seems like your heena clad palm opening. If everywhere I see you, why should I ask, where are you. To see, experience and exult in finding beloved one in each and everything is quite far from “failure” in attaining “illicit and forbidden love”).
The crap does not end here. We are further informed “Almost every such ghazal is sung in a uniform, melancholic monotone devoid of any feeling except sadness”. Really? Ever heard of Ghulam Ali’s famous rendition of “Hungama hai kyun barapa…”. The ghazal, and its rendition, with ultimate playfulness, heaps scorn after scorn on religious orthodoxy. Or Ghanshyam Vaswani in “Kal chaudhavi ki raat thi…”.In fact almost all of Ibn-e-Insha’s ghazals are full of playfulness and lightheartedness. But what about melancholy and sadness? Here are few examples
Lazzat-e-sajada-e-sang-e-dar kya kahe,
Hosh hi kab raha sar zukane ke baad.
(How can I describe my exultation after bowing my head on the altar of my beloved one. I was completely lost in that exalted state. “melancholy” and “sadness”?)
or
Aaye kuch abr, kuch sharaab aaye,
usake baad aaye, jo ahzab aaye.
(Let me soak myself in rain and wine. I would be ready to face any trouble after that. The rain and the wine symbolize celebration of life. The intent here is to say that I would face any trouble to celebrate my life. “Melancholy” and “sadness” ?)
Further piece of crap is “Thus, ghazals, which originated in the Arabian region reflect the culture of that region, which primarily involved conquering, subjugating, and enslaving other cultures and in times of leisure, given to utter sensuality.”. Thus we are informed that ghazals are both “devoid of any feeling except sadness”, and at the same time “utterly sensual”. Moreover I never knew that celebration of love that harbors on devotion, and exulting in extreme longing and passion that results from such a love is “nothing but mundane”.
In fact, ghazals have very little to do with Arabic culture. Their form is originated in Iran and most of its development is done in Indian courts. At any rate, apart from form, urdu ghazals are quite independent of any arabic or persian influence, and totally rooted in India. Moreover, its classical period starts when Moghul power was on decline and not when it was “conquering, subjugating and enslaving others”.
In all truth, the classical theme of ghazals is about proud rebellion from religious orthodoxy, affirmation of joys of life in this world and a deep longing to reach a state of blissfulness, resulting from a love that is almost like devotion. Contrast this with two popular classical Hindu epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Heros in these epics, with almost monotonic melancholy, navigate (and also drag hapless others, who happens to be around them) from one misery to another on the name of duty, tradition, social mores and what not. Moreover they are told that they should bear their miseries as a badge of honor, rather than to rebel against them. If that is the definition of sublime, I am more content with the “mundane” ghazals.
Tail-piece: This comment is written in haste. I wish I could write a more coherent defense of proud rebellion, sublime appeal, deep humanism and celebration of life displayed in ghazals.
11. August 2009 - 6:14 PM
And as for Islamic literature Persians correctly say that even though Islam conquered Iran, that country gave Islam a culture–and not only Persia but Hindu India and Greece as well from where the Islamic world borrowed much of its learning–what is really native to them is the Koran–all else being contributed by non-Islamic peoples forcibly converted to that religion.
11. August 2009 - 6:48 PM
Anwar Shaikh,
I didn’t know you had such a taste for tasting my crap. But now that you’ve done it, it’s probably a good idea to go the fundamentals–you know things like origin, history, development, etc and read up some PRIMARY sources (ever heard of the term?). This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazal#Themes. From this source:
The ghazal not only has a specific form, but traditionally deals with just one subject: Love. And not any kind of love, but specifically, an illicit and unattainable love.
Perhaps you might want to go to Wikipedia and have a taste of its crap. It might satiate your hunger for crap. It’s community crap, by your definition.
Hint: In a comment forum, remember that anger is not a substitute for facts.
11. August 2009 - 6:55 PM
Sandeep, I never knew that you have taste for another crap called wikipedia and you consider it a “primary” source. What do you say about wikipedia’s entries about Islam. Here is one more piece of ghazal which you must be very familiar with and which has nothing to do with love.
Sarfaroshi ki tammana ab hamare dil me hai
Dekhana hai jor kitna baaju-e-katil me hai.
Hint: before you give others hints, check if you need the same advice.
11. August 2009 - 8:22 PM
I almost exhausted myself arguing that romantic poetry does exist in samskrtam!
The bloke doesnt have any idea about sanskrit at all, but just goes on blabbering “lekin Urdu zubaan mein jo baath hai…”
It just beats me how someone from a place which has seen the worst of Qutubuddin aibak, Ghaznavi, Ghauri, and the Mughals still likes their “naajaayaz paidaaish” using our mother Samskrtam. Stockholm syndrome?
Also, there is an image of samskrtam being the language of worship– not language of common place or even the language of high poetry.
11. August 2009 - 8:23 PM
Anwar,
Congratulations! You’ve just demonstrated an old trick: when cornered, question the source! Nice try.
I also realize I grossly overestimated your comprehension skills. I did NOT say Wikipedia is a primary source. Read my response again.
Quoting sarfaroshi ki tamanna doesn’t cut any ice, sorry to break your angry heart.
Hint #2: I mentioned ghazals in a specific context: did the word “classical” miss your attention?
11. August 2009 - 8:32 PM
Well I think the origins of gazals is from a culture (Iran) which is artistic but which was conquered by Islam. So what do they do? Persians being an artistic peoples with culture and not tribals infuse a matter of fact like religion with poetry, art and culture as much as possible within the confines of that religion which is imposed on them by violence.
My Iranian friends say that most of the great works that are credited to Islamic culture are in fact done by Iranians–most of the Greek works were translated into Arabic by first generation Zoroastrians( who are still smart to appreciate and learn from other people’s culture, in this case Greek classical culture)–nothing to do with Arabic culture–they were forced to speak Arabic and write in Arabic after conversion, as Arabic became the language of learning forced on converted folk– but thanks to Firdusi Iran is still in touch which its native Persian culture unlike other folk in the Mid-East who lost their native language and speak Arabic–and retaining your language is a big deal–
Most Iranians I have noticed don’t liked being lumped together under the category of “Islamic” culture–there is hope for that country because they are smart peoples and despite the government, many highly educated Iranians retain their old culture and are very proud of their pre-Islamic heritage–My Iranian friends are lovely, mostly benign people…Their language is beautiful–and as for their poetry of “longing” you have to see it in the context of artistic expression coming out even though a culture has been overrun by something foreign…That’s the way I see it…
11. August 2009 - 9:07 PM
You know I was reading lately about Swat valley–they were mostly Hindus and Buddhists there. Chinese travellers came there for learning in the monasteires. Even an amateur source like Wikipedia shows that there were 3000 buddhist monasteries there, and the monk who took buddhism to Tibet was from there. What has become of the place now and what happened to the beautiful monasteries? Overrun now by Taliban and the peoples there have to historical connection to their past and try to erase it…how sad it all is!
11. August 2009 - 11:40 PM
want to have fun? then follow this link…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYUL7eBdHg
11. August 2009 - 11:54 PM
Also gazals take me to the time of the sensuality and indolence of the Islamic court which did nothing but build palaces and gardens for themselves (no schools and libraries for the people but only high taxation of peasants to fund their palaces) and who just frittered away their time excelling in writing “love” poetry….
12. August 2009 - 3:24 AM
Sandeep, congratulations. When cornered, you also demonstrate the old trick to deny whatever has been said earlier, and cry that the meaning was different. By the way, you forgot to tell which “primary source” you meant. It was a revealation to me that “primary source” to know about ghazals are not ghazals but wikipedia.
There is another old trick (may be taken a leaf from communism). When presented with inconvenient and contrary arguments, ignore them and resort to swearology. Poor show.
But of course, I must also appreciate your intellectual regiour to refer to “primary sources” (which in your case is wikipedia). The frequency with which you write about Islam in this blog, juxtaposed with this intellectual commitment of yours should have made you a first rate scholar on seventh century arabic.
On my part I grossly overestimated size of orifices of your “open” mind. They are not very big.
12. August 2009 - 8:35 AM
Ghazals, IMO, has served one and only one purpose and that is to titillate the lust of the Islamic men. The goal is pretty obvious to anyone following Islamic history. Music, as such, is haram in Islam, unless of course it serves a “purpose”. The rest is subjective – if looking hard, one can even find love/romance in semi-porns (look up some B-rated French movies trying to make a “bold statement”). That is not to say, there is no musical value in ghazals. As a kid I used to appreciate ghazals till I grew up and realized the rest is … just … another of the same kind.
@Anwar: Dude, you are hardly reading what Sandeep has mentioned before on primary sources. Your knee-jerk reactive responses reminds me of a certain Palestinian Mulla in Al-Jazeera TV … as for Wiki, it is not a primary source for anything but it is surely a good STARTING POINT.
12. August 2009 - 9:53 AM
anwar shaikh,
Forget about sources for now, will please tell where does Ghazal stand in comparison with India classical music?
India classical music encompasses all Rasas, it suits for all forms of emotions,How does your Ghazal fare in this aspect?
My knowledge of Indian classical music is very basic, but as connoisseur I can say with a confidence that India classical music is much more advanced than Ghazals.
Ghazals are monotonous, a piteous mourning
I cannot withstand it for more than 10 mins …..
There are lots genius in India classical music who were Muslims, so you need not feel jealous about it
. And please try to be objective,don’t judge this article by keeping author’s view on other topics in your mind.
12. August 2009 - 10:13 AM
Anwar, your ignorance on Ramayana and Mahabharatha is mind blowing. Just remember this, more than likely your forefathers were devout Hindus, reading our great Hindu epics/reciting Vedas daily and were forced into Islam at the point of sword. You should spend more time finding about your true identity, your culture and your Hindu roots rather than listening to these Arabic ( who cares whether it has Iranian/ Iraq origin)Udrudu gazals.
12. August 2009 - 12:13 PM
LOL @ Anwar…
he very nicely personifies that “sundry court musician jester in some mughal or sultan palace” and thinks that Urdu (the bastardized language) is a very refined language or something..
12. August 2009 - 12:35 PM
Well, everybody seems to be less than civil in this discussion! As far as I know, religious and social norms may limit the range of lyrical expression, but the constraints placed on melody, rhythm etc are part of the musical tradition, not the religious. To me, ghazals sound monotonously forlorn but as I understand, that’s the genre, that’s the way they are supposed to be.
12. August 2009 - 1:02 PM
OT:
“constraints placed on melody, rhythm etc are part of the musical tradition, not the religious”
You know what they say about Amir Khusrau being the progenitor of everything connected with “Indian classical music” (north-indian actually, but thats what they call it)… Before him, Indian classical music supposedly “lacked richness and vigour”.
And when such huge claims of appropriation are made, you already know that there is a religious agenda behind it– The “Al jahiliya” clause of the Islamic world.
My point:
There is always a religious connection when dealing with anything coming from west of Gaandhaara.
However, it must be said that Dhrupad, the pre-Islamic Indian classical music, is now being trumpeted as the “authentic” classical music, by a very eminent musical family– the Dagars, who are again, Muslims (they were Hindus to begin with, and they do retain memory of their forefathers)!
12. August 2009 - 1:38 PM
Gentlepersons,
I would have appreciated if instead of heaping your choicest abuses onto me, if you would have refuted by arguments, or at least brought something on the table that supports the original arguments provided in the post. Let the author of the post come out with what corpus of ghazals he has read, other sources of his information, the yardsticks he chooses to measure literary, esthetic and philosophical worth of a work. Let him come with a coherent defense of why a culture that was “conquering, subjugating and enslaving other cultures”, should produce something melancholic and sad. How he resolves the very contradiction of ghazals being “monotonous, melancholic and sad” and at the same time “utterly sensual” (With his use of sensuality in pejorative sense, it seems that the author is writing a thesis which would claim that Khajuraho was actually done by Babar, and Geet-Govind is not written by Jaidev, but Al-baruni, an Islamic conspiracy to malign good name of Hinduism). Where does ghazal-poetry talk about food of all the things? Let him provide his references and support his arguments with these references. That will constitute a proper argument.
12. August 2009 - 3:32 PM
i have heard Ghulam Ali, personally i would recommend him and ghazals in general to anybody suffering from insomnia.
In one of the posts here somebody mentions the popularity of ghazals. well thats what is called (to use an american phrase) “dumbing down” of the indian tastes!!!
12. August 2009 - 4:33 PM
So, I am in this hopeless “love” situation for sometime now and have been trying to deal with it. And yes, none of the ghazals helped me gain a perspective on the situation but the above quote from Bhartruhari did much to enlighten me. Thanks Sandeep!!
12. August 2009 - 6:53 PM
AA
>>none of the ghazals helped me gain a perspective on the situation
I’m afraid the situation may already be out of control if you’re looking to find a solution for your love situation in ghazals or Bhartruhari… You sure she’s not on to her honeymoon already?
Anyways, point is that ghazals are poetic expressions for love situations; they are not meant to be solutions for intricate problems that need Love Guru’s expertise.
12. August 2009 - 8:51 PM
AA
I think gazals encourage too much self-pitying and crying (and strike me as a bit effeminate)–when a child falls we encourage to get back on its feet and stop crying don’t we? Same with adults…
13. August 2009 - 1:31 PM
Somebody in this forum derided over my “monumental ignorance” of Mahabharata. This comment is a reply to this.
Who can understand Mahabharata more than an Indian Muslim, who are caught between two “cultures”, one imposed upon them, and the other, whose impotence is one of the reasons of their predicaments…
Pandavas were sons of gods… and of course, sons inherit nature of their fathers. But they were sons of gods, only by nature, by nurture, they were sons of Pandu… and Pandu was impotent… so they inherit two different legacies, a legacy of gods, and a legacy of Pandu’s impotence….
The legacy of gods makes them great warriors, but the legacy of Pandu…, it refuses to go away, and surfaces its face in their lives again and again, and Pandavas, haunted by this legacy, show a at many place a revolting moral cowardice (and try to rationalize it as Dharma), and drift from one tragedy to another. This legacy of Pandu shows its face when they watch their wife being dragged and humiliated in the court of Duryodhana, bound by some defunct “right conduct” (If Pandavas would have picked up their arms and declared, that first and formost duty of a Kshatriya is self-defense and defense of all those weaker then him, Indian history could have been something else). The Lord intervenes and Draupadi is saved from disgrace. This legacy of Pandu, shows up again when Bhima, knowing fully that Pandavas are no match for the valor of Karna, derides his lower birth (What would have been Indian history, had Yudhishatara chastised Bhima at this point?). Karna, thus humiliated has no recourse except to undermine his own legacy of the Sun god and tie himself forever with evil. This legacy shows up its face again, and this time at the most crucial time of war… and Arjuna throws away his weapons finding himself unable to fight. The Lord knows this time that the legacy of Pandu will raise its face again and again. He knows that this legacy will survive in the coming generations of Pandavas, and he will not always be there to save them. He wants something that should survive behind him and to be passed on to the coming generations as an antidote against legacy of Pandu. So he delivers Gita, and this time, instead of intervening himself, asks Arjuna to fight his own battle and set an example for the coming generations… The Lord parishes after a curse from Ghandhari, and gradually Pandavas also parish… but the legacy of Pandu survives in their generations, and the legacy of the Lord survives in the form of Gita…
Generations pass, and descendents of Pandavas indulge themselves in the sensuality of raas-lila of the Lord and his consorts, but forget his another legacy, Gita. And when the marauders come calling on their borders, the legacy of Pandu again shows its ugly face… and with the only help from the Lord, i.e. Gita, already forgotten, they meet the same fate their forefathers met, humiliation, plunder and subjugation… It is after a long time that few rediscover Gita…
But what about Indian Muslims? Their predicament is like predicament of Karna. Doomed by the moral weakness of their own mother (Kunti is a kshtriya blood, why is a kshtriya blood afraid to call her own what is her own?), and derided by her sons, they bind themselves to something they had no business binding to… what Karna feels for Kunti and Pandavas… is what Indian Muslims feel for Hindu Culture…
So Indian Muslims are a legacy of Karna… they are brothers of Hindus the same way Karna was a brother of Pandavas. Yes, at one point of time in history, we should unite again and reclaim our proper legacy, the legacy of gods… but before this, the task of undoing the legacy of weakness that flows from Pandu and Kunti remains…
13. August 2009 - 2:03 PM
interesting, anwar. rather an innovative way of looking at the mahabharata. And i suppose — from the point of view of an indian muslim — true.
13. August 2009 - 2:36 PM
Well, I would say Anwar’s interpretation contains seeds of romanticism that would be required for any future reconciliation.
But how much of a Muslim is Anwar really? He reminds me of dear debating acquaintance, Kabir, on the dialognow forum.
13. August 2009 - 2:49 PM
The hero of Ramayana, Rama, is worshipped widely but not Pandavas, the heroes of Mahabharata. Not without reason, I’d think.
13. August 2009 - 5:17 PM
Anwar,
Indian history would have been something else if umpteen number of islamic rulers hadnt raped and mutilated it. Atleast the Pandavas didnt go around raping women, cutting throats of people who dont agree with them. Far better being “moral cowards” isnt it?
13. August 2009 - 6:15 PM
Anwar Shaikh,
I find the Ramayana and Mahabharata similar to what the Iliad and Odyssey were to the Greeks– and just as Greek civ is much more than the Odyssey and Iliad, HIndu civ is much more than its major epics…They were books composed by wandering Brahmin bards–and that is how I basically see them…as timeless epics arising from Hindu culture…
And as for conduct the Gita is great–it teaches that freedom is to be protected actively, ahimsa has a place in the sense of mercy towards the weak but not towards enemies and those who wish for your destruction, that is what Gita basically teaches–and if you look at all great nations you see the preservation of a culture and way of life was something they fought for and people were willing to die for it if necessary…Hindus were like that once upon a time…when they produced men worth imitating…
As for impotence, when you have foreign civilizations(Islamic conquests) and foreign ways(british) imposed upon you for centuries as a result of conquests, you are likely to lose sense of what is your “own” and who you are, but Hindus are not completely impotent in that sense that they have not completely lost sense of what is “their own”…
A firm sense of what is “your own” and willingness to defend it and sacrifice for it is what has made great nations in history…I believe these are the only things that make a nation great…
13. August 2009 - 6:59 PM
Harish, your comment proves that my perception of Mahabharata and its consequences on Indian History are correct so far.
13. August 2009 - 7:08 PM
Guys check out this picture–Oath of the Horatii by David who was a famous painter who painted the ideals of the French Revolution–Thomas Jefferson visited France and was greatly impressed by this painting and saw how it related to the American Revolution–Amazing picture–I was fortunate to study it in my art history class….
http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Oath-of-Horatii.L.jpg
13. August 2009 - 7:09 PM
It is called the oath of the Horatii and perhaps symbolizes what ultimately makes a nation great…
http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Oath-of-Horatii.L.jpg
13. August 2009 - 7:40 PM
Anwar Saikh,
Part of the problem was that the foreign invasions only disrupted culture for centuries in India–did not completely destroy it. Europe was also converted to Christianity so a foreign outlook arising from the Mid-East was imposed upon them–but the conversion was total and Christianity became the religion of all and the West was built on its Christian as well as pre-Christian heritage. In India HIndus resisted the imposition of foreign ways which is why there is something left in India of the ways of their ancestors. My Iranian friend told me of a story of how when Arabs invaded Iran they were chasing a beautiful Zoroastrian girl who fled to the mountains, she cried out for help and the mountain open itself and swallowed her, saving her from the invaders…I believe people still know of this mountain there from legend. You know it took the Arabs to completely convert Iran by force, almost a century–yet even they have not forgotten their pre-Islamic past…So compare it to Hindus who have not all been converted and who retain their culture…
If anything, I am opposed to conversion by lure of money and force on these grounds–it makes a peoples divorced from their history and past, and is very damaging in this respect…when there are no forced conversion as in the growth of Buddhism but people gravitate towards it on their own, you have always seen peaceful co-existence as far as religion is concerned..Chinese travellers speak of how it was hard for them to distinguish between Hindus and Buddhists in Kashmir…
I believe we were talking about gazals–an art form can be appreciated in the social context out of which it arises and art can be a masterpiece in this context,–but I am sure for Hindus with this art form perfected in the Islamic coutrs, there is an association with the effeminacy of the Islamic court which built not a single school or library for the people, but taxed them to build palaces and gardens for themselves, and its harems and men whose chief occupation was scribbling “love” poetry to womean all covered up…So you cannot blame Hindus for thinking gazals aesthetically is something not Hindu and a product of an imported foreign culture and having an innate inability to appreciate them…
13. August 2009 - 7:56 PM
Anwar Saikh,
Part of the problem was that the foreign invasions only disrupted culture for centuries in India–did not completely destroy it. Europe was also converted to Christianity so a foreign outlook arising from the Mid-East was imposed upon them–but the conversion was total and Christianity became the religion of all and the West was built on its Christian as well as pre-Christian heritage. In India HIndus resisted the imposition of foreign ways which is why there is something left in India of the ways of their ancestors. My Iranian friend told me of a beautiful story of how when Arabs invaded Iran, they chased a beautiful Zoroastrian girl who fled to the mountains, she cried out for help to the mountain and the mountain opened itself and swallowed her, saving her from the invaders…I believe people still know of this mountain there from legend. You know it took the Arabs almost a century to convert the Iranians by force –yet even as Muslims they have not forgotten their pre-Islamic past as the story my friend told me shows. So compare it to Hindus who have not all been converted and who retain their culture…
If anything, I am opposed to conversion by lure of money and force on these grounds–it makes a peoples divorced from their history and past, and is very damaging in this respect…when there are no forced conversions as in the growth of Buddhism where people gravitate towards the religion on their own, you have always seen peaceful co-existence as far as religion is concerned..Chinese travellers speak of how it was hard for them to distinguish between Hindus and Buddhists in Kashmir…
I believe we were talking about gazals–an art form can be appreciated in the social context out of which it arises and art can be a masterpiece in this context even if you don’t happen to like that social context–but I am sure for Hindus with this art form perfected in the Islamic courts, there is an association with the effeminacy of the Islamic court which built not a single school or library for the people, but taxed them to build palaces and gardens for themselves, and its harems and its men whose chief occupation was scribbling “love” poetry to women all covered up(covering up of women is not Hindu)…So you cannot blame Hindus for thinking gazals are something aesthetically not Hindu and a product of an imported foreign culture and for having an innate inability to appreciate them…
I have nothing against Muslims bye the way, I am just telling you an honest opinion as this is what this blog is about…
One just hopes that India is able to develop a pan-Indian identity–but that’s more easily said than done given the region’s history…
13. August 2009 - 10:26 PM
“Far better being “moral cowards” isnt it?”
- Never Harish! Don’t even think it in your worst nightmare. Let us be and do evil rather act be cowards of any type.
This is the reason Savarkar chides Shivaji for not treating captured Muslim women and holy books the way Hindu women and holy books were treated.
Taking the Mahabharata out of it’s settings, if Duryodhana had been slain then and there – that night the dice rolled, greater suffering would have been avoided.
Let us not hide or suppress bitterness when it comes; under perverse morality. Give it play and that will keep us healthy.
13. August 2009 - 10:27 PM
Errata – “rather *than* be cowards of any type.”
14. August 2009 - 2:38 AM
Pala,
Then whats the difference between them and us?? We will also be uncivilised, barbaric tribal types.
And Mahabharata is too huge to rant on the basis of a few episodes. May be it could have been different. Atleast our scriptures are open to intepretation, would you find that freedom anywhere???
14. August 2009 - 3:54 AM
Karna is an example of a person who got destroyed for hanging around with wrong gang blindly serving Duryodhana who transformed him into a king from a charioteer’s son. Blind rage and anger towards society and total misunderstanding of the Dharma are the only reasons for his death. He could never make the best use of opportunities given to him because of hatred towards one and all. If you read the scripture, you can easily see the way Karna talks to elders without any respect, the vain glorious behavior he displays in various campaigns but in reality fails miserably. Duryodhana took in Karna into his company with great expectations but Karna in reality was a total failure. It was Duryodhana who had to pay the ultimate price for having faith in Karna. The hatred he had against society, the ego problems he had, his shameless boasting, lying about his prowess even when things were laid bare, the strange psychological complex of inferiority and injustice he developed finally brought doom to everyone.
All Hindu converts are indeed like Karna. Many of the first Muslims in India are those short sighted Hindus who allowed the blind rage to conquer them even before barbarians from the west conquered them. If you look at our history, all initial Hindu converts converted not out of love for the foreign religion but because of the hatred they had in their minds towards their fellow men. Some didnt like the local king, some didnt like the landlords they worked under, some didnt like the social practices, some were just criminals who were waiting to join like minded people…you name it, you will find only hatred as the real motive for conversion. These people are like Karna who blamed everyone and everything except himself for his misfortunes, grew more angry and restless everyday until he destroyed himself and his mates.
And coming to ghazals, the bitter truth is, no matter how hard you thump your chest, nothing of beauty can arise from political religions which survive on dogma and superstition. Persia and other native cultures and pre- christian Europe carry the real foundations for all kinds of art and philosophy these non pluralistic religions falsely claim as theirs.
14. August 2009 - 11:12 AM
http://dailypioneer.com/195367/US-body-puts-India-under-Watch-List-on-religious-freedom.html
India is now on the “religious freedom watch list” …
O dear !
14. August 2009 - 11:34 AM
Harish – Yes, at first sight that would be the reaction of normal people.
But remember when one is facing existential dangers, there are no normal times. So behaving normally nee civilly will actually be akin to displaying perverse behavior.
No one can argue that the Pandava reaction that night was noble and Dharmic. They were not upholding anything, to say nothing of Dharma. No wonder Krishna had to intervene.
Again, Anwar was very specific in his argument. To be fair, your response was specific to his charge. My suggestion is specific to your response.
People even today argue stupidly about the “immorality” of the bombing of Dresden and the two bombs over Japan. They just as easily forget that if it were up to Germany and Japan, neither would have thought much about Atomic bombing the US and England. They would not have any moral qualms decades hence either.
14. August 2009 - 11:52 AM
This is truly stupid and bizarre article
anything good and appealing cannot be produced by other cultures
14. August 2009 - 12:00 PM
“Anwar Saikh”
Interesting that you share your name with that famous apostate of Islam, who has written the wonderful book : “Islam : Arab imperialism”.
Perhaps you may gain an understanding of another point of view by reading that book.
14. August 2009 - 12:02 PM
S B – I think Anwar has already hinted that he does not share in the Islamic glory.
14. August 2009 - 9:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Phr9doxq5g
Ultimately, you get only what you look for, precisely!
15. August 2009 - 10:58 AM
Anwar,
That was a very refreshing look from an outsider on Mahabharata, and i suspect you are one as it is difficult for any Hindu to come up with that hypothesis. I have been following a large number of blogs for a long time and the arguments made by people with islamic pen names have been largely rhetorical and predictable. Your defense of ghazals was like a breath of fresh air and i wish and hope that more of your ilk start participating in discussion forums.
A couple of points though. Granted that the wikipedia entry did not do full justice to ghazals. Granted also is the fact that the creators of ghazals were the rebels of the day (like the rock starts of today). There were romantics and perhaps mystics. But given the fact that they floursihed under the islamic rule and also that Islamic society is based on the concept of absolute morality, they are unidimensional (either romantic, or rebellious or suphiyana).
In comparison, hinduism is multi-layered and does not practise moral absolutism and the hindu art and culture is also multi-layered. From one perspective something may look highly sensual, but if you look from a elevated perspective, you would find a lot of spiritual meaning hidden in it. Most of the literary works would look like odes to kings, but may in fact, be verses praising God.
The problem that I have about ghazals and shayari is that for most indians north of the vindhyas, urdu, ghazals and shayari are the defining words for poetry and richness of expression.
Regarding Mahabharata and the aftermath, I would like to digress a little bit. Hindu system of morality is based on the concept of Yugas. A yuga is a period of time where the average ratio of good and bad people is relatively constant. Krita Yuga represents the period where there every one was righteous. Treta Yuga, the next one represents the era with 75 % good and 25 % selfish and so on. A yuga purusha appears at the transition from one yuga to another (Yuga sandhi) and lays the moral foundation for the coming Yuga.
Rama comes at the end of Treta Yuga where still good is predominant and you can follow rigid moral rules and win. Krishna comes at the end of Dwapara Yuga where the scales are tilting in the favor of selfish people. The message is that the odds are overwhelming and if you want to survive and win, bend the rules as long as you are clear about the fact that the end is righteous.
Since Hinduism is so complicated, the king or the decision maker had to have a good guru guiding him in his moral decision making. If you look at history, whenever the guru was there to guide the decision maker (Samartha Ramadas for Shivaji etc.), things are good. Unfortunately, most of the times in the last 2 millenia, there is no good guru around, and the confused ruler chooses the improper moral ruleset and looses out (how can u explain defeating some one 10 times and being chivalrous and letting them go). This continues even today in the way we deal with our friends and most importantly foes. This is my rebuttal of your impotent theory.
The blog followers can checkout this interesting site:
http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/page/3/
-TP
15. August 2009 - 6:54 PM
The problem that I have about ghazals and shayari is that for most indians north of the vindhyas, urdu, ghazals and shayari are the defining words for poetry and richness of expression.
I for one could never understand why Hindus think the Islamic court had a rich culture? It is easy to see how India never produced anything great those years–what happened to the original creativity of the Hindus? They retrogressed under Islamic rule–Where was the culture apart from some poetry and architecture? I am like Sandeep in that I never feel elevated by gazals–this is a personal taste, perhaps I associate them with indolence and a repressed kind of culture. Regarding Sufis–many were tricky in Kashmir–they tried to appear like another HIndu sect and many common people were tricked like this to accepting it without understanding that Islam is a religion that does not tolerate other religions in its midst–i.e. thinks only it has access to the truth…
15. August 2009 - 7:35 PM
This is truly stupid and bizarre article
anything good and appealing cannot be produced by other cultures
No thats not true. The author is explaining why he does’nt like gazals–many of us can’t stomach them either…but I can understand many would like them…you cant blame people for liking someting they are bought up to like can you? Just like the other day at an Indian party I could not understand why intelligent girls were dancing to the cheesiest Bollywood songs. I recently rented a movie by Satyajit Ray–was so good? What happened to the movie industry these days? It has gone the way of pure commercialism– Bollywood is at least a hundred times more vulgar than Hollywood…
But you know who do does this kind of thing affect the most? Educated people can laugh at Bollywood, but is there not an obligation to produce tasteful movies for poor people, for whom movies are often a big treat? People with edcuation can be discriminating, but is there not an obligation on the part of artists to give back something to the poor man whose few enjoyments consists of movies? Is there not an obligation for educated people to elevate tastes in general when it comes to movies?
16. August 2009 - 5:00 PM
First it was “I cannot stand Hindustani music especially the way it is sung. While it’s true that emphasis is more on melody/alaaps than sahitya, there’s a tendency to overdo the alaaps”
Then “…or the slow lull of Mandra (Low pitch), which like Hindustani music, gradually assumes momentum, force and ferocity as it builds in strength and plays out human nature in unimaginable notes”
Now,”As far as I discern, ghazals are mostly centered around various facets sensual love: unattainable illicit love, longing for the beloved, the sensual and mental state of lovelornness, and the pain of unrequited love. Almost every such ghazal is sung in a uniform, melancholic monotone devoid of any feeling except sadness”
Bravo!
17. August 2009 - 12:20 AM
Sandeep, OT, Pala, Vasuki, and others:
I am sorry I am late, but did I just miss you all accepting the following as true?
1) Pandu was impotent
2) Karna was a good guy, who had to side with evil
3) Pandavas suffered from “moral cowardice”
4) Indian muslims are basically good and we Hindus drove them away towards the evil.
Please tell me you did NOT concede to these terms.
17. August 2009 - 6:06 AM
Larissa – on yoru post dated 15th august on movies, i have the following comments: i was a discerning movie goer (just like any other indian fan wathed movies of my favorite start multiple times) and leaned towards well made films that were not necessarily popular. though i enjoy ‘artie’ movies, the reality is movies are also business. Art film producers lose money by following their creative urge without compromising, rather than making compromises for commercial sucess. The bottom line is, in my opinion, this is money making business. No one wants to lose money and so are the producers and artists. Once in a while we get good compromises (liek Shankar’s movies in tamil) and purely uncompromising movies like ‘Naan Kadavul’ in tamil (and of course some malayalam movies as well). these are the choices made by the directors and producers. I like Shankar’s philosophy, whereby he puts in the money he earned in commercial ventures to help new directors produce off-beat movies. One international guitaris said, the greatest service you can do to music is not playing music for money. Play it for love and pleasure, that way you can be umcompromising. No one is ready to take on such a journey these days, execpt for some poor carnatic and hindustani music artistes. but some gems come once in a while. we just have to look for them and rejoice. I think less said about Bollywood the better.
17. August 2009 - 1:06 PM
The discussion now seems to have veered to weird assumptions and twisted logic about Mahabharata…
Anwar, Stick to the facts (or the normal interpretation of them) please… I dont think you would like it if I jump to unrelated conclusions about Mohamed and Koran !!
19. August 2009 - 12:58 AM
Don’t like ghazals either, but not all sufi music is sung in the style of ghazals, and not all of it can trace it’s influence to Arab countries. The Sufi music of Sindh and Punjab for example, has plenty of Hindu references (in the poetry as well as the music) and the music is not about illicit love etc-it’s about a longing to unite with the Divine, who is referred to as having no religion. Sufi songs are not always melancholic either. Rumi perhaps is incomprehensible -but Rumi does not all Sufi poetry make. Here’s a peppy sufi song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X2nrIfHeF4
Bhagat Kanwar Ram’s music which was Sufi and Hindu and Sikh at the same time (unable to label it) was neither melancholic nor peppy…it was just a call to the divine.
26. August 2009 - 7:15 PM
Amusing post and discussion (considering my ignorance in such matters). Guess it takes a truly chauvinistic post for Ot to be the voice of reason.