My Lamhe with Chandni - She who makes me sing and sigh at once

The woman in me smiles with a racing heart, as the moment approaches when Rohit surprises an unsuspecting Chandni at her doorstep; hale and hearty. The romantic in me has tears in her eyes and quivering lips, every time, when Kunwarji professes his love to Pooja; after he has broken her heart. The professional in me is thrilled and wants a high five with Chandni, as she tells Lalit that she will not attend a dinner because it is not her job. The friend in me sighs for my buddies across seven seas, as Pooja listens to Premji elaborate on his kinship with Kunwarji. The daughter in me withdraws and curls her toes, just that little bit, when Rohit’s sister taunts Chandni’s family.

I could go on and on about Chandni and Lamhe; the chiffon sarees and white salwar kameez that Chandni wore, the rooted in traditions and yet contemporary Pooja, the ever effervescent on the outside and yet the replete with emotions, well both Chandni and Pooja. But while I can sing odes to the characters and of their traits, the truth remains that they were so touching and real because the great Sridevi portrayed them. Her immersion of herself in the characters made every action, every reaction and every feeling of the fictitious person actually her own. In fact the reason these movies have struck a chord with me is because while viewing them I don’t think I can differentiate between the me, Chandni or Pooja.

Every time Sridevi took centre stage, there was an ease with which the character got moulded in the different nuances of the storyline; allowing the viewer to identify herself with the protagonist. And, well yes, that is the reason that she could carry movies on her shoulders in an era when Bollywood needed male actors to be the anchors.  Chalbaaz is another one that had steam only because of her. Sadma, one of her early movies, may have had the exemplary Kamal Hasan in the lead but she stole the show. For someone like me, not a movie buff, to remember these movies speaks volumes about the actor that the late star was. She truly made her audience her own.

When I saw the trailers of English Vinglish I was disappointed to see Sridevi’s new facial features. Well it was her body, her life and so her choice. That I preferred Chandni and Pooja to Shashi, in appearance, was my preference. Yet when I went to see the film, I once again found myself identifying with Shashi - her unconditional love for the family despite the daily humiliation, her keen desire that her husband accept her with her limitations, and ultimately her determination to prove that she could learn a language even if it was only to get the respect of her husband and children. Only Sridevi could bring life to an imaginary individual such that they seemed as if they were the person next door! And to think that those portrayals will have to suffice, and there will be no more movies to look forward to, saddens even me, not a film aficionado.

As I was writing this post a friend called and somehow the conversation went to Sridevi. She reminded me that Jaya Bachchan in Silsila has depicted the vulnerability of a woman exceedingly well. Madhuri Dixit in Pukar, in a chiffon saree on the snow topped peaks, has oozed love and passion making the saree equally sexy. Preity Zinta in Veer Zara has brought to life love and strength of a soul mate, without melodrama. And there are performances worthy of note by the great performers like Rekha, Kajol, Rani Mukherji etc. But well none, none of them in my view, had the ease and panache that a Sridevi performance had. Only Sharmila Tagore could probably match up to her, in my view. But then while she was spell binding in Anupama, hilarious in Chupke Chupke and profoundly endearing in Amar Prem; Sridevi portrayed the helpless agony in Jaanbaaz, the exuberance of the Chalbaaz, and the longing commitment of Benazir in Khuda Gawah, all with the same poise and élan that was a Sridevi trademark.  

For someone who is not a movie enthusiast, it is unfair to pass judgements. It is but only my humble opinion as I can sing, sigh and romance with every Sridevi performance. Ab aur kyaa kahen, woh thee hi aise screenwaali jise parde ke saath saath dilon pe raaj karnaa bhi aataa thaa…

A Crime and An Aggravated Political Assault

I was preparing to go to bed and decided to skim through my twitter feed. On most days it helps me catch up with updates and sometimes even go to bed amused with my readings. However, today what I read had my insides knotted and mind knitted. In the last thirty minutes I have not been able to do anything, let alone try and sleep.

The headline read, “West Bengal horror: Tribal woman gang-raped, iron rods inserted in private parts; Opposition slams Mamata Banerjee.” Of-course what has me tangled is the completely beastly act committed against the young woman. But what has me additionally riled up is how the opposition has politicised the misery of one innocent victim. Yes, there is always an opportunity for the underdog to score a brownie point against the one in power. But at the cost of someone’s misery, misfortune and mortification! That I think is a mirror of how shallow we have become as human beings.  

As a woman I wince even at the mere thought of iron rods and to try and think what the poor soul must have gone through is sending agitated shockwaves from my head to the toes. Then to consider that politicians want to use the description of this ghastly act that she has to live with to slander the ruling party; to use her story in daily news to gain mileage and win support, is making my skin shrink and blood vessels crawl. As a woman I am feeling vulnerable and as a citizen reprehensible! The woman in me is seeking safety and the citizen in me is searching for respect and dignity!

Each time such an incident happens in the country there is a national outcry to hang the perpetrators. It is assumed that the death of the demon will bring calm and quiet to the victim and create a threat for anyone wanting to commit such a heinous crime in future. No punishment handed to the culprit can probably bring peace to the sufferer. However, allowing her to not relive the horror every second will help her move on and find normalcy sooner. So why do the politicians make the wounds of the victim deeper? Only to wind up emotions that could potentially win a few extra votes! If the attackers are brutally selfish, these supposed leaders are venomously venal! In a country that boasts of women having been Prime Ministers and Presidents, this hypocrisy is a loud cry of decaying values.

If our leaders light a fire, Indian media only fuels it further. Think about it, which media house will ask these politicians to stop in their tracks? Which publication will call upon citizens to gather evidence to help bring justice and not show case political debates on this topic? Which broadcaster will refrain from sensationalising this atrocity further by adding that this happened in a state ruled by a woman chief minister? None! Because they all want their TRPs and their advertisement revenue! And the easiest thing that sells is the one that incites emotions, as we are an emotional society. That one thing which is our biggest strength is misused by our leaders and media to our own detriment and we don’t even realise it.

Yes I am sensitive and touchy and excited at the moment. Yes I am annoyed, provoked and feeling helpless. But that is because I am a woman and I do not understand why someone in pain cannot be left alone to heal...

http://www.firstpost.com/india/west-begal-horror-tribal-woman-gang-raped-iron-rods-inserted-in-private-parts-opposition-slams-mamata-banerjee-4360105.html

Duty vs Love

Last night, during a family gathering, a younger cousin and I were exchanging views on Hindu mythology when he said, "Sita was a dutiful wife" and I reacted with "Sita was a loving wife. We must not mistake her love to be acts of duty." My cousin was not convinced. His take is that duty is also a form of love. While I appreciate his point of view and respect it, I have a slightly different definition of both duty and love. 

In my world view, a duty is an obligation that is expected to be rendered. It can make the doer of the duty feel burdened, and guilty if she does not fulfill this expectation. At times the duty can become so onerous that it takes pleasure and joy out of all action. Then there is love. Any act done out of love, is voluntary; making even the most dire of situations possible to navigate. Because one wants to do something one finds ways and means. There is no burden of expectation but a strong desire of doing and attaining significant personal satisfaction. If unfulfilled, there is no guilt; a tinge of sadness maybe...

And this is my understanding of Devi Sita as well. As a daughter her duty was to obey her father and attend the "swayamvar", the platform provided to her to select her own groom. The catch was that any prospective groom must be able to use Lord Shiva's bow. She fell in love with Lord Rama when she saw him in the gardens of the palace before the Swayamvar. She  acknowledged that the task suitors were expected to complete was tough and she wanted Lord Rama to win the challenge. She wanted to render her duty as a daughter and get her love; so she turned to the only way she knew and that was to seek the blessings of Goddess Parvati. Her first act of love came when in the course using Lord Shiva's bow Lord Rama broke it and incurred the wrath of sage Parshurama. 

Sage Parshurama was a great Shiva follower and was enraged when he learnt that his Guru's bow had been broken. Scintillating with anger he entered the Swayamvar complex, where out of duty and respect Devi Sita bowed to him and he blessed her with eternal happiness. Then he shifted his attention to the reason of his arrival and on learning that it was Lord Rama who had broken the bow, challenged him to a duel. Not wanting to fight the revered sage,  Lord Rama bowed in front of him when the sage picked up his axe to cut the Lord's neck. Devi Sita swiftly bowed between Rama and Parshurama - she would let no harm touch her beloved. The sage suddenly realised that if he harmed Lord Rama he would be taking away his own blessing of eternal happiness that he had bestowed on Devi Sita. And so love conquered anger and averted a duel. 

As a daughter-in-law Devi Sita's duty was to take care of her mothers-in-law in the tragic turn of events that had dealt Lord Rama a fourteen year exile. Her love for her husband created a need to be with him, even if it meant that it would sans luxuries and comforts. And so she convinced her mothers-in-law that between her duty and her love, she wanted to pick love even if it meant giving up worldly pleasures. A princess who was brought up in opulence and married into a royal family, the life of a nomad without any paraphernalia of any sorts was a challenge unforeseen. Yet she undertook it, not because it was her wifely duty but because of her total and unconditional love for Lord Rama. Had she wanted, he duties as a wife could have been hidden behind her duties as a daughter-in-law and she could have stayed in the palace with all amenities at her disposal. Yet she decided to walk the uncharted waters because her love gave her the strength of conviction. 

After Ravana was killed and Lord Rama and Devi Sita were reunited, she was asked to walk through fire. To the world this was to be a test of purity. Was it her duty to obey her husband that made her walk through fire or was it her love and faith in Lord Rama that got her to glide over the flames? If it was out of a sense of duty, her willingness and cheerful acceptance would not have been a part of her persona. It was love and the belief that the Lord had a reason he was putting the love of his life through this unthinkable task that got her to cross the fire with a smile, an open heart and no questions asked. 

Was it her duty as a wife and a queen that got her to bear Lord Rama his children? In fact it was her undying love that she not only wanted to be the mother to his children, but bring them up in an environment that would prepare them for all eventualities of life. That is the sole reason that she asked the Lord that she get time to spend with the saints in the forest and the children be brought up in their care. It is this wish that led to her being sent to the forest by Lord Rama; a wish that gave them both the grave pain of separation from the beloved. So while Devi Sita had the children to be with, the Lord spent the years only thinking of them and in the calm of the knoweldge that he had fulfilled his beloved's wishes. 

Devi Sita's duties as a queen were to render her responsibilities to the kingdom. Lord Rama as the king was duty bound to his subjects. So when a pregnant Devi Sita, as mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, asked for her time with the great saints in the forest, the Lord did say that in face of our duties I am unable to grant your wish, however, my love will ensure that I don't let you down. And so, to keep the sanctity of duty and love, an incident in the kingdom instigated talks about how a woman who had spent a night at another man's house should not be accepted by the husband. This gave the Lord the excuse of saying that Devi Sita had spent many nights at Ashok Vatika, a garden in the palace of Ravana and so she would be sent away. 

I could continue with my views on the difference between love and duty, on the life of Devi Sita and the great love that Lord Rama and Devi Sita harbour for one another. I could add to that my learnings of the life of Lord Shiva and Devi Parvati and how duty and love in their lives have been depicted and brought about union and disruptions. However, the idea of this post is simple - to bring forward my understanding of duty and love and to see if the more evolved readers agree or can show me another view point I may have missed out on. The reason for my writing today is to put forward an understanding of a couple we whole heartedly worship but at the same time blame the Lord for oppressing his better half. The purpose of my writing is to challenge my own self and to see if my own convictions are rational. On this last point, with my data points and learnings, I stand by my belief and faith - Duty is not love, love is far stronger a force than duty and the lives of Devi Sita and Lord Rama are symbols of how great love can be. 

Gender Divide - Us vs Them

What was a gender equality row has now become a women empowerment movement. Of late, feminists have taken the discussions, debates and dues to women to a whole new level, and that has really made me sit back and think. How much of it do I agree with personally may not matter really, but as a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a mentor to millennials, as a woman with aspirations and ambitions and lastly with the responsibility of the many women in my team; I feel compelled to be honest about my views. If I fail in this honesty, I would not only be failing those I love but more importantly my own self.

That women have the right to be treated well is one thing I cannot deny. That women need to be encouraged to follow their dreams is an opportunity I have been given, and cannot deny the same to anyone. That women have been stereotyped is a truth best acknowledged upfront. However, as I am writing all of this, I am left wondering; do we not box men into types, do we not expect men to follow certain paths in life even if they are a hundred and eighty degrees opposite of their own desires,  and do we not suppress boys at any point in their lives? Even if one of these is answered in yes then the affirmative action needs to be inclusive in my view.

One argument against inclusion and pro women is the imbalanced ratio of opressed women vs men; and to that my question is that with a biased affirmative action are we not running the risk of having men in the same boat (as women are today) at some point? Where does this us vs them end?

I have written this before and I will say it yet again. To truly empower women and to create a balance, we need to give them the freedom of choice and confidence in themselves. Because a girl is a good science and maths student should not mean that she is forced to follow that path even if her choice is journalism. Because a girl wants to do Engineering let us not make it easier for her by lowering the bar that allows her admission into a college of her choice. Let us train her into becoming that person who can overcome that hurdle just like we would expect the boys to fight. Because a girl wants to work, let us not push her towards giving priority to her career even though she wants to be a stay at home mother. Because a woman prioritises her family but wants to work as well, let us facilitate the same equally for men and women. And while working on inclusive change let us sensitise genders about one another.

The girl child has an X and a Y chromosome and the male child two Y chromosomes. That must lead to some inherent strengths with each gender and some traits that are complimentary. Why is the same then denied or refuted? If a woman can run during her periods without a tampon, why can a man not shave for months? If a woman is expected to dress well and wear makeup, why is it alright if a man turns up as if he is just out of the gym? If a woman should be allowed to express her emotions and not be discriminated against, why do we call sensitive men sissy? If a woman is expected to lovingly nurture the family, why can't a man be the unconditional supporter? These are all views that we must consider and ask the next generation to dwell upon too...

Ramayana, the Indian epic, has had me fascinated for many years now. It is widely considered to be one of the biggest examples in Indian culture of how women have been wronged against regularly. Not something that I have ever agreed with, but was unable to articulate till I read the very gripping, In Search of Sita. A collection of twelve essays by twelve different contemporary personalities, it highlights how everything has two sides. For example, while Sita's exile when she was pregnant may have been a decision by her king husband, Sita's acceptance of the same was not her weakness; but a mark of strength to say that she could and would survive against all odds. It also demonstrated her faith in her husband who, if one reads the Valmiki Ramayana (the original Ramayana), himself gave up the comforts of a royal life in grief of not being able to live with his wife. Now if we take these views into consideration, love, equality and empowerment are all understood beautifully.

In fact it's amazing how the Ramayana over and over again signifies the importance of inclusive empowerment and the right to choice. It was queen Kaikayi who won the war for King Dashratha and hence became his consort. It was Sita's and Laxman's choice that took them to the forests for a fourteen year exile along with Lord Rama. Sita chose not to marry the very handsome, talented and powerful Ravana; both at the Swayamvar and post her abduction. At the same time, Ravana respected her choice and maintained his distance till such time that she said a yes. So if men were powerful, women with a right to choose were equally empowered.

The world has been painted with varied brushes and in many colours. There are as many emotions and interpretations as there are human beings. Happiness and sorrows ebb and flow with every passing second. And in all this complexity, if we add the variables of us vs them and subtract empathy and compassion; chaos and volatility will only multiply. If it had to be us vs them, then men should have never left Mars and women should have stayed on Venus. But now that we are here, together, on Earth, let us appreciate the beauty that we each bring and help one another rid oursleves of the wrinkles that we can do without. In our short lives let's make every interaction and each encounter special, irrespective of gender or any other divide.