Barack Obama was nominated by acclamation as the candidate of the Democratic Party for Election 2008, the first African-American to ever lead a major part ticket. It was an emotional moment for African-Americans. Tears were rolling down their cheeks. Many of them were crying outright as they raised their heads proudly. An African-American party official said he wanted to dedicate this moment to his late father who lived through segregation and racial discrimination in the 50s. Finally, finally, vindication that they could aspire to the highest office in the USA and officially represent a major party!
It was a historic moment and I can now say that I watched it live.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I've been following the race for the President of the US since January this year through the
grueling primaries, Hillary's defeat and the melodrama that followed afterward. I, for one, thought that Bill Clinton, after his wife's defeat, was a shadow of his former self, acting like a baby denied candy. I thought I'd see more of his wordplay yesterday night and a wishy-washy approval of Obama.
Instead, he came out swinging with his GOP slamming and outright approval of Obama. In the process, he showed everyone how its done..:) The thing with Clinton is that you forget all his faults when he shows up and starts talking nice. He sounds so sincere, eloquent and coherent that you want to believe him. Thus far, I thought no one, including the candidate, made a case for himself so strongly as Bill did for Obama! Definitely, one of the best talks of the convention.
S & I were wondering how in the world the country managed to listen to George W. Bush for 8 years after hearing someone like Bill.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Tonight is Obama's acceptance speech. I am a sucker for good speeches and am looking forward to hearing this guy speak! :)
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
'Dasavatharam', Cholas and Racism...
S is dead-stubborn that we should watch 'Dasavatharam' playing in Cincinnati this Sunday. We got the tickets yesterday. I wasn't (am) not very excited about it because I have my own personal grudge against this movie.
In one of the roles, Kamal plays Rangarajan Nambi of Srirangam. Rangarajan Nambi gets persecuted (in the movie) by Kulothunga Chozha I for his Vaishnavite faith. Kanniks told me that this role was based on Sri Ramanujar's life. Now, I have my own soft corner for the Cholas and I refuse to vilify these kings who nurtured Saivism/Vaishanvism alike and endowed millions to Vaishnavite temples (including Srirangam. There's an inscription in the temple to support this).
Personally, I've always felt that the Tamilnadu government glorified the Pandyas and the Pallavas while ignoring the Chozha heritage of TN. We hear of Narasimha Pallava of Mahabalipuram fame and the Tamil Sangam nurturing Pandyas of Madurai often in the history books. Why are Chozhas not given as much prominence? What about Raja Raja Chozha who retrieved the Tamizh devarams from ruin? I've never read more than 2 lines dedicated to Raja Raja Chozha or Rajendra Chozha.
Coming from the heart of Chozha countries, some of these things strike close to heart. Assuming that Kulothunga Chozha indeed was a religious fanatic, why single out Chozhas for religious persecution?! What about the Pandyan who massacred the Jains near Madurai? What about Narasimha Pallava/Mahendra Pallava who did the same?
I'll reserve final judgement after I see the movie. Watch out for more rants on this space..:)
In one of the roles, Kamal plays Rangarajan Nambi of Srirangam. Rangarajan Nambi gets persecuted (in the movie) by Kulothunga Chozha I for his Vaishnavite faith. Kanniks told me that this role was based on Sri Ramanujar's life. Now, I have my own soft corner for the Cholas and I refuse to vilify these kings who nurtured Saivism/Vaishanvism alike and endowed millions to Vaishnavite temples (including Srirangam. There's an inscription in the temple to support this).
Personally, I've always felt that the Tamilnadu government glorified the Pandyas and the Pallavas while ignoring the Chozha heritage of TN. We hear of Narasimha Pallava of Mahabalipuram fame and the Tamil Sangam nurturing Pandyas of Madurai often in the history books. Why are Chozhas not given as much prominence? What about Raja Raja Chozha who retrieved the Tamizh devarams from ruin? I've never read more than 2 lines dedicated to Raja Raja Chozha or Rajendra Chozha.
Coming from the heart of Chozha countries, some of these things strike close to heart. Assuming that Kulothunga Chozha indeed was a religious fanatic, why single out Chozhas for religious persecution?! What about the Pandyan who massacred the Jains near Madurai? What about Narasimha Pallava/Mahendra Pallava who did the same?
I'll reserve final judgement after I see the movie. Watch out for more rants on this space..:)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Can we really ignore where we're from?
I watched Jodhaa Akbar. I loved it mainly because of Hrithik's performance as a dignified yet vulnerable emperor who's trying to woo a proud woman. This might never have happened in history but I loved the performance anyway (The scene where Maham Anga is briefing a sheepish Hrithik who gets distracted by his beautiful wife is class)!
Fueled by this movie, I began a frenzy of reading about the Mughals. All the Mughals except Akbar were well-read and they're surprisingly candid in their memoirs. I've read bits and pieces of Babur's writings, Jahangir's memoir, Aurangzeb's letters and the Ain-i-Akbari. History books have always emphasized that the Mughals after Babur were quintessentially Indian having been born and raised in Hindustan. I had also come to think of the Mughals as Indians and the British rule as an unjust "foreign" rule.
However, what really shocked me was how most of these Mughal emperors (except Akbar) viewed themselves as "outsiders" and "superior" beings to the local populace. Babur openly writes that he hates the clime and the "infidel" people of "Hindoostan". He viewed himself as a "ghazi" or holy warrior. Jahangir was openly a religious zealot and believed that his was the superior clan. Shah Jahan seems to have followed the pattern. Aurangzeb was perhaps the worst of them all. In one of his letters to his sons, he tells him to hold "firm to his faith" and to persecute the "infidels" mercilessly by torturing them. I can understand the "hold firm to your faith" part but torture your own subjects just because their non-believers? That too, 150 years after your ancestors entered Hindustan and adopted the country?
History books also seem to have mislead us by parroting that everyone was happy under Mughal rule and that the Britishers were the "bad guys" who fostered dissessions. Based on all these memoirs, it sure feels like the Hindu-Muslim discord was always there festering under the calm veneer of society. The flames were fanned higher by Aurangzeb who made it a point to destroy Hindu temples to build his palaces and places of pleasure. I don't think the resentment felt by the Hindu population chafing under Mughal rule was ever resolved. Before it reached a healthy conclusion, the Britishers took root in the land but it was always there, lurking. Godhra, Babri Masjid et al.. are just occasional outbursts of that resentment.
To some extent, I feel cheated. I know it sounds silly after 500 years. But here we are, preening our Mughal heritage to the world, crowing about Mughal paintings, music and the Taj Mahal as examples of beautiful, "Indian" art while the king who created it really felt like he was a Persian and not really part of Hindustan! :(
Being immigrants to the US, a lot of us face the same conundrum the Mughals faced. We want to hold onto our faith, our beliefs, our culture but we also try to blend in. How much blending in is acceptable? How much will make us just "one of them"-- a betrayer of our faith and values? Can we ever ignore the fact that we're Indian and make decisions excluding that fact? At least for first-generation NRIs, I don't think it is possible. No matter how many years you've lived in your adopted country, the call of the homeland will always be in the blood and it will always resound stronger than any other call.
Fueled by this movie, I began a frenzy of reading about the Mughals. All the Mughals except Akbar were well-read and they're surprisingly candid in their memoirs. I've read bits and pieces of Babur's writings, Jahangir's memoir, Aurangzeb's letters and the Ain-i-Akbari. History books have always emphasized that the Mughals after Babur were quintessentially Indian having been born and raised in Hindustan. I had also come to think of the Mughals as Indians and the British rule as an unjust "foreign" rule.
However, what really shocked me was how most of these Mughal emperors (except Akbar) viewed themselves as "outsiders" and "superior" beings to the local populace. Babur openly writes that he hates the clime and the "infidel" people of "Hindoostan". He viewed himself as a "ghazi" or holy warrior. Jahangir was openly a religious zealot and believed that his was the superior clan. Shah Jahan seems to have followed the pattern. Aurangzeb was perhaps the worst of them all. In one of his letters to his sons, he tells him to hold "firm to his faith" and to persecute the "infidels" mercilessly by torturing them. I can understand the "hold firm to your faith" part but torture your own subjects just because their non-believers? That too, 150 years after your ancestors entered Hindustan and adopted the country?
History books also seem to have mislead us by parroting that everyone was happy under Mughal rule and that the Britishers were the "bad guys" who fostered dissessions. Based on all these memoirs, it sure feels like the Hindu-Muslim discord was always there festering under the calm veneer of society. The flames were fanned higher by Aurangzeb who made it a point to destroy Hindu temples to build his palaces and places of pleasure. I don't think the resentment felt by the Hindu population chafing under Mughal rule was ever resolved. Before it reached a healthy conclusion, the Britishers took root in the land but it was always there, lurking. Godhra, Babri Masjid et al.. are just occasional outbursts of that resentment.
To some extent, I feel cheated. I know it sounds silly after 500 years. But here we are, preening our Mughal heritage to the world, crowing about Mughal paintings, music and the Taj Mahal as examples of beautiful, "Indian" art while the king who created it really felt like he was a Persian and not really part of Hindustan! :(
Being immigrants to the US, a lot of us face the same conundrum the Mughals faced. We want to hold onto our faith, our beliefs, our culture but we also try to blend in. How much blending in is acceptable? How much will make us just "one of them"-- a betrayer of our faith and values? Can we ever ignore the fact that we're Indian and make decisions excluding that fact? At least for first-generation NRIs, I don't think it is possible. No matter how many years you've lived in your adopted country, the call of the homeland will always be in the blood and it will always resound stronger than any other call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)