Our Women Ministers: What their ‘Bindi’ Tell Us

 

Today is Late Sushma Swaraj’s death anniversary (punya tithi). A stalwart in Indian politics, she does not need introduction. But one thing that stood out of her was that everyone could “relate” to her! People saw her as “one of own”. It was because of her work and views, but also because of her personality. She sported a prominent ‘bindi’ on her forehead.

Sushma Swaraj always put bindi - mark of Hindu women and sindoor - mark of married women in India.

Now, recently our govt has expanded the cabinet and made many first-time ministers who are women. We now have 11 female ministers. There was a very popular picture shared by the ministers soon after the oath taking ceremony. 

I tried to spot how many of these ministers are sporting bindi and sindoor, just out of curiosity.

I find that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman sports a very small, dot like bindi, and does not sport sindoor most of the time. She is married and has one child. 

On the other hand, minister Anupriya Patel almost never sports either bindi or sindoor, despite being married. Anupriya Patel is younger, and perhaps this explains. Many women these days are ashamed of putting bindi and sindoor. Some say that it is due to the influence of Missionary schools who discourage these signs of local religion.

Meenakshi Lekhi at times appears in Bindi and at times does not. And she seldom applies sindoor, at least that is what I can see in the pictures. She is married to Aman Lekhi, a senior advocate in Supreme Court.

Minister Annapurna Devi is a widow and hence she can be seen so as per the local custom among Hindus. Her husband Late Ramesh Prasad Yadav was Minister in RJD’s Rabri Devi Government of Bihar and she entered politics after her husband's untimely demise.

Minister Pratima Bhoumik has never married and hence she appears so. Do you know that she is the first politician from the state of Tripura to join Union Cabinet? Our current government has strong focus on giving voice to the areas who have been under-represented in the past and a strong North East policy. Pratima Bhoumik is popularly known as ‘didi’ (elder sister) in Tripura. 

Minister Shobha Karandlaje is never married but applies bindi which is alright since unmarried women can apply ‘bindi’. She is a prominent politician from Karnataka. 

Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti is of course never married; and she uses a religious mark (tilak) on her forehead. She comes from a small village in Uttar Pradesh and we should be proud of her presence in the cabinet.

I find that all other women ministers do apply ‘bindi’ and many also use ‘sindoor’ (though not all). 

Dr. Bharati Pravin Pawar is a politician from Nashik in Maharashtra. She is also an MBBS doctor by education and used to work as a medical practitioner. She is the daughter in law of former minister Arjun Tulshiram Pawar. 

Mrs. Darshana Jardosh is from Surat, Gujarat. She won her election with a historic margin of 533190 votes which is the highest lead by any woman MP in Indian Electoral History after Indira Gandhi 

Mrs. Renuka Singh Saruta is from Chhattisgarh and minister of state of Tribal Affairs. 

And I suppose Mrs. Smriti Irani needs no introduction. 

As a conclusion, at an overall level I can see that our ministers have used the ‘bindi’ more often but ‘sindoor’ less often. 

The popularity of 'bindi' may be because it is very convenient to use - most women use a plastic bindi which has a glue on the backside. Though traditionally women used a bindi created with some home recipe. Sindoor may look inconvenient because there is a chance to 'mess it up' by touching and it would spread on the forehead. But there are some variants, e.g. one comes in a sticky paste format, which can be used even by women who are busy at work. 

There is no shame in showing the mark of being married. Keeping a traditional look only makes us looks better, confident and comfortable with ourselves. And when it comes to public fields like "politics", it plays a role like no other. Sushma Swaraj did not keep bindi and sindoor for any political gesture, but it did help her relate to the common masses more. 

This exercise was not to shame anyone for their choice of appearance. It was just a  leisurely research and reality check on the use of popular cultural symbols. We also got to know our ministers better through this exercise. We all should strive for a society which is not ashamed to keep the harmless traditions and marks of our culture intact in our daily life. And when it comes to culture, women excel in it more than men. 

- Rahul Tiwary 

“Ham to nahi dekhe hain”

Kiddo’s grandmother called him and after the initial first couple of months, there was a gap of about 5 years. He was informed that “daadi” (grandmother) was on phone. He picked up the phone and what he said in first sentence, floored me.

He said, “ham to nahi dekhe hain” (But I have not seen you yet). He said it in such an innocent manner and without any malice from the adult world. Well, it is true that he had not seen her from the time he remembers things around him. Normally, when we talk to someone over phone, the caller’s mental image comes in front of our eyes while we talk. But if we have never met the other person, we adults still try to make a bit of an image, based on the voice, tone and mannerism. But, how could a 5-year-old kid make a mental image of his grandmother when he never met her? That is why, the first thing he said was, “I have never met you!” It was so honest and so touching.

He talked nicely. And when asked about his mother, he said, “Wo duty jaati hai aur fir aati hai.” (She goes to work and comes back later). For the kid, mother going out of home and returning to home, both were “events” worth remembering. Normally, if same question is asked to a grownup person, one can just say, “she goes”. But, the kid had to mention both the going and the coming, because both were very significant events for him.

Children are ancient sages in disguise.

- Rahul Tiwary

Vijay Mallya Unseen Pictures from Younger Days

Source: ‘Bad Boys Billionaires: India’. Really liked the “King of Good Times” episode.

I still wish he returns to India, faces trial, returns all the money owed to the banks, and clears most of the bad name he earned in recent years. That will be a twist and ‘happy ending’ most movies won’t have.

- Rahul Tiwary 

Some Movie Moments and Dialogues

 

“An immature man wants to die nobly for a cause” ('Sun Dogs')

“I mean, travel is overrated.” (Sun Dogs)

“Without the glasses, you are not even ugly”. (from the Talented Mr. Ripley. This was said to Mat Damon, whom I had already noticed got a not handsome face.)

“It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all” (‘Framing John DeLorean’)

“It is excellent to have a Giant’s strength… But it is tyrannous to use it like a Giant.” (quote from William Shakespeare)

“Street slang is an increasingly valid form of expression.” (from ‘Clueless’)

“Nobody would suspect us. We are women.” (‘Red Joan’)

“I used to think art was just bourgeois decadence, but…” (‘It’s kind of a funny story’)

“They are communists. Else why would they come at night?” (‘The Lady in the Van’)

“Pride goes before a fall.”

“Fortune favours fools, and success is the father of regret.” (from ‘A Fortunate Man’)

- Rahul Tiwary

Amrapali of Vaishali and Ajatshatru of Magadh

 

Long back during school days, I had read a book from my grandfather’s book collection, whose title I have forgotten now. But, most probably, it was वैशाली की नगरवधू (‘Vaishali Ki Nagar Vadhu’), by Acharya Chatursen. I remember some pages from the book now. Then, I happened to find this movie Amrapali (1966) on Netflix and watched it. They have done a great job by converting the movie it in color now.

At the beginning of the movie, the map of India is shown. Whenever I see this map, I get goosebumps. We have been often taught that India was but a set of small kingdoms in history. So what? Time to time, some great kings used to unify all areas into their great kingdoms. In those days, means of communication were very difficult and it was almost impossible to have large kingdoms. Still, we had kingdoms like Magadh (Present day Bihar) which was huge.

The main character of the movie is Ajatshatru, played by Sunil Dutt. Ajatashatru (492 to 460 BCE) was a king of the Haryanka dynasty of Magadha in East India (present day Bihar). He was the son of King Bimbisara and was a contemporary of both Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. He fought a war against Vajji, ruled by the Lichchhavis, and conquered the republic of Vesali. The city of Pataliputra was formed by by Ajatashatru. Ajatashatru followed policies of conquest and expansion. He defeated his neighbours including the king of Kosala. Ajatashatru occupied Kashi and captured the smaller kingdoms. Magadha under Ajatashatru became the most powerful kingdom in North India.

The movie begins with a war scene. The war scenes are very well shot, given that those days there were not many technologies available. There was a whole row of elephants involved in the war. It must have been challenging to shoot the war sequence without any injuries.

The movie shows a few novelties. Ajatshatru was fighting multiple soldiers single handedly, rotating his sword in the manner in which they have shown Bajirao Peshwa doing it in the recent movie Bajirao Mastani.

The chariot had this weapon, which was also shown in the famous movie Bahubali! I read that Ajatshatru is the inventor of two weapons used in war: the rathamusala (scythed chariot) and the mahashilakantaka (engine to eject big stones).

Using these machines, they were throwing rolls of fire on the enemy army. This has been shown in so many Hollywood movies too.

 Now coming to Vaishali. Vaishali which is near present day Muzaffarpur in Bihar, is known to have one of the most ancient democracies. It is called world’s first Republic.

The movie shows Vyjayanthi Mala in the role of Amrapali. She has given an immortal performance in the movie. Not for a moment she appears as an actress; it seems we are seeing real Amrapali. 

Amrapali is the Chief Dancer of Vaishali. When Ajatshatru, the king of Magadh attacks Vaishali, she asks her friend to bring his head to her as a gift. Amrapali is known to have developed one of the strongest bonds of patriotism.

Ajatshatru falls in love with Amrapali. He says, “An emperor is also a human being”, justifying his love for a dancer who was below his status. 

Ajatshatru attacks Vaishali in order to save and marry Amrapali.

People accuse Amrapali of treachery and she is publicly shamed. To my surprise, this was very similar to Game of Throne’s “Walk of Shame” except its nudity and vulgarity.

Ajatshatru comes to meet Amrapali. Look at the excellent set that is shown in the background. They made this in 1966!

Amrapali is devastated that her kingdom was destroyed indirectly because of her! Look at the dialogues, those are so powerful. She accuses Ajatshatru of murdering so many women just for one woman! So powerful.

 

Ajatshatru is devastated at seeing only hatred in Amrapali despite the fact that he defeated Vaishali’s army only to save Amrapali’s life. She can’t tolerate “hatred” in her eyes and Sunil Dutt has given such a touching performance. He says, “Do not look at me with so much hatred”. It was such a touching moment. The cruelest thing in this world is for a lover to receive hatred in return for his love.

Sunil Dutt and Vyjayanthimala have given an immortal performance. This movie and this story will remain in the classic pieces of arts and literature from India.

Blessed to have watched it.

- Rahul Tiwary 

‘Ray’ Web Series

 

Ray is a web series which released on Netflix recently. It is based on Satyajit Ray’s short stories. Its first season has 4 episodes, all are different in genre and nature.

#1: “Forget Me Not”

In this story, a woman (Maggie) takes revenge on a very successful entrepreneur (Ipsit Nayar) for making her abort her pregnancy after having an affair with her. As a revenge, she takes help from his friends and colleagues, and makes him believe that he was suffering from a mental illness, and in the end, he actually turns mad. The movie focuses on her abortion, in order to show her as a kind of hero while showing Ipsit (Ali Faizal) as a villain. But was it really the case there?

Although I am not a fan of abortions in general, but I do not like the way movie and fiction writers show it as a very evil thing. Most movies and fiction writers do a deliberate mistake of showing a baby as only the mother’s product and show as if the father was a “perpetrator” and not a victim. But the fact is that the mother and father are equally responsible for a pregnancy to happen and hence both are equal in that sense. Maggie, the woman in this movie took revenge on Ipsit, but the fact is that she had voluntarily made relationship with him and she had herself aborted the fetus. If she decided to keep the baby, she could have found a way. But she blamed the man for her own failure. Secondly, his friend Anil who became a peon in Ipsit’s office, was not forced or duped to become so. He voluntarily accepted that position and if he wanted, he could have declined. Same for another colleague who wanted to be recognized as equal partner. He was always free to resign and start his own company; if he though Ipsit was taking credit for his work!

I personally did not like Ipsit’s character or anything he did, but I can’t imagine that he was so evil that he should be punished in this cruelest manner.

#2: Bahrupiya

In this story, main character is played by KK Menon who has once again given a master class performance. I won’t reveal the whole story, but the moral of the story was very apt and practical. In a way, it was Karma in action. Although I do not approve of the unnecessary adult content shown in it. Since OTT platforms are not regulated by government, the producers of movies and web series put too much vulgar language and scenes. This is the reason I avoid watching movies on platforms like Neflix and choose to watch on TV, since the content is always censored.

#3: Hungama Hai Kyon Barpa

In this episode, Manoj Bajpayee has given another gem of a performance. His role as poet (Shayar) Musafir Ali will always be remembered for such a soulful performance. Manoj Bajpayee appears so naturally in this role, that you will be left astonished. The story is simply superb and the ending is totally unpredictable. I would remember this and the earlier part’s stories also for the genius story.

#4: Spotlight

Last in the season 1, this came as a huge surprise. Harshvardhan Kapoor has given a brilliant performance, which appears much matured and balanced. The character demanded a versatility in the actor and he has given a gem of a performance. Radhika Madan as a god woman “Didi” has given an equally stunning performance. I have not watched many of her movies, and I was really impressed by her performance in this one. In the climax scene where she displayed supernatural phenomenon and every one folded hands watching her, my hands got folded too and it felt like she was an avatar of Goddess Durga.

In general, Ray is certainly worth a watch if you are interested in brilliant stories and some out of the box concepts on action in Indian cinema.

- Rahul Tiwary

Watching Gangs of Wasseypur for Second Time

Recently, I watched both parts of movie series “Gangs of Wassepur”. I watched Part-2 first. I remember that when the movie had released in theatres in year 2012, I had gone to a theatre to watch it but I had to leave mid-way because I could not tolerate the violence shown on screen. This time, since I was watching on a phone screen and also for the second time, I was not affected that much. I skipped a few scenes wherever I felt like. Hence, even though the impact of story telling in the movie was full; I was not impacted as much by the negativity and violence.

I also noticed that when Part-2 was released, at that time I had not identified actors like Vineet Kumar Singh and Rajkumar Rao. Manoj Bajpaee’s impact was looming over the second part too, even if he had no role in it. Tigmanshu Dhulia in epic character of Ramadhar Singh, even though in old age, was still soulful. I could also notice that although Nawazuddin Siddiqui played his role very well, I wonder if anyone on earth could identify with his character. I blame his personality for that. In any good movie, audiences are able to identify in part with the hero as well as villain. But When Nawaz plays roles like these, I guess no one gets do to it.

I noticed that in Part-2, Vineet Singh had played his role much impactfully than Rajkumar Rao. Even though Vineet’s role was short, he was appeared as a really brilliant actor. Rajkumar Rao’s role was not too short, but I could not find him creating any memorable performance.

I also wondered why Ramadhar Singh did not shoot Nawaz in the final scene, even though he held a gun in his hand. By virtue of all his cunningness and strength, he should have shot, even if the shot missed the target. But the movie shows him pulling his hand down, as if in surrender. And then Nawaz does this epic episode of emptying multiple guns on him. Which actually is illogical because he was wasting too much time in this process while he was hold up in the bathroom. He should have shot and fled. But the movie maker tried to create a memorable scene there, and tried to depict his hatred which culminated in a sadist burst of anger. Still, I can’t imagine any real reason why Ramadhar Singh was so dejected that he gave up and surrendered like that. I think it was shown that way to make Nawaj appear the total victor.

Zeishan Quadri, who played Definite’s role was epic. All through the movie, he performed so well. I wonder why we do not see him in many other movies after GOW-2.

I wanted the Part-1 later on, and did not like it as much as Part-2. I guess we should never watch a movie sequel in wrong order. But, I noticed that Part-1 is dominated by Manoj Bajpai who has given such a powerful performance that he eclipses everyone else. Nawazuddin Siddiquia looks like a novice in front of him, and Pankaj Tripathi and Tigmanshu Dhulia’s powerful performance also appears regular.

After watching Part-1, I thought that Ramadhar Singh should have given more respect to his son JP Singh and listened to him. If JP Singh had his way, he would have eliminated all members of Sardar Khan’s family much before. The manner in which Singh family was insulted by Sardar Khan and later by Faizal, was the result of tolerating the enemies too much and for too long. The script writers gave a consolation by showing that JP Singh managed to get into power, by conspiring to eliminate his own father. This could have been avoided if Ramadhir Singh was not so arrogant. But it is also not practical that a cunning wise man like him would ignore his own son’s aspirations for so long. Movie writers have to show unrealistic things in order to shock viewers, I guess.  

- Rahul Tiwary

'Papa Takle Ho Gaye'

 

Picture credit

There is a neighborhood kid of about 6 who used to play with me a lot. He was visiting our home after a few weeks. I had recently colored my hair, hence I showed it to him and asked him how did my grey hair turn into total black? He did not reply. After repeating the question and making him recall how my hair had lots of whites earlier, he finally said that he did not know how it turned back. I realized that he had not noticed my hair; whether grey or white! It reminded me of another incident.

My kids were seeing me after a long gap. My daughter was about 3.5. I went to get a hair cut and as soon as I returned home, she came, noticed me, and said, “Papa takle ho gaye”, pointing to my short hair! She had not only noticed that I had a haircut, but she had also noticed that I had short hair now! Plus, she thought to share her observation with me. I was really impressed with her intelligence as well as thoughtfulness. And somewhere, it was also got to do with gender. My son did not notice my haircut at all!

At any given age, we can notice in small children that most of the times girls are cleverer than boys. Their minds work in slightly different manner than boys. We can notice the differences in the way they choose toys or express themselves. Now, imagine a society which tries to raise boys and girls in the same manner! Will that be called feminism? By all means, it will cause harm to both boys and girls. We need not force our gender-righteousness on our kids. Let girls be ‘girly’ and boys be like ‘boys’ if their natural inclinations are showing in that manner. Let us not force them to behave and be the “same”.

Thoughts triggered by the kind of news media outlets expose to me these days.

- Rahul Tiwary