Muziris : the Kerala -Roman connection

http://hindu.com/2004/03/23/stories/2004032303340500.htm

http://www.keralatourism.org/muziris/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Roman_relations

Diary of a bridger of gaps

2008-05-02T06:55:06.497+05:30

Most of us are born with an ability to be bridgers of gaps. For instance when I was a toddler, I had some tricks up my sleeve to make my arguing mom and dad smile at each other again, so I am told. And those smiles made them smile at me in turn which must have been the reason I did use those tricks. Call it self preservation , or preserving the harmony of my environment to my liking.

As I grew up, my studies lead me quite naturally to this theme over and over. I quite easily connected the African American Ralph Ellison and the Indian Salman Rushdie through their books. At the end of my researches, I declared that Midnight’s Children grew up to be Invisible Men – and women.

Next, I had the chance to delve into feminist criticism and theories of narrative techniques while applying it to Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. There was a gap I was eager to bridge – the gap between the aesthetics and politics of feminism. And I did it, by adapting the theory of deconstruction to my advantage. Twisting and changing and transforming it to an extent that Derrida would squirm in his grave.

Then came the real identity crisis, as I came to live in the United States of America. All on a sudden, I was a nobody, who belonged nowhere. After a couple of courses in globalization, I found my new job in bridging. The bridging of the Hindu, the Muslim, the Parsi, the Nazrani, – into one group of Vedic people. I utilized many ideas here for my own end in the belief that end justifies the means. For instance, I took into consideration the common elements between Hinduism and Zoarashtrianism. The way the Vedic "deva" became the Zoarashtrian demon and the asura became their god. Compare Maha Asura and Ahura Mazda. And soon that lead me to a bridging of the gap between the Aryans and the Semitics.

The bridges are growing now – between the Mediterranean people and ancient Indians, between the Chinese and Indians, Africans and Indians, and Central Asians and Indians and so on.Meanwhile I did undergo a genetic test to satisfy my curiosity as to my corporeal identity. After all, we Nazranis do believe that we are descendants of Brahmins converted into Christianity by St. Thomas in 52 A.D. A beautiful myth as has been proved by many. I found that we are descendants of Jews who had settled in Kerala long before Brahmins. About the genetic test, nothing much to say except that I wasted some money in order to let someone inform me quite officially that I belong to the human race!

This need to bridge the gaps between people is of course for my own selfish reasons, as I said before. Self preservation, and a longing to preserve the harmony of my environment for myself and for future generations. So there would be no more Darfurs or Somalias or Iraqs and Kashmirs. And boys and girls will not be send away to fight windmills and allowed to die needlessly. And real bridgers of gaps like Sergio Vieira de Mello will not be sacrificed at the altar of greed and indifference.

update on the DNA test -- I got it done again recently and found that my maternal ancestor roamed around the plains of Central Asia around 60,000 years ago, and my paternal one in that area and Eastern Europe around 12,000 years ago. pretty amazing India, don't you think?


another update: the presence of Brahmins in Kerala  when St Thomas came cannot be easily dismissed as I did till now. It is possible, I realize now.

age of self-conscious living-- part 3 or 4?

My fascination with the blurring of boundaries between the real and  the unreal goes hand in hand with my fascination for the age of self-conscious living. This is the third or fourth time I am writing about it. trying to articulate the ideas in my head. Recently I read an article in Time, about Oprah. Now, I admire Oprah, and the writer of this article does too, as he writes about not Oprah in particular, but her new cable channel, OWN -- Oprah Winfrey Network. I do not know where to start! The ideas that ran in my mind as I was reading this article! virtual wild horses waiting to be caught! and tamed! familiar ideas that sounded almost crazy suddenly turned probable and real!
Oprah embodies the spirit and substance of "celebrity". As I said before, we all want to be 'celebrities" in our own ways. The writer of the above article concludes his article thus, "your best self, it turns out, is a self with a show on Oprah's network." What is your "best self'?" We have read and heard a million answers for that. A host of religions attempt to teach you that. But in the present world of democratized media, what constitutes "best self"? To me, that would be a self whose existence has been validated, is being validated. Who validates it? Myself, I could say, like a million self-help books tell me, but i would say it is others. My existence is validated by other selves, the world. And what better way than being in the media? No wonder these reality-tv shows are not going away anytime soon.
And you cannot say that celebrities are just twinkling stars that do just that -- twinkle. it takes a George Clooney to bring Sudan to your attention. It is his idea about the satellite in the sky over that troubled spot that is being put to work right now. His voice is heard, his movements are followed, and there is his power to make things happen. Like Oprah. So the age of self-conscious living , the age of TV living is here as a natural evolutionary force in our existence. I do not know the "real" Oprah. I just know the "virtual" Oprah. And this virtual Oprah changes lives. Inspires others to be life-changing celebrities.yes, your best self is your virtual self!
Now, in this age of self-conscious living, we are all characters in a virtual world. We are heroes -- tragic at times, with one great flaw, comic at other times laughing at ourselves. Movies are made of our thoughts, ideas and what we see. Great or funny music accompanies us, those same thoughts and ideas. We are significant beings whose existences are valid. Valid enough to be seen and heard on a global platform by other valid beings.We are all walking movies, at the same time, we are all moviemakers. We are the "best selves" living in a "self-conscious" world of which we are very aware, a world which has to notice us in turn.

Age of self-conscious living - part 3

Modern human is a showman, or woman. The adoring public gives meaning to his/her existence. It is for them that we perform. The validation of our existence, as I said before. Many of us try to give the performance of our lives, be it to our immediate family and friends, or to the world in general, with some faces thrown in for that personal touch and inspiration. Some take it to the extreme of course, and some to the extent that it becomes a freak show. The age of self-conscious living. We of course announce that we do it for ourselves. But imagine if there wasn't an audience! People to applaud and envy you? I dare say it wouldn't be half as much fun. So the bigger the performance, the bigger the applause, and the bigger the satisfaction, especially when  you assume that you are the best, and that you have the most enchanted life. What a wonderful feeling it must be to think that all the rest are plodding idiots waiting to hear about your next exploit?

There is a romance and drama in being single too,. So when one is seemingly unattached one looks freer and then the more the envy and admiration. This applies more to the single man than to the woman. Because the usual thinking is that the man chooses to stay single, and the woman, because she couldn't get a man. But the majority of the spectators prefer to watch and enjoy, while trying to create a smaller scale version of the drama in their own lives. While the "free" one continues giving the show of his or her life.

While before it was just a handful who did this on a world stage, now, in this age of globalized demoracy, and explosion of media, all of us train and aspire to be heroes and heroines, in whatever way we can.  Some sign up for reality TV, others write blogs, books, everyone twitters their daily activities, as if  we make the news, or that we are news.  The age of the internet calls for new  kinds of relationships, terminologies and ideals. So, naturally, crash courses in spoken netword becomes necessary. Idioms and usages specifically aimed at different types. "Follow your heart" and "chill" are used indiscriminately. Along with pep talk phrases. In the end, when we all want to be unique and different,  what we have is a group of ageing people trying to hold on to their youth. Clones and machines. Which is fine. But for this platitude-culture to work,  we expect  a willing suspension of disbelief from everyone we meet. It is hard for us to tolerate a different point of view. We say we do as long as that willing suspension of disbelief is at work. If we don't get that, we turn mean. The philosophical and/or moralistic or amoralistic guru in us, the one with the all encompassing love and compassion for all, who loves to dish out unnecessary, unhelpful advice , which by the way, we can get anywhere else, and extend promises of "being there for you" (LOL), disappears. Spitefully we hurt the stupid who dared to think out aloud, a little differently, say, he or she did not think your last speech was that great, or found it absolutely boring,!( Or, in case of promises  -- the one who promises does not expect you take up on his or her promise literally, and expect him or her to be there. That is where the "willing suspension of disbelief" comes in handy. Imagine you assuming that the grocery clerk who asks you how are you, really cares how you are! Or that if you really tells her or him about your plight, s/he will come to help! )
So this community becomes just another insular village-community of the Middle Ages. The modern element with its really Aquarian positive, friendly, tolerant energy  remains in our imaginations. In a way, again, people use each other. Some more than others. Some in the guise of a  benign welcoming, forgiving machine-like personality, actually swallows up an unsuspecting person, wringing out all the excitement and wonder of a romance, and then spitting out  what is left over.

If this is Aquarian Age, I feel disappointed. But I am hopeful that this is just the beginning. That we human beings will evolve more and more-- to be real Aquarians.

"Third world" woes

This is the post-postmodern age. we all know that. in this age, we abhor racism, sexism etc. We are enlightened beings, or on the way to being so. esp. celebs. Almost all of them have causes to work for. and we are grateful that their famous faces bring the attention of people with money to the fate of the underprivileged.
And we hope that that would bring some long awaited changes in the lives of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed.

These celebs of course are compassionate, they want to help these unfortunate people. But at some point, the problem peeps out. the fact that in their heart of hearts, they don't see these human beings as their equal. "all are equal, some are more equal" comes true here. oh, i hear protests.

We hear casual references like  "something that may happen in a Third World country", to denote the speaker's disbelief at a pathetic occurence in a rich country. ( that was the great humane do-gooder George Clooney). Or "showing that even the tall, blonde foreign lady wanted to use it" when a celeb is describing her philanthropic work in a certain Third World country ( this is from an article in Vogue). The funny thing is the lady here doesn't have a clue as to what an average Third Worlder thinks. The Third World woman, for instance, has so many other important immediate matters to think about and deal with -- like her daily bread, her children, and her family to mention a few, that the 'blonde lady" shouldn't have to worry about what we think. We do not have any concept of your blinding beauty just because you are tall and blonde. Well, if you were really beautiful with a loving smile, then, yes. But not if you were arrogant, and condescending. Anyway, most probably, if they are anything like us Malayalis, they will look on you as just an alien, as a totally different kind of being -- not necessarily angelic or intelligent. Some of them may be even laughing behind your back. Of course there will be those who fear you  like they fear ghosts.

So -- What do these unthinking, (maybe)  by the garden-variety philanthropic celebs tell a person like me? that is, someone of average intelligence? I get the idea that the celeb concerned has inadvertently revealed his or her sense of racial superiority. in the second quote, she might as well have added "Aryan"! I do not know why these people think that we like the name-calling? or that we must like it? It is like using the N- word, dear people! That you have deigned  to stop using. Why keep using this? Of course, once you stop using this particular word, another word or phrase will take its place, which for  a while will be fine with us third worlders -- for a time. after a while we may or may not protest against that too. that is our privilege. and dancing to our tunes is your burden. :) after all, third worlds did not appear overnight on their own. we know our faults, our lacks, our situation better than you. we will call ourselves names, you do not have that right.


It is this  uncomfortable, distasteful mixture of compassion and contempt of the white race toward the so-called Third World, that makes some of  us and many of the underprivileged, distrustful of these white good samaritans. this is why the whites see hatred in the eyes of many of the poor,  even as they accept the numerous kindnesses. somehow they know, because they are not stupid. and particularly because the precedents are not that good. Historically, the advent of the  white man into the  Third World countries has not been advantageous to the Third Worlder. In fact, they know that it is this "discovery" by the white man that played a huge role in making them Third in the first place. These modern day human rights activists are the descendants  of people who made grabbing what belonged to others, an art. And no matter how much the outward trappings may change, inside, most of them are the same as their ancestors. Unless they acknowledge this contradiction/self-delusion, and change -- from the inside.

I have seen this in a university setting, where the ideas of equality and justice are accepted as everyone's birthrights. Professors who strive to be fair, non-racist, evolved beings, gay men who try the same thing, but at some point,one can see through the pretense -- conscious or otherwise. They delude themselves into thinking that they are  highly enlightened regarding the race issue, just because they are afraid to be mean to the black students,  or because they are in the field of arts and humanities, or because they are outside the mainstream as they are not heterosexual. But that doesn't naturally make them non-racists.

Now, there is a white man who acknowledges this uncomfortable truth in his writings. Henning Mankell. That is just one thing, and one very important thing -- that makes him better and different from all other great white writers or scholars, in my eyes. and he is an Aquarian too! :)



PS : A variation of this covert racism is parallelled in the area of sexism. Thus we see even educated men stoop to harping on annoyingly inane jokes that make use of outdated notions about women's nature. That there are men who find such types of jokes even remotely intelligent or  funny, in this age, is unbelievable. The basic reason here too is the contempt that they hold in their heart of hearts for women, underneath all that pretense of respect and honor.And also the fear that women are getting ahead, that tradition and mores made by men may not be able to keep women suppressed for much longer.

history: a short history

I believe that the history of world civilizations may be summarized in a few sentences. Of course the summary may change depending on any number of factors. as there is nothing objective here.


In any event, the world at any point can be divided into two main groups: the dominator and the dominated.
The dominant group, being simultaneously fearless/reckless, and uncaring as to the rights and feelings of the dominated , obviously,  dominates. Gratification of their own desires is the main object of the dominant group. no matter what.At some point, the dominator group lose interest in dominating, -- because their greed is somewhat assuaged, and/or the satisfaction of greed is being met in less adventurous, not necessarily less cruel ways.That is when they are at leisure to be morally superior, pointing out the mistakes they made, chastising other upstarts who may seem to entertain ideas of domination, preventing any such thoughts by pre-emptive action and so on. Meanwhile the domination continues.

Fear and greed are the main characters in history, on both sides. But the difference is in the execution. The successful dominators utilize both efficiently and systematically in order to keep the dominated in that level for as long as possible. Race and religion are the main weapons that are brandished about to subdue and overpower the dominated.

age of self-conscious living

Watching some of the talk shows here, there was a time when I was sure I wouldn't be caught dead in those. No matter what, I wouldn't be able to appear before millions -- which included strangers, and worse, family and friends -- and air my dirty linen, so to speak. But now, I am not that sure.

Look at me airing my private thoughts and conversations online! In scraps, on say, an Orkut, myspace, or on the Wall of a facebook, in applications, in inbox messages to strangers who at the same time aren't strangers any more, in a way! I draw graffiti on walls. I do things which I haven't done in my other life. What is happening? We type up updates of our activities, our thoughts, our relationships, as if in a private journal. The one difference being that it is being read (and forgotten) by many -- strangers, friends, stranger-friends. The age of self-conscious living. We are all actors in a movie or many movies. We all want drama in our live and want to be seen and heard by many, appreciated and loved by many. Wannabe celebrities. No more happy being the voyeurs. Not at all satisfied with vicarious living. We are the center. The heroes. But we need others to validate it. Legitimiztion of our existence on this planet. If people in books and movies, be it on the big screen or on TV or on youtube, are another facet of reality, if that means they are real in the same way, then we are just another aspect of that reality or unreality. My magpie and another's Greenov are all real. Or unreal. Globalized democratization of the media surely leads to not just reality TV, but to self-conscious living, and more.



What I would also like to see is where this will lead to? Will the distinction between reality and virtual reality be blurred? What will these cyber relationships be called? I am not talking of old friends meeting online and continuing their friendships. It is important, of course, this newer convenience of keeping in touch, taking up from where they had stopped, getting a chance for some, to go back to the past and relive, rebuild or demolish old relationship structures, .... But I am interested in stangers who meet online. Some people who stick in your head or mind, somehow more than others. People who have never met each other, who will never meet. Like penpals. But different. This is more immediate, more in touch. Some do drop off on the wayside. But, say, 10 years from now -- I wonder how many of my stranger-friends will still be in my list? What will I call those friends? Of course, there is "facebook friend' or "orkut friend" or some other friend. But there are varying degrees in that too. Of the depth of my feelings for a particular person(s). Or the kind of feelings for another. How will I define that relationship? How will it evolve? Obviously, a new terminology,a new set of theories are needed.



age of self-conscious living 2



One of my all-time favorite movies is Before Sunrise. Those who have seen it will know what I mean when I say it embodies almost all those concepts of building, prolonging, maintaining the initial excitement of a relationship.

In my last note, I made some observations which I gather was not agreeable to some 'stranger-friends' whom I respect very much. Is there a certain way one is supposed to think? Is theorizing about certain subjects, taboo? The spirit of what I said was lost, I fear. Probably, my fault. But the ideas are still amorphous in my own mind. I am thinking aloud. Having fun in my own humble, idle, laid back way, respected friends. But I think I understand the reason you took umbrage or whatever it is that one takes in these occasions [that umbrage partfrom P.G.Wodehouse, btw ;)] . Recently I had an argument with a guy who is quite nice, and free in many ways, very smart and well read but has all the arrogance and rigidity of youth. He looked down upon my supepokes :( . I wanted to ask him to lighten up. That was what years ago, one of my teachers told me. And I was the clown of the classroom too! I am not as learned as my young friend. But I guess my friends here are asking me to do the same . :) But I do see a contradiction here -- I am being blamed for not enjoying life as it is, and also for wasting time in "idle wondering"!



The second part of my note was a natural extention of my appreciation for the movie, "Before Sunrise". Not necessarily, just the movie, of course. Strangers who meet online. If they meet, and enjoy life, it will be just another relationship. What we see around us everyday. It will not have the "fictional reality" that a FB stranger-friend relationship has. That is what gives it the edge. I am not saying that this is the ideal, or even that this is the best. But this could be a new form of reality, of relationship. It could be one way of making the "golden Ideal' tangible, in an intangible way.