From Darkness to Light

Pragaash_1_0_0_0

Anchita Ghatak

 

There is a new story of intolerance everyday in my country. I no longer know whether these stories shock or upset me anymore. Or if they have become part of the background – things I have learnt to live with. Like children begging on the streets. It is a disturbing truth but I have normalised this tragedy and I live my life.

However, in the present scenario of Kamalhaasan’s film being banned, Salman Rushdie being kept away from Calcutta and Durga Vahini women wanting to ban an exhibition of nudes, comes the news of three young girls from Kashmir, whose voices are being stilled. Teenagers, three of them, formed a band and participated in a concert. Yes, they showed initiative and drive but did what many young girls like to do – had a good time. We don’t know whether they were immensely talented, we’re not sure if these girls would have persisted with their band, which they call Praagaash – from Darkness to Light. Some reports suggest that Praagaash means morning light. It is highly likely that schoolwork would have left them very little time to hone their musical talents, or like many other kids they would lose interest and move on to other things. Or maybe, Praagaash would have been a sustaining force in their lives, allowing them to dream big and pursue their artistic ambitions. But it seems that many people do not think that three young girls making music and having a good time is something to be encouraged and supported.

We know that Kashmir is a disputed place. Many of us empathise with and support the struggles that the Kashmiri people have been having with the Indian state. We believe that there has to be an end to state violence and muscle flexing in Kashmir. The Kashmiri people want autonomy and dignity and many of us believe that they must have it. The Governments of India and Pakistan, as well as many other political groups need to stop trying to control different sections of Kashmiris. In a climate where people are struggling to be heard, one would expect that three young girls doing something new would be a cause for celebration. Rock music is male dominated and Praagaash was the only girls’ band in the contest that took place in Kashmir in December 2012. After coming into the limelight, the girls’ band came in for much online abuse. They were accused of being immodest and betraying both Islam and Kashmiriyat. Media reports tell us that venerable elders like the Grand Mufti of Kashmir have asked the three girls to stop playing music.  The three band members were frightened, two of them have reportedly said that they will not make music and all three are apparently in Delhi. The Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir has spoken in favour of the girls. Of course, we need to ask why things have come to such a pass under Omar Abdullah’s Chief Ministership that girls cannot form a rock band.

I am disturbed because here we have another instance of girls being stopped from making decisions and discovering the world, in the name of culture and tradition. I cannot understand why the Grand Mufti felt compelled to control three young girls. Does he have a vision of Kashmir where girls cannot be free? Is his Kashmir about schooling girls into a compliant submissiveness? The Grand Mufti is perceived by many Kashmiris to be too aligned to Indian interests and consequently, not a ‘legitimate’ Kashmiri voice. However, newspaper reports suggest that when it comes to controlling girls there is does not seem to be a difference between how the issue is viewed by many Kashmiris – those who believe in azaadi – and the Grand Mufti. I could not help but recall the efforts of Asiya Andrabi and the Dukhtaran e Milat making various attempts to impose an ‘Islamic’ dress code on Kashmiri women and trying to browbeat them into acquiescence. Their efforts have certainly met with some success though perhaps they have not gathered as many people into their fold as they would have liked.

Sexism and misogyny are ingrained in India. Does it have to be the same in Kashmir? A vision for azaadi must encompass freedom and equality for all its people. This equality has to take into account various axes like class, caste, community, religion, gender, ability and so on. The idea of Kashmiriyat has to be redefined to make it equal and inclusive. Women and girls are forever controlled by a bogey of ‘culture and tradition’. The impression created is that culture and tradition are unchanging and immutable. Culture is fashioned by people – it is born out of their lives and is, by its very nature flexible, accommodating and changing. Tradition too adapts to changing mores and times. The challenge for Kashmiriyat is to bring in all the elements that will make Kashmir free, equal and inclusive.

Despite the climate of fear that the name calling on social networking sites and the Grand Mufti’s so-called ‘fatwa’ have created, many artists and politicians have spoken out for the girls. At present, the girls seem frightened and silenced but it is important that the state administration, as well as the parents, teachers and friends of the girls and also the mass of Kashmiris are able to give them the support they need and the girls are able to resume a life that allows them to learn, explore opportunities, take risks and challenge stereotypes. Those of us who dream of freedom and equality are waiting for Kashmir and its girls to blaze new paths with determination, courage and confidence and rid us of our fears and suspicion of the uncharted and unknown.

————————————————-

 

 

North Indian Classical Music in the ‘Long’ 1940s

 

amlan  2

Amlan Das Gupta

 

Two Photographs

 

Let me start by telling you about two photographs (that I usually show), one taken probably in the early or mid- 1930s; the other in the early 1950s. The dates are approximate and based on internal evidence. The first photograph depicts a a fairly intimate group of male musicians and patrons: some of the figures are difficult to identify but the four musicians standing in the first row are Ustad Manji Khan and his father Ustad Alladiya Khan of Jaipur-Atrauli; Ustad Faiyaz Khan of Agra; and Ustad Abdul Karim Khan of Kirana. The presence of Alladiya, Faiyaz and Abdul Karim, undoubtedly the three most influential and versatile male vocalists of the early twentieth century in the same frame makes the photograph a rarity. The first three decades of the century, as we know, constitutes a period of intense uncertainty and experimentation. Artists grappled with altered conditions of patronage and performance, the presence of new technologies of sound recording and dissemination, new norms of pedagogy, and above all, changes in taste and audience expectation impel artists to engage with new strategies of self definition and stylistic innovation. Three of the most important vocal styles to achieve prominence were clearly the Jaipur-Atrauli, the Kirana and the Agra, setting the scene for the next half century or so. Legend has it of course that the relationship among the three was sometimes stormy, and in a condition of decaying patronage, occasionally riven with rivalry and prejudice. Even at this late date, one might speculate, the photograph expresses the power of the patron, whose august presence holds together these angular and brilliant artists in a formal and grave unity. A point about habitus if one likes: five figures have walking sticks, the invaluable accessory of wealthy civility: others make do with umbrellas.

The second photograph, probably dates from the early 1950s (Ustad Vilayat Khan reportedly said he thought that was taken in 1952). Rajendra Prasad, the figure in the centre of this photograph, became president of India in 1950, and it captures in essence the world of North Indian music in early independent India. Most obviously, it is marked by absences. The “long” 1940s, if I could call it that, is most significantly marked by a number of deaths. First, the figures in the earlier photograph. Abdul Karim and Manji Khan dies in 1937; Alladiya in 1946; Faiyaz Khan in 1950. Other significant deaths around the same time are that of Ramkrishnabua Vaze in 1945; Abdul Wahid Khan of Kirana in 1949; and equally significantly, Vishnu Narayan Bhatkhande in 1936. The dazzling array of talent surrounding the symbol of the unified source of patronage, honour and reputation, is actually an attenuated one, marked by absence and erasure. There is no significant Agra or Kirana singer in the photograph: the single representative of Jaipur-Atrauli is Kesarbai. What the photograph prophetically suggests is the ascendancy of instrumental music in the post-independence decades: consider the second line of musicians: from the fourth figure on the left we have Keramatullah Khan, tabla; Radhikamohan Maitra, sarod; Ilyas Khan, sitar; Bismillah Khan, shehnai; Kishan Maharaj, tabla; Yususf Ali, sitar; Ravi Shankar, sitar, Ali Akbar sarod; Vilayat Khan, sitar. The seated figures in the front row are appropriately an older generation of artists: Allauddin Khan and Hafiz Ali; Omkarnath, Krishnarao and Anantamanohar Joshi; Mushtaq Husain and Nisar Husain, Burhanpurkarbua, Ahmedjan Thirakwa and Kanthe Maharaj. Another aspect to reflect upon would be the uneasy memory that the photograph bears of the jagged fissure caused in the musical community by Partition: a notable absence in the photograph is the sarangi maestro, Ustad Bundu Khan: absent too is Bade Ghulam Ali, who went over to Pakistan after independence, only to return in the 1950s.

The single woman in the second photograph is appropriately Kesarbai, seated cosily next to Rajendrababu. Her unparallelled reputation as the great exponent of Alladiya Khan’s gayaki and standing in the musical world, make her an appropriate inclusion, but she also appears here as a single exclusion to the general prurience of the cultural policy of new state. This is, as far as I can tell, one of the earliest examples of a formal “group” photograph which has a woman artist in it: there are of course earlier examples of family groups, or tawayefs with their male accompanists. The significance of this inclusion is not difficult to judge. B V Keskar had famously laid down that “no one (woman) whose life was a public scandal would be patronized” by the radio and presumably in the wider world of state ceremonial.  Women artists were sought to be recruited from music schools, or from “respectable” familiies. As a result the great bulk of women artists – who had kept, for instance, the gramophone industry going – were excluded from the radio. In point of fact, this system of screening was far less effective than one would have expected. Partly this was due to the general lack of interest in classical music among radio administrators: more importantly, at the local level, programme executives and station directors made and followed their own policies, with apparently little central interference. As a result, a number of woman artists were recorded in the 1940s and 1950s and some of these recordings still exist: the relatively longer formats make them a valuable supplement to the extant body of sound recordings. It would, I think, be more accurate to see this as an index of the popularity of woman artists and the popular demand for their music rather than a mark of special favour and generosity on part of the administrators. Thus though Kesarbai is silently coopted into the grand durbar of Hindustani shastriya sangeet, Mogubai, Laxmibai, Hirabai, Gangubai to say nothing of Rasoolan and Siddheswari do not figure in the photograph. It may well be that Kesarbai jibbed at their inclusion: reportedly,  she gave up singing for radio because Gangubai had been given a National programme!

Arrivals and Departures

What I have tried to suggest then is that the “long” 1940s marks a kind of watershed in the troubled and tension ridden history of North Indian classical music. If age, disease and accident cause a significant rupture, it also sees the arrival of a generation of artists, largely born in the first two and a half decades of the century, who come into musical maturity around the moment of Indian independence. From an archival point of view it would be important to point out that this is the first generation of artists whose reputations are significantly tied up with the means of mechanical reproduction. Many of them traverse the whole distance from 78 rpm shellac records to digital media. It is also this generation, which would include Ali Akbar, Bismillah Khan, Ravi Shankar and Vilayat Khan among instrumentalists and Amir Khan, Bade Ghulam Ali, Mallikarjun Mansur and the slightly younger Sharafat Husain Khan, set the norms for a new kind of performance culture. By this time the “music conference” is firmly established as the principal site of performance: along with the radio, the other great institutional presence in the field, it signals the emergence of a large heterogeneous audience whose tastes and inclinations must figure largely in the performance strategies of musicians.

In more intimate and reflective moments practising artists may be persuaded to slip out of the heroic tales of selfhood that they so often construct and retail, and reflect on the lachari, the force of necessity, that works upon the musician. Such reflections appear to me to recapitulate the history of music from its origins in the performative arts traditionally practised by occupational groups. If one looks at the condition of classical music around the middle of the 20th century, one sees the presence of a number of powerful and charismatic artists, who on the one hand are closely rooted in traditional and orthodox discipline, but themselves achieve musical maturity at a time in which social and political change is as it were felt on the pulse. It is in this generation which would include Ali Akbar, Ravi Shankar, Vilayat Khan and Bismillah Khan among instrumentalists, and Amir Khan, Bade Ghulam, Mallikarjun Mansur and Sharafat Husain among vocalists, that the condition of modernity in Indian music is most clearly experienced, a process that probably began with the decay of traditional patronage of music in and around Delhi in the  mid-19th century, and proceeded in the negotiations of classical artists with the changing maps of listenership and patronage. From the early the 20th century musicians encounter first the technology of mechanical reproduction and somewhat later the technology of radio transmission. By the mid-century, the exclusive patronage of the aristocracy was more or less a thing of the past:  artists looked also to concert audiences, radio performances, recording sessions and teaching as avenues of sustenance. From the end of the 40s for some artists who were able to engage with the vagaries of the nation-state as musical patron – which effectively meant dealing with individuals who commanded influence in government circles – were able to add to these means the opportunities of foreign travel, first as part of cultural delegations and then by the end of the 60s cashing in on the increased possibilities of international concert tours.

It is interesting to speculate on the different kinds of audiences that artists were habitually addressing. Some were still familiar in terms of their scope, small performances for elite audiences, but others were unseen and heterogeneous, like those of radio performances or gramophone discs. The large concert audiences that emerge in a big way from the 1940s would also club together the expert and the novice, the committed listener and the philistine, in increasingly unequal mixtures. I think that the nature of audiences inevitably affects the ways in which artist project their musical identities. Since the artists that I have just mentioned (and others of the time) were recorded widely, both commercially and privately, and large parts of these recordings still survive, the archive illuminates these vital questions of competence, repertoire and performative choice. Ali Akbar for instance began his career as a radio staff artist, went on to become court musician at Jaipur, an unparalleled concert performer, made extensive commercial recordings and spent the last four decades of his life as a near-permanent resident of California. Some artists reveal themselves as being unwilling to engage in all these available fields: Vilayat Khan abjured the radio for the better part of his life, others showed little interest in seeking to project their music abroad. Yet all artists when they were performing for local audiences implicitly assumed a cultural connection with their listeners inasmuch as there could be no confusion about the recognition of music as music. Performing in metropolitan centres – where there  were the largest number of listeners, and also by the same token the most diverse audiences in terms of taste or expertise – artists often privately expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of comprehension or the predictability of taste.

 

Evidence from the Archive

Till the 1940s, the only recording medium used commercially was the shellac disc. In its sole reign for about 4 decades, it acquired considerable importance, and became the site for displays of immense skill and virtuosity.  Kesarbai herself recorded seven Broadcast discs around 1936, shortly after her talim from Alladiya. Many of her recordings are from the 1940s., though: the thirties and the forties also saw recordings from nearly all the artists who would assume canonical status in the post independence era: Ali Akbar recorded his first discs in 1945. But the field of commercial recording, reviled and disdained in its early years, also received the patronage of an older generation: for example, Faiyaz Khan and Krishnarao Shankar Pandit (who cut his only two discs in 1946). But there are surprises here as well. Mallikarjun Mansur, notably, stopped recording in the 1940s, even after having released 18 discs in his Gwalior phase. After his talim from Manji Khan he recorded just two 78 rpm discs of supreme artistic merit. From the 1940s, however, other recording means were in use, at first sparingly and then in much more widespread manner, as new technology became more widely available. Let me begin this part of the survey with the radio. Early broadcasts were “live”, with radio broadcasts of artists singing in the studio. However, from the late 1940s studio discs were used for recording, facilitating deferred (and presumably repeated) broadcasts. Descriptions suggest that the medium used was the 16” transcription disc, perhaps those manufactured under the Presto label. They could record, existing reproductions suggest, up to 20 minutes of sound continuously. The discs themselves have not survived apart as collectors’ curiosities, but a small fragment of recordings made from them were transferred on to other media usually while they were being broadcast. The radio later shifted later to the use of reel-to-reel magnetic tape recorders and they were in use until very recently. It appears that radio archives still contain some part of the great wealth of recordings made by them over the decades. The entire corpus of radio recordings of Faiyaz Khansheb have survived through these means. Agra connoisseurs consider them a pale shadow of the ustad at his prime, but admit that they obviously provide invaluable data for the archivist and historian. The less snobbish, like us, of course think that they are are marvelous in every respect. The only surviving recording of any length of Abdul Wahid Khan, a two part Darbari of about 40 minutes, also owes its existence to this technology.

However, from the late 1940s reel-to-reel wire and tape recorders started being available in India, giving patrons and enthusiasts a chance of recording longer recitals. The most important fact about the very large body of music that exists in magnetic tape, and is still accessible, is that it was managed neither by commercial organizations, nor by broadcasting companies: they remained entirely in private hands. Spools were not sold commercially with “pre-recorded” music: they were directed towards private efforts, and music of all kinds – and of course all other kinds of recordable sound – were preserved in this format. A small part of this did at a later stage work its way back into the commercial sphere, but the greater part of this remained in private hands. These are obviously of great archival value, because they were in most cases unique copies: only after the advent of cassette tapes was there some dissemination of these recordings, again within a fairly small band of music enthusiasts. The reasons for prizing them so highly are many. Firstly, they are often of performances given in intimate surroundings, with often a knowledgeable and appreciative audience, who might spur the artist to produce an exceptional recital. The problem of time was all but eliminated: for the duration of the spool was usually more than that of the longest single concert. The concert recording also gives us a privileged understanding of the aesthetics of the mehfil or baithak, the conversation between artist and audience, the codes of appreciation appropriate to different kinds of concerts, explanation and comments by musicians. Briefly, the body of tape recordings gives us an insight into the practices of the musical world with an intimacy that is often missing in the more clinical sound of commercial recordings, or even of recordings made in large concert halls. 1940s and 50s recordings are prized highly for their relative rarity, and many of them have iconic status in collector’s circles.

 

Epilogue: Alarums of State

The new Indian state embraced classical music with great fervor. Veterans of the All India Radio at this time remember the common perception that the radio under Keskar and Vallavbhai Patel promoted classical music excessively: undoubtedly there was a concerted attempt at many levels to incorporate the wealth of traditional music into the ceremonial of state. The notion of classical music therein expressed of course bears little similarity to the realm of practice: the official discourse, inevitably, remained depressingly mired in the rhetoric of reform, familiar to all alike from British orientalist and nationalist musicology. The famous Keskar report placed the blame for the decay on music on North Indian Muslims, who “had appropriated and distorted the ancient art, turning it into the secret craft of exclusive lineages”: in Muslim hands music was no longer ‘spiritual’; it had become ‘erotic’, the special preserve of ‘dancing girls, prostitutes, and their circles of pimps’. With the state increasingly taking over as both patron and consumer, such an opinion, when part of an official policy document,  sounds dangerous in the extreme.  The great thing about absolutist state policy of course is that the more it seeks to create homogeneity and unity, the more things tend to fall apart: the gharenadar ustads who continued to perform merely made appropriate noises, reinvented their life stories, and continued much as before. Undoubtedly two great names in post independence khayal singing are Amir Khan and Bade Ghulam; in instrumental music we have Vilayat Khan and Ali Akbar. Earlier musicians had negotiated the wilfulness of aristocratic patrons; post-independence artists had to do the same with the pomposity of state officialdom.

The real casualties of the alarums of state I have argued elsewhere were the professional women artists, both singers and dancers: some managed to reinvent themselves forging kulin identities, or by sheer artistic genius commanding enough respect to keep questions of identity in abeyance. The presence of Kesarbai and the absence of Rasoolanbai in the darbar photograph of 1952 are alike indications of this. But even Rasoolanbai enjoyed respect and recognition for the better part of her singing career (sadly, only to die in utter penury and destitution). So many others simply disappeared, erased by repressive legislation, and middle class prejudice. Let me conclude by citing Munirbai of Lucknow, herself a reputed dancer and student of the kathak dancer Shambhu Maharaj, who attributed the final breakup of the tawayef community to three principal causes: Gandhiji, independence and the Arya Samaj:

“The Arya Samajis were always against us. They said we were a corrupting influence and deserved no place in civilized society.”

Munirbai’s testimony locates a major point of disjuncture in the history of women performers in India. Perhaps it also allows us to consider more clearly the legacy of the 1940s.

—————————————————

Amlan Dasgupta is Professor of English, Jadavpur University, Kolkata

 

What’s in a Name!

bok-adrishya-bharat

Bhasha Singh

[This is an excerpt from Adrishya Bharat, (Invisible India) Penguin Books, 2012. Translation HUG]

Dabbuwali (Bengal), Baaltiwali (Kanpur), Teenawali (Bihar), Kamaai-Ka-Kaam Karne wali (Large swathes of North India), Tokriwali (Haryana-Punjab), Thottikar (much of South India), Paki/Peeti (Odisha)—the more you travel, the more the variations. These names bear a direct connection to their work. These are not qualifiers that designate caste or creed.  These are names of containers in which Dalit women (and a few men) from all over India scavenge, place and carry shit and other waste products with their own hands. These words that immediately bring a look of visceral disgust on to the faces of the civilized world, since the stigma embossed on them is centuries-old, actually name human beings of flesh and blood. Believe it or not.

These words have become their identity and most of them have forgotten their given names. The households they work for have lost track of their names too. As if their very faces ought to give away their profession and social position. Narayan Amma spent 60 years of her life at Anandpur, Andhra Pradesh: the last time she heard her name being called was in the 1950s when she was an adolescent. Thereafter she was Thotame. The universal Thotame. Right from the early hours of the day till afternoon she cleans the dry latrines of her area, bare handed—with the constant buzzing of the all too known phrases, phrases that define her too: “Thotame, wipe this, scrub that. Double quick!”So, a major chunk of her life passed by nameless, until one morning, the activists began to call her by her name again. Amazing! It was she who led the movement for eradicating the dry shit-holes of her area and even during that ongoing struggle would no one call her Narayana Amma. When asked, Savitri, a neighbourhood woman who routinely used the latrines, replied pat: “What’s in a name? We all know her job!”

Shanti in Kanpur has an identical tale to tell—the universal Baltiwali that she is. Heera from 24 Parganas in Bengal is the ever active Dabbuwali; Indira at Tonk in Rajasthan is quite naturally the local Tokriwali. With a slight awareness of such geographical variations that tell us remarkably similar stories, we may have a vague sense of how Invisible India functions, goes about its business day after day, generation past generation.

These women are so mired in the endless cycles of caste maltreatment, physical exploitation and economic disparity that we do not even know where to begin. Where do we start? Even these women have no clue when and how they got into these exploitative cycles and of ways to come out of these patterns.  The heavy baskets of dirt and shit—ah, to even contemplate quitting this job means revolting against the grim fixed orders and expectations of husbands and in-laws. Clearly caste and patriarchal hierarchies are responsible for making this profession perfectly fit for women (around 95-98% of the womenfolk constitute this profession).  As I have said, the story is more or less the same around India. The pain too, is  similar: “The man does not work. Is a drunkard.  Abuses me physically. So, it is my shit-cleaning job that actually helps run the household. How shall we make two ends meet otherwise?”

It is important to realize how the caste system works and patronizes a whole support system for running these households: a few rotis and some money could lead to some bonus if these women agree to help in disposing off dead animals or do menial, ad hoc jobs during the ‘rituals’ of birth, death and marriage in the locality. And yes, during festivals—may be some old torn clothes too for them. With a tacit understanding that during trying times they will get some odd help from the exploiters. The women have this impulse to run the family in a sound manner, a compulsion that the men folk often elude. This, the exploiters know very well and use the knowledge to wage a kind of psychological warfare quite astutely.  Naturally, there are a good number of women around the nation who do not wish to come out of this abusive cycle.

Ghulam Muhammad of Ujjain had to fight tooth and nail with his own mother and sister so that they may relinquish cleaning these dry-latrines once and for all. The old mother kept on arguing that this very profession had maintained generations in her household. So, it would be criminal to quit. Vimla, Kamaiwali for the past 25 years in the Aishbagh area of Lucknow was also not ready to give up her job so easily. The pretty looking Vimla was as enamoured of her beautiful jewellery as she was of her job. She felt she had always nurtured and children with this, her job. Her daughter got married by her kamai. And then, how much of life was still left for such momentous changes! Her husband, a serial gambler, works for the municipality and anyway wastes all his money in drinking binges. In our one hour of exchanges, she told me at least 4 times that since 1985 she had bought off the jajmani of the 25 households where she works in 2 thousand rupees by selling off all her jewellery. Her working households are mostly poor Muslim families. Vimla, working thus for decades, does not see her work as part of a throbbing hellhole.

It is this mental slavery and cycle of domination that is at the bottom of these women getting invisiblized all around us.

The men work for municipalities and so their salary is assured and is comparatively higher than what these women make within this informal sector. The informalization is important to note. Why do women get into cleaning dry latrines and manual scavenging? If you ask Bezwada Wilson of Safai Karmachari Andolan or Manjula Pradeep of Navsarjan or Srilata Swaminathan (CPIML) or even D. Raja (CPI)—all will give you more or less the same answer—that since these are shudratishudra women—Dalits even among the Dalits—they have been pushed into this ultimate menial profession.  The males have ‘given’ the ‘jagirdari’ or ‘jajmani’ of the dirt and shit to them.  Quite amazing to hear these feudal words being deployed in this fashion. Around the nation the community of shit and dirt cleaners claim difference of identity. These are all Dalit communities. But each of these communities is keen on arguing for the manner in which their particular community fares above the rest. This is one way to understand the everyday deployment and tremendous staying power of the Manusmriti.

———————————-

Bhasha Singh is a senior journalist , working currently for the Outlook magazine.

 

 

Political Iconography & the Female Political Leader: The Case of Indira Gandhi, Some Initial Questions

 

 Trina Nileena Banerjee

 

 

‘The coming generation will feel extremely proud of the name of Indira Gandhi. They will worship her as the personification of Sita, Lakshmi and Durga. Long live Indiraji,’

~ Virendra Khanna, General Secretary of National Affairs. [i]

 

 

From a large portion of the visual, historical and literary material emerging around the National Emergency in India (1975-1977), it could be argued that a strong undertone of religiosity and the sense of a mystical, yet terrifying, female power surrounded the popular perception of Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian rule. Sita[ii], Lakshmi[iii] and Durga[iv], of course, stood for the virtues of chastity, purity, service, prosperity and strength – qualities that were seen to be embodied in Indira’s person during the first years of her government. The influence of religious, especially Hindu religious, iconography had always been a strong determinant in the popular representations of national political leadership in India and had managed to survive from the days of the nationalist struggle into the 1970s, as Christopher Pinney has shown in his book Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India.[v] In an essay called ‘Towards the Space of the Beholder’, Pinney writes:

Ramakrishna, as also Swami Vivekananda, initially subjected to photographic regimes, were very soon circulated through the technology of chromolithography – a way of disseminating photos of the gods (bhagwan ke photo) which was more phenomenologically adequate to the task of impressing quasi-divine power. The same would soon also be true of the political pantheon as it merged towards the end of the nineteenth century. Tilak, Gandhi, Ambedkar and numerous others were endlessly photographically documented (many of them by the Bombay based photographer V. N. Virkar), but is as coloured lithographs that they sedimented themselves among the wider populace.[vi]

An examination of Indira Gandhi’s representations in popular art during the 1960s and 1970s (as recorded in the prints available in Pinney’s book and various popular cartoons) reveals a continuation of this tradition: an odd visual continuum between the portrayal of godhead and that of political leadership. The element of worship, which had continued to feature prominently in the political and electoral popularity of figures of Indira Gandhi’s stature from the time of Independence, appears to be a strong subterranean current in these popular representations. This strand of religiosity was not a figment of imagination or wishful thinking that emerged from sections of Indira’s loyal coterie, but, arguably, significantly coloured the visual and verbal rhetoric of the dominant political propaganda surrounding her greatness, shaping mass-produced images and popular calendar art, and ultimately putting the final seal on the process of her deification during the nineteen months of the Emergency, when Congress President D. K. Barooah famously claimed “India is Indira, Indira is India.’ Pinney writes in his book about the continuities that existed in the 1960s’ and 70s’ between representations of technological/military advance, political leadership and religious figures:

There were also, in the 1960s and ’70s, inevitably a vast number of Indira images; she is shown with Jawaharlal Nehru, with Sanjay, against the national flag. One series, strongly inflected with a Soviet socialist realist aesthetic, depicts scenes from the life of contemporary India within decorative interlocking cogs suggestive of a huge mechanized India. Heroic peasants clutching sheaves of wheat and sickles are juxtaposed with vast hydroelectric projects, the Trombay reactor, heavy engineering works and scenes of high-tech laboratories peopled by whitecoated technicians. Wendy O’Flaherty once commented on the Shivling-like contours of the Trombay reactor, suggesting that a postage stamp that bore its image depicted it within a religious frame. Be that as it may, some Hindu deities have always engaged intimately with modernity. Vishvakarma – a traditional deity of artisan castes – has long been worshipped through special pujas in steel and other factories throughout India…[vii]

Impulses towards industrial modernity merged with celebrations of (Hindu) religious tradition the labour-power of ‘heroic peasants’; presiding over these images, yoking together ‘progress’ and the visual grammar of Hindu worship, was the benevolent figure of the then current Prime Minister and the concrete embodiment of the idea of ‘Mother India’. This essay will attempt to examine, through the case of Indira Gandhi, the complex and perhaps perverse imbrications of authoritarian rule, deification, embodiment and femininity in the Indian political context of the 1960s and 1970s. How a female political leader ‘performs her image’ in the post-colonial public sphere and the extra-rational implications of this performance, which tap on to both deep-seated religious and socio-cultural resources for success, would be the primary themes of exploration in this paper. The essay also emerges from my broader investment in a theoretical and historical exploration of women’s relationship to power in the realpolitik, their differential engagements with political violence (not just as victims but also as agents/perpetrators) and their associations with authoritarian/repressive/right-wing regimes and politico-religious movement.  The association of a female political leader with perhaps the single-most repressive period in the political history of post-Independence India leads to an inevitable rethinking of the straightforward liberal feminist notion of female political agency as a positive in itself. I am interested in the relationship of this problematic to performance, especially the performance of gender in the public and political sphere.

Popular visual representations – for example, the frequently misogynistic cartoons and caricatures in the mainstream media[viii] – of Indira Gandhi that were current during the period of her governance reveal much about the intimate, complex, and sometimes derisive, relationship existing between the iconic female leader and the postcolonial polity she governed.  My specific interest is in the relationship of popular critiques, as well as celebrations, of political conservatism to the figure of the exceptionally powerful female. There is, in addition, the difficulty faced by feminists in reading such a figure, one who did nothing historically for the larger interests of marginalized women’s groups, as well as for ‘sisterhood’. This difficulty is addressed by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan in her essay ‘Gender, Leadership and Nation: The ‘Case’ of Indira Gandhi’[ix] in the book Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism. Sunder Rajan discusses the roles of female political leaders in South Asian countries and the difficulties that feminist theory faces in analyzing effectively their political contributions (especially vis-à-vis the complex popular representations of their ‘femininity’, or lack thereof). She writes: “In the typical biographical representations of Indira Gandhi, the problem of reconciling gender and authority is resolved through the familiar dichotomizing of the subject into a private self and a public persona; and here it is the self alone that is gendered female.”[x]During the Emergency when Indira Gandhi’s authority grew to unimaginable proportions and slogans such as ‘Indira is India’ became unprecedentedly popular. According to journalist Kuldip Nayar[xi], who was imprisoned under censorship laws during the Emergency, a ‘cult of personality’ developed around Mrs. Gandhi and visual spectacle formed a crucial part of this ‘cult’. Larger than life, and in some cases, enormous blow-ups of her figure, along with her new twenty-point economic programme appeared everywhere. It begun to be said that Mrs. Gandhi looked quite sordid in most of these gargantuan visual representations and she later had some of them pulled down. But the upshot was that the urban and semi-urban spaces of the country were pervaded by ‘monstrous’ representations of the female leader of the nation, who had by then begun to be widely hated in several circles for her uncompromisingly authoritarian ways. On the other hand, according to journalists like Barun Sengupta[xii], Indira Gandhi was often popularly referred to as the ‘only real man’ in the Congress (especially contra the previous Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, who was seen as a really weak and ineffectual leader), signaling towards a continuance of the reading of effective political leadership in terms of masculinity and femininity within what was, in reality, an atmosphere of severely repressive governance.

What seems to emerge ever more strongly in the studies of Indira Gandhi’s career, immediately pre- and post-Emergency, is the impossibility of the separation of a distilled ‘secular’ field in the postcolonial Indian context, where calculable electoral operations may be mapped without doubt in relation to stable constituencies, ‘interest’ groups and a ‘disenchanted’, and enlightened political actions. What Thomas Blom Hansen asserts in his study of Shiv Sena politics between the 1960s and 1990s, could perhaps also be said, in a more qualified way, about mainstream electoral politics in India in the build-up towards the Emergency and in the events that immediately followed it. It could be argued that some of the predominant political features of this time were the manipulation/organisation of public spectacles on massive scales and the management of public moods/rumours (during the Emergency through a containment of some rumours and the encouragement of others). There was also the deliberate operation of a certain stylistic aesthetic both in terms of rhetoric (including consistent ‘socialist’ double-speak in the case of Gandhi and the assertion of a freshly-minted ‘anti-corruption’ political honesty in the case of Jayprakash Narayan, her political and moral opponent) and bodily comportment. One could contend that it was all these factors put together, rather than any stable political ideology or concrete plan of action, which allowed both Gandhi and her subsequent opponent (popularly known as “JP”) to sustain, however briefly, the electoral/political gains they were able to garner. Hansen writes:  “[…] political choice and preference probably is guided by much more ephemeral and transient collective moods, as well as considerations of worthiness or personal qualities of the candidates standing for election. […] I will suggest we focus much more on the role of ideology, of the creation of public moods and sentiments, of the production of authority…”[xiii]  Also important for my argument in this context is the mode of production of this political authority in the case of Indira Gandhi during the Emergency, which to my mind, approximates closely to what Achille Mbembe in his book On the Postcolony calls the self-construction of this authority as a ‘fetish.’ Mbembe writes:

“In the postcolony, the commandement8 seeks to institutionalize itself, to achieve legitimation and hegemony (recherche hégémonique), in the form of a fetish. The signs, vocabulary, and narratives that the commandement produces are meant not merely to be symbols; they are officially invested with a surplus of meanings that are not negotiable and that one is officially forbidden to depart from or challenge. To ensure that no such challenge takes place, the champions of state power invent entire constellations of ideas; they adopt a distinct set of cultural repertoires and powerfully evocative concepts; but they also resort, if necessary, to the systematic application of pain. The basic goal is not just to bring a specific political consciousness into being, but to make it effective.”[xiv]

But this same authoritarian move towards the fetishization of political authority/icons from above allows, according to Mbembe, a ludic space – a space where the postcolonial subject may turn into homo ludens par excellence. But Mbembe speaks also of the mutual ‘zombification’ of the commandement and the ruled which he sees as leading to instances of theophagy, since, he argues, this relationship is primarily a magical, enchanted one. He writes:

As noted, the commandement defines itself as a cosmology or, more simply, as a fetish. A fetish is, among other things, an object that aspires to be made sacred; it demands power and seeks to maintain a close, intimate relationship with those who carry it. […]It turns the postcolonial autocrat into an object that feeds on applause, flattery, lies. […]In this situation, one should not underestimate the violence that can be set in motion to protect the vocabulary used to denote or speak of the commandement, and to safeguard the official fictions that underwrite the apparatus of domination, since these are essential to keeping the people under the commandement’s spell, within an enchanted forest of adulation that, at the same time, makes them laugh.[xv]

He goes on to say:

[…] peculiar also to the postcolony is the way the relationship between rulers and ruled is forged through a specific practice: simulacrum (le simulacre). This explains why dictators can sleep at night lulled by roars of adulation and support only to wake up to find their golden calves smashed and their tablets of law overturned. The applauding crowds of yesterday have become today a cursing, abusive mob.[xvi]

Indira Gandhi’s massive electoral failure in the March 1977 elections is said to have immensely surprised her. Indira was caught off-guard by her defeat in spite of the fact that it was plain to see for anyone other than her and those who belonged to her sycophantic coterie that she was bound to lose. For her, who listened only to those who gave her the news she wanted to hear and the media she had herself carefully censored, the victory of the Janata Party under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan (also known as ‘Loknayak’: ‘the leader of the people) was unexpected. A solipsistic closed circle had been created between herself and the media she had carefully created (by putting into operation an immense machinery of every-day censorship that looked over the most banal details of everything that appeared in newsprint or was broadcast over radio), where she heard her own voice echoed back to her and in what could only be called a process of ‘zombification’ began to believe it. All official voices and every newspaper had explicitly sung only praises for Indira till the Emergency was called off on January 18, 1977, a couple of months before the election. The magical practice of fetishization and simulacral rituals had ensured that a mutual zombification of both the autocrat and the mobs was achieved. The announcement of the elections and the lifting of the Emergency meant that the autocrat’s spell was broken and the scenario seemed to be exactly as Mbembe has outlined above: the adoring/worshipping masses had turned overnight into an angry mob, hungry for its deity’s flesh. An instance of theophagy, it could be argued. Mbembe also provides an important clue towards the reading of resistance (or its absence) during the Emergency – that in the context of the familiarity and the intimate space shared by the ruler and the ruled, an atmosphere of conviviality shared by the two sides clear mappings of resistance and oppression in the way we commonsensically understand them would be difficult.

Around the time of the Emergency, therefore, official propaganda continued to fetishize and deliberately deify the image of Gandhi for the masses. Emma Tarlo discusses the emergence of dominant and official narrative of the Emergency in Northern India in the mid 1970s in her book Unsettling Memories: Narratives of the Emergency in Delhi:

The overriding message was that through hard work and mass coordination, India could enter a new and successful era of socialism.

THE ONLY MAGIC TO REMOVE POVERTY IS HARD WORK

YOU TOO HAVE A ROLE IN THE EMERGENCY!

WORK HARD! PRODUCE MORE! MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE!

While slogans, stickers and newspaper headlines codified the basic message into succinct and memorable phrases, government pamphlets with titles like Timely Steps and Preserving Our Democratic Structure spread the word. […] the Prime Minister’s words are echoed in the praise of successive chief ministers and important dignitaries who proclaim the Emergency ‘a necessary measure’, ‘a good opportunity for the poor’, ‘a wise and timely action’. Meanwhile Indira herself is admired for her dynamic leadership, her pursuit of truth and her dedication to the nation for which she will never be forgotten.[xvii]

In the propaganda that painted her leadership as motherly service to the nation, the vast populace of India appeared as her children and explicit connections of Indira’s role as the benevolent maternal leader of the nation with iconic images of Bharat Mata were not uncommon. The crucial point to remember here about the nationalist imagination of Bharat Mata is that she was both a deity and a familial figure, an abstract symbol of the suffering yet resilient ‘spirit’ of India[xviii] as well as concretely embodied in and as Everywoman of the independent nation. The Bharat Mata was also the iconic embodiment of the twin feminine and seemingly opposing virtues of service/nurture and power/Shakti. Indira herself appears to have been an active participant in the representation and dual configuration of her political role as goddess and intimate, often deliberately using her supposed familial and nurturing roles in relation to the nation in order to garner popular support during electoral campaigns. Rajeswari Sunder Rajan tells us in her essay in Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism:

Indira herself used every opportunity to flaunt her (actual) Nehru identity as daughter, as well as her symbolic maternal concern for the people of the nation; and the two were not unrelated. It was during the 1967 elections when Indira Gandhi was only fifty years old that she was first hailed as ‘Mother India’. In a speech she said to her village audience, “Your burdens are relatively light because your families are limited and viable. But my burden is manifold because crores of my family members are poverty-stricken and I have to look after them’. Thus gendered family identities – especially motherhood – are culturally capable of sustaining metaphoric expansion to embrace dimensions of leadership. Mother India (the film) became the most memorable record of the possibilities of such transformation.[xix]

But as the Emergency intensified its grip on India, it extended its repressive reach from arbitrary mass arrests of almost all active members of the opposition parties under the MISA[xx] and the ruthless censorship of the press, towards the forced or coercive sterilization of multitudes of poor people in Northern India. This was especially widespread in Haryana, where Bansi Lal, the Prime Minister’s right hand man held his sway. Sterilization was carried out for the announced purposes of population control, along with a programme of ruthless slum clearance for urban beautification in and around Delhi. Benevolent images of the nurturing priyadarshini[xxi] gradually gave away to the emergent form of the terrible mother bent on the destruction of her own children, as the goddess began to turn into a demon of uncontrollable power and cruelty, an embodiment of all that was repugnant about femininity. In discussing the role and trajectory of Indira Gandhi’s political leadership, as it was reflected in cultural products during the time of her rise to power, Rajeswari Sunder Rajan begins her analysis with Mehboob Khan’s popular Hindi film Mother India made in 1957. She then goes on to discuss literary works that emerged on the subject after the experience of the Emergency, starting with a story by O. V. Vijayan called ‘The Foetus’ which is one of a group of stories that first appeared in 1978 and were according to the author, ‘allegories of power’ that emerged from the witnessing of the “power and terror, occasioned by India’s brief experience of Emergency.”[xxii] The central figure of this story is ‘the Lady, Widowed Sovereign’ who never appears in the story but rules over a cursed village whose inhabitants are terrorized, hunted and killed by the Foetus who is her immaculately-conceived son. Only her portrait is seen in the text worshipped in ‘the carnal fullness of middle age, pregnant, naked’. Sunder Rajan argues that while the allegorical form was made necessary by concerns about censorship at the time, this story was one of the ‘more specifically political critiques of Indira Gandhi’s prime Ministership in the post Emergency period.’[xxiii] Sunder Rajan writes: ‘Between Mother India, product of post-Independence nationalism and ‘Foetus’ and Midnight’s Children, born of the Emergency trauma, stretches the history of Indira Gandhi’s leadership.’[xxiv]

It does indeed appear that the ‘look’ of Indira Gandhi, so to say, quite literally changed during these months as represented various genres of mass-produced popular art, especially in political cartoons that appeared sporadically in international journals[xxv] and Indian news weeklies, some of which were later shut down. Even serious representations of her visage began to resemble grotesque caricatures, visions of a femininity gone horribly wrong. Strangest among these changes was the transformation in her own perception of the visual material manufactured by her own governmental machinery that had spectacularly filled up the urban public space during the Emergency – enormous images of herself that accompanied the pictorial representations of her by-now notorious Twenty Point Programme, circulated aggressively in order to balance out the repressive measures against civil liberty through apparently benevolent steps towards social justice and a more equitable distribution of resources.  Journalist Kuldip Nayar writes in his book The Judgement: The Inside Story of the Emergency in India published in 1977:

Mrs. Gandhi had always given an economic cover to her political manoeuvres. […] This time she believed that the twenty-point programme would hide the move to sustain herself in power. And she looked like succeeding for the time being. The twenty-point programme came to dominate the media and every official and non-official discussion. Hoardings and posters came up everywhere, listing the points and carrying large portraits of her. The bigger the hoarding, the better was the appreciation, until she herself ordered their dismantling because her close friends told her that she looked “hideous” in paintings on the hoardings.[xxvi]

Whether the paintings themselves were ‘hideous’ or whether they were perceived as such as a result of her growing unpopularity among the people towards the later months of the Emergency is difficult to gauge. But visual spectacles that marked the public space with images of Indira’s supposed popularity, as well as her continual broadcasts over the All India Radio about the needs/benefits of the Emergency and the continuous valorization of her efforts in the newspapers that became the mouthpieces of her coterie (the ones which did not were shut down), formed a large part of the combined propaganda machinery that kept the Emergency juggernaut rolling. The attempt to use spectacle to mark popular support began early with the collection of massive crowds in front of Mrs. Gandhi’s residence in 1 Safdarjung Road 12 June 1975, right after the Allahabad High Court judgement pronounced her guilty of corrupt practices in the 1971 elections (which had brought her to the Lok Sabha as Prime Minister). This judgement was the most immediate trigger for the declaration of the Emergency on 25 June 1975. According to Kuldip Nayar, trucks and Delhi Transport Corporation buses were requisitioned to bring crowds from the villages to the capital free of charge and the Chief Ministers of neighbouring states were asked to organize rallies in support of Indira Gandhi’s continued Prime Ministership. The idea was to prove by a sheer show of numbers in the public space that the people’s overwhelming support overruled the verdict of the judiciary in the matter of Mrs. Gandhi’s continuing in office. In the days that led up to the declaration of internal Emergency further rallies were organized in Delhi to stand as evidence for the popular support for Indira’s leadership, the biggest being the one that took place on the 20th of June. Similar rallies were organized by the opposition under Jayprakash Narayan’s leadership, starting from March that year, in order to publicly mark the growing dissatisfaction with Indira’s government.  Nayar writes:

With emergency rule a little more than two months old, a cult of personality began to develop around Mrs. Gandhi. Her pictures sprouted all over the country, her twenty-point programme began to be chanted like a mantra: “Indira-study circles” were organized by all major universities and the Indira brigade gathered more volunteers.

And the portrayal of Mrs. Gandhi as a goddess by Husain, a famous painter, was now being officially shown round the country. Mrs. Gandhi of the Emergency was the deity who rode a full-blooded roaring tiger, and not a lion as mythology depicted.[xxvii]

It was Bharat Mata, drawing on the religious iconography of the goddess Durga, who was often shown in popular art as riding a lion signifying her embodiment as Shakti.[xxviii] The intimate terror of the image of Indira Gandhi as Bharat-Mata-gone-wrong, the journey, as it were, from priyadarshini (the loved one who is pleasing to look at, if we consider the combined meanings of ‘priya’ as both ‘well-loved’ and ‘pleasing’) to monster – can be grasped a little better if we look a deeper into the function of representative political iconography in modern India. In studying what he calls ‘history made by art’ or ‘how pictures were an integral element of history in the making’ in the book ‘Photos of the Gods’: The Printed image and Political Struggle in India, Christopher Pinney writes:

Scholars such as Roy Wagner and Marilyn Strathern have investigated the manner in which certain cultural practices treat images as compressed performances. […] The relevant question then becomes not how images ‘look’, but what they can ‘do’.[…]  A key concept here [in Hindu practice] is the notion of darshan, of ‘seeing and being seen’ by a deity, but which also connects to a whole range of ideas relating to ‘insight’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘philosophy’. […] Darshan’s mode of interaction mobilizes vision as part of a unified human sensorium, and visual interaction can be physically transformative.[xxix]

Pinney then goes on to suggest that the interactions and imbrications between religious and political iconography in India have had a much longer and more complicated history of overlap than have been explored in recent studies on the subject. It is clear however from the memoirs and accounts that appear right after the end of the Emergency in 1977[xxx], that the production of Indira Gandhi as an icon with patriotic-religious significance and the creation of multitudinous visual representations of the slogan ‘Indira is India’ was a deliberate and wide-ranging process that traversed many areas of public life in India at the time. And rather than a disavowal of her femininity or an underlining of its irrelevance to her position of political authority, these images and verbal propaganda sought to highlight the fact of her specifically female power (Shakti/Bharat Mata/Durga). Saba Mahmood writes on the use of the word ‘icon’ in her essay “Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide?”

[…]it refers not simply to an image but to a cluster of meanings that might suggest a persona, an authoritative presence, or even a shared imagination. In this view, the power of an icon lies in its capacity to allow an individual (or a community) to find him – or herself in a structure that has bearing on how one conducts oneself in this world. The term icon in my discussion therefore pertains not just to images but to a form of relationality that binds the subject to an object or an imaginary.[xxxi]

In discussing the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, where the Prophet Muhammad was represented as a terrorist, and the prevalent reaction of the western world to it, Mahmood critiques what she calls a ‘rather impoverished understanding of images, icons, and signs’ which ‘not only naturalizes a certain concept of a religious subject but fails to attend to the affective and embodied practices through which a subject comes to relate to a particular sign – a relation founded not only on representation but also on what I will call attachment and cohabitation.’[xxxii] Trying to understand the affective potency of the images of Indira Gandhi circulated during the Emergency, would lead us directly to an engagement with the historical fact that these images were actually accompanied by clear directives on how to conduct one’s life and bear oneself in day-to-day living as a good, as opposed to an unruly, citizen of India during a time of crisis. The image of the authoritarian mother entered the quotidian with clear disciplinary moves that decreed hard work, punctuality and a rigid governance of the self and family as imperative for national interest. The double-speak of socialism on paper and in propaganda was accompanied with a crackdown on democratic liberties and implicit support of big business, as various historians and political theorists like Partha Chatterjee[xxxiii], Sudipto Kaviraj[xxxiv] and Andre Gunder Frank[xxxv] have shown in their work. But important for our purposes is taking into cognizance the fact that policies like the Family Planning Scheme in scaling up of the sterilization drive, especially under the enthusiastic leadership of Sanjay Gandhi, led to thousands of rural and urban males being sterilized i.e. having to go through nasbandi. These operations were carried out most often through coercive measures that were put into place by the entire bureaucratic machinery (also acting under intimidation and fearful of their own interests) through a system of pervasive rewards and punishments, as Emma Tarlo and Veena Das have shown in their work. This created an atmosphere of widespread fear and paranoia, especially among the urban and rural poor, that gave the regnant, looming figure of Indira Gandhi a directly (one could say almost literally) emasculating potential as an all-powerful woman in authority. As Veena Das writes:

In popular imagination, the emergency is known as the time of nasbandi (sterilization).[xxxvi] This period shows with stark clarity how the politics of the body lies at the intersection between law and regulation. […] The authoritarianism of Mrs. Gandhi’s rule in this period and the destruction of institutions made it imperative for the bureaucracy to implement the policies of the government, not in accordance with rules and regulations, but in accordance with their reading of the wishes of their superiors. The state was literally seen to be embodied in the person of Mrs. Gandhi and her younger son, Sanjay Gandhi, who became, as was widely acknowledged, the extra-constitutional center of power.[xxxvii]

Monstrosity was, of course, the other side of deification. The massive electoral victory of 1971 that brought Indira to power for the term that ended in the Emergency came soon after the other high point of her political career – India’s victory in the war against Pakistan for Bangladesh’s liberation. This event had catapulted Indira to the height of popularity and personal confidence. The affective intensity and national pride that had coalesced around her person at this time saw an equal wave of hatred/disgust generated against her political authority within a period of six years. She was swept unanimously out of power by the gigantic electoral defeat that followed the Emergency in 1977. As Sudipto Kaviraj writes in his foundational essay ‘A Critique of the Passive Revolution’ published in the Economic and Political Weekly in 1988:

A remarkable feature of the new politics was the quickening of the political cycle. Indira Gandhi carried her party to power on promises which were more radical and proportionately more unrealistic than earlier programmes. […] Governments had to pay the price for such populism sooner than expected. Under Nehru, electoral majorities of the Congress had never been comparably large; yet none of those administrations had difficulty in seeing through their appointed constitutional terms. Remarkably, after Indira Gandhi’s victory in 1971, no government has actually lasted its term. By 1973, Indira Gandhi’s large parliamentary majority notwithstanding, she was in deep political crisis.[xxxviii]

In fact, Indira Gandhi grew increasingly defensive and nervous of her own political control over the nation in the face of growing international censure and rising internal resentment during the later months of the year 1976. She went into the 1977 elections, much against the wishes of her son Sanjay Gandhi and her close advisors, perhaps partly in order to prove to the international community and her dissenters inside that she was still at the helm of things, enjoying as much popular and electoral support as she had done in the past. She was, of course, proven tragically wrong. Sunder Rajan writes, interestingly: ‘During the Emergency, for instance, we learn that she felt panic-stricken, as if riding a tiger and not being able to get off it.’[xxxix] The image of the Bharat Mata envisioned as an embodiment of Shakti or Durga, of course, returns once again to haunt the figure of this political heroine. But this time, of course, it is a Bharat Mata no longer so poised, but on the verge of losing control of what she rules, precariously balanced at the edge of political disaster. And once again, the contours, both repulsive and pleasing at extremes, of her ‘womanhood’, rather than being peripheral to our understanding of the nature of her political authority appear as intrinsic to the complexity we must untangle in order to adequately analyse the unraveling shape of her controversial political career as the leader of a postcolonial nation. In order to do so, it is essential to unpack the ambivalent relationship of popular perceptions of femininity and masculinity to political authority, as also to examine the outlines of the Janus-like anatomy of the ‘woman-nation’ symbolic unit that has worked overtime in the service of (a fervently religious) patriotism. The study of cultural representations of women in authority that emerge from the Emergency, allows us an opportunity to examine, via the covert operations of religion in the so-called ‘rational’ public sphere, the misogyny that moulds the other face of deification in the project of heroic nationalism.[xl]  In his concluding chapter to the book Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Partha Chatterjee writes:

[…] nationalist thought has not emerged as the antagonist of universal Reason in the arena of world history. […] ever since the Age of Enlightenment, Reason in its universalizing mission has been parasitic upon a much less lofty, much more mundane, palpably material and singularly invidious force,  namely the universalist urge of capital. To the extent that nationalism opposed colonial rule, it administered a check on a specific political form of metropolitan capitalist dominance. […] But this was achieved in the very name of Reason. Nowhere in the world has nationalism-qua-nationalism challenged the marriage of Reason and capital.[xli]

The imperatives of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ that hold pivotal positions in the dominant imagination of national histories, of course, hinge on this critical marriage between Reason and capital. The holding in permanent suspension of the crisis of the ‘people-nation’ (which Partha Chatterjee speaks about, following Gramsci) also allows for certain illusions to persist: for example, the idea that ‘development for all’ can be achieved by democratic means as long as the constitution of the right sort of ‘vanguard’ (cultural/economic/social/political) is made possible. In a strangely paradoxical way, the Emergency, then, is both the collapse of this ‘democratic’ illusion of ‘progress for all’, as well as a forceful reiteration of the power of Reason and order, which lies at the beginning of the narrative of nation. What mediates between these two faces of collapse and reassertion is, like Benjamin’s dwarf, the hidden force of religion. The governmental impulse of the state, without which no notion of ‘planning’ can operate, and which makes charting the course of development possible, comes nakedly to the fore during a political situation such as the Emergency. The rule of law runs things like clockwork, but also twists itself into strange shapes to emasculate, imprison and raze to the ground. Just like the ‘revolution’, then, the Emergency is an exceptional time. It is both order and disorder, joined at base. Trains run on time; but thousands of guiltless people fester in jails for years.  Running parallel the subjugated history of the ‘lie of freedom’ (‘yeh azaadi jhootha hai’) and highlight the dishonesty of the state masquerading as ‘people-nation’, is the story of the collapse of the dominant narrative of ‘state-representing-nation’, i.e. Progress. This is the failure of the ‘cunning of reason’, the ultimate crumbling into insanity of the dominant discourse. The Janus face of the Emergency helps us to map the course of both the dominant and the marginal narratives of ‘nation’, with a specific focus on the problematic of women and power, and the impossibility of escaping from the subterranean workings of religion when mapping this terrain.

—————————

Endnotes:

[i] Emma Tarlo, Unsettling Memories: Narratives of the Emergency in Delhi, (Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 2003), 27.

[ii] Sita, the wife of Rama in the great Indian epic Ramayana was known for her chastity and unquestioning devotion to her husband.

[iii] Lakshmi was the goddess of prosperity and household well-being in the Hindu pantheon.

[iv] Durga was a goddess who was an embodiment of ‘Shakti’ (power personified as female) and a destroyer of evil.

[v]  Christopher Pinney, Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India (London:

REAKTION Books, 2004).

[vi] Christopher Pinney, ‘Towards the Space of the Beholder’, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society Text Archiveshttp://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2008-09-18.9604442564.

[vii] Christopher Pinney, Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India (London: REAKTION Books, 2004), 172.

[viii] One interesting later example is the cartoon of Indira Gandhi that was published towards the end of her life as the cover of the magazine The Economist in 1984. This cartoon depicted her quite literally as a monstrous figure, mimicking the ‘devis’ (goddesses) who were representations of Shakti (female power) but displaying an extraordinarily repulsive/ugly visage. Here, Indira has four arms (much like some of the mythical Hindu goddesses), each arm representing an aspect of her power. In one hand, she holds a sword. In another, a bag marked ‘money’. And in two other fists, she holds captives representatives of the ‘common man’ of India, who seem to be screaming in protest. She is also shown as stepping over Sri Lanka, in a grotesque dance that mimics the ‘Nataraj’ or the ‘dancing Shiva’.  Copies of the magazine were confiscated at the airport before they could be disseminated and this issue of the magazine banned.  This was preceded, however, since the 1970s, with several national and international representations that were equally derogatory, including election graffiti on city walls. Popular cartoons included those by cartoonist Sudhir Dhar, who worked for the English daily Hindustan Times and cartoonist Abu Abraham whose works appeared in this period in The Indian Express, as well as other newspapers. It is interesting to note that in Abraham ‘s cartoon’s Indira as “Mummy” to the nation’s male politicians becomes a recurrent trope. A detailed analysis of these cartoons, however, is beyond the scope of this essay. [Indiequill, “The Economist’s Indira Gandhi Circa 1984’: http://indiequill.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/the-economists-indira-gandhi-circa-1984/ and Sadanand Menon, “Bursting Bloated Bladders of Lies and Pomposity”, Himal Southasian (June 2010): http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/4259-bursting-bloated-bladders-of-lies-and-pomposity.html. ]

[ix] See Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism (London: Routledge, 1993).

[x] Ibid, 116.

[xi] Kuldip Nayar, The Judgement: The Inside Story of the Emergency in India (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1977), 86.

[xii] Barun Sengupta, ‘Indira Ekadashi’ in Rachana Samagra (Kolkata: Ananda, 2008), 526. Sengupta writes about Indira’s steady rise to power in the late 1960s: “Indira’s critics could see after this fight that she was inimitable even in the field of political strategy. The way in which she steadily fought against the party leadership and won her place made most ordinary people think that these leaders were novices in comparison to her. At this time, a lot of people started saying: amongst the Congress leaders only Indira was the real man, and the rest were women even if they appeared to be men!”

[xiii] Thomas Blom Hansen, “Politics as Permanent Performance: The Production of Political Authority in the Locality”, in The Politics of Cultural Mobilization in India, ed. John Zavos, Andrew Wyatt and Vernon Hewitt (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), 20.

[xiv] Achille Mbembe, “The Aesthetics of Vulgarity” in On the Postcolony (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), 103.

[xv] Ibid, 111.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Emma Tarlo, Unsettling Memories: Narratives of the Emergency in Delhi, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003), 27.

[xviii] In fact the creation of Mother India as an icon helped in some ways to envision and performatively bring this imagined spirit into being in terms of popular political practice.

[xix] Sunder Rajan, Real and Imagined Women, 106-107.

[xx]“Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) had been amended only a year earlier to authorize the government to detain or arrest individuals without producing charges before a court of law.”, Kuldip Nayar, The Judgement, 38.

[xxi] A name given to her by Rabindranath Tagore in the year spent at Shantiniketan between 1934 and 1935 and subsequently popularised.

[xxii] Sunder Rajan, Real and Imagined Women, 106.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Ibid, 108.

[xxv] For example, a cartoon of Indira Gandhi as ‘Mother Goddess’ and half-animal that was published in The Economist, 1984, which caused the magazine being confiscated at airports in India, as we have pointed out earlier.

[xxvi] Kuldip Nayar, The Judgement, 59.

[xxvii] Nayar, 86.

[xxviii] As evidenced in the prints available in Christopher Pinney’s Photos of the Gods.

[xxix] Ibid, pp. 9. [Emphasis mine.]

[xxx] Primila Lewis, Reason Wounded: An Experience of India’s Emergency (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1978), Soli Sorabjee, The Emergency, Censorship and the Press in India, 1975-77 (New Delhi: Central News Agency, 1977) and Kuldip Nayar, The Judgement: The Inside Story of the Emergency in India (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1977).

[xxxi] Mahmood, “Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide?”, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1 January 2009): 836-862.

[xxxii] Ibid, 842.

[xxxiii] Partha Chatterjee, A Possible India, in The Partha Chatterjee Omnibus (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 51-66. Chatterjee writes: “In November 1975, major reforms were announced in licensing policy: some fifteen export-oriented engineering industries were allowed automatic expansion of capacity – virtually all of them were marked by low average capacity utilization; blanket exemptions from licensing were granted to twenty-one industries in the medium sector, and unlimited expansion beyond the licensed capacity was allowed to foreign companies and large monopoly houses in thirty other important industries; the procedure for regularising unauthorized capacity installed by monopoly houses and foreign companies was liberalised.” [Chatterjee, 63].

[xxxiv] Sudipta Kaviraj, “A Critique of the Passive Revolution”,  Economic and Political Weekly Vol. 23, No. 45/47, Special Number (Nov., 1988), 2429-2444

[xxxv] Andre Gunder Frank, “Emergence of Permanent Emergency in India Author”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 12, No. 11 (Mar. 12, 1977): 463-475.

[xxxvi] Specifically, the sterilization of males.

[xxxvii] Veena Das, Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 172-174.

[xxxviii] Sudipto Kaviraj, ‘A Critique of the Passive Revolution’, 2438.

[xxxix] Sunder Rajan, Real and Imagined Women, 102.

[xl] Examples of other plays written in India at this time that contain references to Indira’s rule include Vijay Tendulkar’s Encounter in Umbugland, which was a farce written in 1967. The character of Princess Vijaya here perhaps represents the young Indira. [Vijay Tendulkar, Collected Plays in Translation (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004)].

[xli] Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 168.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Chatterjee, Partha. A Possible India: Essays in Political Criticism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998.

———. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.

———. The Partha Chatterjee Omnibus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Das, Veena. Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary. Berkeley and Los Angeles:      University of California Press, 2007.

Frank, Andre Gunder. “Emergence of Permanent Emergency in India.” Economic and Political Weekly 12, no. 11 (March 12, 1977): 463-475.

Hansen, Thomas Blom. “Politics as Permanent Performance: The Production of Political Authority in the Locality”, in The Politics of Cultural Mobilization in India. Edited by John Zavos, Andrew Wyatt and Vernon Hewitt . New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Indiequill. “The Economist’s Indira Gandhi Circa 1984’.  http://indiequill.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/the-economists-indira-gandhi-circa-1984/ .

Kaviraj, Sudipta. “A Critique of the Passive Revolution.” Economic and Political Weekly 23, no. 45/47 (November 1, 1988): 2429-2444.

Lewis, Primila. Reason Wounded: An Experience of India’s Emergency. New Delhi: Vikas, 1978.

Mahmood, Saba. “Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide?” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 4 (January 1, 2009): 836-862.

Mbembe, Achille. “The Aesthetics of Vulgarity”. On the Postcolony. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001.

Menon, Sadanand. “Bursting Bloated Bladders of Lies and Pomposity”. Himal Southasian (June 2010): http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/4259-bursting-bloated-bladders-of-lies-and-pomposity.html.

Pinney, Christopher. “Photos of the Gods”: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. London: Reaktion Books, 2004.

——- ‘Towards the Space of the Beholder’, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society Text Archives: http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2008-09-18.9604442564

Sunder Rajan, Rajeswari. Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism. London: Routledge, 1993.

Sengupta, Barun. Rachana Samagra. Calcutta: Ananda Publishers, 2007.

Sorabjee, Soli. The Emergency, Censorship and the Press in India, 1975-77. New Delhi: Central News Agency, 1977.

Tarlo, Emma. Unsettling Memories: Narratives of the Emergency in Delhi. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003.

Vijay Tendulkar, Collected Plays in Translation (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004)

 ——————–

Trina Nileena Banerjee is currently teaching at the Department of Theatre and Performance Studies at the School of Arts and Aesthetics in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her PhD was on women in the group theatre movement in Bengal (1950-1980) and she is also currently working on a monograph titled Embodying Suffering: Interface(s) between Women’s Protest Movements and Women’s Performance in Contemporary Manipur (1980-2010). She has also been a stage and film actress, as well as a poetry and fiction writer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporeal Punishment, English & Homosocial Tactility

Niladri R. Chatterjee

 

 

 

 

There is a story I had once heard somewhere about a Western woman visiting Calcutta.  This was her second visit.  The first visit was in the 1970s when she was a teenager.  The next was in the 21st century when she was in her late thirties.  After going around the city for a few days, on her second visit, she asked her Bengali friends, “Aren’t there any gays in Calcutta anymore?”  The friends were puzzled and asked her to explain her question. She said, “Well, the last time I was here, I often saw men walking down the street holding hands. Surely they were gay. Why don’t I see such gay couples around anymore?”  There are several ways in which one can read the story. But its most accessible reading would be as an example of cultural incomprehension. Because in her native culture two men holding hands could univocally mean that they were in a homosexual relationship, she had assumed that manual tactility between men in all societies can mean only one thing. She was the native of a society where English was the most commonly spoken language.  The story has stayed with me all these years because somewhere in that story I detected a relationship between language/ culture and the body which I thought intriguing. Looking at myself I find that my reduced use of English is inversely proportional to the increase in my sense of security. When I was younger I spoke in English far more than I do now. I was also aware of the reason for this. I felt English was a language which was protecting me from visceral emotional self-exposure. I felt English was a mask which would de-emotionalize even an emotional statement that I may make. I felt protected by the language. This protection also brought in its wake a certain emotional frigidity and unavailability that I acquired which can be used to explain that when I was younger I was far lonelier than I am now, when I do not speak English as much as I used to. This paper is an attempt at exploring how and why the male body in Bengal functions in a certain way when the owner of that body speaks in his native tongue and in quite another way when he speaks in English.

I have often noticed that there is a marked difference between the way men in Bengal who speak English think of their bodies and the way those who do not speak English think or do not think of theirs.  The holding of hands becomes the touchstone method of telling apart those who do not speak English from those who do.  I have repeatedly observed that those men who are obviously employed in blue collar professions, or are even daily wage earners, and therefore almost certainly not in possession of English, show a far greater level of tactility among themselves than those who are white collar workers and are not entirely unlettered in English. Men or boys who do not speak English embrace each other a lot more, even kiss each other on the cheek far more frequently than those who can speak English. In fact, in my own English-speaking circle of friends I have noticed a particular horror of physical contact among male friends, and an inversely proportional lack of corporeal self-consciousness among those who do not speak English. Is it a mere coincidence? Would it be entirely erroneous to speculate whether the English language in any way straitjackets the male body and prohibits same-sex tactility beyond the ‘firm’ handshake? Is the firmness of the handshake an indicator and a performance of hegemonic masculinity? Is the handshake the only kind of same-sex tactility that has been sanctioned and approved as a physical gesture that carries no risk of endangering the heteronormativity of a patriarchal society?

English was formally introduced as the preferred language of instruction, business and government in Bengal in the later part of the 18th century, Calcutta having been settled by the East India Company towards the end of the 17th century. Lord Macaulay’s notorious Minute on Indian Education was written in 1835.  As Gauri Vishwathan says, English education was introduced to solve the conflict between the proselytising goal of the missionaries and the policy of religious neutrality adopted by the British Government (Vishwanathan 38). So, as I say elsewhere, English and Christianity were being discreetly conflated by smuggling in Christianity under the cover of English literature (Chatterjee 38-9). Foucault tells us that in the 19th century in the West in general and in England in particular the human body, and especially the male body was being pathologized, sexualized, classified and medicojuridically disciplined, with active support from Christianity.  There are two famous instances of homosocial tactility in the Bible and both carry negative valence. Judas identifies Christ for the Roman police by kissing him. Thomas doubts the reality of Christ’s resurrection by inserting a finger into one of the wounds received by Christ on the cross. There is only one instance of homosocial tactility in the Bible with positive valence.  This is that of St. John the Beloved – not to be confused with St. John the Baptist – who was in the habit of rest his head on Christ’s shoulder.  There are statues in Germany dating from 1300 where this instance of homosocial tactility in the Bible is iconised.  The fact that these statues are not very well known points to the marginalisation of positive homosocial tactility in the Bible.  The only way in which the story of John the Beloved resting his head on Christ’s chest has travelled into English literature is through its homosexualization by Christopher Marlowe when he declared that John the Beloved had a homosexual relationship with Christ.  So, that apparently asexual and positive instance of Biblical homosocial tactility was appropriated by Marlowe and therefore reinserted into the criminalising Christian discourse on homosexuality.  Therefore all the three instances of Christian homosocial tactility become associative of crime. It is interesting, however, that doubting Thomas was allowed to poke a finger into one of Christ’s wounds, but Mary Magdalen was asked not to touch. Titian’s painting Noli Me Tangere (1508) immortalises the moment when the resurrected Christ told Magdalen gently but firmly, “Touch me not.” The tactility refused in this painting can be seen in contrast to the tactility implied in Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam (1510) painted two years later. But ‘Noli me Tangere’ seems to hover over Christianity like a dictat. I was struck by how uncomfortable men and women standing on either side of me at a church in Austin, Texas were when at the end of the Midnight Mass on Christmas Day the congregation was asked to give the person standing next to them the sign of peace.  As the sign of peace, I noticed, most men shook each other’s hand. By contrast, men embracing each other after prayers is sanctioned in both Islam and Hinduism.  In Islam men embrace each other after Eid prayers. In Hinduism men embrace each other on Bijoya Dashami, after Goddess Durga and Her Children have returned back to Their home in the Himalayas after the three-day Durga Puja. Painted a decade or two after Creation of Adam, a page from the Bhagavad Purana traced to the Delhi-Agra area shows the embrace of Nanda and Vasudeva (1520-30). Such a representation of two male bodies would be unthinkable at that time in Europe.

So the pathologisation and sexualisation of the male body gets underway in England at the same time that the teaching and dissemination of English becomes public policy for the British Government in Bengal. In order to understand how English was affecting the body of the Bengali male one need not look any further than the bodies of Vivekananda and his spiritual master Ramakrishna, two men living in 19th century Bengal; one fluent in English, the other completely unlettered in the language. If one looks at the photographs of the two men it becomes obvious that they had almost hygienically opposite attitudes towards their own bodies.  While Vivekananda’s most commonly reproduced posture shows him with his arms cross-locked against his chest, Ramakrishna’s hands are either loosely, limply resting near his folded feet, fingers loosely meshed into each other or his left hand is at his chest while the right hand is raised in ecstasy, with two fingers pointing heavenward. As Jeffrey Kripal points out in his book, there are no photographs available of Ramakrishna where he is in control of his body. His body seems to have no importance to him at all.  Vivekananda, on the other hand, is always conscious of his corporeality. Ramakrishna was often known to dance with his disciples.  There are no recorded instances of Vivekananda dancing. Vivekananda’s generation was the first in Bengal to be put through an education imparted in the English language. Ramakrishna did not know English. In his attitude towards the body, nay the gendered male body, Vivekananda was totally interpellated in the British ontology. Hardly surprising that the privately racist Anglo-American Vedantist and novelist Christopher Isherwood found Vivekananda far easier to like and understand that he did the ‘too Oriental’ Ramakrishna. In History of Sexuality Foucault catalogues the ways in which the schoolboy’s sexuality started being put under constant surveillance in the 19th century, lest it swerves away from the strict path of hegemonic masculinity and thereby endanger Britain’s status as an imperial power.

It is this masculinity which gets transmitted to the natives of Bengal when they are educated in the language which discursively produces the imperial masters. With the language come the clothes. It is physically difficult, if not impossible, to be as corporeally mobile in a suit as it is to be when one is wearing only a dhoti or a thin short cotton shirt over the dhoti.  The male body has greater freedom in traditional Bengali clothes than it does in severely cut two-piece or three-piece suits.  So, language brings with it its own sartorial culture which the learners of the language find themselves subliminally pressured to adopt. So, the body is clothed in a way which restricts its mobility, the kind of mobility it had when it was garbed in native ‘Oriental’ clothes. If masquerade is an important aspect of acquiring an identity, then there is also the chance of the mask growing into the face, so that the face and the mask become organically inseperable. Such an osmosis happens in the case of the Bengali male’s attitude towards his own body once he starts to speak in English. The stronger fluid of English seeps into the weaker fluid of Bengali culture in the nineteenth century, changing the latter so profoundly that its presence can still be detected in the Bengali psyche even today, sixty three years after Independence. English and its notions of gender and sexuality continue to wield power in contemporary Bengali society where homophobia, for example, can be cited as an obvious result of the Englishing of Bengal. These prejudices regarding gender and sexuality have proven to be so powerful that they have seeped into the consciousness of even those who may have only a passing or tenuous relationship with English.

In our colleges, when we start to learn about the history of the English language and philology, the language is presented to us firmly gendered as masculine. We are told, in no uncertain terms, that English is a masculine language. We ingest this gendering of English without any feminist contestation or criticism. What we do not realize is that in declaring English a masculine language a few other gendered associations are being smuggled into our consciousness. In receiving English as a masculine language we are also accepting English as a disciplined, ordered, scientific language cleansed of any feminizing emotional contagion.

Homosocial tactility should be studied in a way that takes into account the site of its performance and the class of subjects performing. If one looks at PDA – Public Display of Affection – one notices that the concept unproblematically conflates affection with erotic or romantic desires.  It is as if affection can only be sexual.  Is not a mother kissing her child in public a public display of affection?  Why is that acceptable and why is not the sight of two lovers or even a married couple kissing acceptable? What kind of affection therefore is heteronormatively assumed to exist between two men holding hands or embracing in public, depending on the site of that performance being Western or Eastern?  Here I propose to use English as a verb; to English, to be Englished. In a non-Englished context, the holding of hands, the embracing and even kissing between two men may be assumed to be ‘brotherly,’ ‘friendly,’ and therefore unproblematically and uncomplicatedly asexual. In an Englished context two men holding hands, embracing and kissing will be assumed to be unproblematically and unequivocally sexual. In Isherwood’s novel A Meeting by the River there is a scene where the first person singular narrator hopes that people at the airport in Los Angeles who saw his male lover give him a big kiss on the mouth assume that it is just two Southern European brothers bidding each other a fond, Mediterranean farewell.  We are aware, of course, that German and English cultures have frequently regarded Southern European societies as being the Orient of the West, as opposed to the real Orient which consists of countries like China, Japan and India.  So, Southern Europe is the East to Northern Europe’s West! It is not surprising that one of the iconic images of homosocial tactility comes from Southern Europe – ‘Creation of Adam’ by Michelangelo. The finger of Adam almost meeting the finger of God may be said to dramatise the conflicted attitude to male-male touch within Christianity. So, the geographical location of the homosocial tactility needs to be factored into the reading of a performance of homosocial affection in public.

The other variable that needs to be factored in is class. As I have mentioned above, blue-collar professionals tend to be less worried about the dangerous messages their being homosocially tactile may send out.

As in any other construction of the Lacanian Imaginary, the imaginary of homosocial tactility is also produced on the silver screen or on the small screen of television. It would be interesting to see how the hero of a Bengali film, for example, performs his friendship with his male friends. How tactile is he? Has the level and nature of tactility changed post-globalisation, where English words have infiltrated into colloquial Bengali and is increasingly audible in Bengali movies. Does the Bengali hero of today touch his male friends more or less than the Bengali hero of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? Even on the screen does the nature and extent of homosocial tactility depend on whether the hero knows English or not? And even if the hero himself does not know English, does the director’s knowledge of English proscribe the hero’s homosocial tactility? Is the director excising any possibility of the homoerotic by keeping the hero’s hands far away from the bodies of his male friends? It is not surprising that Englished director Anjan Dutta should have a scene in his film Byomkesh Bakshi where he has Byomkesh kiss his assistant Anil on the cheek.  Apparently, it was done to suggest that the relationship between Byomkesh and Anil was not entirely asexual. It is interesting that the presence of the erotic has to be signified by a physical gesture. So a strange binarisation seems to be active here. Tactile is equated with sexual, non-tactile with the asexual.  This is how the colonial legacy continues to operate in the Bengali consciousness once it has been colonised by the English language.

There is an absence of homosocial tactility in art produced in Bengal.  As far Indian art is concerned the only artist who deals with man-to-man tactility is Bhupen Khakhar, but the tactility represented in his paintings are redolent of overt or covert homosexuality, which is the result of his knowledge of English, of course. In My Dear Friend (1983) the two male lovers hold hands, but in private. In his most famous painting Man with a Bouquet of Plastic Flowers (1976) there are homosocial groups towards the right of the central figure, but even in these groups there is no touching. There is touching in Seva (1986),

How and why is rampant, enthusiastic homosocial tactility culturally acceptable in the realm of sport? The uninhibited embracing of a goal-scorer by his teammates is not regarded as being problematic because the football field has been so discursively sanitised and declared innocent of the homoerotic that the post-goal homosocial tactility among the members of a team is not seen as posing any kind of threat to the unimpeachable heterosexual nature of the football field. The football field, or indeed any other sporting site is assumed to be hegemonically and eternally masculine. So homosocial tactility is not seen as a threat to its ontology.  But even here it has been noted that non-English teams are much more homosocially tactile than the English team. Irani Chatterjee is a dietitian to sportspersons and she regularly associates with personal trainers across India. She says that she notices a distinct difference between the ways in which English-spoken and non-English-spoken gym trainers interact with their clients. Those who speak in English will only speak out their instructions and they try to keep their physical contact with clients to the bare minimum. Whereas those who instruct in, say Bengali or Hindi, think nothing of establishing repeated physical contact with their clients.

In her book The Body: The Key Concepts (2008) Lisa Blackman speaks of two ways in which the body can be theorised in sociology: microperspectives and macroperspectives.   According to her, microperspectives concentrate on the way in which the self is identified and invented through talk. Microperspectives reify conversational activity and the body is submerged.  Macroperspectives, on the other hand, see the body as the effect of power and discourse, the way in which Michel Foucault theorises the production of identities by power. But is there that much of a difference between the two ways of examining identity formation? And even if there is, I believe that there can be conjunctures where conversational activity and talk can very well be the way through which power covertly produces the ‘docile’ body as theorised by Foucault in his Discipline and Punish (1976). I believe that English exerts a disciplinary power over the male body in Bengal. If, as Foucault says, power produces us by instituting internal forms of self-monitoring and self-regulation and if these forms are inculcated as particular body techniques and practices, then English is one such form.

The English language puts at abeyance the spontaneous tactility of the male in Bengal and institutes itself inside the body of the speaker as a mechanism which ensures that the body is regulated from within, not without. So, the language becomes like an electronic tag that prisoners out on parole wear around their ankles.  Surveillance of the body is embedded in the body.  Over time the body gets used to the mechanism and ceases to regard it as anything other than organic to its existence, something ‘natural.’ In this case the mechanism is English. It was so easy to implant because it promised social, political, cultural and economic empowerment.  But it took away with one hand what it seemingly gave with another.  In return for socio-economic empowerment, the body had to lose its spontaneous tactility, its delight in the human touch.

There is, therefore, a certain astringent quality to the English language that not only starches an identity into stiff non-tactility, but it also introduces an element of cold asexuality, even a fear of sexuality.  Which is why it has been reported that when non-native speakers make love, they prefer the dirty talk to be in a non-English language. It is access to the non-English language which revives the erotic in the verbal. One has heard about the decolonisation of the mind.  The assumption is that the mind can be decolonised through discourse, just as the body has been decolonised through tangible, concrete political actions.  This assumption needs to be complicated, because discourse colonises the body too. Language can colonise the body, disciplining it in a certain way alien to the body’s native culture. Over a period of time the body forgets the physical freedom it had when its verbal expression was in the native language. The body learns to regard as ‘natural’ the restrictions that the imposed or acquired language has sanctioned. The mask grows into the face as it were rendering the two inseperable.  It is this inseperability which is regarded as an essential assumption by those who practice the syncretic school of postcolonial theory, such as Bill Ashcroft, Helen Tiffin and Gareth Griffith. I wish to see how this syncretically formed postcolonial consciousness effects the way one body touches another, especially when both the bodies in question are intelligibly male and living in Bengal. Is inseperability absolutely impossible? Or can that separation be effected only occasionally and is unsustainable indefinitely?

—————————————-

Niladri R. Chatterjee is Associate Professor and Head, Department of English, University of Kalyani. He is the co-editor of The Muffled Heart: Stories of the Disempowered Male (New Delhi: Rupa and Co., 2005).

Sex, Work & Autonomy

Anchita Ghatak

 

Sex work continues to be a vexing issue.  Abolitionists feel that prostitutes or prostituted women are victims of the worst possible kind of sexual exploitation and prostitution should not exist. They will not use the term ‘sex work’ or ‘sex workers’ because they believe that giving exploitation the dignity of work and victims the dignity of workers is supporting and perpetuating exploitation.

The other day, I was speaking to an eminent Abolitionist activist, who told me that she had never met a woman who had entered sex work of her own accord and willingly adopted the epithet of sex worker. I replied that I had met several.

It is important to remember that many places across the world have seen demonstrations by sex workers and their allies, where people in sex work- women, men, transpersons- have demanded an end to stigmatisation and criminalization, recognition as workers and rights as workers. There are some countries where prostitution is legal. At the outset, I would like to state that while sex workers are not exclusively women, much of this article will focus on women sex workers.

Activists who believe that ‘prostitution’ should be abolished, usually work against trafficking. Implicit in their anti-trafficking approach is the belief that trafficking is synonymous to prostitution. Organisations / individuals who work for the rights of sex workers also work against trafficking. They say that human trafficking sells people into forced labour and is a crime.

Working to establish sex workers rights, activists, many of them sex workers themselves, have focused on the discrimination, injustice and violence that exist in the sex trade. They have drawn attention to the injustice and harassment sex workers face from the state, their families, pimps and madams, to name a few. They have not tried to portray the arena of sex work as a great and glorious place. They say that many women earn a living as sex workers and their work should be recognized as work and there should be norms and regulations in place that enable women to earn a living in a safe conditions.

Many sex workers’ organizations have pointed out that they are against children being in sex work, or any kind of work, for that matter. Children should be in school and not at work. Adults who are in sex work or join sex work should make informed choices – that includes the decision to join or not join sex work, to engage in sex work and any other occupation(s), to leave sex work and so on.

Gloria Steinem in a recent meeting in Kolkata told me that body invasion is intrinsic to sex work and so, it is not right to see prostitution as just another occupation in the unorganized sector, where working conditions are unjust and often, inhuman. It is difficult for me and many other feminists to agree with Steinem’s position. The sex worker is selling sexual services – that is her work. She has entered into a contract with her customer to provide sexual services. It is a transaction between consenting adults. To say that the sex worker is being invaded by the very nature of  her work, is to deny her agency. In an article, in The Hindu, Steinem disagrees with the proposition that a sex worker is consensually selling sex. She says, “also I don’t think “consenting adults” is practical answer to structural inequality. Even sexual harassment law requires that sexual attention be “welcome,” not just “consensual.” It recognizes that consent can be coerced.” If consent is coerced, it is not consent, surely?

Harassment and violence in the workplace is a reality. Struggles against sexual harassment in the workplace are going on everywhere. It is imperative to remember that like all women workers, sex workers too have a right to a harassment free and violence free workplace.

Asking for customers of sex workers to be criminalised is a forceful way of denying women control over their choice of livelihoods. Saying that the very act of a woman selling sex is violence and exploitation is as paternalistic a point of view as saying that there can be nothing called marital rape. It is necessary to have a situation where the buying and selling of sexual services is not a furtive, criminal activity. It is such a social climate that will enable sex workers to lay down safe working conditions and bring clients to book if they violate agreed conditions.

One has come across news reports, where governments in Northern countries have apparently told women on unemployment benefits that they have to become ‘sex workers’  as sex work is work like any other. Abolitionists often use such examples to argue against adopting the term ‘sex work’ and seeing it as a legitimate arena of work. Surely, this is not the first time that the patriarchal state machinery has appropriated the language of women’s liberation to oppress women? The question here is whether citizens have any element of choice when they are offered jobs instead of unemployment benefits.

Abolitionists, as well as those who work for the establishment of sex workers’ rights, agree that if women on the margins have to assert their rights their choices have to expand and they must have access to education, healthcare, food, shelter and safe employment opportunities. It is in the area of employment that there is a sharp difference of opinion.

Amongst abolitionists, there is a slight moving away from the term prostitution to survival sex. The question of women’s sexual autonomy in marriage is a vexed question. Is it only ‘prostitutes’ who engage in sex for survival?

Sex workers have been categorical that they do not support people being coerced into sex work even if it is a caste based occupation. They are clear that while women have the right to opt to earn a living as a sex worker, they also have a right to refuse to do so. Like women workers in the unorganised sector – domestic workers, construction workers, piece rate factory workers, farm labourers – they want to be free of stigma, criminalisation and exploitation.

It is necessary to understand why it is alright for women to sell their intellectual and physical labour but the selling of sexual labour is viewed with horror. Surely a decision to sell or not sell sexual services by a woman is a step towards sexual autonomy?

———————————-

Anchita Ghatak is a development professional and a women’s rights activist. She works on issues of poverty, development and rights. She is the Secretary of Parichiti, an organisation working for the rights of marginalised women and girls, especially  domestic workers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post-colonial Kali

Arindam  Chakrabarti

Before Independence, patriotism often took the shape of mother-worship. The rhetoric of ‘sacrifice’ or balidaan bridged the gap between the political and the religious. In these post-patriotic times, should we, globalized urban intellectuals, indulge in the easy reductive ‘analysis’ of Kalification of the homeland as a psychosis of the colonized bhadralok’s threatened masculinity, the quixotic blood-thirst of a bunch of emasculated wordy nerds?

In certain quarters, not only is it ‘cool’ to deride Bankimchandra’s Vande Mataram and Sri Aurobindo’s Motherland obsession but it would be ‘positively uncool’ to be aroused by the part of Tagore’s Janaganamana where the country is hailed as a mother. When that song was sung in a National Congress session, in the presence of, but not in praise of, King George V, certain cynics spread the rumour — apparently all the way up to Yeats and Ezra Pound — that the adhinayaka addressed was the King of England. In response to this debunking spin, Rabindranath had the following to say: “That great Charioteer of man’s destiny in age after age could not by any means be George V or George VI or any George. Even my ‘loyal’ friend realized this; because, however powerful his loyalty to the King, he was not wanting in intelligence.”

Unfortunately, among 21st century www-intellectuals, there seems to be no want of such people wanting in intelligence. Some of them may scream in post-colonial petulance: “How could even Rabindranath, who disliked nationalism as much as he hated fascism, address the ‘divine dispenser of India’s destiny’ as a ‘Maa’ (4th stanza)? How disappointingly communal!”

Of course, Rabindranath was no Tantrik Hindu. Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that Rabindranath was uncomfortable with the image of Kali the Mother about whom Vivekananda wrote one of his most majestic and deeply personal poems.

For Rabindranath, a sophisticated aniconic Brahmo, Kali’s nudity, her skull-necklace, her bloody sword, and lolling tongue must have been abhorrent on multiple levels. As a colonial subject, valourizing the Indian civilization as philosophically majestic, morally pure, aesthetically enchanting and spiritually lofty, he must have found goddess Kali to be much more of an embarrassment than Krishna, the other dark and devious divinity with whose iconography at least the young Rabindranath (of Bhanusingher Padaavali) was almost in love. His novel Rajarshi as well as his play Visarjan feature a Kali temple on top of a hill in Tripura as a seat of violence and intrigue. The plot centres on the abolition of animal sacrifice by a humane king of Tripura who is pitted against the machinations of a power-thirsty priest called Raghupati, who tries to inflame a mutiny, dethrone the king, and abet the weak, envious younger brother of the king to fratricide. The play — a passionate argument against the divisive religious politics of bloodshed — climaxes at the scene where this devout Kali worshipper, now badly defeated, rebukes the stone idol and throws “her” out from the temple down into the river, out of sheer frustration and a crisis of faith.

Interestingly, the young Rabindranath would act in this very role of a disillusioned priest-villain and would imaginably enthral the audience with the vitriolic crescendo of an anti-Kali speech.

“Kali the Mother” does not afford us any softer face in Swami Vivekananda’s English poem, “For Terror is Thy name/ Death is in Thy breath/ Thou ‘Time’, the All-destroyer!/ Come, Ov Mother, come! Who dares misery love/And hug the form of Death/ To him the Mother comes.” It would be a mistake to associate the word “Terror” here with the ‘terrorism’ of the Ullaskar or Jugantar brand. Before ‘hugging the form of death’ at half the age till which Tagore lived, Vivekananda had gone to Kashmir where he wrote that poem. During this stay, while ritually worshipping Khir Bhavani, he had the thought: “Mother Bhavani has been manifesting Her Presence here for untold years. The Mohammedans came and destroyed Her temple, yet the people of the place did nothing to protect Her. Alas, if only I were then living, I would not have borne it, I would have protected the temple from the invaders.” He, then, distinctly heard the voice of the goddess saying: “It was my desire that the Mohammedans destroy the temple. It is my desire that I should live in [a] dilapidated temple, otherwise, can I not immediately erect a seven-storied temple of gold here if I like? What can you do? Do I protect you or do you protect me?” The present day chariot-driving ‘protectors’ of Ram and Durga should heed these words of the Mother, in front of whose idol we have always sung:

“My mother’s image by error with clay I want to shape/ this Ma is not earth’s girl, vain toil, with clay I sweat… My mother has three eyes: sun, moon, and holy fire. Is there an artisan, to build me such a one?” (Translation: Gayatri Spivak).

If the maternalization of language or land is necessarily abjured because of its suspected Hindutva roots, then what do we do with the national anthem of Bangladesh — also composed by Rabindranath — which uses “Ma” as a refrain, with no trace of militarism?

This whole essay was sparked off by a sequence of emotions I felt when I first heard the new 2011 Janaganamana recording by 39 musicians on YouTube this year. First I was just viscerally moved to tears by it, simply by the variety and richness of styles. The emergent rasa that enraptured me was not Veera but a sublime blend of Adbhuta and Shanta rasa, like one relishes the cosmic form of Krishna, in the 11th chapter of the Bhagavadgita, with. But then I was embarrassed by my own reaction. I had never noticed the presence of the ‘Mother’ in that song (4th stanza) before. Durga Puja was drawing near. There was nostalgia in the air, reminding me of the completely non-sectarian atmosphere of our home Puja at Mominpur where the local rich Muslim family would pay for the sweets on the Ashtami day’s bhog. Was there a secret Hindutva skeleton inside my anti-nationalist closet? Or is senility softening me like the Marxist Manik Bandyopadhyay whose last alcoholism-rehab days were permeated by Kali bhakti?

We have all learnt “the illegitimacy of nationalism” from Rabindranath via Ashis Nandy. We know that patriotism is one thing and nationalism is quite another. Tagore and Gandhi were patriotic, Bipin Chandra Pal and Netaji were nationalistic. National pride is immoral because un-universalizable. Believing one’s own cultural heritage or religion to be the greatest in the world is unethical because you cannot consistently will that this maxim be universally and sincerely embraced as objectively true by all other peoples of the world. But even Rabindranath’s cosmopolitanism would surely be inimical to the grotesque globalization which would let AIG and Merrill Lynch settle the Kashmir dispute.

Echoing the Atharva Veda, Rabindranath famously pays homage to the Earth Mother, yet he would extol Divine Mother in a patriotic spirit, when the occasion demanded it. Hiskirtan-tuned “Ek baar toraa maa bolia daak” is a patriotic invocation of the motherland. “Aji Bangla desher hridoy hote kokhon aponi” is such a patriotic song which oozes withbhakti towards a motherland portrayed in words uncannily similar to the standard descriptions of Kali: “In your right hand blazes the khardga/ The left hand takes away our fears and cares/ Two eyes emit the smile of affection/ But the eye-on-the-forehead is of the colour of fire/ The more I see you, Ma, the more I fail to take my eyes off/ Your golden temple has thrown open its door today.”

This dark mother is daughter, mother, country and poor neglected mother-tongue at the same time. When it comes to lamenting the languishing vernacular culture and language, Rabindranath, in a heart-melting song, depicts the same goddess as a spurned mother whom the Anglicized Indians are ignoring while she awaits their return home morosely in her humble holy hut. One characterization of this country-mother is “one whose language everyone is dying to forget (kaahaar bhashaa haai, bhulite shobe chaai, she je amaar janani re)” — a nice reminder to the average reader of this newspaper.

When Abanindranath — greatly inspired by Sister Nivedita who imbibed the love of Kali from her master — painted Bharat Mata, he replaced the sword and the bleeding head with a book and placed a bunch of rice twigs (food) and a piece of home spun white cloth (clothing). Should we vivisect this painting to detect traces of a militant nationalism in it?

The world’s earliest convocation speech, in Taittiriya Upanishad, urges the new graduate to “make your mother your God”. We deify our mothers, and the earth we live and die on, and we call our first language, if any, our mother too. When the mellifluous multiculturalism of our national anthem, in its recent YouTube version soulfully sung by such diverse artists as Balamuralikrishna, Ghulam Mustafa Khan, Ajoy Chakrabarty, Hariharan, Sonu Niigaam, Usha Uthup, Sunidhi Chauhan, Leslie Lewis and others (while the English translation is recited by Harsh Neotia in an unabashed Indian accent), touches that chord of maternal thinking, it is okay to cry in uncritical worshipful joy.

Arindam  Chakrabarti teaches Philosophy of Language and Mind, Kant, Wittgenstein and Indian Philosophy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

Bashonti

Chandril Bhattacharya

Is this Bashonti Sanyal who imprints red-lac dye and rubs lotus-petals on her palms.

Is this Bashonti Mukherjee who lights candles every morning on the window sill so that her lover gets irritated

Is this Bashonti Seth who plans on jumping into the pond along with her son on MonTueWed and on ThursFriSat plans without him

Is this Bashonti Mondol whose short stammertongue evokes rabid jokes at the morning bakery

Is this Bashonti Saha who fills up forms in such a calligraphic hand that folks mistake it for print

Is this Bashonti Halder who everyday voluntarily crosses her appointed bus stop and walks back again, slipper-worn, toe-strained

Is this Bashonti Sen who doesn’t kiss men who don’t smoke because men’s lips ought to be dark and bitter

Is this Bashonti Ghosh who rings Thebun-mashi everyday so that she can listen at least once to her maiden petname

Is this Bashonti Saha-Ray who stopped buying fish since every time she would sit on her haunches to check them out men would breathe nasty over her goosebumpy-neck

Is this Bashonti Ganguly who always wears sarees and  chhichhis her husband every single time he brings her a nightie

Is this Bashonti Sarkar who finds her Upanishad text every time on the third shelf

Is this Bashonti Chakarborty who said “Ufff, so warm” and got herself into the fridge  and didn’t realize neighbours were arriving in droves to look at her tanpura-posterior saying “Boudi, a glass of sherbet for you”

Is this Bashonti Dasgupta who created so much sound and fury while screwing that her in-laws fainted with laughter in the next room

Is this Bashonti Chatterjee whom her brother-in-law ordered “Switch on the fan, woman” and as punishment clipped her nipples

Is this Bashonti Laha who aimed her dartlike rubber-band perfectly at the nose of her grandfather’s portrait

Is this Bashonti Roy who quotes Jibabananda Das right, left and centre so that this evening’s intellectual can suck that name from her lower lips

Is this Bashonti Guha who undressed herself on the rooftop and later learnt that such cheap tactics would be censored

Is this Bashonti Banerjee who put all the utensil stickers on the rear-doors and cello-tapes on her stomach and pulled them out rough one at a time

Is this Bashonti Tarafdar who sent her Ma off to get some sweets so that she could close the windows and ventilators right away and hold her lover’s tool

Is this Bashonti Bhattacharya who shuttles in space so that she can manage her parents’ fights and comes flying back to the loo to get the urgent job done

Is this Bashonti Parui who makes boats out of foolscap papers for young birthdays and the young ones hate that kind of a gift

Is this Bashonti Sarkhel who can sprout herbs on her thighs just like that and then hide them just as fast

Is this Bashonti Sen-Sharma who will die before she goes to the Elgin Road crossing because she discussed divorce there one day

Is this Bashonti Chowdhury who put bananas country aubergines car keys in her vagina so that no one could go to the Dakshineshwar temple that day

Is this Bashonti Biswas who could not hold back puking every time her husband would swallow gloppy mucus but ended up with cheekmarks from the window bars

Is this Bashonti Bardhan who midnightly stands on the verandah and a bitch makes eye contact

Is this Bashonti Thakur who doesn’t care much about risks. She knows that the thin plastic bag won’t feel the hurt when it is hurled down

Chandril Bhattacharya is a journalist and non-fiction writer from Kolkata. He is also the singer-songwriter in the popular music band Chandrabindu. The Bengali version of this poem was published in the magazine Apar in 2011.

Time, Finance & Cinema

 

 

Geeta Patel

In a real-time, single fifteen-second take shot with a still camera, a man walks slowly, the end of his stick feeling its way across slightly uneven earth, dotted withstones, blotched with green. He moves diagonally across the frame, his body hugging the low raised mound that runs upward from the lower left-hand corner to the upper right-hand corner of the frame and divides one field from its neighbor. The shot continues in real time as the camera pans down and stays frozen to capture the movement of two feet that travel from the frame’s lower right edge to the upper left edge, following the track laid down by the stick. A jump cut moves the camera outward into another shot in which the man, Wannihami, is silhouetted against the trees and sky, walking across a wide expanse, spade across his back. The camera is immobile, and Wannihami’s real-time movement bisects the frame. He walks out of the frame; the film cuts. When Wannihami reappears he has reached his destination; the camera lingers on him standing in front of a grave, trees behind his upper body. Spade in both his hands, he lowers himself to his task. The film then cuts fluidly between Wannihami’s feet darkening the frame’s upper left corner, and the spade swinging past them in an arc in and out of the frame. The rest of the frame is filled with the earth covering a coffin; Wannihami’s body centered on the screen hunched forward to its task, arms hard at work; a close-up of Wannihami’sface calmly intent, resolutely at rest as his hands fill the screen, entering from the right to scrabble at the softening ground. Each scene is only two or three seconds long, each taken from a different angle, each recorded with a still camera, though the cuts produce the illusion of a moving camera. The circular repetition of the scenes, the circular movements in each frame, turn the linear frame-by-frame temporal continuity into one action that keeps on coming back. The only sounds are ambient: stick tapping, the soft suss of wind, Wannihami’s spade scratching as it tears at the hard packed earth, Wannihami’s hands clawing the ground as it begins to break apart. As Wannihami walks to this place of burial, a minute-long single shot taken with an immobile camera reveals a woman holding a water pot against her hip, standing before a water source, who spots Wannihami outside the space of the frame. She startles, drops her pot, and hurries out of the frame. The film returns to Wannihami’s repeated labors, shot after shot. Suddenly the center of the frame is dense with people who begin running down into it from every direction; they take over Wannihami’s task. The digging becomes a social event; the film cuts back and forth between Wannihami’s brother-in-law digging and people crowding the frame, huddled over the grave. The coffin is pulled out, shouldered across bodies, its seal broken and opened. Wannihami’s hands reach in. What the coffin inters, revealed as it pops open, are sticks, shards of timber, rocks. What ought to have been in the coffin was a body, the body of Wannihami’s son, Bandara.

The scene echoes the opening sequences of this film, Purahanda Kaluwara (Death on a Full Moon Day), the one that introduces us to Wannihami, the blind father, whose Tiresias-like vision gifts the film one of its narrative continuities or story lines. In this early series of scenes, the camera also follows the end of a stick feeling its way across slightly uneven earth, cracked dry, dotted with stones and blotched green. Two feet follow the stick. Wannihami’s stick enters the frame from the lower left corner, pursued by one foot, then a water gourd, and finally both feet. The camera stays still until the feet begin moving away out of the frame through the upper right corner. The camera then proceeds along with Wannihami’s feet, accompanying him from behind as he squats, and in the middle of his movement down to sitting, cuts to the front. We see Wannihami dividing the frame in half, water to his right, cupping the lower corner of the frame with light. Again, the only sounds are ambient: the nimble touch of a stick feeling its way, feet shuffling behind, the soft suss of wind and water. As Wannihami sits, the camera follows him downward; his stick is across his shoulder, body leaning forward into it and his hand is stretched out with a clay cup toward the water.

The film ends with Wannihami squatting before the same tank, rain washing his face as he watches boys playing in the water. Water is echoed by the coffin. Water opens the film. Water closes the film. Water and coffin: both turn iconographic and become characters in the film.

Purahanda Kaluwara, directed by Prasanna Vithanage, a well-known Sri Lankan director of independent films, was produced in 1997, released for screenings in international film festivals, and banned by the Sri Lankan government when it was to be shown in Sri Lanka in 1999. It was finally screened in Colombo on September 28, 2001. Vithanage had run into trouble with the army while he was shooting the film; the army felt that the film “discouraged soldiers and neglected military families.”1 The Sri Lankan government had finally banned the film under the emergency powers granted to itself after the Elephant Pass debacle in 2000, because of its supposed effect on soldiers, on military morale, and on future recruitment.2 Vithanage took his case before the Supreme Court, fighting for artistic freedom and freedom of speech, and the Court granted the release of the film with a problematic judgment that, though it did not address the terms of Vithanage’s demand, permitted the film to be shown in theaters in Sri Lanka.3

Purahanda Kaluwara is a complex film told in a deliberately straightforward fashion. It is the story of a family and a village near Anuradhapura, an old capital of Sri Lanka famous for its early irrigation systems and man-made lakes, the site of pilgrimage for Buddhists and historical tourists, where one of several free trade zone factory areas is located.4 The village sits at the heart of what isconsidered a “dry zone,” the north-central province of Sri Lanka, south of the area in which the Sri Lankan army and Tamils under the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) have been at war for many years. When the film was shot, the area had been under the grip of drought for three years; crops were hard to grow, and paddy cultivation had come to a virtual standstill, families were struggling to survive and one of the few options they were left with was to send a member off to join the military and onto war. Global factory production, in the form of both a literal factory economy and a war economy, supplemented the local agricultural economy.

Young women went off to unreliable labor in factories in free trade zones, to urban areas, or to the Middle East as housemaids. Young men signed up for an uncertain life in the army. The money they earned at war took the form of salaries and compensation paid for lost parts of bodies, or paid out to families on the death of soldiers. This money, brought or sent home, provided the capital to invest in local projects, houses, roofs, and material things, to pay off loans borrowed in times of trouble and owed to money lenders, and to pay off taxes owed to the government.5

What is it about this film, a visual meditation on the political economies of water, labor, and death, that lends itself to my interrogation of queer temporality? Scholars who track queerness in the global South through the materiality of bodied subjects professing to a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender identity, or even through “acts” that might read back into identitarian form, will find no satisfactionin Purahanda Kaluwara.6 Rather, Purahanda Kaluwara stages queerness through looking askance: at the reproductive futurities fleshed out in the seductions, complicities, and pressures offered, sold, or mandated by neoliberal nationalisms. In refusing to resolve itself into heterosexuality as heteronormativity,7 this film finds its lineage in the ruminations of writers who contemplate temporality in early modern Europe.8 The possibilities shaped out of marital heterosexualities can only come to fruition through the supplement of the salaries accrued in war or by capital offered in compensation for a soldier’s mutilation or death. Money paid out in the event of maiming or death, salaries earned in the service of judicially sanctioned murder, are the promissory notes on which a seemingly unhampered form of proprietary heterosexuality can gather its allure and assure its calm future.9 The one couple awaiting their turn at proprietary heterosexuality is Wannihami’s daughter Sunanda (her name translates as giving pleasure or delight) and her fiancé. Sunanda works secretly in a free trade zone factory. She and her fiancé, a bricklayer, are relying on Bandara’s salary and then the compensation paid out at his death to enable their marriage. Without Bandara’s salary or the death compensation, Sunanda’s fiancé will probably have to sign up for war, too; at the end of the film the future of the marriage remains uncertain. Like other Sri Lankan films such as Me Mage Sandai (This Is My Moon) directed in 2000 by Ashoka Handagama, Purahanda Kaluwara breaks down the temporal logic of reproduction: reproduction of an order of heterosexuality emboldened not so much by marriage and its division of labor as by the breeding of capital through economies of war.10 Both films are engaged in the “quenching of reproductive timing.”11 The war in Sri Lanka produces the conditions under which various desires are shaped. It is through war that dead bodies, and their logic of incorporation, yield capital to proprietary heterosexuality.

Incorporation is a word that simultaneously traverses multiple political economies. One is the literal, affective, and psychic relationship between the dead and the living manifested through the coffin at the heart of burial during war — the dead whose countenances must not be seen and who are entombed in the ground as well as in the psyche. Attachments formed specifically under these conditions are those that appear to call forth melancholy. Melancholy has a long-standing and venerable poetics in South Asia. Love lyrics sung, scripted, and written in many languages since the seventh century rely on melancholic feeling for their aesthetic juice (rasa). Melancholia was one of the feelings anyone who lived the life of a lover in poetry had to have. But war in Sri Lanka, and the political economy that it birthed, brought the melancholia of love lyric into the syncopations of everyday life by giving rise to two kinds of circulation. The first arises from the dearth of wood for burning corpses and the demand that families not see the bodies of dead soldiers. Families who commonly conduct a wake and bury their dead are not permitted to look at the face of their loss. Other families who sit with the body after they wash it, and before they burn it and release the ashes, must live with the unseen entombed dead interred forever in the ground near where they live. These families, accustomed to seeing and then releasing the dead, are unfamiliar with living with a corpse close by. Eternal entombment without viewing, so essential to melancholia, sifts into the dailiness of other attachments and eventually, as in the case of Judith Butler’s exegesis, seems to become necessary to the self itself. It is no accident that Freud wrote “Mourning and Melancholia” in the horror of World War I. That war, which blasted bodies open, sent them home in closed coffins, faces unseen, wake unlived, provided the political economy that brought forth the entombed incorporations of melancholia.

The other circulation, which supplements that of affect and material, is of capital in the forms of insurance and pensions (as incorporated finance or finance that gambles on corporeality and finance that gives life to the future of corporations). Insurance and pensions are the monetary assurances provided by the improperly entombed dead soldier who went to war for his family that the financial forms to which he gave his life (as an insured or as a pensioned working life) would come back to his family in lieu of him. The most corporealized forms of global finance are insurance and pensions (literal cash transferred from a salary to a corporation). This cash provides a large bulk of the money that travels across borders. Other financial transactions are dematerialized. All these forms of circulation deploy rhetorical calls for the renewal of dead matter for their literal and/or persuasive effects.

Corporealizing desire, necessary to most queer projects conducted in and about South Asia, does not in and of itself repudiate the logic of incorporation through death. War instantiates desires here (including those for proprietary heterosexuality) that rely on certain forms of futurity such as those embodied by compensation — paying in the present (as debt and surplus) to accumulate credit toward an envisioned or expected possible or probable future.12 In this future, reproduction arrives at its proper conclusion, but since this future is simultaneously also a possible or probable one, reproduction may never get there. All these circuits stage the temporalities of the nation-state as they are produced through their relation to war capital.13 Purahanda Kaluwara takes on space-times as fields of reproduction — heterosexuality, incorporation, temporality, war, and nationstate rebirthing. This is its queered project. In this essay I turn to physics, supplementarity, and incorporation to delineate the processes through which Purahanda Kaluwara, in taking on reproductive temporalities, offers a particularly potent example for queer projects entailed in interrogating the reproductive futurities of contemporary capitalism and the naturalization of the selves “on offer” through investments in capital.14

Supplementary Temporality?

Purahanda Kaluwara, Vithanage’s most perfect film to date, is a rumination on time. It is through the visual and aural mediations of temporality that Purahanda Kaluwara tells its queered narrative; the film visualizes temporality as much more than merely a mandate to undo the time of reproduction. The film performs its time through pacing: the camera lingers on Wannihami as he sits thinking; it slows down to a standstill as it follows movements across frames; it cuts across movements of objects, actors, rain, releasing them to ambient time and then speeding up to shift into a different kind of temporality. Space-times are established through objects, conversations, thought, ritual; they are thinned and thickened, coagulated and released.15 The physics of time established over the course of the film’s action allows the film to move in and out of the mobilities of temporalities. Time in the film is not standard cinematic time — it is not a freestanding, flattened ruler, measuring itself out in ordered increments that recapitulate the sequenceof film frames, one following upon another. Time is instead embodied, shaped, emboldened, fleshed, as space-time distorts through the gravity effects of politics, events, poetics, space, music, religion, tropes. Mourning, religion, and feeling all give temporalities the densities of various space-times. Vithanage, a filmmaker whose mandate is realism, is intimate with the tempos of capitalism and the visual chronopoetics of capitalism’s drumrolls. This film attends to those tempos as interferences, entanglements, and complexities using chronopolitics, chronotopes, chronosomas.

Many orchestrations of capitalism’s times turn to the linear, the ruler against which one moves back and forth, or the cyclical that forms a return. Both these orchestrations seem to be mobilized against a flat space, Euclid’s two dimensions that enable a scripting or writing of geometric forms. When such temporalities are rendered more complex, they are usually constituted against a graph with two axes that can then generate lines or circles into the three-dimensional spatiality of Descartes or by the movement into chaos, in a closed system, and across time that is the hallmark of James Clerk Maxwell’s generalization of the second law of thermodynamics, or by the Newtonian constitution of time as simply there, as the backdrop against which nature plays its games.16 Time as simply there proffered Newton the possibilities through which speeds or accelerations of bodies were to be drawn. Even when people speak of the space-time of capital, they rarely move much further than the Galilean-Newtonian, or they might move as far as Maxwell.

This is apropos, given Newton’s own allegiances to capital written as his memorials and papers on currency, coinage, value, and trade as the warden and then master of the mint in Britain and his attempts to establish a gold standard.17 This is also apropos, given that Maxwell lived during a middle-Victorian era replete with the emergence of industrialization and the railways. Euclidean, Maxwellian, and Galilean-Newtonian visualizations of temporality either produce space and time as a backdrop or separate the two and convene temporality as an axis, a framing through which bodies moving in space can be transported or can travel. The elements are clear, infinite ether-filled space, infinite time and finite body, whose finitude is settled as limitations in space, a point of density that does not have any effect on the space around it.18 The body’s temporality is given through its position in ether-filled space; these elements assume a godlike observer whose capacities must be different from and outside the object being observed. The temporality of Galilean-Newtonian mechanics was and continues to be the time of the continuous now, traveling indefinitely into the future in a monochromatic direction. Under this regime the past could be foretold in an easy way, just by going back to the now of that past; futurity followed the same rules.19 The familiar image of this particular spatialized time is the clock, seconds graded exactly.

One’s quotidian intimacy with the clock is managed through either sound or sight; one hears ticking or sees the hands moving, settling easily into their gradations. Consider, however, a case of clock use, the kind of seemingly secular practice one might narrate if one were writing about time in the style of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ruminations in Philosophical Investigations: I look up from writing this essay and say to myself, “I can’t believe it’s taken me so long to write this, I have only an hour left.” Here I am speaking at least two different kinds of time.

One is produced through the feeling I have as I write of a sense of time’s passing, perhaps even a sense of not inhabiting the temporality given to me by a clock. The other is constituted through a clock as something I turn to as I calculate how much more time I might have in my linear day, or in my linear week apportioned into events. Ensconced in my lament (I can’t believe . . . I have only) is perhaps also a form of labor time, what Gayatri Spivak in another instance considers “the body’s timing displaced onto the value-form,” the time I might have lost to the labor of writing, that I was to expend in the labor of preparing for the class I am to teach the next day, or putting together an agenda for the meeting I have to run the next day.20 The most common retellings of this story of my day turn to its simplest monological avatar, the “temporal monoculture” of the clock or the week, linear apportionings of time as a calculative device (93). What is divvied up and given to other disciplinary places to calculate are the coagulations of temporality through lament, or the stretching of time’s clock sitting at the heart of the Gregorian calendar in this story. It is not that these “other” times are simply lost; they are found again and again in the proper places given to them, the places where they have been established and the places from which they emerge once more as a challenge that supplements the clock.

Mourning, for example, contorts space-time.21 Anyone who has mourned knows well the feeling of looking up after one has been lost in grief or looking back after sitting next to someone whose life is fading away and realizing that what the clock tells you will never come close to what you experienced. The incredible suffusion of feeling so necessary to mourning, the almost meditative state one enters where each touch of a look, each word from another person either passes by without notice or assumes a clarity and density rarely felt in everyday living, transforms space-time, renders it thinner or thicker. The full space-time of mourning is not particularly linear: the series of events through which a mourner releases a lost person’s life and death rarely follow upon each other in an ordered incremental way, wending their path easily along a line. Mourning demands returns, back to fragments of a glance, the softness of a scent that opens out into a long embodied memory heavy with details. The best picture one can draw of mourning is an askew spiral, which tightens and loosens. One way of conceiving the relationship between the movement of the clock noticed as a series of instants moving forward and these other space-time traversals is offered to us through Einstein and is that of the supplement, precisely because the two sorts of things need each other to be seen and noticed; it is their intimacy with one another that gives each their valence. We could see this literally as more than one clock, each of which, seen from the vantage point of the other, sees the other moving as though distorted: expanded or contracted, dilated or shrunk, moving slower or faster. To separate them into one sort of space-time traversal and another, one space-time and its other, makes no sense. It is precisely because one has both and one knows both or feels both that each has the qualities that make it what it is.

Referential calculative times — the rhetorical devices used as pointing devices to establish both presence and difference from — have emerged as the kinds of infinite times that stand in for the time of the nation, of capital and of labor, of ethnos, of bios, of psyche. These times obey the conditions for supplementarity. How is the dance of supplements choreographed? Set to one side in this dance, as proper to another description, even as one tells the story of one’s day gone by in the instance past the moment one is describing, are coagulations, stretching, thinning, the lengthening of the feeling of time in work with the sun shining, the thickening and heaviness around the porous and sticky gravitational pulls of lament.22 Laid aside are all the adjectives that give not just the textures, tempos, solidities, relativities of space-times but the conditions under which these shape themselves through an observer.23

At the heart of Jacques Derrida’s discussions of supplementarity is desire, not just any desire, but pleasure in the menace of death. But one stroke must be added to this system, to this strange economy of the supplement. . . . A terrifying menace, the supplement is also the first and surest protection; against that very menace. This is why it cannot be given up. And sexual auto-affection, that is auto-affection in general, neither begins nor ends with what one thinks can be circumscribed by the name of masturbation. . . . It is from a certain determined representation of “cohabitation with women” that Rousseau had to have recourse throughout his life to that type of dangerous supplement that is called masturbation and that cannot be separated from his activity as a writer. . . . The supplement has not only the power of procuring an absent presence through its image, procuring it for us through the proxy [procuration] of the sign, it holds it at a distance and masters it. For this presence is at the same time desired and feared.24

The national, psychological, ethnographic, and historical temporalities associated with reproductive capital are engaged in the logic of the supplement, each a supplement in turn, each promising something as it escapes, each a protection, each almost inconceivable to reason. What is the scandal they procure? The presence that is thus delivered to us in the present is a chimera. Auto-affection is pure speculation. The sign, the image, the representation, [of temporality] which come to supplement the absent presence are the illusions that sidetrack us. To culpability, to the anguish of death and castration, is added or rather is assimilated the experience of frustration. Donner le change [“sidetracking” or “giving money”]: in whatever sense it is understood, this expression describes the recourse to the supplement admirably. . . . Something promises itself as it escapes, gives itself as it moves away, and strictly speaking it cannot even be called presence. Such is the constraint of the supplement, such, exceeding all the language of metaphysics, is this structure “almost inconceivable to reason.” Almost inconceivable: simple irrationality, the opposite of reason, is less irritating and waylaying for classical logic [and classical physics]. The supplement  is maddening because it is neither presence nor absence and because it consequently breaches both our pleasure and our virginity. (154, brackets in the original).

Complexity, entanglement, and interference.25 I think that the illusions Derrida speaks of, which inhabit confusion, arise in the places where metaphors of physics are picked up by the social sciences and are turned to even in literary, cultural studies. Space-time becomes spatialized time or temporalized space. The poetic turns of a desire for presence are incorporated as objects that move in aNewtonian-Galilean space in the time of the now. The supplement gets spatialized, becomes an object moving in time, and thus becomes Newtonian. Supplementarity permits the reproduction of capital as the times of probability, the nexus of which is desire — what is the work of the supplement, where is desire?26 The desire of and for reproduction is the impetus that directs us to the supplements of calculative temporalities. The temporalities of Purahanda Kaluwara evoke supplementarities, engage with them, and in doing so offer the temporalities of interference, entanglements, gravitation, and complexities as supplements. How does Purahanda Kaluwara do this?27

When film theorists like Laura Mulvey, Mary Ann Doane, or Gilles Deleuze speak about film, in the most quotidian of their discussions on filmic times, they tend to separate out different kinds of temporalities invoked or produced while the film is running.28 One is the temporality of the apparatus, which runs the frames that follow inexorably upon one another at a particular speed — at about twenty-four frames a second. Other temporalities include those that delineate the movement of the story as it is shown on the screen, the temporality of diegesis or of narrative. Times get articulated as speeds, and frames and story are transformed almost without notice into the equivalent of moving objects, each moving at its own particular speed.29 If one visualizes speed in a Newtonian fashion, these filmic temporalities are constituted as those engendered by objects isolated from one another, running alongside one another at contiguous or different speeds; all these objects move in relation to a time conceived of as abstract, abstracted, neutral.

Time does not actually do anything. It has no texture; space, though filled with ether, is equally neutral and abstracted and untextured. The spaces of a frame, the space of a darkened cinema hall, each with its own necessary and unchanging form, become two of the fixed places of habitation. The story lives in frames of a fixed size that move relentlessly along. The watcher, the filmgoer, the cinephiliac of classic Western cinema inhabit the space of the theater turned into the simple darkness that facilitates their complete absorption in the film. Objects that move in Newtonian space and Newtonian time do not possess any necessary relation to one another; neither space and time nor moving objects are supplements of one another. So the various times of cinema and spaces of cinema are not necessarily produced as supplementary.30 One other form of description that takes its cue from physics turns to discussions of the second law of thermodynamics: this law mobilizes time in a linear fashion moving unavoidably onward unidirectionally. Here time is allocated its proper allegorical metaphor, the arrow. The arrow of time becomes the mnemonic device that gifts life to the movement of frames and the march of history.

In a post digital universe, when film has been transferred onto DVD or video, the movement of the movie can be halted, backed up, reversed, and reconstituted. Here, at the very least, the relationship between space and time — the space-times of the frames’ progression, their articulations with diegesis and narrative, plot and story must supplement one another. Many of the expectations that seem to make their first appearance with digital cinema are not automatically constrained by or contained within this particular cinematic format. As Lev Manovich, Victor Burgin, and Mulvey have pointed out, these expectations were presaged both in very early cinema as well as in cinema whose inclinations tended toward death.31

Let us return to the opening of Purahanda Kaluwara and the progressions that establish the profusion of stories that inhabit its visuality. Purahanda Kaluwara begins with a one-minute take, one of the longest shots in the film. The frame is broken into three parts. The top third is filled with sky colored in by the luminosity that signals the end of the night and the beginning of a day. The bottom two-thirds is colored in by fields, and the two are separated by a heavy band of dark trees that block light. From the right side of the frame, two-thirds of the way down, a thick, gray pencil line of bright water echoing the rising light of morning runs into the frame’s space.

Purahanda Kaluwara immediately enlists its visual attachments to early representations of realism in film and photography. In an emulation of “actualities” (and their contiguities with neorealism and cinema verité) that record the movements of “real” events or a “real” event, the camera is still throughout the take, and everything that happens takes place through the stillness.32 But unlike early actualities no events as they are commonly understood occur over the course of the shot. The shot is unpeopled. This shot also resonates with a genre of nineteenthcentury naturalist nature photography. Three movements transform into a film what feels like a series of repeated frames that produce the illusion of an unmoving vista. The first transformation is through credits written in fairly small letters that roll along in the lower left-hand corner at a reasonably regular pace in syn copation with the speed of the film. Precisely the differences between the speed at which the credits appear, not always in alignment with one another, and never in alignment with water and light in the film, provoke a viewer to recognize them as a form of visual music and not just as words; attending to them pulls a viewer’s eye to notice that the water is not at rest: it is washing slowly back and forth into and away from the right-hand edge of the picture. This wash pulls the eye outward so that the picture feels as though the space it was occupying is wider than that enclosed by the four lines of the frame; the picture no longer sits in the frame.33 The second transformation is through light that begins to lighten the picture slowly from the right-hand side fifty seconds into the shot. The third is the music of the chants whose sound continues past the first shot, through the dissolve into the next ten-second shot.

The times of each element are in a supplementary closeness to one another. A viewer watching the movie unfold, listening to the sounds as they roll, cannot separate out the various cinematic, diegetic, and sound elements into their component parts. Movements seem simple. Because nothing special happens during this sequence, nothing happens that might feel to viewers of classic Western cinema as though they were participating in an event or events that forwarded a story line or that produced that sort of conventional narrative; that is, a narrative does not carry the pacings engendered through this portion of the film. The very simplicity of the opening sequence is seductive; it has the capacity to marshal a desire for a Newtonian physics. One can easily feel as though space and time were backdrops against which the film was making its visual case through the separation of every object in the film that revealed itself in motion: frames, sound, credits, water, and light. But the speeds of each, the ways in which time seems to linger on as the water flows or the light slowly and gently seeps into the frames, and time seems to run faster in the credits and seems foreshortened or stretched with the rhythm of the chants, are the effect of the syncopations between each and the sequence of the frames. Syncopations as interference patterns or as entanglements are produced through supplementarity. Times are produced not as a neutral zone, not as inevitable arrow, but in the familiarities between each “thing” established, in this case, as space-time. The semiotics of stillness, photography, and death plays against those of movements, film, and life. Supplementarity is also carried in the intimacies produced between the modernity established in the roll call of names, the turn to nature and the emerging day cut by resonances that hark toward nineteenth-century conventions of photography and film, the turn to a day that begins with a series of chants that call out to a long lineage of Buddhist openings to a particular day.

Purahanda Kaluwara signals its attention to these sorts of temporalities with its title. Purahanda is a Sinhala word that means full (pura) moon (handa); Kaluwara means darkness, from kalu, dark. The grammar of the phrase settles the connection between the two words through a series of possible prepositions — of, from, through, and so on — that wed the words to each other. This lexicon of prepositions permits a transition between the metonymized night — full moon — and a quality, darkness as transitive or translation: the darkness of the full moon, full moon through darkness, from darkness to full moon, the darkness of that opening day carried by the line of trees in the film’s first shot; each transition produces a differential. The associations that establish the differentials, which are made through the compounds that constitute each word and then marry the words to one another across the breach between them, reiterate the breaks between the frames of the film. What the grammar embedded in the title offers a film critic is another way to understand how the frames might link up in time — not merely as a sequential iteration but conjoined by a range of possible prepositions that produce temporalities through the poetics of belonging.

Vithanage wanted to translate his film’s title in a Benjaminian fashion; full moon darkness turns into death on a full moon day. The title is indexical — what this indexical turn is premised on is its doubleness, the Peircian index of film critics and the index that comes from sphuta (manifest, known, understood), a term familiar to Buddhist grammarians. The title as index is a trace that points to something and so fills out the question asked in relation to the index, “What is this?”34 The full moon that the title points to is not just an analogue for night, lit bright. It also registers a day on the lunar calendar, the day of Poya — the days of the full moon, when the country shuts down every month for a Buddhist holiday — when no harm should be done to any other living being or to the world. Poya is the day when the semiotics of darkness in the film will inhabit the day of the moon. As a calendrical day, Poya is a sequence of time whose rhythms from the break of day into the night of the moon are determined for religico-Buddhist practitioners by purification pujas (offerings that often include flowers), administration of the precepts, dharma sermons, and the pirith chanting of protective suttas, of suttas as chants that pass merit on between people and time on between shots; these sermons and chants form a soundtrack that continues over from the first shot to a second shorter, still-camera shot that reveals a white stupa glowing behind a water tank. The title of this film and its translation establish without show of cause the temporalities embodied in the film: in these opening sequences of the film, time coagulates around the death harkened by the chants.  This coagulation of time around death demands another ceremonial iteration, the recitation of chants that pass merit on between people central to both Poya and death ceremonies; these speak futurities in certain kinds of spatiotemporal loops of supplementarity.

Vithanage’s film does not resort to the simply ethno-temporal, that is, it does not champion adherence to “traditional” or “indigenous” temporalities that compete with the time of capitalism in simple opposition. Rather, the ethno-temporal is deliberately debased by and produced in an interference pattern through other calendars — the Gregorian calendar; the clock whose chronopolitics every economy uses to transact money, goods, and labor across its borders (figured in the movie through the end of the work shift in the factory in which Sunanda works and the compensation given at the death of Bandara); and the bodied calendar of drought and rain. Death shapes the ethno-temporal itself; for Vithanage the ethnotemporal, apportioning a year into days of work and days of mandated celebration and rest, is a hegemony that instantiates violence — the violence embodied in religious nationalisms and the reproductive temporalities that enable them.

The Gregorian calendar accompanied by the twenty-four-hour clock: both settle their mandate across South Asia, dividing it into time zones.35 Both were adopted as the outcome of internecine battles between two different arms of the crown state (the railways and telegraph) in the period of consolidation that followed the violence of 1857, the war of independence in India. The battle over time had started immediately before 1857 when the railways were being set down (funded partly because they offered Indian cotton as a replacement for American cotton), and their relationship to different zones of time was being considered with a great deal of trepidation by the East India Company. Before 1857, several different times were in common use: the time zones of each presidency, the time held on the train (the central time of Jabbalpur) where conductors traveled with clocks and tables set to calculate the constant differences established as the train traversed zones, and the time held by the telegraph company (the South Indian time of the Madras observatory). Post-1857, in the 1860s, the American Civil War had helped ensure the funding for the railways, but the question of time had still not been decided. The telegraph finally won, but the contours of the battle were shaped by the discussions of shock, not the shock often associated with the railways but the shock that accompanied the deaths and the losses associated with war and with the breaking of an assumption of untrammeled colonial hegemony. Technologies helped suture over the trauma of death in 1857, and also the traumas that attend colonial modernity in general. The twenty-four-hour clock and a common time zone for South Asia were the arbitrages that worked out of the probabilities brought into being through colonialism: these chronometrics were the reproductivities associated with the move between corporate and mercantile capitalism and shock/death. In a dance with this time, which was mandated as the neutral secular time of modernity, were the other times — religious ethno-temporalities, subjective temporalities — all of them together staging supplementarity.

What are the temporalities embodied in Purahanda Kaluwara? The film does not resort to supplementarity in the expected ways, championing religious, “ethnic,” or subjective temporality. Vithanage follows his mandate as a conventional realist and organizes the film’s events along a linear time line, but its pacing deliberately undercuts its linearity. The shots form themselves along the line of time, which stretches from the opening sequence of water in the sun rising on the day of Poya, and carries through the dissolve to a shot of a white stupa rising behind the water, pirith chanting. The camera cuts to a road slicing the diagonal of the wooded frame; with the camera at rest a car travels across the frame from upper left-hand corner to lower right-hand corner, the road moving toward the front of the still screen, electric power lines running along with it, and a dog crossing the road in the background. The camera then jump cuts up to a bird, possibly a vulture, the herald of death, whose circling is followed by a camera moving for the first time in the film. This sequence of shots closes with the description with which I opened this essay, of Wannihami traveling to get water.

Blind Wannihami is introduced through the iconography of the bhikku, the true monk/sage who travels on foot, staff in hand, having left the goods of everyday life behind him, feeling his way moment by moment, going from house to house, living on offerings put into a bowl that is one of his few accoutrements.36 The opening shots do not replace each other; rather, each one slices across the next, thickening, coagulating, or thinning the temporalities on offer: the times of ritual, religion, modernity, nature, and subjectivity. The next sequence of shots sutured by jump cuts turns again to water. As Wannihami, seated in the right center of the frame is collecting water, slowly and deliberately, we jump to a tractor backing up to the same water hole that fills the center of the screen, and a young man, Wannihami’s future son-in-law, holding a plastic container sliced down to serve as a collecting device, gathering up water. The film leaps again to Wannihami, who tells him that the rains, gone for so long, will return in four days, and asks him to help repair the thatched roof before the rains begin. Here we have stories that narrate bodied temporalities: the technologies of modernity that offer villagers resources to enable them to collect water more rapidly than Wannihami and so to ameliorate their circumstances over a future of drought, but at the same time denude them of the capacity to gather weather information on their skin, which would give them access to a foretelling, a kind of seeing that would allow them to know the future of the seasons. Wannihami’s blind sight becomes one in which he can see into a certain kind of future, the future necessary for the survival of the rural world in which he lives. This future is not the future given to the same world by the iconology of development. Despite his ability to feel weather through his skin as though he were a rural shaman, in Purahanda Kaluwara Wannihami is not some purist figure with a simple, ethnic, clear attachment to a precapitalist rural. Even as he feels the knowledge of the weather, he is also, as we are told later on in the film, someone who is in the midst of building a house funded by the salary his son, Bandara, sends home. The future of his life comfort, too, is enmeshed in the finances of war.

Water and Death

I would like to return to the opening paragraphs of this essay and explore the ways in which the economies of water and death interfere with one another and produce complexities. Both are strange gravitational attractors that shape space and time through practice. Water makes its first appearances in the opening of Purahanda Kaluwara. It livens the foreground against which the stupa is shown. It is portrayed as a figure in nature that mediates between rural modernity and something else. It appears as rain falling on Wannihami after his son’s coffin has been delivered to the house. It is poured into a cup and spills over during the death ceremonies, and it closes the film as rain trickling down Wannihami’s face while he is at the lake or tank listening to the sound of young boys splashing. Water is an offering.

Death and the full moon day come together. During the death ceremonies, a public puja is performed that is akin to the pujas offered during Poya. Both are emboldened by pirith chants (with which Vithanage opens the film). Pirith is a version of the word paritta, or safety and protection. The chants are recited to hold off what is likely to befall (vipatti) people. Vipatti is a compound word formed from the verb pat (to fall); vi translates pat into its negative: disease, danger, the planets as mal, and spirits who carry malodorous intent. Vipatti calls forth the depredations of modernity, war, drought, famine, poverty, factory labor, death. Pirith is also chanted to bring good — sampatti or siddhi. So pirith is about a present, past, and a projection into a future. These ceremonies are intrinsic to Sri Lankan Buddhists’ sociality and domesticity; in their religious incarnations, most events of this sort include an elaborate or a simple version of pirith, depending on the financial status of the sponsor (which is the issue at stake here).

For the offering of water during the death ceremonies, all the relatives of the dead person gather together on a mat, accompanied by a local monk. They pour water from a pot into a cup sitting on a plate until the water overflows. The film gives us the ceremony in a series of pictures in several shots taken by an immobile camera. The first is a four-second, almost still life: a pure white pitcher emerging from the right pouring water down the middle of the frame into a bowl sitting solidly at the bottom. Hands enclose the top of the pitcher and reach out toward it from the left. Everything is still except the water. The water washing into the bowl carries the time in this sequence; it is both punctum and index pointing to death and a future after it. This shot cuts to another three-second still life: a series of three grass fans angled to the right, of which the middle one is the only one in focus. Orange robes color the background and blend into the foreground.

The film cuts again to a close-up of three priests whose faces echo the fans; the middle priest, the oldest one, is clearly the one in charge. Their voices have begun the pirith verse that carries over to the final shot in the composition: bodies encircle the pitcher pouring water. Wannihami’s grandchild is toward the middle right, his eyes flickering to the movement of the water, slight expressions flitting across his face. Eleven seconds into the shot the camera begins to move in toward Wannihami and the child; the pitcher and water drop out of the frame, only their memory remains. Wannihami is absolutely still; the camera continues to move in as the child’s face continues to flicker with touches of feeling.

As the water is being poured, the monks chant a version of the following suttas from the Tirokuddha Sutta of the Khuddakapatha:

 Unname udakam vattam yatha ninnam pavattati

evameva ito dinnam petanam upakappati.

Yatha varivaha pura paripurenti sagaram

evameva ito dinnam petanam upakappati.

 [Just as the water fallen on high ground flows to a lower level,

Even so what is given from here accrues to the departed.

Just as the full flowing rivers fill the ocean,

Even so what is given from here accrues to the departed.]

The water that is poured transfers merit from the living to the one who has died. Both the act of pouring and the transfer of merit is an offering — a dakkina — that will allow the person who is dead to avail of this merit and use it to get some relief from the new world into which he or she might have been born or through which he or she wanders restlessly. More almsgiving, dane, ceremonies follow. Three months after the person has died the family holds an almsgiving ceremony. Here, too, merit is transferred from the living to the dead. This merit is to ameliorate any difficulties that the dead person might be experiencing in his or her new life or new state. The dead, in the form of spirits, or petas, are incapable of accumulating merit for themselves, so it is up to the living to give them of their present what the dead need to live out a different future. The dead are said to live or sustain themselves (upajivi) on another giving (paradatta) or on what has been given by another. The necessary paradox in Purahanda Kaluwara is that the only group that gives in the way appropriate to this form of giving is the other soldiers who fought with Bandara and who bring Wannihami the money they have collected to help the family pay for their colleague’s death ceremony. In other words, the state has grafted itself onto the ceremony in the form of death benefits, capitalism’s form of “merit.”

Improper Compensation and the Corpse

Dane is about compensation, given directly by those alive to those who are dead. Merit is handed over in the giving, from one present to another future. What happens when, as in Purahanda Kaluwara, the dane is given through the compensation that the dead person leaves the person who is alive? Dane is supposed to be about a selfless handing over of the merit one has accumulated in one’s life. The point in this act of giving is that it is about oneself as alive; it entails the selves of the living. When the dane can be given only if the dead provide their own compensation, through their death, for the living, so that those alive can perform the ceremonies that give their merit to those who have died, something unnatural makes its appearance. In this sort of giving, the paradatta for the upajivi is given to the upajivi, the life of the dead, by the upajivi to themselves, as they pass, through their death, the capital that enables the paradatta, giving by another, to be given back to them. This form of giving is the circularity at the heart of reproductive capitalism in a war economy. A deduction (surplus) is taken from a soldier’s salary; out of this an insurance policy or death-benefits policy is bought on his behalf; it is this policy that is returned either to him or to his family should he be maimed or should he die. Each policy is very specific, so much for the loss of an arm, an eye, a leg, so much for an entire body. It is on these policies that soldiers, if they are disabled, live, and these policies often help them acquire a bride.37 The insurance company, the state, and the soldier all gamble with life and money, but only the soldier loses the gamble. Something essential is abrogated in taking this money for dane; the act of giving has to be selfless and it has to be complete, it has to be outside the circuits of reproductive capital. The gamble with money and death or with money and life is a contradiction in the demand or desire to give. Vithanage explores this contradiction through various forms of attachment: the priest’s attachment to the war state instantiated in his offer to Wannihami that a bus stop commemorating the dead hero Bandara be erected on the road we saw at the beginning of the film (the bus takes soldiers and workers into town and back, though Buddhism lives on non-violence), and Bandara’s siblings’ attachment to the compensation shaped through their failed attempts to get Wannihami to sign the government forms that will release the compensation to the family. Passing merit on, which does not necessarily service proprietary heterosexuality, has been drafted by an insurance industry that finances the compensatory mechanisms of a war state. Merit turns away from queered possibilities, queered futurities, to service the reproductivities that maintain capital and proprietary heterosexualities.38

The promise that will ensure the compensation’s arrival is that Bandara’s coffin, sealed shut, will not be opened. The corpse’s presence assumed through the coffin is the assurance of death. Opening the coffin will forfeit the family the money that they will get from the “presence” of Bandara’s corpse — paradoxically, this is the coffin, not its contents. To ensure that the death is believed and accepted by the state, the corpse, with the coffin that promises its presence, must be buried.

Following the state’s conditions for its own belief to be upheld is essential for the arrival of the compensation, essential if the money gambled on the death of Bandara is to be given to the proper people. For the state at war, the coffin is the index of the dead body, an index that is supposed to be the truth, but is not quite, for it signifies the presence of the body without being the body. The film plays with the tension of revelation. The scenes of Wannihami digging, with which I opened this essay, recycle themselves, so that the temporality of the digging embodies the temporality of grief: memories repeated and time extended. This time holds tension in its hands and seems to stand frozen as the coffin is opened. For five seconds an unmoving camera films the coffin slowly opening. The coffin fills the screen, and two hands reaching down from the top of the frame pull the middle open and slowly lay the coffin bare to the air as though it were a body being sliced apart down its length, as though a coroner were opening up a corpse whose bodily secrets she needed to read. The film cuts to a white-sheeted open coffin, its boards flattened out, three pieces of wood inside. The camera lingers, without moving, on the image. The indexical truth of the corpse is the sealed secret. The indexicality of the coffin is the assurance that paradatta, giving by another, will be upajivi, sustenance for the dead living beyond their death. But both the corpse and the coffin are improper signifiers of death. They are signifiers that obey the logic of the temporal loop of supplementarity, the logic of reproduction in a war economy, a logic where the father lives beyond his son and must grapple with the truth of his death.

What are the exchanges that must be tracked so that this logic, which requires that the coffin stay closed, keeps a particular symbolic economy in place? The rituals of death for Buddhists in Sri Lanka, which obey another symbolic, require the dead body to be burned, so that there is nothing left of the body to recognize. This is the precise irony staged when the coffin is opened and inside are rocks and sticks, neither sufficient to permit the body its proper resting place in death. There is nothing left of the body which will turn it from spirit to embodied ghost returning insistently for compensation. When the coffin that tells the presence of the dead body is opened, there is no dead body, and with this opening the family abrogates the compensation to which it was entitled, compensation that was the surplus extracted from Bandara during his life as a soldier, that is taken from him and his family when the signifier that stood in for his corpse was opened up to reveal its secret. The dane offered to Bandara will now be given as it should (as pure merit) because his body was not permitted to occupy the place the state wanted for it.

In Purahanda Kaluwara the practice of incorporation is produced through an improper death. Incorporation requires a corpse, such that death, told through the secret of the coffin/crypt, circling through desires for revelation and a refusal of revelation, is the foreclosure necessary to a war economy.39 This poetics of the secret is a reproductive economy, the economy of neoliberal religious nationalism. These economies are the conditions for melancholic desire in which the secret must not be opened so that the body remains in the coffin that becomes its crypt. Presence is a gamble, the gamble instantiated through insurance: will there or won’t there be a body in the crypt, whose presence is as the crypt and whose death is an index that determines which party will win out in the game of financial chance. This is the economy of relief at the heart of capitalism. The temporality of capital: for it you need incorporation, the supplement, the encrypted corpse — not introjection, the corpse revealed, the process of proper mourning.

What allegiances are instantiated through the temporalities of capital? What futures are told through them? Time is bound in the bodies of war hero, free trade zone worker, and wife; these bodies both coagulate and allegorize time. All these figures are installed as reproductive futurities, their normalization ensured through wartime. The times of war are subjective, ritual, ethnographic, capitalist,attachments to each replacing the other produce the conditions for supplementarity. 40 Each is an incorporation, each a crypt. Incorporation is both the corporate form and the corporeal form; each crypt has been opened up over the course of this essay, as the flesh of each incorporation is peeled off the corpse to reveal the sticks and rocks inside.

What queered reading of time does Prasanna Vithanage offer us through the figure of blind Wannihami? When Wannihami leads the way to opening his son’s coffin, he forestalls supplementarity. The film builds to this point and paves the way for its audience to await the denouement with desiring trepidation. And the denouement is precisely what it ought to be if we were to see the logic of the supplement, the past, present, and future entailed in it and the temporalities that make it mobile. There is nothing in the crypt except stones and wood, too little wood to give the body that ought to have been in the crypt its appropriate leaving.

That sight reminds us, the viewers of Purahanda Kaluwara, that we, too, were participating in the logic of capitalist reproduction, and we see this logic even as it is being reinstituted through the not-enough-wood that is the aftereffect read back to a war economy. The film closes with a vision of Wannihami, water trickling slowly down his face, attending to the sound of children playing. Many viewers have read this scene as an indication of Wannihami’s refusal to believe in his son’s death. But perhaps it offers another kind of refusal instead, one that might have been the reason why the film, in opening a crypt and not finding a body, found itself queerly at odds with a war economy that would ordinarily demand homage only to the exterior of a coffin. Perhaps blind Wannihami can see another future for his son’s death, a salvific future that turns away from incorporation and the politics of the temporalities of reproduction, and looks askance at the affective attachments that circulate ethno-, capitalist, and nationalist times into history or to subjective temporalities, or the memories that might accompany my lament given over to psychology or psychophilosophy, or labor time given to political economy.41

————————————–

Geeta Patel is Associate Professor, Studies in Women and Gender and Middle Eastern and South Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Virginia.  Her current project, Financing Selves, on risk, insurance and pensions in South Asia, opens with the early East India Company archives and closes with labor movements in contemporary Sri Lanka.

Notes

1. Waruna Alahakoon, “Sri Lankan Court Orders Release of Banned Film,” World Socialist Web Site, 25 September 2001, www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/pura-s25 .shtml (accessed January 21, 2006).

2. In April 2000, the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) forces had forty thousand Sri Lankan troops backed into and trapped in the Elephant Pass Peninsula without food, water, or supplies. The LTTE assault was halted for a few days, which allowed the Sri Lankan army to recoup and push them back. There is a great deal of information about the ongoing armed conflict at the heart of the movie, but one recent collection that provides a glimpse into some of the economic ramifications is Economy, Culture and Civil War in Sri Lanka, ed. Deborah Winslow and Michael D. Woost (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004).

3. Waruna Alahakoon, “Sri Lankan Court Orders Release of Banned Film.” See also other articles by Alahakoon on the same Web site that describe this process: “I Appeal to All Thinking People to Stand up for Pura Handa Kaluwara: A Dialogue with Sri Lankan Film Director Prasanna Vithanage,” www.wsws.org/articles/2000/ sep2000/pura-s27.shtml; “Further Court Delay to Sri Lankan Legal Challenge of Film Ban,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/srif-m20.shtml (both accessed January 21, 2006). The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka permitted the film to be shown because, according to them, the minister who had banned the film overreached his jurisdiction. As Alahakoon makes clear in the article he published on September 25, 2001, “The court ruling does not protect freedom of artistic expression in any serious sense. On the contrary, the court declared that Vithanage’s rights were infringed by the minister’s incorrect application of regulations and provisions.” Since the ruling did not offer Vithanage redress on the basis of his claim before the court that his freedom had been infringed upon, it was a problematic ruling.

4. See interviews with Vithanage on http://www.wsws.org. See also two articles by Sunila Abeysekere on the visual history and economy of filmmaking in Sri Lanka in which this film is cited: “Imaging the War in the Sinhala Cinema of the 1990s,” Cinesith 1 (2001): 4 – 13 (includes a chronology of the case against Vithanage); and “Garment Girls and Army Boys,” Cinesith 4 (2005): 23 – 29. Wimal Dissanayake and Ashley Ratnavibhushana offer a comprehensive analysis of Sri Lankan cinema in Profiling Sri Lankan Cinema (Boralesgamuwa: Asian Film Centre, 2000).

5. See Michele Ruth Gamburd, The Kitchen Spoon’s Handle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000); I also conducted interviews with women at the Migrant Worker’s Union in June and July 2003. As Vithanage points out, some women who worked in the free trade zones also had to work as sex workers. Abeysekere, in “Imaging the War,” also talks about local money sent home by men and foreign exchange accumulated by women.

6. Nivedita Menon’s recent work on denaturalizing heterosexuality in India, Recovering Subversion: Feminist Politics before the Law (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004), tangles with the act-identity distinction. Though she addresses heteronormativity as a field, she still wants to produce queer bodies, which is not unusual for most contemporary discussions of sexuality in South Asia. One of the few interrogations of desire for bodies, and productions of desire as nonbodied, can be seen in Anjali Arondekar’s forthcoming For the Record: On Sexuality and the Colonial Archive in India (Durham, NC: Duke University Press). I am speaking here about desire, the production of desire, and the production of presence as knowledge circulated in relation to desire: a desire for bodies and the political work they seem to enable.

7. For the most recent take on the arrangements between heterosexuality and heteronormativity, see Karma Lochrie, Heterosyncracies: Female Sexuality When Normal Wasn’t (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005). Shyam Selvadurai’s novels Funny Boy and Cinnamon Gardens, both set in Sri Lanka, refuse the simple folding of heteronormativity into heterosexuality. See also readings of “single women” by Paola Bacchetta: “Extra-Ordinary Alliances: Women Unite against Religious-Political Conflict in India,” in Feminism and Anti-Racism: International Struggles, ed. Kathleen Blee and France Winddance Twine (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 220 – 49; and “Re-Scaling Trans/national ‘Queerdom’: 1980s Lesbian and ‘Lesbian’ Identitary Positionalities in Delhi,” in “Queer Patriarchies, Queer Racisms, International,” special issue, Antipode 34 (2002): 947 – 73.

8. See, e.g., Carolyn Dinshaw, Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999); Carla Freccero, Queer/ Early/Modern (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005).

9. What I call “proprietary heterosexuality” is heterosexuality that accumulates and is bolstered by rights over property, personhood, and social/political and financial capital. Proprietary heterosexuality is not the same as compulsory heterosexuality or heteronormativity. One can have access to proprietary heterosexuality and think of it as the best way to live, even if the political economy in which one lives does not accede entirely to the scientized conventions of the norm, the mean, the average, and the normal.

10. Marriage in Sri Lanka and in most parts of South Asia is not necessarily folded into an economy of romance (heterosexual or otherwise) or into marital fidelity. Marriage does not ensure a purist rendition of heterosexuality; married women and men may have affective, intimate, and sexual relationships with members of their own gender or with a transgender person even when they are married to someone of the opposite gender. Despite this, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Christian women who have relationships outside marriage are more likely to face social opprobrium and ostracization than men. The prevalent economies in alliance with one another are variously gendered: the war economy is primarily male; the globalized free trade zone economies and migrant worker economies are primarily female. In this film Vithanage points out the co-implications of these configurations, which in their turn transform the possible sources for the finances that enable a marriage. Men might bring capital accrued in war to finance their own marriage; they might turn this capital over to relatives. Women working in free trade zones and as migrant workers might use their accruing capital likewise. In sum, there is no necessary primacy of capital reproduction that originates from men’s labor and in turn provides the financial support for the kind of heterosexual reproduction constituted as marital.

11. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “The Staging of Time in Heremakhonon,” Cultural Studies 17, no. 1 (2003): 94.

12. For a fuller discussion of the temporalities of compensatory life finance such as insurance, pensions, loans, and credit, see Geeta Patel, “Imagining Risk,” forthcoming in Anthropological Theory. All these forms of finance constitute forms of person that are emboldened through fantasies of care.

13. See Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended (New York: Picador, 1997); and Achille Mbembe, “Necropolitics,” Public Culture 15, no. 1 (2003): 11 – 40.

14. See Tom Boellstorff, “When Marriage Falls: Queer Coincidences in Straight Time,” this issue.

15. “Einstein’s space-time is in many ways just another field, to be set alongside the electromagnetic and nuclear force-fields” (Paul Davies, About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution [New York: Touchstone, 1995], 17). Space and time cannot be disentangled from one another; they are intimately woven together so that space will shrink as time expands. To bring time and space together one has to conceive them in a fourth dimension that can no longer be easily graphed or drawn two-dimensionally. Thinking through the space-time of relativity, one can no longer abstract space and time from each other and slice space-time, as time, into equal increments. What I am trying to do here, as I coagulate and thin space-times, is to think about objects moving in relation to one another, each of which embody in themselves different space-times whose differences are established through their associations with each other. See Davies for more on the physics of space-time and the effects of gravitational attraction. For a prolonged discussion on the foreclosure of matter in Cartesian thought, see Jean-François Lyotard, “Matter and Time,” in The Inhuman (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 65-89. French and European philosophers and psychologists such as Bergson, Freud, Lacan, Derrida, Lyotard, and Deleuze have a long history of engagement with early and contemporary physics. For a discussion on circularity that attempts to refigure the reading of the “eternal return,” see Elizabeth Grosz, The Nick of Time: Politics, Evolution, and the Untimely (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004). Grosz’s exegetical explorations take these readings on in a remarkable fashion, but she does not quite get to the physics that might have enabled her to see the return as a spiral that configures temporal space.

16. James Clerk Maxwell (1831 – 79) was a Scottish mathematical physicist known for his work on electricity and magnetism and the kinetic theory of gases.

 17. Great Britain, Treasury Papers, vol. 76, no. 36. Autograph in Newton’s hand, in William A. Shaw, Select Tracts and Documents Illustrative of English Monetary History, 1626 – 1730 (1896; rpt. New York: Kelley, 1967), 135 – 36; and Treasury Papers, vol. 208, no. 43, 166 – 71. For additional information on Newton’s stint at the mint, see the thirteen articles listed under Sir Isaac Newton’s mint reports, www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1701 – 25 – mint-reports.html (accessed January 29, 2006).

 18. Alternatives to this picture include those of Riemannian space. See Bruno Latour, “A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity,” Social Studies of Science 18, no. 1 (1988): 3 – 44.

 19. The literature on relativity is vast. For a few citations appropriate to this discussion, see N. Katherine Hayles, The Cosmic Web: Scientific Field Models and Literary Strategies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), 41 – 43; Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (New York: Crown, 1993), 9 – 11, 23 – 24; and Arkady Plotnitsky, Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology of Bohr and Derrida (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994).

20. Spivak, “Staging of Time,” 94.

21. For the time being, I will speak about how I understand space-time in relation to mourning, melancholia, and other modes that owe their lineage to Freud without referring to Freud’s own rare discussions on time.

22. Recent proposals to amend theories of quantum gravity include those in which particles that have energies above or beyond Planck’s energy break down existing theories of quantum and space-time manifests as “foamy” rather than smooth, as in Graham P. Collins, “Revising Relativity: Physicists Try to Outdo Einstein,” Scientific American, November 2002, 27 – 28. One recent rendition of temporality that narrates time, memory, grief, and death powerfully through contemporary discussions of space-time is Kath Weston’s Gender in Real Time: Power and Transience in a Visual Age (New York: Routledge, 2002).

23. There is an extensive literature that takes on this portion of physics, which emerged out of engagements with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg’s work on complementarity. See Plotnitsky, Complementarity.

24. Jacques Derrida, “The Chain of Supplements,” in Of Grammatology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 155, brackets in the original. In situating masturbation, presence, and desire in the supplement, Derrida brings sexuality to the production of presence.

25. All three are terms from physics that bring different events, waves, and so on together, so that they no longer stand apart in a Newtonian universe.

26. For an articulation of the relationship between temporality (as history) and desire, see Geeta Patel, “Ghostly Appearance: Time Tales Tallied Up,” Social Text, no. 64 (2000): 47 – 66. Meanwhile, what is my desire in writing this essay? My desire is mobilized as a prior citizen of the superpower in South Asia, as a one-time citizen of India, the South Asian geopolitical equivalent of the United States, writing about a movie made in Sri Lanka, a country that has been spoken of in the past as the country Indians want to emulate in its drive to incorporate corporate capitalism. Sri Lanka’s contemporary financial future is driven by Indian attempts to “penetrate” new avenues for capital consolidation and expansion. The relationship of knowledge, difference, and praxis established between Sri Lanka and India is always in conversation with capital. Indians travel to Sri Lanka assuming themselves to be the prior Platonic ideos (form) of which Sri Lanka is always an incompletely considered, fully known imitation. I come to Sinhala through Indian languages such as Sanskrit and that gives me purchase, but also reveals its problematics in my own desire to see, both as longing to be and longing to become. I take Spivak’s recent call to literary politics to heart — my essay must be an accounting of this particular ethico-temporal reproductive relationship to capital. I speak in this essay not as a knower but as someone who is as much in the project of learning as many of the future readers of this essay and as someone whose knowledge of Sri Lanka is enabled by a constant attention that betrays my shortfall and debts. It is in this vein that I speak, as someone who moves between the spoken registers of the film and the subtitles that make meaning in another language.

27. Space does not permit me to explore the ramifications of the relationship between conceptualizations of time established by Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg and later explorations that emerge out of quantum mechanics, such as black holes. Suffice it to say that Buddhist notions of time and those established by twentieth-century physics are not so far apart. Some of the questions Einstein raised had already been raised by engineers on the East India Company roster in the 1850s when they were considering the ramifications of the new railway they were planning. Time was fought over again in the 1870s when the railway and the telegraph were struggling to establish their mandate over time in the Subcontinent. See my “Time Travels: Fighting over Time” (paper presented at University of Colombo, Department of Sociology, November 2, 2002).

28. Time has been central to discussions about film from the advent of writings on chronophotography and from the earliest writing about film. I am simplifying subtle and complex arguments to make one particular point. Several sorts of discussions on film, such as Doane’s on the index (which deliberately trades on Charles Sanders Peirce) and on the punctum (which takes on Roland Barthes), Mulvey’s on the event (as carrying weight), and on delay (in the cinema of Abbas Kiarostami), demand pictures of temporality that cannot take recourse in Newton or in Maxwell’s second law of thermodynamics. These analyses have to engage space-times, their distortions, time travel backward, and supplementarity (even if the analyst might not fully comprehend the physics with which she engages). See Mary Ann Doane, The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the Archive (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002); and Laura Mulvey, Death 24x a Second: Stillness and the Moving Image (London: Reaktion Books, 2006). What I am contending with in this particular discussion is the rhetoric of two moves in commonplace understandings of and in some theoretical elaborations on cinema. One is the consistent return to Newton and Maxwell; the other is the turn away from supplementarity.

29. “For the most part, visible time in the cinema is equal to ‘real time,’ and any manipulation or troping of time takes place in the invisible realms of off-screen space or the interstices between shots. (Fast motion, slow motion, and the freeze frame, and other distortions of time become, precisely, special effects, relegated to the marginal status of the heavily coded — and rare — moments)” (Doane, Emergence of Cinematic Time, 189). In my analysis of Purahanda Kaluwara, I am taking on this notion of time’s “locale.” Time does not only reside in the apparatus, in the story; it also lives in the various pictorial and moving elements in the film, each frame holding one facet of many different mobilities, all of which make up the illusion of real time. The temporalities of each are produced through their contiguities with the others. Precisely because cinema is a visual form with a play established between elements, a play that does not merely reside in the mise-en-scène, I am attending to supplementarity both in relation to the inside-outside, apparatus and diegesis, and in relation to what sits in each frame.

30. Not every discussion on film takes place through the exegeses of Newtonian mechanics; some, such as Deleuze, turn to Einstein. But most discussions tend to hold on to Newton when they talk about the movement of the frames. The shift to Einstein occurs with discussions of the possessive spectatorship that stills filmic movement, or the sort of pensive spectatorship that emerges from the kind of autocracy that viewing films in a DVD or video format permits viewers, allowing them to stop, back up, rewind, review, watch a film in slow motion, frame by frame.

31. Mulvey, Death 24x a Second; Lev Manovich, “What Is Digital Cinema?” in The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media, ed. Peter Lunenfeld (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000); Victor Burgin, The Remembered Film (London: Reaktion Books, 2004).

32. Championing neorealism as the representational form through which the powerless could be represented visually and in the written word, playing with government newsreels and other modulations that establish the interweaving of ideology with realist praxis, have been seminal to debates on aesthetics in South Asia on and off since at least the mid-nineteenth century. For the Sri Lankan renditions, see Neloufer de Mel, Women and the Nation’s Narrative: Gender and Nationalism in Twentieth-Century Sri Lanka (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).

33. The relationship between movement and stillness in Vithanage’s film, where single elements appear to move across or in a still frame, and carry time through their movement, produces those movements as both indexes and as a punctum. The movements send a viewer to somewhere beyond the frame; they point to another place where the meaning of that movement lies.

34. Doane, Cinematic Time, 91 – 95. Mulvey explores some of the same ramifications of indexicality.

35. Sri Lanka changed its time a few times — each change, a response to political exigencies, was a slight difference from the zones established in South Asia in the 1870s. See my unpublished “Time Travels.”

36. The bhikku is a figure that appears in many religious and literary texts from Buddhist countries. He has counterparts in most other religious lineages: the wandering dervish in love from Sufism and the yogic practitioner from Hinduism are two instances.

37. This information draws on my interviews with Sri Lankan soldiers in October 2002.

38. I am simplifying a bit here to make a point. The soldiers occupy an anomalous position in the film. They carry the burden that the family cannot carry without access to Bandara’s insurance policy.

39. In “Time Binds, or, Erotohistoriography,” Social Text, nos. 84 – 85 (2005): 57 – 68, Elizabeth Freeman offers a lovely rereading of both Freud and Maria Torok’s descriptions of incorporation. See Sigmund Freud, “Mourning and Melancholia,” in General Psychological Theory (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 164 – 84.

40. See Mbembe, “Necropolitics”; and Foucault, Society Must Be Defended. In both these discussions war is not an abnormal state of the state, but the necessary origin through which contemporary forms of nation-statehood came into being. “War” includes literal war, as well as the conditions through which the “state of the camp” becomes quotidian. The rhetoric of justification deployed by nations, that they are in a state of war that is anomalous, actually normalizes war.

41. See Henri-Louis Bergson, Matter and Memory, trans. Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer (New York: Zone Books, 1988). For discussions of the psychological studies of subjective temporality that increased dramatically in number in Europe in the 1930s, see Robert Levine, A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist, or How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 26 – 51.

Darkness & Emancipation: Talking to Juliet Mitchell

 

 

Sunit Singh

 On November 23, 2010, Sunit Singh conducted an interview with psychoanalyst Juliet Mitchell at Jesus College in Cambridge. Although Professor Mitchell’s rehabilitation of Freud is well chronicled, the attempt in “Women: The Longest Revolution” (1966)[1] to rescue the core content of the Marxist tradition—its emphasis on emancipation—remains unexplored. What follows is an edited version of the interview.

Sunit Singh: The sociologist C. Wright Mills, in an open letter to the editors of New Left Review in 1960, exhorted the still inchoate “New Left” to reclaim an ideological space for socialism over the chorus of liberal commentators proclaiming “the end of ideology”—the idea that there are no more antagonistic contradictions within capitalist society. Post-Marxist rhetoric, as Mills identified, was expressive of the disillusionment with the Old Left, which was itself weakest on the historical agencies of structural change or the so-called subjective factor. Yet, if the Old Left was wedded to a Victorian labor metaphysic, Mills forewarned, the New Left threatened to forsake the “utopianism” of the Left in its search for a new revolutionary subject.[2] How sensitive were later members of the editorial board of the New Left Review, after Perry Anderson took over from Stuart Hall in 1962, to such injunctions? And to what extent was the project of socialism implicit in “Women: The Longest Revolution” (hereafter referred to as WLR)? Five decades on, where does that project presently stand? What happened to “socialism”?

 

Juliet Mitchell: I came into direct contact with the New Left Review earlier than the mid-60s, partly through other work I was involved in. I was also a student in Oxford, where we were the originating group of the New Left. Perry [Anderson] and I married in 1962 and lived in London, although I worked in Leeds. The north of England, with Dorothy and Edward Thompson in nearby Halifax, was a centre for the older New Left.

 

Back then I was planning to write a book, which never saw the light of day, on women in England. It was a historical sociological treatment of the subject. We were driving to meet up with friends and colleagues who ran Lelio Basso’s new journal in Rome when the manuscript was stolen with everything else from our car. I had a bit of a break before I returned to “women.” WLR came in the mid-60s. The timing of the gap and the reluctance to re-do what I had done led to a considerable change in the way I looked at the issue. This relates to your question about C. Wright Mills and ideology. I think when we took over from Stuart Hall the distinction of what separated us from the preceding group was the conviction of the importance of theory over or out of empiricism.

 

So was I aware that in my use of “ideology” in WLR I was also picking up on C. Wright Mills’s sense of utopianism? Well, “yes and no” would be my answer. For C. Wright Mills, “ideology” read “theory.” However, it was exactly this shift that opened up the importance of ideology. But while reading and admiring C. Wright Mills, our quest led us directly to Althusser’s work. We were in what Thompson later criticized as Sartrean “treetopism” We met with the equipe of Les Temps Modernes in the early 60s. De Beauvoir, with her brilliant depiction and analysis of the oppression of women, at that stage saw any politics of feminism as a trap. Instead she took the classical Marx/Engels line that the condition of women depends on the future of labor in the world. Together with Gérard Horst, who wrote under the name André Gorz, we had a cultural project in London, which, in addition to the magazine, we hoped to share with them. We didn’t want to be imitative, but nevertheless wanted to be engaged with particularly French New Left struggles. The Algerian War was, of course, terribly important. We were urgent for an end to the British isolationism with which the anti-theoretical stance was associated. Then in 1962 some of us went to the celebrations for Ben Bella in Algiers. With Gisele Halimi and Djamila Boupacha this was a background to the left women’s movement that was shortly to emerge. There was also the issue of our relationship to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That is the background to WLR. And, “no,” in the sense that when I use Althusser, as I do in WLR, it may seem as though I am also picking up on C. Wright Mills’s assertion of the importance of ideology, but really the stress on ideology had more to do with the search for a new theoretical direction that was linked to contemporary French thought. What Althusser offered me through his re-definition of the nature and place of ideology is the overwhelming and now obvious point that sexual difference is lived in the head.

 

I have never been a member of a party or a church or sect, growing up as I had in an anarchist environment, but I worked actively within the New Left, and then in the women’s movement, before training and practicing as a psychoanalyst. I have had to be pretty “utopian,” as an underpinning to my “optimism of the will,” first about class antagonism, then about women, then about Marxism as dialectical and historical materialism and, ironically, nowadays with the new versions of empiricism, about the theory of psychoanalysis.

 

SS: Your answer hints at the ways in which the New Left saw itself as new, as against the Maoists, other feminists, and presumably also in relation to the Trotskyists. You were critical of these other tendencies. A pithy passage from Women’s Estate reads, feminist consciousness is “the equivalent of national chauvinism among Third World nations or economism among working-class organizations,” that on its own it “will not naturally develop into socialism nor should it.”[3] Furthermore: “The gray timelessness of Trotskyism is only to be matched by the eternal chameleonism of Western Maoism.”[4] From there the text went on to say that what was needed was to deepen the Marxist method even if it meant rejecting some of the statements made by Marx and Marxists. Was that the task in WLR? Does the same challenge remain today for the Left? How did the ways in which the New Left understood and dealt with this methodological challenge affect the situation for a future Left?

 

JM: I reread WLR, which I haven’t done for years, because you were coming. I was quite impressed by the shift that it represents from the book that never was, but I was also slightly unmoved by it. It does reflect that overall moment in the entire shift of the New Left from historical research into theory, so what we need to ask is, what happened to ideology? I think, getting back to utopia, that the conception of utopianism melded into the women’s movement. The questions of the longest revolution were: What is the hope? Where is the utopianism? For Engels, there was the utopianism of the end of class antagonism, but what were we to do with that? This might come as a shock, but I never actually stopped thinking of myself as a Marxist, even after other friends on the New Left had stopped identifying themselves as such.

 

For us, in the 1960s, Marxism was not out there as “Marxism.” One was also self-critical by then, the whole relationship to China had to be re-examined rather as earlier Marxists had to take stock of their relationship to Stalin. What everybody seems to forget is that socialism was foundational for the women’s movement and those of us who were and still are on the Left understood where we had to expand it intellectually, so that is where I took it in WLR. I think of Marx much as I might think of Darwin or Freud in some senses. I think that when you use them, it’s not that you stick within the terms that they set (after all, you are in a different historical epoch, you are in a different social context, and you are posing different questions). Giant theorists such as these impinge on us with their method, not in the narrow sense of methodology, but in their way of approaching the question.

 

Lately, I keep encountering this belief that where other radicalism was over after 1968, women’s liberation arose out of it. This is not so and is poor history. Women’s liberationists, now called feminists, were active as such in creating ‘68. Feminism continued gaining strength thereafter. Raymond Williams considered the women’s movement the most important one of the last century. The student movement ended, the worker’s movement ended—I am not playing them down—the black movement also ended. The women’s movement was what happened to 1968—it went on. For me, what matters about the women’s movement is the Left; it’s not that it is attached to the Left, it is the Left. Of course at a time when the Left is not very active, conservative dimensions of feminism will flourish and feminism will be misused. It is not the first political movement to suffer these collapses!

 

SS: I suppose my question, then, is: What happened to the women’s movement?

 

JM: What happened to it?…Well, I think that when the conditions of existence, the relationship between women and men, achieve a new degree of equality, one comes up against a certain limit. Where first wave demands were dominated by the vote, I suppose we were dominated by the demand for equal work, pay, and conditions. Here our head hit a ceiling, and not a glass ceiling, a concrete one. Feminism from that moment has headed off to the hills to rethink what needs to be done politically. It is, as Adorno says, like putting messages in a bottle. I will remain in the hills until the streets, where there is still radical work going on, welcome me back. That is where I would like to be. But now is not the moment for that; we are plateauing. The fight against women’s oppression as women is, after all, without a doubt, the longest revolution.

 

Photograph by Jerry Bauer of Juliet Mitchell on the cover of Women’s Estate (1971).

 

SS: A central claim of WLR, that the call for complete equality between the sexes remains completely within the framework of capital rather than in opposition to it, implies that the relationship between men and women, like the class distinction between capitalist and worker, itself derives from the contradictions of capitalism. The conditions that allow for and motivate the reproduction of “patriarchy” as well as other kinds of oppression, in other words, also form the essential conditions of possibility for the demands for equality. You presciently noted in WLR, applying the thesis of repressive desublimation, that the wave of sexual liberalization unleashed in the 1960s could lead to more freedom for women, but “equally it could presage new forms of oppression.” Does our historical remove from the 1960s allow us to judge one way or another?

 

JM: I think, first of all, that in the 1960s I thought or felt that a measure of equality might be attained within the dominant socioeconomic class. I am now unsure that it will even be attained there. So it may be the ideology of capitalism has been hoisted on its own petard; in other words, caught and stuck within its own contradictions. The bourgeois husband needs a bourgeois wife. What we hadn’t foreseen sufficiently was the return of the servant class if this wife was also to work. We were not surprised that there is no pay parity, nor had we failed to realize that, although there are some women who will climb the ladder, this is not going to affect the wretched of the earth, or where it does so it may do so negatively. Women can now vote, but now there are certain, increasingly disproportionate, sectors such as illegal migrants, who don’t enjoy the equalities that those in liberal capitalist societies should. More importantly, can we really call the old democracies democratic when it is money not the vote that rules? Any struggle is always one step up the well and two steps down, or the two steps up and one step down, its never simply a matter of progress under capitalism, nor is it a matter of this ghastly government over another. There are liberal aspects of capitalism and for heaven’s sake let’s have them. All the egalitarian bits of capitalism must be pressed for if only to find out two things: one, that going the whole way towards equality is impossible under capitalism, and two, that going beyond these forms of equality is essential anyway.

 

I also think it is important that I wasn’t prescient about the massive entry of women into the workforce, I wasn’t prescient in WLR in seeing that education was going to expand as much as it did, and I think that I wasn’t prescient about changes in production (I later addressed these issues elsewhere) or reproduction. Shulamith Firestone foresaw the “reproduction revolution” in some ways, but then again she was writing in the 1970s, not the mid-sixties; there was a women’s movement by the time she wrote. With sexuality things are a little more complicated. I think there are always social classes, there are therefore different effects for the wretched of the earth than there are for the rich, so the degree to which I was prescient I don’t know whether the measure of sexual liberation that effective contraception offered us middle-class “first-worlders” has created more oppression of women sexually worldwide—I don’t think so. What I think it has done is definitely exposed the differences more.

 

SS: WLR raises the issue of revolutionary strategy: the role of limited ameliorative reforms versus proposing maximalist demands. It treats as salutary the remark Lenin made to Clara Zetkin about developing a strategy commensurate with a socio-theoretical analysis of capitalism within the party to adequately address the “women’s question.” More recently, at a talk at Birkbeck in 1999, you ventured to wonder aloud, albeit with an understandable sense of nervousness, whether, in an era otherwise marked by acute depoliticiziation, the uptick of interest in psychoanalysis, sexuality, and the “women’s question” might mean that Lenin was possibly right that such concerns are the noxious fruits growing out of the soiled earth of capitalist society. Has the naturalization of feminism in the present-day obscured the issue of strategy?

 

JM: I do still believe in crude old things like “to each according to his needs.” People do need different things and that is beyond equality in a sense. This is where history comes in. Society is still trying to think that we all ought to be equal, but we haven’t yet the kind of society that adequately attends to our needs.

 

The extreme of reformism versus voluntarism is not where we are at the moment. I think these are the concerns that come out of “the soiled earth of capitalist society,” but again my answer would be rather like my answer about equality, that this doesn’t invalidate these concerns. These are perfectly legitimate demands that are not confined by the conditions in which they come into existence. For example, if one looks at what happened to sexuality or reproduction in the Soviet Union, it would have been much better to follow the earlier tide in which sexual freedoms were seen as a condition of the revolution. That is, when Alexandra Kollontai wrote on free sexuality, that wasn’t only a bourgeois demand, nor was it in 1968. A revolutionary situation is a discreet situation that transforms what could be thought within capitalism about sexuality, but it is not identical with capitalism; revolutions create the possibility of change, revolutions change the object. Though we are not in a revolutionary situation, that doesn’t mean it is not around the corner.

 

The Old Left thought of capitalism as en route to communism. On the withering away of the state, there was a voluntarist injunction to abolish the family and then the opposite, producing a very interesting contradiction that cannot be chalked up to the fact that Stalin was a foul man. It may be that you can’t wither away the family, or can’t wither away the state, but the question is why? If, as Marx himself says, the call by utopian socialists to abolish the family would be tantamount to generalizing the prostitution of women, then what is the solution or next stage? This is why WLR examines the structures within the family. Marx was against the voluntarism of the abolition of the family. But then what measures escape reformism? There may be changes to the things that a family does that will lead to its diversification in such a way that is more revolutionary than what existed thus far under socialism or capitalism. Maybe there is something there to be thought about as new demands that are beyond socialism as well as beyond capitalism.

 

SS: The program from the memorial service for Fred Halliday on the bookshelf reminds me of an anecdote that is recounted in an interview with Danny Postel.[5] He dreamt of appearing with Tariq Ali before Allah who says that one will veer to the Right, the other to the Left, without specifying who would head in which direction. I think we in Platypus often return to that story as a salient metaphor for the fragmentation of the New Left and the opacity of the present-day. He was planning to do a couple of events with Platypus on an upcoming visit to the US that were alas never realized.

 

JM: His death is indeed tragic, but I like this story about Tariq and Fred; I think it is important to take up arguments with those who share the same space politically, if only to disagree. I disagree with feminists who dismiss Freud; both of us probably think we are going towards the Left, but we might both be going Right.

 

SS: For me, getting back on track, I should confess there is an intractable dilemma at the heart of WLR. On the one hand, there are passages gesturing toward a dialectical conception of capitalism—as both repressive as well as potentially emancipatory—while, on the other hand, the Althusserian notion of “overdetermation” that structures the argument emphasizes the role of contingency as the motor of historical change. As Althusser himself acknowledged, the idea of “overdetermination” was indebted to the anti-humanistic reinterpretation of Freud by Lacan. Can one accommodate the denial of the subject as an illusion of the ego in the Lacanian “return” to Freud with the Freudian emphasis on psychoanalysis as an ego-psychology therapy intended to strengthen the self-awareness and freedom of the individual subject as an ego?

 

JM: No, I never had any time for ego-psychology, but that isn’t the same as the question about overdetermination. Some of the observations of Anna Freud are remarkable, but I don’t see the whole concept of strengthening the ego as a way forward for psychoanalysis, although I suppose there is a context in which it could help if someone were completely fragmented; then there are stages, but it should only be a stage on the way to something else. For me it wasn’t a shift from Lacan to Freud as such. I had met R. D. Laing in 1961. The Divided Self had came out shortly before, in 1959, so I was involved with anti-psychiatry in the same span of time as I was involved with the New Left Review.

 

On overdetermination as Althusser takes it from Freud: Overdetermination in Freud is not an anti-humanist concept, in Lacan maybe it is, but in Freud it is neither/nor. What it means is that there will always be one factor that is the key factor. And in Freud that is not socioeconomic. What I liked about Althusser was the definition of ideology as at times overdetermining. Ideology, in the Althusserian sense, interpellates individuals as subjects. Now, what Althusser offered me intellectually, so to speak, was that revolutionary change in any one of the superstructural or ideological state apparatuses can attain a certain autonomy, can occur even when it doesn’t elsewhere. Yet, in the last instance, the economy is determinate.

 

SS: This raises a number of issues about the relationship of Althusser to Marx and that of Lacan to Freud. Does the Althusserian concept of ideology adequately address the ways in which we are forced to deal with our own alienated freedom in capital through reified forms of appearance and consciousness? Did the limitations of the Althusserian-Lacanian framework in WLR motivate the reconsideration of Freud?

 

JM: You might change sexuality or reproduction or sexualization, but if production remains unchanged, these will remain changes within those specific fields. This claim struck me as valid for the situation of women. I could use this insight to organize the structures that apply to women, which was the family. I broke down the family, each aspect of which I treated as superstructural, but that was in the final analysis determined by production, which was outside it. There I was puzzling over the fact that women are marginal but that, as in the Chinese revolutionary saying, “women hold up half the sky.” How does one think that? The only way I could think it was to break it up into these structures: production, reproduction, sexuality, and the socialization of children. Apart from what I quote—Engels, Bebel, Lenin, Simone De Beauvoir, and Betty Friedan—there was no category “woman” until feminism resuscitated it in the second half of the sixties.

 

Now, retrospectively, I would say that the intransigence of the oppression of women, as Engels had identified, also entails that it is the longest revolution. In turn the idea of the longest revolution as I wrote WLR made me think about what was absent in earlier analyses but also within Marxist thought. How do we view ourselves in the world? This is what took me to Freud; it took me first to the unconscious rather than sexuality. I thought, at least I thought then, that the unconscious was close to what Althusser had to say about ideology. The return to Freud was “overdetermined”—there were multiple directions for my getting to Freud.

 

SS: Given your own trajectory, what do you make of the reflorescence of a strain of Althusserian-Lacanian “Marxism” today in the form of Balibar, Rancière, and Badiou?

 

JM: I suppose this is getting me back to when I wrote WLR. I found Althusser extremely useful, but there was always a humanist in me. I think that remains true, despite all the shake-ups of postmodernity or whatever. I always wanted both perspectives, it was never a matter of either/or. I think we need to rethink our humanity in order to revalidate the universal—neo-universalism—which was interestingly debunked by postmodernism.

 

SS: Does the contemporary emphasis on performativity or gendering obscure the humanist motivations that led radical anti-feminists to psychoanalysis?

 

JM: It certainly changes it, it redirects it in a different direction, or it might be, as Judith Butler always tells me, that I haven’t understood performativity properly. I think where I was going with psychoanalysis was more towards kinship, towards what is still fundamental in kinship structures in families, what effects does it have in creating sexual difference. When we talk about interpellation from Althusser, the primary one is “it’s a girl” or “it’s a boy.” I am still trying to work this out in a way, which relates to my work on siblings. Everybody seems to be muddling up gender and sexual difference to me. And it stretches back to the old confusion between sexuality and reproduction. Gender, which can be looked at psychoanalytically, is an earlier formation than sexual difference and fantasies of reproduction are parthenogenic—imaginatively boys and girls equally give birth. Sexual difference takes up heterosexual reproduction. Gender can be made into a category of analysis whereas women can be the object but cannot be a category, which is why one can ask such questions as: Why is hysteria gendered? Why is mathematics gendered? Why is everything gendered?

SS: There was a classic Marxist prejudice against Freudian psychoanalysis. Lukács, as one example, considered Freud an “irrationalist”—as a “symptom.” For Marxist radicals, Freud characterized the limits of “individual” subjectivity with which the revolutionaries had to contend in order to make their revolution. Wilhelm Reich was one of the first Marxists to critically appropriate Freudian categories to describe the social-historical condition of life under capital by perceptively identifying our fear of freedom. Do you think that the shift toward psychoanalysis by radical Marxists from the 1930s on, through the feminist embrace of psychoanalysis to address a felt deficit in the 1960s, registers the internalization of the defeat or is somehow apolitical?

 

JM: From where Lukács stood, feminism and psychoanalysis looked terribly pessimistic. I think it is the longest revolution. One needs, as Gramsci says, the conjuncture of the optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect to realize the difficulties. These difficulties can be taken to psychoanalysis usefully, but from where Lukács was standing you couldn’t. He was asking a different question of a different object. When I took up Laing, Reich, and the feminists in Psychoanalysis and Feminism, I never believed one could use psychoanalysis to be on the Left, rather it was what can one use psychoanalysis for to answer the question about the oppression of women, which is an abiding question for the Left.

 

What I am saying is that psychoanalysis would be different in a revolutionary context than in the fascist context in Berlin in which Reich wrote. I am critical of Reich, but there was an important liberal aspect within psychoanalysis, so that all of the work that Marxists within psychoanalysis were able to do in the polyclinics of Berlin before they were stamped out or forced into emigration by the Nazis, was radical, precipitating a revolution within psychoanalysis as well as within Marxism. Bourgeois concepts start to take on radical implications in the context of a revolution, as with the Marxists of the Second International in the 1920s. The context of the Bolshevik Revolution changed the significance of what Bebel had written on women for Lenin.

 

SS: The New Left icon Herbert Marcuse sought to outline what a socialist society would look like in Eros and Civilization. The alienation of labor in capital, Marcuse argues, means that the satisfaction from work can only ever be an ersatz form of libidinal release. In a nonrepressive socialist order, on the other hand, work would be recathected, and transformed into play. He also asserts that Freud had hypostatized the existence of the death drive, when in fact it is applicable only to the aggression that attends capitalist society. “WLR” concludes with a critique of such attempts to prefiguratively sketch out what an emancipated society might look like, posing starkly the danger of trying to measure the concrete character of an emancipated future. What are the challenges that confront the Left of the future in preserving the indeterminacy of the concept of socialism?

 

JM: On the first half of the question about the absence of play and the relationship of the death drive to capitalism: the death drive is a huge question, but why it should be limited to capitalism, not to slave or feudal society is beyond me. Maybe there will be a beyond, but maybe there will simply be ways in which we can work with the death drive or diffuse the id, since it isn’t only violence, it is the return to stasis. It is a hypothesis. I don’t agree with Marcuse; today there are new forms which it takes.

 

Why aren’t we even where we were in the 60s anymore? I already told you we hit a ceiling, but there are new spaces opening up for the Left. Class will feature in the whole dilemma of illegal migrants, as in Mike Davis’s Planet of Slums. The Left needs to start to think from Planet of Slums, which is a different location from that of the industrial working class of Marx or even the consumer capitalist class of late capitalism of Althusser or of Marcuse. Planet of Slums forecasts a different world, but there will always be a women’s question, as there will be a race question, or a class question.

 

SS: Apart from the French tradition, the Frankfurt School, especially the work of Adorno, represents another important attempt to appropriate descriptive Freudian categories into a critical Marxist theory. Against Marcuse, Adorno held that it was a necessary symptom of capitalist society, which was characterized by a growing narcissism that weakened the defenses of the ego against the super-ego, that both psychological (ego psychology) and sociological (Parsonian sociology) approaches to social totality had to remain aporetic. The function of the ego, in other words, does not remain unscathed by the irrational reality of capitalist society with its endless means-ends reversals. What role do you think psychoanalysis can play in helping us cope with the normative psychosis of our sociopolitical world? Or, putting it in a more open-ended manner, what kind of emancipatory possibility might there be in the narcissistic character—what Adorno referred to as authoritarianism—of subjects of late capitalism?

 

JM: Quite correctly Reich had asked the question of the authoritarian personality that was then taken up by the Frankfurt School. I still think their work on the authoritarian personality is a marvelous use of psychoanalysis. Their use of psychoanalysis allowed them to ask questions about the role the authoritarian personality would play in collusion with or the in the self-replication of fascism. The Frankfurt School took to psychoanalysis. Lukács thought you couldn’t, approaching it differently from within communism or within socialism trying to call itself communism. I never wanted to psychoanalyze society. I am uninterested in saying that society is narcissistic, depressive, or anything like that, but we are all still of the Left. Hopefully, Allah would say we will all go to the Left, even though we use psychoanalysis for different objects. Freud himself was saying we can change society, in discussions about “Why War?” with Einstein, what can we do to stop war. He then relied on theories of psychoanalysis to try to find some sort of answer—interestingly it turned out to be about the role of aesthetics. He thought from within the clinic as well as from elsewhere. I don’t know what Adorno says in full, but just as a quick last note, in pursuing emancipation in the heart of darkness we also need to let light into the heart of darkness.

Sunit Singh is the Editor-in-Chief of the Platypus Review. This interview has been transcribed by Atiya Khan and was first published in the Platypus Review, # 38 (August 2011).


 References:

1. Juliet Mitchell, “Women: The Longest Revolution,” New Left Review, I/40 (November-December 1966): 11-37.

2. C. Wright Mills, “Letter to the New Left,” New Left Review, I/5 (September-October 1960): 18-23.

3. Juliet Mitchell, Women’s Estate (New York: Pantheon Books, 1971), 58.

4. Ibid., 71.

5. “Who is Responsible?: An interview with Fred Halliday,” interview by Danny Postel, Salmagundi, 151-152 (Spring-Summer 2006), http://cms.skidmore.edu/salmagundi/backissues/150-151/halliday.cfm.