Here are two poems I came across recently.
The first one is from Master Zind(a) Koul, one of the mystic poets from Kashmir. The poems is in Kashmiri, so I wrote roman transliteration (line 2 of every stanza) and created the Devanagari (line 1 of every stanza) on http://www.hindikalam.com. I have also tried to do a more or less literal English translation (line 3 of every stanza). The idea was to convey the literal meaning only. I made little effort to keep any form of rhyme and none for the metre. Might try that another time. I am not really good at either Kashmiri (can hardly speak) or poetry, so any corrections/suggestions are welcome.
This poem is called Samran (Remembrance) and won the Sahitya Akademi award for the author. Here it goes.
1)
सुमिरन पनुन मेय दिचुनम लोलुक निशान वेसिये
रुचरुम तोगुम ना रोवुम औसोम ना बान वेसिया
Sumiran panun mey dichunam loluk nishaan vesiye
Ruchrum togum na rovum ausom na baan vesiya
He left me his remembrance, a sign of his love
I Lost it my dear, didn't have a safe place, a hidden cove
2)
पथ कलिये छुम ने दयुतमुत सवन मौखता दान वेसियेह
आयनेय सारेय कया लबख वयने तिम मौखता दान वेसियेह
Path kaliye chhum ne dyutmut swan maukhta daan vesiyeh
Aayney saarey kya labakh vayane tim maukhta daan vesiyeh
In times past, did I ever give, gold and pearls away
Poor blind me, how can I now see, where the pearls lay
3)
वैनेयिजि मैनज़े थोवुन घोचा, हावुन थोवुम अथस पयठ
रह कयुअसे छ कोर मेह पानस नौकसाना पान वेसियेह
Vaineyiji mainze thovun ghocha, haavun thovum athas pya\th
Rah kyuase chh kor meh paanas nauksaana paan vesiyeh
Should have hid deep it in the heart, where the secrets lay,
In a show of rich pride, put it on my palm, and gave it away
4)
हवुन छुह रावरावुन, छावुक समर छुह खैमि
थावन छ छावा बापत, बानन त ठान वेसियेह
Havun chhuh raavraavun, chhaavuk samar chhuh khaimi
Thaavan chh chhaava baapat, baanan t \thaan vesiyeh
To show is to lose, I know it now, what is precious you must hide,
The the dish is on boil, allow it to roil, but keep the lid tight.
5)
येने सुह निशान रोवुम, तेने मच गमिच चे फ़ुलवह
नयुन होन त कहन ति फ़ेरान छस वान वान वेसियेह
Yene suh nishaan rovum, tene mach gamich che fulvah
Nyun hon t kahn ti feraan chhas vaan vaan vesiyeh
The sign now lost, despondent me, I wander everywhere,
Asking the everysame thing, did you glimpse it, anywhere dear
6)
REPLY:
यछ पछ म हार बयाखा हयथ यूर वाति कँनछा
तस छा कमि निशनन, बयय बयय खज़ान वेसिये
Ychh pchh m haar byaakha hyath yoor vaati k\mnchha
Tas chha kami nishanan, byay byay khazaan vesiye
Don't lose hope Friend, someone brings it, I know it will be soon,
Does he lack signs, the giver of all treasures, under sun and moon
7)
ड़ोलान कोहन वनन मनज़ शोलन छ गुलशनन मनज़
जयोतन छ तारकन मनज़, कयतयह निशन वेसियेह
\Rholaan kohan vanan manz sholan chh gulshanan manz
Jyotan chh taarakan manz, kaytyah nishan vesiyeh
They wander in plains and fields, bloom in flowers, gardens and vines
They sparkle in the stars and planets, they are uncountable, the signs.
8)
वेसेरिथ देलिथ पथर पयथ बुथ कया दिमव तेमिस निश
पोथ फेरनिकि पकान छा यिथ ही बहान वेसियेह
Veserith delith pathar pyath buth kya dimav temis nish
Poth pherniki pakaan chha yith hee bahaan vesiyeh
You say, you lost your way, have broken down, how to show him your face
To turn back now, Is it the really fair, the excuse is not good enough
9)
मनव ज़ि आस हैवुमव पथ चोरया तसुनध मोहब्बत
पयवनध ये आदनुक चह शुरये दोसतान वेसियेह
Manav zi aas haevumav path chorya tasundh mohabbat
Pyavandh ye aadnuk chah shurye dostaan vesiyeh
Even if we turn back, can we lose his love, in this easy way
A bond unbreakable, the ground of our being, it is no childs play?
10)
दिल फुटयमतयन छु तोशन, यच गरिमतयन छु रोशन,
गछि वेरिमतयन सुदामन, परछ गायिबान वेसियेह
Dil phu\tymatyn chhu toshan, yach garimatyan chhu roshan,
Gachhi verimatyan sudaaman, prachh gaayibaan vesiyeh
He is the healer of broken heart, and the tamer of the proud mind
If you don't trust me, ask sudaama, or some true lover you find.
11)
आनध पख तति छु आसन बवध बरोर सुरदासुन
बोज़ान छुह माय लेगिथ लोलुकै तरान वेसियेह
Aandh pakh tati chhu aasan bvadh bror surdaasun
Bozaan chhuh maay legith lolukai taraan vesiyeh
Everpresent, invisible, the playful child of surdas, wanders about and above.
With great joy and merriment, hears these songs, sung of love.
I don't think there are any copyright issues in posting the orignal, but in case you feel there are please let me know
The second one is a Pakistani poet by name of Kateel Shafai. Found the poem on the website www.kavitakosh.org. Among Pakistani peots I personally like Faiz Ahmed Faiz the most. Discovered Kateel only a couple of weeks back and liked his use of simple language. Here is the poem and the translation by yours truly. Tried to keep as close the original literal meaning as possible, without sounding too awkward
पहले तो अपने दिल की रज़ा जान जाइये
फिर जो निगाह-ए-यार कहे मान जाइये
First learn you must, of your hearts way
then do as the beloved's eyes do say,
पहले मिज़ाज-ए-राहगुज़र जान जाइये
फिर गर्द-ए-राह जो भी कहे मान जाइये
First know where the travellers mood may be
Then accept what the road's dust decree.
कुछ कह रही है आपके सीने की धड़कने
मेरी सुनें तो दिल का कहा मान जाइये
Something my dear, your heartbeats whispered now
If you may heed my suggestion, do follow it love
इक धूप सी जमी है निगाहों के आस पास
ये आप हैं तो आप पे क़ुर्बान जाइये
The sun is blinding my eyes, I guess,
Or is it you, the one I want to bless.
शायद हुज़ूर से कोई निस्बत हमें भी हो
आँखों में झाँक कर हमें पहचान जाइये
I wonder if your friend I may possibly be.
Look deeply in my eyes and recognize me
Now comes the customary homage to Colonel. For Colonel poetry is pronounced (and also written and thought and cooked and devoured and ...) as poultry. Those two words are equivalent entities (isomorphisms to use the mathematical term) in his dictionary. And though poetry can have fairly interesting mathematical structure in metre and rhyming, I have for some reason been unable to evince his interest towards its non-avian properties. And though I like chicken, I am not all that fond of those birds to waste a couple of hours on it. So my interest or inspiration (or perversion if you may like to call that) comes from elsewhere. Who or what that may be will have to wait for some other day...
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Thursday, October 09, 2008
On nature of Kitsch
Taking a leaf out of "The unbearable lightness of being", by the Czech genius Milan Kundera, I also felt a need to tilt my lance at kitsch, in the time honored manner of our friend Don Quixote de la Mancha. I could go on an exposition of what Kundera says about the nature of kitsch, which is indeed most impressive. But let me instead use my own cardboard lance and shield for the battle ahead. And hope Kundera nods appreciatively when he sees the charge of this knight in cardboard armour.
If Art is the representation of life in its widest sense, kitsch is the representation of the concepts about life. And even using the word "concepts" is not enough. I would have to qualify it. Conceptualization itself is inherent in all art. But in true art, conceptualization is "in the moment", and ephemeral. It is also highly individual. That is why for a body of work of single artist, it also evolutionary with time. For kitsch on the other hand, the very same "concept" is folklore. The concepts of beauty inherent in all art is not felt and lived, but only taken from culture, tradition or pre-formed ideals (or memes). The appreciation and enjoyment is also superficial. It is, because it has to be. Since it is static and forced, even if unconsciously.
The worst enemy of art and individuality of creation are the stranglehold of cultural habits and conditioning. Only by getting rid of this, can one form appreciation and feeling for that which is highly individual. Such appreciation leaps across times and cultures, though not fully. The last part is due to inherent tie between language and technique of art and the time and culture associated with it. Kitsch is art generated from time and Culture, without any individuality and true sense of beauty.
As for Colonel, all that is written above must be an exercise in foolishness. Since for him, in light of his immense wisdon, knignts and cardboards, beauty and truth, kitch and otherwise, may all appear useless concepts. The only thing worth considering, perhaps, are equations. Or maybe not even those...
If Art is the representation of life in its widest sense, kitsch is the representation of the concepts about life. And even using the word "concepts" is not enough. I would have to qualify it. Conceptualization itself is inherent in all art. But in true art, conceptualization is "in the moment", and ephemeral. It is also highly individual. That is why for a body of work of single artist, it also evolutionary with time. For kitsch on the other hand, the very same "concept" is folklore. The concepts of beauty inherent in all art is not felt and lived, but only taken from culture, tradition or pre-formed ideals (or memes). The appreciation and enjoyment is also superficial. It is, because it has to be. Since it is static and forced, even if unconsciously.
The worst enemy of art and individuality of creation are the stranglehold of cultural habits and conditioning. Only by getting rid of this, can one form appreciation and feeling for that which is highly individual. Such appreciation leaps across times and cultures, though not fully. The last part is due to inherent tie between language and technique of art and the time and culture associated with it. Kitsch is art generated from time and Culture, without any individuality and true sense of beauty.
As for Colonel, all that is written above must be an exercise in foolishness. Since for him, in light of his immense wisdon, knignts and cardboards, beauty and truth, kitch and otherwise, may all appear useless concepts. The only thing worth considering, perhaps, are equations. Or maybe not even those...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The MQ Factor
This one had got locked in blogger draft for too long. Wrote it sometime back and shared it in an email. May it benefit you :-)
==== Disclaimer Starts ====
No offence intended.... No benefits promised.
==== Disclaimers Ends ====
==== Advertisment Starts ====
So what is MQ factor. MQ factor will tell you more
about yourself than a lifetime of pschoanalysis by
Freud himself. MQ factor is the essense of your
being. Much like relativity, it may seem flippant at
first but it is profound, which only sincere effort to
understand will reveal. "M" of course is the sacred
syllable. Don't ask me what it stands for. Think of it
as YHWH Release 2.0. Only to be revered, never to be
spoken. Those who know about it, know about it. And
those who don't, can't be told. But if you insist,
here is the invocation to start with...
The sacred "M",
The source of all,
Padmasambhava's gem
Our destinies call.
For knowing our worth
This quiz we take
To our sorrow and mirth
Do we solemnly awake.
"Q" is of course the much more mundane oxford
dictionary "quotient". Whatever has got left of you
(and me) after getting sufficiently divided. It is
designed to correctly estimate your potential (
knowing whether you ever realize your potential is
tougher to tell, and may need solving NP problems). It
is exact. It tells you about all your past and future.
It is deterministic. And whatever MQ factor you will
get eventually, is unalterable even by gods (if and
when they start proving their existance ). Amen.
==== Advertisment Ends ====
==== Quiz Starts ======
Answer these questions and thou shalt learn thy
destiny:
1) Number of pens found in your shirtpocket (or purse
for ladies)
a) What is a pen used for??
b) 1
c) 2 or 3
d) 4 or above
2) Which colour of pens do you keep (as you will see
colour is the most important property of the universe.
Most other things "pale" in comparison).
a) does not apply (see above)
b) Blue or Black
c) 2 to 3 colours
d) >= 4 colours (I always remember the
four-colour theorem!)
3) What is the type of your handwriting
a) What is "writing". I am still in the stone
age. (Or too far off in foundation's intergalactic
empire.)
b) I love scribbling and scrawling. Don't care
if anyone understands or not. Or even I do.
c) Discipherable, though ugly.
d) Human Typewritter. (Or a computer font, for
variety)
4) Number/Type of underlines used used while writing
a) None
b) One
c) Multiple but same throughout.
d) Multiple and different depending on type of
heading/text.
5) Rough work
a) Don't do any rough work at all. It is too much
effort to move the fingers. Thinking (and snoozing) is
easier.
b) Do some. Mostly on the sand (with sticks) or
on napkins.
c) Do in a properly designated pad. New page each
time.
d) Use multiple colours and multiple underlines
even for rough work.
6) Number of Writing Pads used
a) Stone age, remember!
b) One. If I find it when I need it, which is
usually quite rare.
c) One and I stick to it till the last page runs
out.
d) Many, one for each type of task. An additional
one for personal todo list.
7) Documentation Software Used
a) Notepad or Vim (even drawings are done in ascii
art)
b) Latex (the only true one).
c) Word
d) Only Excel or Powerpoint
8) Average Length of folder & file names I use on my
PC.
a) 2
b) 5
c) 10
d) > 20
9) Habit of colliding with people/lampposts.
a) My office coffee bill (and laundry bill of my
coleagues) is doubled due my uncontrollable dynamics.
(Though I always find equations for blocks sliding
down an inclined plane easy.).
b) Run only into CEOs or Presidents of my company.
Great scientists or aritists also make the grade,
whenever available. Lesser mortals are obviously
excluded.
c) Rarely. And that too when in a hurry. Don't care
about who suffers. A true democrat.
d) Never. What are eyes for.
10) The difficulty level of your work.
a) All work is difficult. Better sleep.
b) It is always easy. But there is nothing else to
do.
c) It is always easy but I can always be found
slogging.
d) It is always difficult but it gets only done due
to my greatness and hardwork.
==== Quiz Ends ====
==== Rating 1 Starts =====
Assign the following points for each of the answers
a) 0 (always start indexing by 0, except in the
accursed matlab).
b) 1
c) 2
d) 10
Add them up to get your MQ factor. You might need the
calculator depending on your hair type (pointy or
not).
And here is the rating.
A) Between 0 and 4 :
Fully Englightened. You are a Living buddha. O
Maitreya, I bow to thee. Suffering is beyond you.
B) Between 5 and 9:
Fool. Wake-up. Light of wisdom has still not fallen on
thy mortal soul.
C) Between 10 and 50:
You are going to go a long way. Your represent the
most important thing in statistics. The first order
moment rather than the second. Most of the time not a
very bad situation to be in these matters.
D) Greater than 50
You are the ineffable Perfection. You are the
singularity of the Big Bang! If you don't become the
PA, you will become the President. God save..... the
rest of us :-)
==== Rating 1 Ends ====
==== Exhortation Starts =====
Do share your score,
If you don't mind
Will share mine and more,
and pay in kind.
==== Exhortation Ends =====
This quiz was specifically designed keeping two people in mind to form the two opposite polarities. One of them is obviously Colonel. Anyway, that is how I get to make my mandatory dedication to Colonel for this post.
==== Disclaimer Starts ====
No offence intended.... No benefits promised.
==== Disclaimers Ends ====
==== Advertisment Starts ====
So what is MQ factor. MQ factor will tell you more
about yourself than a lifetime of pschoanalysis by
Freud himself. MQ factor is the essense of your
being. Much like relativity, it may seem flippant at
first but it is profound, which only sincere effort to
understand will reveal. "M" of course is the sacred
syllable. Don't ask me what it stands for. Think of it
as YHWH Release 2.0. Only to be revered, never to be
spoken. Those who know about it, know about it. And
those who don't, can't be told. But if you insist,
here is the invocation to start with...
The sacred "M",
The source of all,
Padmasambhava's gem
Our destinies call.
For knowing our worth
This quiz we take
To our sorrow and mirth
Do we solemnly awake.
"Q" is of course the much more mundane oxford
dictionary "quotient". Whatever has got left of you
(and me) after getting sufficiently divided. It is
designed to correctly estimate your potential (
knowing whether you ever realize your potential is
tougher to tell, and may need solving NP problems). It
is exact. It tells you about all your past and future.
It is deterministic. And whatever MQ factor you will
get eventually, is unalterable even by gods (if and
when they start proving their existance ). Amen.
==== Advertisment Ends ====
==== Quiz Starts ======
Answer these questions and thou shalt learn thy
destiny:
1) Number of pens found in your shirtpocket (or purse
for ladies)
a) What is a pen used for??
b) 1
c) 2 or 3
d) 4 or above
2) Which colour of pens do you keep (as you will see
colour is the most important property of the universe.
Most other things "pale" in comparison).
a) does not apply (see above)
b) Blue or Black
c) 2 to 3 colours
d) >= 4 colours (I always remember the
four-colour theorem!)
3) What is the type of your handwriting
a) What is "writing". I am still in the stone
age. (Or too far off in foundation's intergalactic
empire.)
b) I love scribbling and scrawling. Don't care
if anyone understands or not. Or even I do.
c) Discipherable, though ugly.
d) Human Typewritter. (Or a computer font, for
variety)
4) Number/Type of underlines used used while writing
a) None
b) One
c) Multiple but same throughout.
d) Multiple and different depending on type of
heading/text.
5) Rough work
a) Don't do any rough work at all. It is too much
effort to move the fingers. Thinking (and snoozing) is
easier.
b) Do some. Mostly on the sand (with sticks) or
on napkins.
c) Do in a properly designated pad. New page each
time.
d) Use multiple colours and multiple underlines
even for rough work.
6) Number of Writing Pads used
a) Stone age, remember!
b) One. If I find it when I need it, which is
usually quite rare.
c) One and I stick to it till the last page runs
out.
d) Many, one for each type of task. An additional
one for personal todo list.
7) Documentation Software Used
a) Notepad or Vim (even drawings are done in ascii
art)
b) Latex (the only true one).
c) Word
d) Only Excel or Powerpoint
8) Average Length of folder & file names I use on my
PC.
a) 2
b) 5
c) 10
d) > 20
9) Habit of colliding with people/lampposts.
a) My office coffee bill (and laundry bill of my
coleagues) is doubled due my uncontrollable dynamics.
(Though I always find equations for blocks sliding
down an inclined plane easy.).
b) Run only into CEOs or Presidents of my company.
Great scientists or aritists also make the grade,
whenever available. Lesser mortals are obviously
excluded.
c) Rarely. And that too when in a hurry. Don't care
about who suffers. A true democrat.
d) Never. What are eyes for.
10) The difficulty level of your work.
a) All work is difficult. Better sleep.
b) It is always easy. But there is nothing else to
do.
c) It is always easy but I can always be found
slogging.
d) It is always difficult but it gets only done due
to my greatness and hardwork.
==== Quiz Ends ====
==== Rating 1 Starts =====
Assign the following points for each of the answers
a) 0 (always start indexing by 0, except in the
accursed matlab).
b) 1
c) 2
d) 10
Add them up to get your MQ factor. You might need the
calculator depending on your hair type (pointy or
not).
And here is the rating.
A) Between 0 and 4 :
Fully Englightened. You are a Living buddha. O
Maitreya, I bow to thee. Suffering is beyond you.
B) Between 5 and 9:
Fool. Wake-up. Light of wisdom has still not fallen on
thy mortal soul.
C) Between 10 and 50:
You are going to go a long way. Your represent the
most important thing in statistics. The first order
moment rather than the second. Most of the time not a
very bad situation to be in these matters.
D) Greater than 50
You are the ineffable Perfection. You are the
singularity of the Big Bang! If you don't become the
PA, you will become the President. God save..... the
rest of us :-)
==== Rating 1 Ends ====
==== Exhortation Starts =====
Do share your score,
If you don't mind
Will share mine and more,
and pay in kind.
==== Exhortation Ends =====
This quiz was specifically designed keeping two people in mind to form the two opposite polarities. One of them is obviously Colonel. Anyway, that is how I get to make my mandatory dedication to Colonel for this post.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Music : Patterns in Time and Frequency - Part One
I don't think anybody can claim to be totally indifferent to music. At least I have not met such a person as yet. Tastes may vary, and so may predilection for certain forms and genres. But it can be confidently said that almost everybody amongst us does like music of some kind or other. Being a engineer, that too having worked in speech processing, I have always found an immense fascination in music and possible patterns in it. Though most music lovers may just feel it a mere digression to classify and identify patterns in music, my take would be that isn't music after all only a set of patterns in time and frequency. I can already hear the cry of pain from the reader, so trying not to inflict anymore pain, let us continue in our quest of patterns. It can be safely said that each piece of musical composition is unique in itself. In fact the rendition of same piece of music performed at different times even by the same artist tend to have uniqueness, which even the artist, the original creator, can not replicate. This is especially true for music involving some kind of improvisation, like solos in Rock or Jazz music. Buteven for musical genres with static compositions, like western classical, each performance is unique.
So that leaves us with a bewildering variety of musical styles and compositions, each unique, and almost intellectually unanalyzable. Hence the need for classification. But is there an existing structure to all music which can help us classify, categorise and identify different types of music and hence makes the patterns intellectually visible? Yes indeed, a zillion types of classifications are possible, but the classification used has to satisfy the criteria of helping us in identification the essence (for want of better word) of a musical piece, matching our innate verbal descriptions, if possible. There are many types of classifications, modality, rhythm, genre, origin, etc. Here I plan to write down about modes, scales and the related though distinct concept of Raga in. I plan to discuss Indian musical traditions and their relation with Western Classical and related traditions, party because I have some familiarity with those forms, and partly because those are probably some of the most well defined forms which uses these set of classifications extensively. Later I plan to also add articles about specific Ragas and related Scales.
Notes : Natural and Sharps/Flats
Firstly let us review the well-known basics. Let us start from notes. As is well known, there are a total of seven natural notes in the scale. These correspond thswara(or sur) in the Indian system. The usual denotation of these notes in western musical system is C D E F G A B. Now that is a pretty colourless nomenclature, so the southern Europeans also tend to use the solfege system of denotation. Now the notes become Do Re Me Fa So La Ti. The solfege is pretty uncommon for Indian teachers of western music. We tend to follow mostly the alphabetical notation, probably again borrowing from the British as in other things. The corresponding swaras in Indian system are 'Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Da Ni Sa'. Each of these is a short form for a Sanskrit word i.e. 'Shadaja Rishab etc'. As is evident, the Ancient Indians were quite imaginative when it came to naming. Most people translating Indian texts (especially the Chinese and Japanese Buddhists), find Indians writers too abstract and symbolic to their liking. But that is how things are. How to explain it is beyond my ken. Anyway coming back to our story, the above 7 list isn't the complete list of notes. In fact there are notes lying in-between the natural notes. These are denoted by adding a Sharp or Flat before the corresponding natural note names, depending on whether it comes before or after the natural note. For example the note lying between "C" and "D" can be called a "C Sharp" or a "D Flat" note. That is, "C Sharp" and "D Flat" denote the same note, the one lying between C and D. So we should have a total of 14 notes, including Sharps (or Flats). But that is not the case. There are no notes between B and C and also between E and F. So we have only 12 possible notes. It should be notices that I have used the term "natural notes" and "notes" for 7 cardinality set and 12 cardinality set respectively. The natural notes correspond to the "White Keys" on a Piano or Synthesizer or Harmonium. The "Black Keys" are the Sharp (or flat) notes. So there are always a total of 5 "black keys" for each set of 7 "white keys". In Standard notation C Sharp may be denoted as C# and C flat as Cb. The corresponding terms for sharp and flat in Hindustani Classical system are Tivra and Komal (literally sharp and soft).
An aside on the physical properties of notes.
The notes of the octave are plotted on a logarithmic frequency scale. we will get a plot of notes which are at equal distances to each other. Hence this kind of scale is called a equitempered scale. To summarize the notes are equidistant on a logarithmic scale. Notice that we are talking about the 12 numbered set of notes and not only the natural notes. Only by including the sharps and flats can we get a equal-tempered scale.
Octaves
Now the set of 12 notes form an octave. If we go further up or down the frequency scale we will find the same set of notes in the higher or lower octaves. Depending on the instrument, we have 3 to 4 possible octaves. Each of these octaves has a unique set of 7 notes plus the sharp and flat notes. for example if a piano has 4 complete octaves, then we have total of 4x12=48 keys. The 6 string guitars have around 4 octaves. The human voice is considered have 2 to 3 octaves. Females usually have high pitched voices compared to Males so they tend to use higher octaves.
Another aside on the physical properties of octaves
The Frequency of one octave to next is related by a factor of 2. Hence if the first octave is considered to be at 440 Hz, the second octave will be at 880 Hz, the third octave will be at 1760 Hz and so on. Notice the logarithmic progression. the Third octave is not 3 times the first octave. It is 4 times. So the next octave will be 8 times the first one.
In fact if the standard A is considered to be 440Hz (as done in current western music), any other note frequency can be calculated by finding the distance of the note from standard A. Here the A is <<>>
Scales
Scales can be considered a method of enforcing discipline on which notes to play for a particular composition. Simplistically, scale is the subset of the 12 possible notes. This subset can have any number of notes, though those having 7 or 5 are the most common. Though some compositions may change scales midway, or use multiplicity of scales, again for simplicity we may consider that a scale remains unchanged in a composition. By sticking to a scale a musical composer can give a free rein to his/her imagination and still stick to a theme or pattern he/she chose, or a performer can improvise during performance and still reduce possibility of moving into to jarring musical territory. A particular scale ( and mode) tend to signify a particular human feeling in all music traditions. Though it may sound amazing, the effect of a scale considered and defined in one culture tends to be the same across all cultures. So a scale may be linked to cheerfulness, another to seriousness, and yet another to gloom. Again Ancient Indians, bent upon their classifying and enumerating ways, defined 9 rasas each corresponding to one human emotion. All ragas (Indian classical scales), correspond to a particular rasa. Even in Western tradition, different scales are generally ascribed to different human feelings. So Major scale is usually considered for celebratory and cheerful songs, while Minor scale is used for songs in more sombre mood. Let us take an example of "C Major" scale. For this scale we will use 7 out of the 12 available notes. These notes can be played in any order on on any octave (remembering that the same notes will also be available on many octaves). For "C Major" scale these 7 notes happen to be the natural notes as discussed above namely C D E F G A B C. Notice that we start from the note C for describing the scale. This note "C" is the root note for the "C Major scale. Now predictably "C Major" is almost the first scale taught in music. The raga corresponding to the same scale in Hindustani Classical is Bilawal. This raga is also very commonly taught as the first raga, along with Yamen (another popular raga). Taking another example the "C minor" scale corresponds to the notes "C D D# F G G# A# B". Here the # sign has been used to denote the sharp notes as is the common in notation. The main thing to notice is that even though here too we have 7 notes only, the set of notes is different. The root note is still the same "C" note, and the importance of root note will become clear as we move further into modal territory.
Modes
As evident from the examples above, a scale is fully described by a two parametrises. The first is the root note as discussed. The second, still unexplored, is the mode. First two new terms: tone and semitone. A tone is defined as a distance of two in a equitempered 12-note system. A semitone is defined as distance of one in this equitempered metric. So next semitone after 'C' is 'C#', but the next tone after 'C' is 'D'. Again, next semitone after 'B' is 'C', but next tone of 'B' is 'C#' (because B doesn't have a sharp note). Now considering the same example of "C Major" scale again, we see that the set of notes "C D E F G A B" which constitute the scale are a distance of "T T S T T T S", if we denote tone by T and semitone by S. This set of distances is in fact the essence of the Major Mode. So if we select a different root node, instead of 'C' selected above, and keep the same tone/semitone distances, we will have another scale of Major Mode. Now considering the same example of "C Major" scale again, we see that the set of notes "C D E F G A B" which constitute the scale are a distance of "T T S T T T S", if we denote tone by T and semitone by S. This set of distances is in fact the essence of the Major Mode. So if we select a different root note, instead of 'C' selected above, and keep the same tone/semitone distances, we will have another scale of Major Mode. So if we select 'D' as the root note and try to find the other notes in "D Major", we just write down the 12 notes and selected distances for Major Mode, starting from 'D'. So the set of notes is
A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G#
and writing the distance from D
7 9 11 0 2 4 5
We can remember that "T T S T T T S" turns out to be "0 2 4 5 7 9 11" if T is replaced by "2" and S by "1" and series is cumulatively added. Hence using this distance property scale for any root note can be created only by knowing the modal properties.
There are many modes in Western Music, the most popular ones being Major (or Ionian), Minor Aeolian) modes.
Thaats & Ragas
Thaat, more or less, is the Hindustani classical music version of Mode in western music. It identifies the number of notes and distance properties and selecting any root note, we get different scales. But again, there is no concept of Scale in Hindustani Classical music. What we have instead is Raga (or Raag). Though related, Raga is much more specialized entity compared to a scale. The discipline for composition is much more stringent, hence compositions in same raga are much more similar compared to compositions in same scale. The raga not only defines the notes to be used but also the order and frequency of the notes. The defining characterstics of the Ragas are:
Aaroha : The set of notes to be used while going up the scale.
Avroha : The set of notes while going down the scale.
Vadi : The most important (or frequent) note.
Samvadi: Second most frequent note.
Pakad: Usually a musical phrase common to the raga.
There may be additional attributes defined for ragas like time of day to be sung etc, but those are anyway besides the point of what we are discussing here i.e. patterns. Besides all the above, one more unique characteristic of the system is that even the notes nominally assigned for the raga characteristics do not follow the exact equitempered scale properties as defined above. In fact Hindustani classical form doesn't even recognise equaltemperedness of notes. The notes can be shifted up and down all along the vacant area between the equal-tempered points. We have entered micro-tonal territory now. These micro-tonal notes can not be played on most western instruments like piano or any other keyboard instruments. Most strings instruments and especially non-fretted instruments allow micro-tonal playing. All Indian instruments allow micro-tonal playing.
Composition and Structure
Besides the tonal disciplines, musical forms can be classified based on the polyphonic structure. Polyphony is when multiple melodies can be played together at the same time. In contrast monophonic music incorporates only one melody at a time. Polyphonic music can not be performed by a lone musician, and is usually part of elaborate orchestras. Some forms of music incorporate some polyphonic characteristics while being inherently monophonic. Most rock and western popular music is mostly monophonic but incorporates polyphonic characteristics by invoking independent chord accompaniment to the main melody being played. Similarly Hindustani Classical forms are mostly monophonic but have drone accompaniment in form of strings instrument like tanpura playing independently.Even in the polyphonic structure case, the scale and mode characteristicsare usually stuck to.
.....INCOMPLETE..........
So that leaves us with a bewildering variety of musical styles and compositions, each unique, and almost intellectually unanalyzable. Hence the need for classification. But is there an existing structure to all music which can help us classify, categorise and identify different types of music and hence makes the patterns intellectually visible? Yes indeed, a zillion types of classifications are possible, but the classification used has to satisfy the criteria of helping us in identification the essence (for want of better word) of a musical piece, matching our innate verbal descriptions, if possible. There are many types of classifications, modality, rhythm, genre, origin, etc. Here I plan to write down about modes, scales and the related though distinct concept of Raga in. I plan to discuss Indian musical traditions and their relation with Western Classical and related traditions, party because I have some familiarity with those forms, and partly because those are probably some of the most well defined forms which uses these set of classifications extensively. Later I plan to also add articles about specific Ragas and related Scales.
Notes : Natural and Sharps/Flats
Firstly let us review the well-known basics. Let us start from notes. As is well known, there are a total of seven natural notes in the scale. These correspond thswara(or sur) in the Indian system. The usual denotation of these notes in western musical system is C D E F G A B. Now that is a pretty colourless nomenclature, so the southern Europeans also tend to use the solfege system of denotation. Now the notes become Do Re Me Fa So La Ti. The solfege is pretty uncommon for Indian teachers of western music. We tend to follow mostly the alphabetical notation, probably again borrowing from the British as in other things. The corresponding swaras in Indian system are 'Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Da Ni Sa'. Each of these is a short form for a Sanskrit word i.e. 'Shadaja Rishab etc'. As is evident, the Ancient Indians were quite imaginative when it came to naming. Most people translating Indian texts (especially the Chinese and Japanese Buddhists), find Indians writers too abstract and symbolic to their liking. But that is how things are. How to explain it is beyond my ken. Anyway coming back to our story, the above 7 list isn't the complete list of notes. In fact there are notes lying in-between the natural notes. These are denoted by adding a Sharp or Flat before the corresponding natural note names, depending on whether it comes before or after the natural note. For example the note lying between "C" and "D" can be called a "C Sharp" or a "D Flat" note. That is, "C Sharp" and "D Flat" denote the same note, the one lying between C and D. So we should have a total of 14 notes, including Sharps (or Flats). But that is not the case. There are no notes between B and C and also between E and F. So we have only 12 possible notes. It should be notices that I have used the term "natural notes" and "notes" for 7 cardinality set and 12 cardinality set respectively. The natural notes correspond to the "White Keys" on a Piano or Synthesizer or Harmonium. The "Black Keys" are the Sharp (or flat) notes. So there are always a total of 5 "black keys" for each set of 7 "white keys". In Standard notation C Sharp may be denoted as C# and C flat as Cb. The corresponding terms for sharp and flat in Hindustani Classical system are Tivra and Komal (literally sharp and soft).
An aside on the physical properties of notes.
The notes of the octave are plotted on a logarithmic frequency scale. we will get a plot of notes which are at equal distances to each other. Hence this kind of scale is called a equitempered scale. To summarize the notes are equidistant on a logarithmic scale. Notice that we are talking about the 12 numbered set of notes and not only the natural notes. Only by including the sharps and flats can we get a equal-tempered scale.
Octaves
Now the set of 12 notes form an octave. If we go further up or down the frequency scale we will find the same set of notes in the higher or lower octaves. Depending on the instrument, we have 3 to 4 possible octaves. Each of these octaves has a unique set of 7 notes plus the sharp and flat notes. for example if a piano has 4 complete octaves, then we have total of 4x12=48 keys. The 6 string guitars have around 4 octaves. The human voice is considered have 2 to 3 octaves. Females usually have high pitched voices compared to Males so they tend to use higher octaves.
Another aside on the physical properties of octaves
The Frequency of one octave to next is related by a factor of 2. Hence if the first octave is considered to be at 440 Hz, the second octave will be at 880 Hz, the third octave will be at 1760 Hz and so on. Notice the logarithmic progression. the Third octave is not 3 times the first octave. It is 4 times. So the next octave will be 8 times the first one.
In fact if the standard A is considered to be 440Hz (as done in current western music), any other note frequency can be calculated by finding the distance of the note from standard A. Here the A is <<>>
Scales
Scales can be considered a method of enforcing discipline on which notes to play for a particular composition. Simplistically, scale is the subset of the 12 possible notes. This subset can have any number of notes, though those having 7 or 5 are the most common. Though some compositions may change scales midway, or use multiplicity of scales, again for simplicity we may consider that a scale remains unchanged in a composition. By sticking to a scale a musical composer can give a free rein to his/her imagination and still stick to a theme or pattern he/she chose, or a performer can improvise during performance and still reduce possibility of moving into to jarring musical territory. A particular scale ( and mode) tend to signify a particular human feeling in all music traditions. Though it may sound amazing, the effect of a scale considered and defined in one culture tends to be the same across all cultures. So a scale may be linked to cheerfulness, another to seriousness, and yet another to gloom. Again Ancient Indians, bent upon their classifying and enumerating ways, defined 9 rasas each corresponding to one human emotion. All ragas (Indian classical scales), correspond to a particular rasa. Even in Western tradition, different scales are generally ascribed to different human feelings. So Major scale is usually considered for celebratory and cheerful songs, while Minor scale is used for songs in more sombre mood. Let us take an example of "C Major" scale. For this scale we will use 7 out of the 12 available notes. These notes can be played in any order on on any octave (remembering that the same notes will also be available on many octaves). For "C Major" scale these 7 notes happen to be the natural notes as discussed above namely C D E F G A B C. Notice that we start from the note C for describing the scale. This note "C" is the root note for the "C Major scale. Now predictably "C Major" is almost the first scale taught in music. The raga corresponding to the same scale in Hindustani Classical is Bilawal. This raga is also very commonly taught as the first raga, along with Yamen (another popular raga). Taking another example the "C minor" scale corresponds to the notes "C D D# F G G# A# B". Here the # sign has been used to denote the sharp notes as is the common in notation. The main thing to notice is that even though here too we have 7 notes only, the set of notes is different. The root note is still the same "C" note, and the importance of root note will become clear as we move further into modal territory.
Modes
As evident from the examples above, a scale is fully described by a two parametrises. The first is the root note as discussed. The second, still unexplored, is the mode. First two new terms: tone and semitone. A tone is defined as a distance of two in a equitempered 12-note system. A semitone is defined as distance of one in this equitempered metric. So next semitone after 'C' is 'C#', but the next tone after 'C' is 'D'. Again, next semitone after 'B' is 'C', but next tone of 'B' is 'C#' (because B doesn't have a sharp note). Now considering the same example of "C Major" scale again, we see that the set of notes "C D E F G A B" which constitute the scale are a distance of "T T S T T T S", if we denote tone by T and semitone by S. This set of distances is in fact the essence of the Major Mode. So if we select a different root node, instead of 'C' selected above, and keep the same tone/semitone distances, we will have another scale of Major Mode. Now considering the same example of "C Major" scale again, we see that the set of notes "C D E F G A B" which constitute the scale are a distance of "T T S T T T S", if we denote tone by T and semitone by S. This set of distances is in fact the essence of the Major Mode. So if we select a different root note, instead of 'C' selected above, and keep the same tone/semitone distances, we will have another scale of Major Mode. So if we select 'D' as the root note and try to find the other notes in "D Major", we just write down the 12 notes and selected distances for Major Mode, starting from 'D'. So the set of notes is
A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G#
and writing the distance from D
7 9 11 0 2 4 5
We can remember that "T T S T T T S" turns out to be "0 2 4 5 7 9 11" if T is replaced by "2" and S by "1" and series is cumulatively added. Hence using this distance property scale for any root note can be created only by knowing the modal properties.
There are many modes in Western Music, the most popular ones being Major (or Ionian), Minor Aeolian) modes.
Thaats & Ragas
Thaat, more or less, is the Hindustani classical music version of Mode in western music. It identifies the number of notes and distance properties and selecting any root note, we get different scales. But again, there is no concept of Scale in Hindustani Classical music. What we have instead is Raga (or Raag). Though related, Raga is much more specialized entity compared to a scale. The discipline for composition is much more stringent, hence compositions in same raga are much more similar compared to compositions in same scale. The raga not only defines the notes to be used but also the order and frequency of the notes. The defining characterstics of the Ragas are:
Aaroha : The set of notes to be used while going up the scale.
Avroha : The set of notes while going down the scale.
Vadi : The most important (or frequent) note.
Samvadi: Second most frequent note.
Pakad: Usually a musical phrase common to the raga.
There may be additional attributes defined for ragas like time of day to be sung etc, but those are anyway besides the point of what we are discussing here i.e. patterns. Besides all the above, one more unique characteristic of the system is that even the notes nominally assigned for the raga characteristics do not follow the exact equitempered scale properties as defined above. In fact Hindustani classical form doesn't even recognise equaltemperedness of notes. The notes can be shifted up and down all along the vacant area between the equal-tempered points. We have entered micro-tonal territory now. These micro-tonal notes can not be played on most western instruments like piano or any other keyboard instruments. Most strings instruments and especially non-fretted instruments allow micro-tonal playing. All Indian instruments allow micro-tonal playing.
Composition and Structure
Besides the tonal disciplines, musical forms can be classified based on the polyphonic structure. Polyphony is when multiple melodies can be played together at the same time. In contrast monophonic music incorporates only one melody at a time. Polyphonic music can not be performed by a lone musician, and is usually part of elaborate orchestras. Some forms of music incorporate some polyphonic characteristics while being inherently monophonic. Most rock and western popular music is mostly monophonic but incorporates polyphonic characteristics by invoking independent chord accompaniment to the main melody being played. Similarly Hindustani Classical forms are mostly monophonic but have drone accompaniment in form of strings instrument like tanpura playing independently.Even in the polyphonic structure case, the scale and mode characteristicsare usually stuck to.
.....INCOMPLETE..........
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Belief
Need for belief and certainity is a big impediment to finding truth. It is the opposite of search for knowledge.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Totally harmless
The best we can do for this world is become totally harmless. And there are two reliable ways for achieving this. First is Sleep. Practice of Abstract mathematics comes a close second.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Lost Tribes of "Somewhere Else"
I remember hearing the word gypsy in early childhood and associating it with vagrant tribe of nomads. Gypsies inhabited almost whole of Europe and earned their livelihood by dancing and hawking and selling medicinal herbs. They would usually be poor and live in town suburbs, spending their entire lives in thier cart caravans. They were also commonly thought to be be unscrupulous and associated with the with thievery and general delinquency, and also with magical healing and fortune-telling. Though less often mentioned than the Jews, the gypsies had to suffer equally great persecution during Hitler’s third Reich. Many thousands died in gas chambers in concentration camps spread across europe during the war years. They were also many references of the tribe in the literature of 18th and 19th century. One almost heroic remembrance of gypsies was the character of Esmeralda in Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. It is the story of beautiful and innocent gypsy girl who dances in the streets of Paris and with whom ultimately all major characters falls in love. The consequences, however, prove to be disastrous for everyone, including Esmeralda herself.
Gypsy is a word derived from Egyptian. These people were nomads who first started entering Europe during the Middle Ages (circa 1500) and were thought of by the Europeans to be have come from Egypt. The word Egyptians degenerated into Gypsies with the passage of time as the tribes spread far and wide into every corner of Europe. However they failed to get fully assimilated into the local populace due to their different cultural and religious habits, not to mention their physical distinctness. They were generally thought to have come from Egypt, and in time they too came to believe it.
Whatever the exact details, today most Gypsies are spread all over the world and they identify themselves as Romani's or Roma's. The history of gypsies is surely one of the most facinating accounts of intercontinental migration by entire tribe known to have occured in modern times. It is perhaps only comparable with the similar migration of Turkish people during middle ages starting from Central Asia, all across Asia, to form the modern day Turkey. That will perhaps be another good story...
Gypsy is a word derived from Egyptian. These people were nomads who first started entering Europe during the Middle Ages (circa 1500) and were thought of by the Europeans to be have come from Egypt. The word Egyptians degenerated into Gypsies with the passage of time as the tribes spread far and wide into every corner of Europe. However they failed to get fully assimilated into the local populace due to their different cultural and religious habits, not to mention their physical distinctness. They were generally thought to have come from Egypt, and in time they too came to believe it.
In the twentieth century, when their language was first analyzed, it came to light that it structurally akin to languages of Northern India like Hindi and Punjabi. A more rigourous analysis proved beyond doubt that the language was very closely related to languages of north India and was derived from those. Further the language also contained words from many other languages like Turkish, Persian, Armenian, Greek and even Polish and German. These languages indicate the general route taken by the Gypsy people during their long journey from India to Europe. When did these people start leaving India and why? Well the answers to these questions is not very clear. But it is generally accepted that these people started leaving India during 1000-1200 AD. It is said that either all of these people started leaving India in one great horde or they left India in many smaller batches. But the general route taken seems to be the same. They seem to have traveled from north india through upper-indus valley into Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iran, Armenia, Turkey and thence into europe. What about the cause of such a huge exodus. The answer to why is still more difficult. Two theories that been propounded. One is that they were a nomadic people (some of which are still found in western india) of itenerant musicians and metalworkers which for some unknown reason started a slow but sustained migration to the west. On the way the adopted the languages and customs of the people they interacted with, even adopting the dominant religions of places they emigrated to. The other commonly proposed theory is that they were warrior tribes, who were involved in resistance during Ghaznavid invasion of India. It is well know that 12th century was a time of great turmoil in the Indian subcontinent. This was primary due to mutiple invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni (in Afghanistan) and the slow but fatal capitulation of Hindu Shahi Dynasty during this period. People would often flee their villages en-masse before the invading army. And thousands of warriors and civilians are known to have been enslaved and taken to Afghanistan during this time.
Whatever the exact details, today most Gypsies are spread all over the world and they identify themselves as Romani's or Roma's. The history of gypsies is surely one of the most facinating accounts of intercontinental migration by entire tribe known to have occured in modern times. It is perhaps only comparable with the similar migration of Turkish people during middle ages starting from Central Asia, all across Asia, to form the modern day Turkey. That will perhaps be another good story...
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Some thoughts on Types of Art
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
-Saul Bellow
I am sure that many a people have already spend countless hours in discussing and writing about a commonly agreed upon definition of aesthetics and its classification. I certainly can't have any pretentions of coming up with anything novel or more exact or more comprehensive than what is already known. Reams and reams of philosphical literature is dedicated to concept of beauty and its relation to art. Many great philosphers starting right from Emmanuel Kant uptill Benedetto Croce in the previous century have come up with novel ways of defining the concept of what constitutes art and what is its relation to beauty. Much of it expressed by means of almost huge mounts of logical analysis and is usually very complex.( Though complexity is no gaurentee of correctness, as in many cases the complexity of the logical thesis is sometimes an indicater to an error in the basic premises). My own objectives are more modest as I want to avoid all this complexity and still come up with a simple enough definition of art and its types, which is satisfactory to my intution and compatible with my daily life and which may help me in better appreciating my own like and deslikes regarding it. It would also help me in explaining those like and deslikes to my friends and kin and provide a context for comparisons. To avoid all the mountains of logic and definitions which are usually resorted to in defining aesthetics, I will let go all objectivity in relation to quality of art. I would also consider the concept of beauty to be purely subjective and deny any universality in its appeal. This would ofcourse make the job quite easy, which is exactly my original goal. In the term "art", I would include the classes of cinema, literature and painting. Though, while making my definition, I am limiting myself to those few categories only, I am sure that those definitions would also make sense for most other fields which are commonly held to come under the purview of the the term "art".
Now let us move to the definition.
Art is an artificially constructed stimulus whose only goal is to affect our state of mind.
Not much information here, and unfortunately I couldn't come up with any better definition. But then, the definition of Art itself is not my primary goal. The commonly held beliefs and associations with real life instances would suffice to define the term for me. What I am more interested in defining is a generic classification which would apply to all categories of art equally and would additionaly provide some psychological insight into its effect. The primarily classes which come to my mind are those listed below.
1) Reflective Art
2) Escapist Art
3) Intellect based Art
I define Reflective Art as the art which act as a reflection of the society or an individual. In the psychological context the primarily object of study is the mind. This may be collective mind, as in behavior of the society or it may be solitary mind as in the mental habits or feeling or prejudices of an individual. Sometimes instead of the mind the thing reflected may be purely physical as in a landscape painting or literary description. But even this purely physical reflection is linked to the quality of perception of the artist and is ultimately indicative of the artists mind. It still tells us something about ourselves. Like a mirror it makes us aware of something which we may already know partially or unconcisously. Many times the artist may choose the reflection to be purely non-judgemental, e.g. a comedy or tragedy or an impressionist painting. Other times it may be more judgemental and take a form such as satire.
Escapist Art is the second primary class. It purpose is not to make us aware of that which we are or what we already know to some extent. Instead here the primary purpose is to create new mind content or reinforce the existing content. Here the author may create new notions in the mind of the reader and helps him escape his own reality. Sometimes the existing stereotypes of the reader may be use and enhanced for the use of the artist. Notice the difference with the reflective art. Reflective art may also use the existing prejudices of the reader, but only to make him aware of them. On the other hand escapist art would usually enhance the readers stereotypes taking them as a fact rather then pointing to those. Genres like Science Fiction or Fantasy may be taken to be forms of Escapist Art. In fact almost all of the Hollywood and Bombay Cinema is also form of escapist art.
Both the above types have their uses depending on the need or state of mind of the person viewing at a given time. Escapist art lets us escape our everyday existence, by making make use of our imagination and escaping into newly created worlds. Reflective art help in understanding our true being and being more aware of it.
Intellectual art can be considered the third kind of art. It is very rare I am not sure if this can be rightly considered a form of art. Here the artist or producer relies entirely on stimulating our intellects rather than our feelings. Since art is most of the times directed towards feelings or sensation, without the intervention of logic, this form may be very different from other two categories. Here everyday existence is neither studied nor are new worlds created. Most of the times some intellectual problems are put forth which helps to get the involvement of the logical faculty of the reader . Another much simpler way of delineating intellectual art from the other two forms is that it is the only form liked by Colonels.
-Saul Bellow
I am sure that many a people have already spend countless hours in discussing and writing about a commonly agreed upon definition of aesthetics and its classification. I certainly can't have any pretentions of coming up with anything novel or more exact or more comprehensive than what is already known. Reams and reams of philosphical literature is dedicated to concept of beauty and its relation to art. Many great philosphers starting right from Emmanuel Kant uptill Benedetto Croce in the previous century have come up with novel ways of defining the concept of what constitutes art and what is its relation to beauty. Much of it expressed by means of almost huge mounts of logical analysis and is usually very complex.( Though complexity is no gaurentee of correctness, as in many cases the complexity of the logical thesis is sometimes an indicater to an error in the basic premises). My own objectives are more modest as I want to avoid all this complexity and still come up with a simple enough definition of art and its types, which is satisfactory to my intution and compatible with my daily life and which may help me in better appreciating my own like and deslikes regarding it. It would also help me in explaining those like and deslikes to my friends and kin and provide a context for comparisons. To avoid all the mountains of logic and definitions which are usually resorted to in defining aesthetics, I will let go all objectivity in relation to quality of art. I would also consider the concept of beauty to be purely subjective and deny any universality in its appeal. This would ofcourse make the job quite easy, which is exactly my original goal. In the term "art", I would include the classes of cinema, literature and painting. Though, while making my definition, I am limiting myself to those few categories only, I am sure that those definitions would also make sense for most other fields which are commonly held to come under the purview of the the term "art".
Now let us move to the definition.
Art is an artificially constructed stimulus whose only goal is to affect our state of mind.
Not much information here, and unfortunately I couldn't come up with any better definition. But then, the definition of Art itself is not my primary goal. The commonly held beliefs and associations with real life instances would suffice to define the term for me. What I am more interested in defining is a generic classification which would apply to all categories of art equally and would additionaly provide some psychological insight into its effect. The primarily classes which come to my mind are those listed below.
1) Reflective Art
2) Escapist Art
3) Intellect based Art
I define Reflective Art as the art which act as a reflection of the society or an individual. In the psychological context the primarily object of study is the mind. This may be collective mind, as in behavior of the society or it may be solitary mind as in the mental habits or feeling or prejudices of an individual. Sometimes instead of the mind the thing reflected may be purely physical as in a landscape painting or literary description. But even this purely physical reflection is linked to the quality of perception of the artist and is ultimately indicative of the artists mind. It still tells us something about ourselves. Like a mirror it makes us aware of something which we may already know partially or unconcisously. Many times the artist may choose the reflection to be purely non-judgemental, e.g. a comedy or tragedy or an impressionist painting. Other times it may be more judgemental and take a form such as satire.
Escapist Art is the second primary class. It purpose is not to make us aware of that which we are or what we already know to some extent. Instead here the primary purpose is to create new mind content or reinforce the existing content. Here the author may create new notions in the mind of the reader and helps him escape his own reality. Sometimes the existing stereotypes of the reader may be use and enhanced for the use of the artist. Notice the difference with the reflective art. Reflective art may also use the existing prejudices of the reader, but only to make him aware of them. On the other hand escapist art would usually enhance the readers stereotypes taking them as a fact rather then pointing to those. Genres like Science Fiction or Fantasy may be taken to be forms of Escapist Art. In fact almost all of the Hollywood and Bombay Cinema is also form of escapist art.
Both the above types have their uses depending on the need or state of mind of the person viewing at a given time. Escapist art lets us escape our everyday existence, by making make use of our imagination and escaping into newly created worlds. Reflective art help in understanding our true being and being more aware of it.
Intellectual art can be considered the third kind of art. It is very rare I am not sure if this can be rightly considered a form of art. Here the artist or producer relies entirely on stimulating our intellects rather than our feelings. Since art is most of the times directed towards feelings or sensation, without the intervention of logic, this form may be very different from other two categories. Here everyday existence is neither studied nor are new worlds created. Most of the times some intellectual problems are put forth which helps to get the involvement of the logical faculty of the reader . Another much simpler way of delineating intellectual art from the other two forms is that it is the only form liked by Colonels.
Visit to my childhood Home (Manali and Dharamshala)
Visited my childhood home at Manali last week. Manali lies in Kullu Valley, sandwitched amidst the tall snow-covered Himalayas. I hold the himalayan region to be my favourite among all places I have visted. You will see why in the photographs.
View from front of my former home
View from the backyard
Flanked by my parents at Solang Nala. This place is a popular skiing resort for most part of the winter. These days hand-gliding enthusiasts take over during summer.
My Sister with another one of those things she finds to be cuuute...
Colonel would ofcourse not approve of my choice of the mountains and valleys shown above, since they would hardly agree with his idea of beautiful geometric shapes and topologies.
View from front of my former home
View from the backyard
Flanked by my parents at Solang Nala. This place is a popular skiing resort for most part of the winter. These days hand-gliding enthusiasts take over during summer.
My Sister with another one of those things she finds to be cuuute...
Colonel would ofcourse not approve of my choice of the mountains and valleys shown above, since they would hardly agree with his idea of beautiful geometric shapes and topologies.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
J Krishnamurti and Humor
J Krishnamurti was one of the greatest philosphers and spiritual teachers of the past century. I can't call him a great thinker, because that may go against the basic grain of his teaching. And though the word philospher is also not accurate as well, it is vague enough to prevent any misunderstanding. Throughout his life he held talks and discussions around the world in which he would put forth his ideas and reflections. Many times people would seek him out and hold one to one discussions with him. Among his greatest admires and friends are included people like Aldous Huxley and David Bohm. You can always find him to be highly logical, atleast for things that can be discussed with logic. As Ludwig Wittgenstien wrote in his Tractatus-Logico Philosphicus "What we can't speak about we must pass over in silence". And he did pass over the many a things in silence. But for the rest he was known to be brutally honest and would not spare anyone with half lies. Not many people were able to appreciate his honestly, let alone understand him. Though always extremely polite, he was sometimes not able to fully appreciate the concerns and sensibilities of ordinary people. Or maybe he chose not to. Hence many a times these talks, when viewed from our everyday life point of view, talk an almost humourous joke-like quality. Here, I plan to make a collection of some of those instances :-
1) I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told me. One day he listened to a conversation between Krishnamurti and a man who did not want to be enlisted as a soldier and sent to Vietnam. He did not want to kill people. After explaining all this Krishnamurti interrupted him and said, "Yes sir, I understand all this. But what is your problem?" Again the man, being an American, explained that he probably would be sent back to the States as a conscientious objector and he might be put in jail. "Yes sir," said Krishnamurti, "but what is your problem?" "Well," said the man, "the judges may not accept my arguments and then I will have to desert because this is a filthy war!" Once again, Krishnamurti said, "Yes sir, I know, but what is your problem?" Whereupon the man said, "Listen, they might shoot me, as a deserter!" "Yes," Krishnamurti said, "they probably will, but what is your problem?"
2) Friedrich Grohe was a middle-aged German industrialist who got interested in Krishnamurti after reading one of his books. After retiring from his business, he approached Krishnamurti asking him to allow seting up a Krishnamurti school in Switzerland. Krishnamurti dissuaded him from such a step since it was very difficult to get teachers. When krishnamurti asked him whether he was married, he replied no, he was divorced. On which Krishnamurti grabbed his hand and said "very good".
3) ...
1) I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told me. One day he listened to a conversation between Krishnamurti and a man who did not want to be enlisted as a soldier and sent to Vietnam. He did not want to kill people. After explaining all this Krishnamurti interrupted him and said, "Yes sir, I understand all this. But what is your problem?" Again the man, being an American, explained that he probably would be sent back to the States as a conscientious objector and he might be put in jail. "Yes sir," said Krishnamurti, "but what is your problem?" "Well," said the man, "the judges may not accept my arguments and then I will have to desert because this is a filthy war!" Once again, Krishnamurti said, "Yes sir, I know, but what is your problem?" Whereupon the man said, "Listen, they might shoot me, as a deserter!" "Yes," Krishnamurti said, "they probably will, but what is your problem?"
2) Friedrich Grohe was a middle-aged German industrialist who got interested in Krishnamurti after reading one of his books. After retiring from his business, he approached Krishnamurti asking him to allow seting up a Krishnamurti school in Switzerland. Krishnamurti dissuaded him from such a step since it was very difficult to get teachers. When krishnamurti asked him whether he was married, he replied no, he was divorced. On which Krishnamurti grabbed his hand and said "very good".
3) ...
Kung-Fu, Tea and Zen
Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk, credited with bringing Zen-Buddhism to China. Zen Buddhism is a school of Mahayana Buddhism popular in China and Japan. Derived from the word “dhyan” which means meditation in Sanskrit, it was later transliterated to “Chan” in china and “Zen” in Japan. Bodhidharma is considered the first Zen patriarch in China and 28th Patriarch of Indian Buddhism. He was born around 440 AD at Kanchi, in south India, in the royal family of Pallava dynasty. As the prince and heir to the throne, he was expected to follow his father’s footsteps and become the king. However, in his youth he encountered Buddha’s teachings and decided to renounce the kingdom and devote his life to their study. His father objected, but he offered to change his mind only if his father could save him from death. Having no way out, his father obliged. He studied Buddhism under his teacher prajnatara, who was 27th patriarch and a woman. In due time Prajnatara asked him to go to China and spread the teachings there, since Buddhism had started to die out there, and the Chinese emperor had asked the Indian Sangha to send an enlightened master.After a long and particularly arduous journey across both land and sea, he reached south China by ship in 475. Upon his arrival in Guangzhou and thence to the capital Nanjing, Emperor Wu-Ti, who had done much for revival and spread of Buddhism in china, asked for an audience with him. The meeting is most remarkable for the dialogue that ensued between them. Emperor Wu started by asking him “what merit have I incurred by his building many Buddhist temples and monasteries, translating scripture and supporting countless monks and nuns”. Bodhidharma replied “none whatsoever”. The Emperor was taken aback but persisted with his next question. He asked “What is the essence of Buddhism”. The reply was, “Vast emptiness and no essence”. This made the emperor angry and now losing all patience he asked, “Just who do you think you are”. “I don’t know”, Bodhidharma replied.Having been unable to impress the Emperor much, bodhidharma left the palace and crossing the Yangtzu River moved north to reach the Shaolin monastery (yes the same one of Bruce Lee films) in Ho Lan province. The monks initially refused him admission and he spent nine years meditating in a nearby cave. Later when the monastery admitted him, he noticed that years of sedentary lifestyle of copying scrolls had made the monks physically weak. He devised a regimen of martial arts from the synthesis of Indian forms like kalaprayat and Chinese fighting style of five animals, and taught these to the monks. These from later evolved in modern martial arts, which are known today by names of kung fu and tai chi chuan. Even today, Shaolin monastery is visited by students from all over the world and is considered as one of the foremost school for martial arts. Another apocryphal story attributes him with bringing tea to China. It is said that one day he got so upset at falling asleep while meditating and cut his eyelids in anger. Tea bushes sprung up from where the eyelashes fell. Even this story may have a certain symbolism, since the monks in ancient times did use tea many times for helping in wakefulness, a use that we make of tea even to this day.During his lifetime, he was able to make only four disciples. Among the four, his first disciple, Hui Ke, who cut of his hand to show his determination, before being taken by bodhidharma as a disciple, became his successor. Another strange legend is associated with his death. It is said that after a couple of years of his death, a government official reported seeing him in the Himalayas with a staff and from which hung a single sandal, and he told the official that he was on his way back to India. When this story reached Shaolin monastery, the monks decided to open his tomb. Inside they found only a single sandal.
And even though I so impressed by bodhidharma, I know what Colonel would say on reading this piece. "If only he were credited for inventing tomato soup instead of tea ....."
And even though I so impressed by bodhidharma, I know what Colonel would say on reading this piece. "If only he were credited for inventing tomato soup instead of tea ....."
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
No Nation
What is the nation? What are its foundations? What is the source of huge surges of patriotism I see from time to time on the TV, in the movies, in books and even myself? What makes people happy to see a compatriot win laurels at world stage, whether it is sciences or economics or even music? And what makes my company distribute sweets when a particular cricket team wins.
The psychological foundations are quite easy to analyze. The needs addressed are primarily twofold: identity and simplification. The first, identity, is the need to define oneself. As Huntington says “people do not live by reason alone. They cannot calculate and act rationally in pursuit of their self interest until they define the self.” One way the individual provides a more concrete definition to the self, is by identifying himself with the nation. But whenever we say that "this is me", "that is not me” also follows. So we divide everything in our experience into two: us and them. The same need which makes me divide everybody into: nerd and not nerd, men and women, middle class and not middle class, my country and theirs. Us and them. That is the magic spell. Cast it and everything divides into two. And like the magician who brings rabbits out of his hat, you too have a magical identity to display. That the reality of the identity is as genuine as that of the rabbits is another matter. And though we may have created a name for ourselves, but unknowingly the “other” is also created.
The second purpose, simplicity, is a more general trick of our mind. We, being finitely intelligent beings, with ambitions to understand more than our mind can assimilate, continuously simplify the world around us. Hence generalization and categorization helps maintain our sanity. Makes life more tractable to our logic. The way to do this is to categorize everything around us and assign labels to the categories. Take the case of human relations. We keep meeting new people all the time. To simplify the task of continuously trying to understand them, we might assign one-time labels. From then on one can remember the person from the particular set of labels without needing to remember each peculiarity of the person. Now we don't need to observe or remember the peculiarities of all people we meet. Instead we just need to remember the labels we have assigned them. And each label will automatically bring forth the attached bundle of thoughts, feeling and emotions along, making the job of dealing with the world that much easier and automated. Same is the case with nationalities. Easier to remember that a person is an American and hence informal and forthright, or a Japanese and probably diplomatic and disciplined, rather than trying to see the specifics, even as we still know that not all American are like cowboys, nor are all Japanese samurai warriors. All this simplification may add to a certain convenience in our dealing with the world. But danger arises when we forget that the simplification was just a tool providing us with an erroneous approximation to reality. I personally feel that, although we might differ greatly outwardly, but as everywhere else, appearances are deceptive here as well. The individual, whether he belongs to India or China, Denmark or Africa, is still the same. He still suffers from the same greed, jealousy, egotism and cowardice. And in spite of these the same selfless nobility shines forth from time to time. Not that I am denying the existence of culture. Culture is present, not only in outward form of appearance and behavior of individuals, but also in to an extent in the superficial thought habits. But at a more fundamental level, the psychological construction of people hardly differs across races and continents, much less across nations. The diverse values may differ in emphasis across cultures, but they are still essentially unchanged.
What about the reality of nation in itself, that is, outside the mind. Whether we look at it geographically or socially or culturally, the nations appear to be just a perpetually changing result of historical accidents. Slightly different throws of the historical dice might have resulted in quite a different world map, but it still wouldn't have changed the scenario too much, either for better or worse. The people of different nations would still get bloodthirsty for each other from time to time, because of real or imagined threats. Still at war, or threatening it, as in the present. Jingoism is a necessary distraction, both for politicians and people, and shapes or sizes of countries do not matter that much.
So is the extant and nature of a nation a result of circumstances derived by its geography? If so, you may have expected the nations to have well defined natural barriers, which would somehow imitate the thick black lines on the map, as we see it. We know however, that it is certainly not the case. In fact, most of the times, both the people and geography are usually very similar immediately across border of most nations. The climate and landscapes change slowly with distance and this holds on the borders too. In fact the change is so slight and gradual, that it is usually very different to ascribe any boundaries. Same is the case with culture. Switzerland lies in the midst of the Alpine range, which extend to both the north and south of it. The northern part of Switzerland is mostly German speaking, and southern parts speak French. Yet if you ask, all of them would be proud Swiss. It only takes a line drawn on the map to make you German or Swiss or Austrian. Is culture then the determining factor? Though we may want to perceive (and sometimes impose) it differently, cultural variation is a continuous function of distances and it holds as much within the boundaries of a nation as without. People of Pakistani Punjab are quite similar to Indian Punjabis and north sri-lankans have much in common with the Indian Tamil folk. And this is no exception. Rather the rule.
The answer to the source of patriotic emotion, the love of country and flag is still unanswered. Nations worldwide do not seem to have any other justification to be called a unit, except for being brought together by the sheer force of historical circumstances. And kept that way by highly centralized governments and armies of the nation-state, whose form is itself an accident of history. Seeing this, we can now explore the reason for existence of the nation state. The nation-state has its seeds in the dependence of modern societies on institutions for their survival. Civilization brings forth the need for people to associate for mutual collaboration and comfort. So we have schools and courts and armies and so on. The nation can be considered as one of the institutions brought forth for such an endeavor. What make it unique is it’s scale, and consequently the power that it holds. Not that there are no other institutions on a similar scale. There are international bodies like UN, which resolve political issues for all the nation of the world, multi-national companies that employ hundreds of thousands of employees and span scores of countries, social work organization etc. However these institutions, unlike nations, have a their scope of activity limited to one sphere of our life. Either entirely commercial, or social, or political. They have very limited power to control our lives, much less our characters and beliefs. This, however, is not a limitation for nations. The immense power the nations can control helps them direct much of our lives. And among other things, this power is used to making us love them in turn. The nation-state controls the educational institutions, the media and most other sources of information to some extant. This is even true in highly democratic countries. And they can, and do, use those institutions to repeatedly fill us with the facts about our uniqueness or superiority. And feeling good about ourselves comes easily to everybody. Again the same need for identity coming into play. Even the private media, the newspapers, the filmmakers (let us not forget the song writers from where we started) join in this avalanche of self-praise. Starting from childhood textbooks, right though our growing years and our mature life, we hardly get a chance to think otherwise. So much of our patriotism is just a form of inculcated automatism.
It must however be admitted that nations are still a good arrangement (even if an entirely artificial and arbitrary one) for taking care of the individual’s need from the society. The question arises; are they the best possible arrangement. Is the possibility of a world-state a better alternative? Is it even feasible? As for the purpose of providing physical and economic security and helping collaborative enterprise, it seems very likely, that the world-state can do a better job of providing these. What about satisfaction of psychological needs? Remember the “Us and Them” need. If there are no them, it becomes increasingly difficult to define us. The need for identity fails to be fulfilled. I am not too sure of the world-state on this front. But living in India, I would wager that people could find easy solutions for this problem. The “us and them” works at many levels, and if it fails at the nation level it can be invented at a more localized level. Does this mean more internal strife? Maybe yes. But it surely won’t be any worse than the wars and armies we have to maintain at present. Lots of police yes. But we won’t need a army. What do you think??
And what should be the name of such a world state. I know that everyone would have his/her own suggestion for the name, but I am sure that Colonel would heartily agree with the name I am going to put forward here: "Germarael"
The psychological foundations are quite easy to analyze. The needs addressed are primarily twofold: identity and simplification. The first, identity, is the need to define oneself. As Huntington says “people do not live by reason alone. They cannot calculate and act rationally in pursuit of their self interest until they define the self.” One way the individual provides a more concrete definition to the self, is by identifying himself with the nation. But whenever we say that "this is me", "that is not me” also follows. So we divide everything in our experience into two: us and them. The same need which makes me divide everybody into: nerd and not nerd, men and women, middle class and not middle class, my country and theirs. Us and them. That is the magic spell. Cast it and everything divides into two. And like the magician who brings rabbits out of his hat, you too have a magical identity to display. That the reality of the identity is as genuine as that of the rabbits is another matter. And though we may have created a name for ourselves, but unknowingly the “other” is also created.
The second purpose, simplicity, is a more general trick of our mind. We, being finitely intelligent beings, with ambitions to understand more than our mind can assimilate, continuously simplify the world around us. Hence generalization and categorization helps maintain our sanity. Makes life more tractable to our logic. The way to do this is to categorize everything around us and assign labels to the categories. Take the case of human relations. We keep meeting new people all the time. To simplify the task of continuously trying to understand them, we might assign one-time labels. From then on one can remember the person from the particular set of labels without needing to remember each peculiarity of the person. Now we don't need to observe or remember the peculiarities of all people we meet. Instead we just need to remember the labels we have assigned them. And each label will automatically bring forth the attached bundle of thoughts, feeling and emotions along, making the job of dealing with the world that much easier and automated. Same is the case with nationalities. Easier to remember that a person is an American and hence informal and forthright, or a Japanese and probably diplomatic and disciplined, rather than trying to see the specifics, even as we still know that not all American are like cowboys, nor are all Japanese samurai warriors. All this simplification may add to a certain convenience in our dealing with the world. But danger arises when we forget that the simplification was just a tool providing us with an erroneous approximation to reality. I personally feel that, although we might differ greatly outwardly, but as everywhere else, appearances are deceptive here as well. The individual, whether he belongs to India or China, Denmark or Africa, is still the same. He still suffers from the same greed, jealousy, egotism and cowardice. And in spite of these the same selfless nobility shines forth from time to time. Not that I am denying the existence of culture. Culture is present, not only in outward form of appearance and behavior of individuals, but also in to an extent in the superficial thought habits. But at a more fundamental level, the psychological construction of people hardly differs across races and continents, much less across nations. The diverse values may differ in emphasis across cultures, but they are still essentially unchanged.
What about the reality of nation in itself, that is, outside the mind. Whether we look at it geographically or socially or culturally, the nations appear to be just a perpetually changing result of historical accidents. Slightly different throws of the historical dice might have resulted in quite a different world map, but it still wouldn't have changed the scenario too much, either for better or worse. The people of different nations would still get bloodthirsty for each other from time to time, because of real or imagined threats. Still at war, or threatening it, as in the present. Jingoism is a necessary distraction, both for politicians and people, and shapes or sizes of countries do not matter that much.
So is the extant and nature of a nation a result of circumstances derived by its geography? If so, you may have expected the nations to have well defined natural barriers, which would somehow imitate the thick black lines on the map, as we see it. We know however, that it is certainly not the case. In fact, most of the times, both the people and geography are usually very similar immediately across border of most nations. The climate and landscapes change slowly with distance and this holds on the borders too. In fact the change is so slight and gradual, that it is usually very different to ascribe any boundaries. Same is the case with culture. Switzerland lies in the midst of the Alpine range, which extend to both the north and south of it. The northern part of Switzerland is mostly German speaking, and southern parts speak French. Yet if you ask, all of them would be proud Swiss. It only takes a line drawn on the map to make you German or Swiss or Austrian. Is culture then the determining factor? Though we may want to perceive (and sometimes impose) it differently, cultural variation is a continuous function of distances and it holds as much within the boundaries of a nation as without. People of Pakistani Punjab are quite similar to Indian Punjabis and north sri-lankans have much in common with the Indian Tamil folk. And this is no exception. Rather the rule.
The answer to the source of patriotic emotion, the love of country and flag is still unanswered. Nations worldwide do not seem to have any other justification to be called a unit, except for being brought together by the sheer force of historical circumstances. And kept that way by highly centralized governments and armies of the nation-state, whose form is itself an accident of history. Seeing this, we can now explore the reason for existence of the nation state. The nation-state has its seeds in the dependence of modern societies on institutions for their survival. Civilization brings forth the need for people to associate for mutual collaboration and comfort. So we have schools and courts and armies and so on. The nation can be considered as one of the institutions brought forth for such an endeavor. What make it unique is it’s scale, and consequently the power that it holds. Not that there are no other institutions on a similar scale. There are international bodies like UN, which resolve political issues for all the nation of the world, multi-national companies that employ hundreds of thousands of employees and span scores of countries, social work organization etc. However these institutions, unlike nations, have a their scope of activity limited to one sphere of our life. Either entirely commercial, or social, or political. They have very limited power to control our lives, much less our characters and beliefs. This, however, is not a limitation for nations. The immense power the nations can control helps them direct much of our lives. And among other things, this power is used to making us love them in turn. The nation-state controls the educational institutions, the media and most other sources of information to some extant. This is even true in highly democratic countries. And they can, and do, use those institutions to repeatedly fill us with the facts about our uniqueness or superiority. And feeling good about ourselves comes easily to everybody. Again the same need for identity coming into play. Even the private media, the newspapers, the filmmakers (let us not forget the song writers from where we started) join in this avalanche of self-praise. Starting from childhood textbooks, right though our growing years and our mature life, we hardly get a chance to think otherwise. So much of our patriotism is just a form of inculcated automatism.
It must however be admitted that nations are still a good arrangement (even if an entirely artificial and arbitrary one) for taking care of the individual’s need from the society. The question arises; are they the best possible arrangement. Is the possibility of a world-state a better alternative? Is it even feasible? As for the purpose of providing physical and economic security and helping collaborative enterprise, it seems very likely, that the world-state can do a better job of providing these. What about satisfaction of psychological needs? Remember the “Us and Them” need. If there are no them, it becomes increasingly difficult to define us. The need for identity fails to be fulfilled. I am not too sure of the world-state on this front. But living in India, I would wager that people could find easy solutions for this problem. The “us and them” works at many levels, and if it fails at the nation level it can be invented at a more localized level. Does this mean more internal strife? Maybe yes. But it surely won’t be any worse than the wars and armies we have to maintain at present. Lots of police yes. But we won’t need a army. What do you think??
And what should be the name of such a world state. I know that everyone would have his/her own suggestion for the name, but I am sure that Colonel would heartily agree with the name I am going to put forward here: "Germarael"
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Political History of Iran & Present Nuclear Crisis
For large parts of the short history of human civilization, Iran has been at the centre stage of international power struggles. Not withstanding its current status, Iran (or rather Persia as it has been called for most part of history) has many times been one of the major nation-states involved in the struggle for world supremacy. Persia's rise to power started with Cyrus the Great (a popular name even to this day among the Parsees of India), who through process of conquest and assimilation found the Achaemenid Empire. He and his successors spread the power of Persia through the middle east, north africa and southern Europe. At its height, the empire stretched from the northern border of India and Afghanistan right upto Libya to the south east and included parts of Greece and Bulgaria to the north. Though Persian expeditions for conquests of Greece failed multiple times, in even in their heyday the Greeks were no match for the Persian Military and Political power. In fact Greeks was never a great military power until the coming of Alexander the Great (who technically was not a Greek but a Macedonian). After the conquests by Alexander , the Persian empire was destroyed and they come under the hegemony of Hellenes. Many centuries later, the Persians would again rise to power during the period of Sassanian Dynasty. Once again they would compete with newer counterpart of Greeks, the Eastern Roman Empire, centered at Constantinople, (modern day Istambul, Turkey) for the control of middle east and north Africa. This dynasty would ended with last of its kings being vanquished during the Islamic conquest of Persia, during the early days of Arab expansion. Though local dynasties again gained power and started a processes of de-arabisation during the 15th century, Persia never again rose to similar international prominence.
Coming back to the present, the seeds of nuclear crisis in Iran can be traced back to the first discovery of Oil in Iran by the British in 1908. The discovery held would hold both fortune and misfortune in store for Iran. Earlier also, Iran had been the centre of Great game being played between Great Britain and Russia for the control of entire Central Asia. But after the discovery of Oil and consequent economic implications, the stakes would get doubled. Through a process of alternation between royal coups and re-establishment of democracy, western powers (especially Great Britain and USA) would again get opprotunities for intervention in Iran for the control of trade (essentially oil-wealth). However , things did come to a head when the democratically elected Prime-minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, was removed by the CIA, for trying to nationalize the oil facilities in Iran. After this deposition of the Prime Minister, a deal was struck with the returned Shah, for allowing GB and USA to control most of the stake in Iran's Oil Industry. This state of affiars continued till the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, which established a Theocratic Republic which functions with a unique mix of representative elected by clerics and those elected directly by people ( Although Islamic clerics don't directly govern in Iran, they still they excercise enormous control over the elected parliament and executive which essentially makes it into a theocracy). Whatever the merits (or demerits) of this form of government, one thing is clear, the United States and its historic involvement in Iran is has a great deal of responsibility for the Islamic Revolution and the present enmity between the Iranian government and the worlds most powerful nation. It is not realistic to expect that we can keep on getting away by in fooling a whole nation of people for the sake of our petty advantages. Counter-reactions (many voilent) are to be expected, sooner or later. And that is what we almost always get. A truth which can be emperically verified by analysing even the history of past century.
A few days back I was listening to President Bush giving a Press conference about the American "war on terror" in Iraq. Not much intelligent talk is usually expected of these press conference, which are generally an excercise in Gobbelian Propaganda. But I was struck by the Presedent talking about the need of spreading democracy world over and how it leads to states which are friendly with the United States. An example of Japan after the world war II was given. I found both the reasoning and the example very incongrous, but it made me wonder what president Bush might have said about the nature of interventions of United States in Iran in past couple of decades. I hope that some day, through a relook at history, political strategists over the world would understand the shortcomings of the following the policy of short-term national interests and try to find a more enlightened path for managing international affiars.
Coming back to the present, the seeds of nuclear crisis in Iran can be traced back to the first discovery of Oil in Iran by the British in 1908. The discovery held would hold both fortune and misfortune in store for Iran. Earlier also, Iran had been the centre of Great game being played between Great Britain and Russia for the control of entire Central Asia. But after the discovery of Oil and consequent economic implications, the stakes would get doubled. Through a process of alternation between royal coups and re-establishment of democracy, western powers (especially Great Britain and USA) would again get opprotunities for intervention in Iran for the control of trade (essentially oil-wealth). However , things did come to a head when the democratically elected Prime-minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, was removed by the CIA, for trying to nationalize the oil facilities in Iran. After this deposition of the Prime Minister, a deal was struck with the returned Shah, for allowing GB and USA to control most of the stake in Iran's Oil Industry. This state of affiars continued till the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, which established a Theocratic Republic which functions with a unique mix of representative elected by clerics and those elected directly by people ( Although Islamic clerics don't directly govern in Iran, they still they excercise enormous control over the elected parliament and executive which essentially makes it into a theocracy). Whatever the merits (or demerits) of this form of government, one thing is clear, the United States and its historic involvement in Iran is has a great deal of responsibility for the Islamic Revolution and the present enmity between the Iranian government and the worlds most powerful nation. It is not realistic to expect that we can keep on getting away by in fooling a whole nation of people for the sake of our petty advantages. Counter-reactions (many voilent) are to be expected, sooner or later. And that is what we almost always get. A truth which can be emperically verified by analysing even the history of past century.
A few days back I was listening to President Bush giving a Press conference about the American "war on terror" in Iraq. Not much intelligent talk is usually expected of these press conference, which are generally an excercise in Gobbelian Propaganda. But I was struck by the Presedent talking about the need of spreading democracy world over and how it leads to states which are friendly with the United States. An example of Japan after the world war II was given. I found both the reasoning and the example very incongrous, but it made me wonder what president Bush might have said about the nature of interventions of United States in Iran in past couple of decades. I hope that some day, through a relook at history, political strategists over the world would understand the shortcomings of the following the policy of short-term national interests and try to find a more enlightened path for managing international affiars.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
First Post
Thought of wasting some of my new found time in writing a blog. So what can I possibly write about?? As the great British philospher would say, nothing is more worthy of consideration than the the problem of "Life, Universe and Everthing"....
Since I started writing this blog on suggestion of the Colonel, I would dedicate the blog to him. I am sure that he won't be able to appreciate the usefullness of the output I plan to produce. But then, unlike me, he usually doesn't classify typing practice as a useful activity ...
Since I started writing this blog on suggestion of the Colonel, I would dedicate the blog to him. I am sure that he won't be able to appreciate the usefullness of the output I plan to produce. But then, unlike me, he usually doesn't classify typing practice as a useful activity ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)