Even the Universe does not bother!

The New Indian Lady Justice
Note the saree, absence of blindfold and sword.
(knowledge replaces brutal force)

I have been naive all through my formative and even adult life. I had thought that Truth or the Universe would put everything in order. In the end, Dharma will rule. No matter how deviant, conniving, or evil humans may be, Nature has a way of tipping things back to equilibrium. 

Little things convinced me of this. When Man thought pests needed to be eradicated to increase their harvest yield, he introduced DDT. Little did he know it disrupted the food chain, from insects to birds and pollination of flowers and back to less yield. The spring of 1962 fell silent. When environmentalists were screaming, 'Save the Tigers on Sundarbans', little did they know that they had later to give protection to the people of that region when the tiger population doubled.

People equate the Courts with holding the balance of Justice. The courts are supposed to be independent, not swayed by emotion or power. We were convinced that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Law.

Increasingly, I think the Law has squinted eyes. One may argue that squinting does not equal altered vision. Neither does it refer to poverty of thought or vision. To the observer, however, it will always appear skewed to a particular side. After all, perception is vital in Law. Justice must be seen to be done.

It is apparent to my lay mind that the verdict of court cases, especially involving senior political leaders, go whichever way the current political wind blows. At the discretion of the learned justices, cases can go into cold storage, be fast-tracked or simply acquitted. When the evidence is too compelling, the accused may be off the hook awaiting temporarily, their cases seeing daylight at a later date (discharged not amounting to acquittal; DNAA), the wisdom of which is only known to the learned justices and the sycophants of the accused.

It is evident that the legal and judiciary systems pander to the might of those in power and bow to the general public's sentiments. The take-home message is that there is no right or wrong. Everything is contextual, including the direction of the public sentiments. Like a flower dependent on the elements of Nature to be pollinated, mere mortals get shoved and pushed around. 

Read the fascinating history of the coming of power of China's first Empress, Wu Zeitan. Her ascent to the throne was spectacularly bizarre. Starting off as a concubine, not even the favourite but sixth in line, she wrangled her way to be the Empress by killing her own daughter and blaming it on the reigning Emperor's consort. Her melodrama paid off. Even as the Empress, she called the shots of how the kingdom must be ruled. Her assertiveness and charisma made all the officials follow her line. She even paraded herself as a reincarnation of one of Buddha's female disciples. That regularised her demigod status and spread Buddhism to sell the religion to justify her maleficences. All the checks and balances were under her thumb. The learned court officers just toed the line in unison. The government machinery followed her tailcoat (or regal royal attire). The economy prospered, and peace was palpable. 

Maybe prosperity and peace of mind are all that matter at the end of the day, not righting all wrongs. One has to see the bigger picture, perhaps.) It is the economy, stupid, as uttered by a fornicator who went on to be the President and got away scot-free. In his mind, he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky as, unlike others, he did think oral sex was sex. He was acquitted of impeachment charges by the US Senate. He is a respected speaker who earns millions around the world. The world no longer expects a leader to be virtuous. As long there is money. In Clinton's immortal words, 'It is the economy stupid!'

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

We, the people?

Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Director: John Ford
A novel by John Steinbeck

A typical scene in a big establishment when a crisis looms. When a patient is discharged from a hospital and has to speak to somebody who has the authority to give a discount, he will be given a runaround. Nobody has the power to approve that slash in the bill. It is always about the system, or the management has to decide. Who is managing, they may ask? Nobody can give a straight answer as a management team is not one person, and his job his not permanent. Even the CEO has to safeguard his career - too much of a discount-and may lose his job. Same with a big establishment like a bank. Even the bank manager emphasises with his loyal customers, his hands are tight. He has to toe the line of stock-owners and continue squeezing the debtor for dues. 

All the big establishments invoke the fear of the weight of powers that be upon the weak. The elites and powerful side of the society are constantly rubbing shoulder with the authority and the corporations. This unholy alliance creates a deep fissure in the community, as the haves and have-nots fleet further and further away from each other. In times of calamities, this becomes apparent; the effective use of all the resources upon their disposal to pounce upon the poor ensures that the rich continue enjoying their living style. 

If history has taught us anything, we realise that the widening of economic prowess is a perfect recipe for a revolution. When they feel powerless against a perceived autocratic system, people will raise their working tools in solidarity to fight back. We saw it in the French and Bolshevik revolutions. Hunger is a potent trigger to change the course of history.

Logically, we should soon be seeing the effects of a year of Covid-induced lockdown. Civil servants continued receiving whilst the self-employed had to tighten their belts with loss of income and the inconveniences of multiple Government restrictive policies.

After the initial euphoria of the end of WW1, the world plunged into an economic depression in 1929. The weather was also against their side for the Joad family in Oklahoma. The family has to leave their farmland as the bank pressures them for outstanding payments. The family with other Okies (Oklahomans) leave their Dust Bowl State for California in their rickety truck, together with Tom, who had just been out of prison. After enduring a treacherous journey, they soon discover that California is no promised land. There is starvation, oppression by the authorities, bullying by employers and police's unholy union, and restrictions on personal liberties. 

John Steinbeck's 1939 novel is a Pulitzer-winning classic with much Reds undertone and is used as reading in many American schools. He went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1962 for that work. The book is a stark reminder that the subject matter discussed can be topical at any period. The poor will always remain impoverished despite advances in science, technology, and economic leaps and bounds. The rich and those in power will always devise ways to keep them under their thumbs. New laws will be instituted, taxes will be adjusted to accommodate the rich and novel ideas will prop up to entice the downtrodden to dance to the big conglomerates' tune.

The title 'The Grapes of Wrath' may have a Biblical reference. In the Book of Revelation, an angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the world, and threw them into the great winepress of the wrath of God [14:19-20]. Grapes, when pressed, will morph into a divine and spirited drink. Hence, when the workers are oppressed for too long, they would rise to wreak justice upon greedy and self-serving landowners and bankers. The filmmakers had to modify the storyline to not arouse legislators' curiosity when Hollywood was mainly targeted for subtly spreading communist's sentiments.

The phrase 'grapes of wrath' also appears in Julia Ward's composition of 1861 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic', a famous American patriotic song.

Roman Charity: Pero secretly breastfeeds her father,
Cimon who is sentenced to death by starvation
Peter Paul Rubens

The word 'Okies' in the 1930s was a derogatory word of sorts. It denoted westward-bound white migrant agricultural workers from cotton-growing states from the east. In 1937, California brought in the 'Anti Okie Law' to make it illegal to bring in any destitute person. It was later revoked as unconstitutional.

Not everyone in the USA, especially the Californians, took in kindly to Steinbeck's book. The idea of Americans treating their own kind with so much scorn and cruelty was too repulsive. The idea of our cooperative type of setup like the one in a communist/socialist nation instead of American democracy in solving the poors' misery was offensive. To top it all, the book presents a character who performs an act of Roman Charity. She nurses a sick and starving man.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Between keeping the cake and eating it.

Wild Geese (Gan, The Mistress, Japanese; 1953)

They are at a crossroad; between fulfilling their traditional roles playing the second level as the Rock of Gibraltar at the home level versus their empowerment to stand unaided against the elements of Nature. On one end, they have a biological duty to perform to justify their existence. On the other side, there is an element of not wanting to be typecast. What started as complementing one another has turned out as an inter-gender competition, a tit-for-tat. The barrage of information and the bombarding of call for reform proves too confusing. The constant fear of taken for a ride is palpable. They want the cake but eat it too, and ending up losing both; enjoy the ecstasy of being put on a pedestal and the joy of accomplishing biological duties. For some time now, probably from the turn into the 20th century, there has been a perpetual struggle between individualism and the need to fall in line with the demands of society.

This conundrum is apparently relevant today as much as it was in the Meiji-era Japan. When Commodore Perry landed in Japan in 1853, the Japanese who till then had strict isolation policies were shocked. They thought evil men had arrived in their mythical dragon. After initial resistance, they relented to allow American to stop, trade, refuel and repair their vessels. Rather than risk being colonised, they thought of mimicking the enemy. Years later, Emperor Meiji started social and economic reforms. Samurais had to shed their swords for pens. People shed their traditional grabs for western clothes. There was a push to learn, excel and push shoulder-to-shoulder to other sex but, at the same time, women had to find their places in society in the midst of this confusion - between a patriarchal system that had laid rules for gender roles, of a system that brings one down versus women empowerment where one demands what is needed.

Against this background, this film is set. Otama is considered a curse for being a discard. The man she married to turned out to have been married before, with kids. She left, leading a life as a burden and a source of misery to her old father. A devious family friend, wanting to write-off her debts with a loan shark, arranges a meeting with a supposed grieving shopkeeper widower in view of re-marriage. In actual fact, the man is her moneylender. He is unhappily married with kids, looking for a mistress.

The shenanigan is soon discovered. Things get complicated when the moneylender becomes possessive of her and Otama falls head over heel in love with a cash-strapped medical student with big ambitions. Is she going to screw up the plans of a capable young man with her selfish desires? Is he going to give up his offer to work in Europe for love? Where does the arrangement with the moneylender go? Is Otama going to continue living with the dubious reputation of being 'the other woman'?

Rather than trying to outdo each other, there is a need to reach common grounds. Both sexes have their biological and functional roles in society. Their functions, over the years, much like anything in else, have been shoved down their throats. Everyone is equipped with different capacities and capabilities. The society will benefit from harnessing the best out of both parties. It is not a race.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

Bite the bullet or shoot it?

Bombshell (2019)

They tell you it is right to speak up. How long are you going to be trampled upon? Where is your dignity? It is a matter of principle. You can be the change that you want the world to be. We will back you all the way. So you take the difficult first step. You bite the bullet, stand through the embarrassment, convincing yourself that you are doing it for the greater good. You persevere, you fight a good fight and find yourself drained of your finances. The friends who promised you to stay through thick and thin now become sparse.

You proved your case. Your victimisation is proven. You should be happy, but then you have a bitter after-taste. Your image is tarnished. You will forever be frowned upon as a trouble rouser. You are a liability for peaceful coexistence. Somehow you get a feeling that others (read the purveyor of law and order, it seems) who benefitted most. They screamed for justice even though their methods remained much to be desired.

You stand alone, but you soldier on telling yourself that your action may rub and alert others in the same shoe.

This film, based on actual events, tells about a time in 2016 when an anchorwoman with Fox TV, Gretchen Carlson, decided to spill the beans on her Head, Roger Ailes. Soon many other female presenters came forward with accusations of sexual harassment against Ailes. Events like these spread like wildfire to other parts of the world. Many up and coming artistes came out with their bad experiences as part of the #Metoo movement.

Sometimes, I wonder if this is the proper way to expose overt discriminations. It leads to animosity, negativity, and it creates a toxic paranoid working environment. Sexual harassment, even though allegations may be proven, it is enough to tarnish the image of the alleged perpetrator. Any publicity is good publicity for the accuser.
I know a lawyer who once advised his client to sue his doctor. It was not because he had a strong case against the medical management of the client. He just wanted to disturb to ruin the doctor's routine for the client was upset that his diagnosis was unfavourable to him. Legal proceedings, which are notoriously lengthy and fraud with delays, was a sure way to turn the doctor's timetable topsy-turvy. 

Norwell Roberts ©BBC

That reminds me of a Norwell Roberts of 1967 London Metropolitan Police who is often hailed as the first black policeman in Britain. Actually, John Kent was the first black officer in the 19th century UK.
In the heady times of the mid-1960s, as a public relations exercise, Britain decided to recruit coloured police constables. Norwell Roberts who applied for a joke got called in. From the word go, Roberts had to endure systemic racism from his colleagues and superiors. He experienced verbal abuse and overt discrimination, even from the lay public. The officer never once complained. He was powerless to act and did not get any positive support from his top guns. He could have highlighted his plight in the media as it was closely watching the force and their efforts to make it multicultural, but he did not. 

There was a time when he was called 'Judas' when he was part of the force that resisted anti-apartheid protestors in London.

After retiring as Detective Sergeant with the CID and receiving the Queen's medal for long service, he has this much to say. Nobody should be subjected to the type of treatment that he underwent, ever. Roberts likes to believe that his resilience made more blacks to be interested in the force. If he had gone on a rant after the initial hardship, he would probably not reached the level that he had attained.

Bite the bullet or fill it up in the barrel?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.