Are we that shallow?

(This particular blog is still being rewritten.. so it is not in its final shape)

Residing in the west, sometimes there is a sore feeling when denied some things that we deserve because of our skin colour. It is a fair doubt, very similar to the doubt I have had in India when I have wondered if some thing that I deserved did not happen so because of my caste or family background. Prejudice is a part of any human society and we all have our preconceived beliefs and notions to blame for it. Once when I shared this with a professor of mine in India, he said that Indians should not feel out of place in the west considering that even "Black" people reside there and Indians should at least be superior to them because (according to him) our skin tone is a little better than theirs. I cannot describe how much I cringed on hearing this. A well-educated man, a professor, from India's top institution, believes that we are better than people who are darker than us in complexion. How can one equate skin tone (which cannot be chosen by the individual) with humanity or skill or intelligence? How can you place a person above another because he/she has lighter skin? Yes, we know that racism has been a part of the social fabric in the west (which is at least being dealt with), but what is the Indian take on racism, in this case, what is our take on skin colour? Do we really believe that lighter skinned people are superior? Do we want all our maidens to be fair? In a country with more than 75% of its people having brown-dark brown complexion, is it right to consider that only 'fair is lovely'?

Recently, I was talking to a friend of mine who was telling me that it was difficult to find a groom for her sister because she was dark skinned. This is not a new or shocking news for any Indian considering the generally accepted norm for a beautiful woman in India is to be light skinned. If you want proof of that fact, look at the actresses in Bollywood. Even in the south, where most people have a slightly darker complexion than the north, Tamil and Telugu cinema boast of their fair skinned maidens. But when you walk through the streets of India, the men and women you would see would look be much darker than any actor you would find in Indian cinema. Heck, even the male actors in the North are fair skinned, which is why many cannot even fathom how a dark skinned Rajnikanth is an icon for Tamil cinema. But this discussion is not about cinema. It is about our mentality. Whom we accept as stars on screen are indirectly a representation of our perception of beauty. Throughout the world, people want to see a slight variation of themselves, probably with higher cheek bones or pouting lips, as their on-screen heroes. But only in India would you find that this expectation includes being light skinned as well.

An American professor of theatre once rightly pointed out after watching the movie, "Bride and Prejudice" as to why the Indians on-screen where of much lighter complexion than any Indian he had ever seen on the university campus (this is a campus of about 2000 Indian students). I did not know if I should tell him that this was our conception of "beauty". Take any newspaper's matrimonial column, for instance. (Sort of the Indian version of a dating service, only it is not dating but a marriage service) Most of the 'brides wanted' ads would ask for a fair skinned bride and the 'grooms wanted' ads would point out that the potential bride is fair skinned as an additional "qualification". What I cannot understand is when did we start giving so much importance to skin colour? Are we all not brown skinned? (Almost all Indians, when compared to the westerners would be considered dark skinned)

When you study the descriptions of Krishna, Parvati and Draupadi in literature, we can see the veneration people had for their dark skins. They are described as having 'shyamala' (or sky) coloured skin which is admired. Yet, when it comes to mortals, we shun the same skin tone. Most boys that I studied with had this fantasy of marrying a fair-skinned maiden (despite their own skin tone) and would call the dark coloured girls ugly. Yes, we do have varying skin tones. People from Kashmir and Karnataka are usually very light skinned, where as people from Tamilnadu are usually darker but, of course, there is a spectrum of colour from very light to very dark skin throughout India. It is impossible to point out a regular pattern and conclude that all Kannadigas/Kashmiris are fair skinned, because they are not.

With a history as ancient as India's, it is not possible to point out the genealogy of an individual and investigate the reason for his/her skin tone. The north has been invaded by the Afghans, the Mongols, the Greek, the Turks, the British, the Portuguese, and the French (to name a few). In the east, we were invaded by the Chinese, Burmese, and so on. Although the south remained a little less prone to foreign invasion, we have still had our share of invaders. So, of course, there is no doubt that there would have been mixed blood and genealogy that affects the way we look. Because of this, anthropologically there is no way to conclude why we look the way we look. But why is that so difficult to accept? Why should we not like the way we look and consider that beautiful? Why should we have a beauty industry that gains 90% of its profits from skin lightening products? Why should a good looking man or woman be considered "ugly" just because he/she is dark skinned, which by the way, is the most common skin tone in the country?

The concept of beauty is skin deep. If skin is such a small entity, why give so much importance to it? In today's non-Utopian world where importance is given to the way you look, why cant we accept ourselves for what we are? We ape the west in so many things, beginning with coke, pizza, rock, heavy metal, jeans, t-shirts to even Gucci and Prada products. We are trying to look like Nicole Kidman while forgetting that we belong to a different race and have different genealogy. It is wonderful that Indians try to embrace different aspects of different cultures, but in that process why should we trample our own? It is difficult to say when this madness began but isn't it time we began to celebrate ourselves in stead of looking up to an unattainable alienated look while spurning our own people? Isn't it time to stop alienating people from the concept of beauty because they look Indian, and isn't it time we made all our men and women feel proud that they are Indian and they look Indian?

Is it good enough?

When asked the question, "Do you miss home?", my answer is always affirmative like several Indians living in the U.S. But my reason is often different. The most I miss about being away from home is the cultural scene and by that I mean the classical dances (sometimes music too). At home, access to quality dance classes was easy and so was access to quality dance programs. Although top dancers such as Malavika Sarukkai, Alarmel Valli and Birju Maharaj tour the U.S. from time to time, my work has only let me stay in those parts, not often visited by top classical Indian performers, or at such times when the organizers could not afford them. In the places where I have lived/currently live, we usually get the ones that trickle down the cracks, who sometimes turn out to be good and even exceptional, if we got lucky. No offense, there are several dancers who are really really good but not famous. I agree. I have witnessed several such performances in India and have been immensely moved, wondering how these artistes struggle to make ends meet just because they are not as famous as some others. But I am not talking about those here, because such people hardly get a chance to perform as a soloist abroad. I am referring to those artistes that perform extensively in the U.S. and get applauded for "advancing/promoting" their culture but who wouldn't meet the standards if they were to perform anonymously in India (without an American resident label attached to them).

I sometimes visit the website narthaki.com run by Anitha Ratnam, a dancer herself just to keep myself updated on the current dance scene. It is a good source especially for people like me who miss a part of their soul because of the lack of facilities where we live (carpeted floor, neighbours who cant stand the stamping "noise",...) just to make a connection, to feel nostalgic and smile about the good old days of visiting Narada Gana Sabha and Music Academy, to witness the masters perform, to learn a great deal from watching, and to forget one's self in those surroundings. But recently I read something on that forum which made me write the present blog. I had witnessed a Bharatanatyam performance by an artiste and her students when I visited a friend and was quite appalled by the lack of any standard in that show. None of them including the guru exhibited even the basic qualities of a Bharatanatyam dancer (posture, tiredlessness, expressions, eye movements) or the basic grammar of Bharatanatyam such as the half-sitting (aramandi), raised elbows, or even proper postures. Hell, many of them were slouching when they were dancing. They weren't even standing erect!

Someone, most probably a parent of one of the students or someone close to the dancer, must have written a review and posted it on Narthaki. He raved and raved about the quality of the dance because the standard of dancing of these children was so good, it could give the Indian-born dancers a run for their money. Now, as much as I am for parents being proud of their children, I do have to say that this review was over the top. Just because NRIs can afford and stay close to some dancer, they send their girls (usually girls) to a guru and accept whatever this guru teaches as classical dance. They are so proud that they declare that whatever their daughter dances is pure classical dance. I don't know if this is a defense mechanism against anyone who might say that ABCD children are not Indian enough (or are too American), but it is not an accurate depiction of reality(not even close) . Yes, I do find that many ABCD children are very Indian in their upbringing and have some American qualities (which is not at all wrong - why not take the best of everything that you can and be proud of it? Sometimes they are more Indian than some Indian kids in India who are so overcome with their blind love for the west).

The main point of this blog is my curiosity, "Are we celebrating mediocrity because we think that is good enough or because we blindly believe that our children are better than others or because we simply are too ignorant to appreciate quality even when the lack of it stares us in the eye". I have often witnessed little girls dancing or singing Indian classical dance or music (sometimes parents exhibiting them like a show piece in a museum) and someone remarking, "Can you believe an ABCD is so good at this?". In such situations, I have wondered, "Should we encourage this because this is a child or should I tell the parents that what their child is learning is absolute crap?" Why are Indian parents forced to send their children to these classes and get them sub-standard training? The same goes for Indian organizations that invite artistes over to perform dance. Anyone with a brain that functions would have figured out that the NRI audience are easily overcome with gimmicks. Once you have someone famous score the music for what you are performing or add some jazzy backdrops or give a resume that looks good, they pre-determine that the show will be good. They don't understand that the awards you get in India are a dime-a-dozen. Any noun that follows the words "Nrithya" or "Natya" will make a new title and can be awarded even by the Indian Overseas Bank!

Speaking of which, on a personal note, I was once performing as part of an American theater group. There was a solo Bharatanatyam piece in the play and, needless to say, it received rave reviews. But then, who decides if it is good? Sure, the costume and the jewellery would have dazzled everybody, and my dance resume looked good. The audience knew that I had won some championships and had already decided that my dance would be good. I received great reviews in the newspapers and from anyone who had seen the play. But then, in my heart, I knew that my dance in that show was quite sub-standard. I had had very little practice. It was in the middle of my graduate school work and I was exhausted after my school and job everyday even before I got to the show. Yes, I wish I had practised more, but the timing couldn't have been worse. So, do the reviews make me a good dancer? For a layman, probably, yes. But my dance made me a bad dancer during the entire stretch of that show. It was definitely a learning experience for me and I enjoyed working with the people on that show, but the fact remains that my performance was quite abysmal and no amount of good review can change that.

Back to the topic under discussion, if most children are learning crap, is every teacher in the U.S. a bad guru? Do they not care about their students performing badly? Absolutely not. Although there are good schools of music and dance in the U.S., they are a handful and even if the gurus have been wonderful artistes, they often take up 50-200 students to train. When you have such a big class, how can you afford to correct the mistakes of everyone? How can you be sure that every student is keeping their elbows in the unsagging position or that every student is bending to their fullest extent?

Of course, you cannot always blame the teachers. I have also witnessed parents who would join their daughter in a Bharatanatyam class . Once their daughter joins a dance class, they will remain silent for a month. The next month the parent would creep up silently and ask the teacher to teach their daughter to dance for a song so that she can perform in the local temple or a local show. (It usually takes anywhere between 6-12 years to become a trained Bharatanatyam dancer, and yet not reach a professional level. It takes immense practice and dedication to be a Bharatanatyam dancer and no one learns how to dance to a full song before they are well trained in the basic steps which takes about 2.5-3 years. You usually perform before an audience only after this point)

What can a teacher do except say "no"? And how many times can you say no when they keep pressing you to do otherwise? Teachers often get frustrated by such requests. When teachers do not teach such "entertaining numbers", their students often leave. In India, it would be impossible to lay such requests/terms/conditions on a teacher. The teacher is the GURU and he/she is the foremost in the life of the student. What he/she utters is the ultimate word. Unless, a teacher declares that the student is ready for such a project, no one would dare bring up such an idea in India. But all an NRI parent wants to declare to the world is, "My son/daughter is more Indian than yours".

So, parents, if you are reading this, understand that selecting a proper guru is the foremost in training your son/daughter in any art form, but before that please make sure that it is your child that wants to learn the art and not you that wants it for your child. Art comes from passion and unless you are passionate about it, you cannot be forced to learn it. If you have a good guru, learn to respect what they do for your child. It is better to wait than to display mediocrity. You don't ask your child's math teacher to teach your child calculus in first grade (unless your child is Ramanujam). So why not give the same respect for art? And finally do not be proud of mediocrity. If you want people to stop saying, "This is good enough for an ABCD" then display excellence. Until then, only "this" will remain good enough for ABCDs!

What about the woman's fate?

People who know me would probably call me a bit of a feminist, not the one that says I will wear a sleeveless blouse with hair sticking out of my armpits, but the one that says, "if a man can do it, why not a woman?" So this blog is a string of thoughts as a reaction to Shashi Tharoor's article in the Times of India asking the Indian woman to revive the sari and his defensive foll;ow-up. Before I begin this post, let me make one thing clear. I admire some of his columns and respect Tharoor's worldwide experiences, and sometimes his little observations about lifestyles that bring a smile to the reader's face. But this one brought, not a smile, but a volley of rebukes.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Shashi_Tharoor/SHASHI_ON_SUNDAY/Save_the_sari_from_a_sorry_fate/articleshow/1877334.cms
The problem, Tharoor, is not as much in westernization or in wasting the time tying the sari (more on that to follow), but more in the fact that unlike you, a middle-class Indian woman is constantly subjected to what we subtly call as "eve teasing". After "googling" (is that even an English word?) the word, eve teasing (which apparently is a term used mostly in India), I found some of these intersting links:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/09/10/stories/2002091000070100.htm
http://erasmus-in-india.blogspot.com/2006/07/bosharivale.html
Practically speaking, an average Indian woman has to get on that bus which always arrives late and mostly at an acute angle with the road due to the huge population it is carrying, thanks to our "birth control" and "great" transportation resources. The same graceful garment that adorns the woman's body does not support itself. Rather, it takes a couple of safety pins which are not solid rivets, either. With the maddening crowd that pulls you in all directions, it get tougher to even hold on to your purse or a grip to balance, let alone the dress. By the time a woman gets out of this bus, the pins would have mostly ripped holes in the sari and collapsed the pleats that she spent several minutes to gather carefully.
With that point in place, I am now embarking upon the major dirt on the face of India, eve teasing or rather molestation (lets call a spade a spade). An average Indian woman is subjected to anything from just unabashed stares (usually pointed at the bosoms) to sexual assualt. Majority of men stare at a woman's chest shamelessly even when talking to her. It never strikes them how offensive this is or theysimply dont care (that is not just Indian men, but lets restrict this blog to Indian men). Groping happens everyday in buses, trains, public places, even while traveling in an auto rickshaw. The reflexes of our males sure perform quickly when it comes to pinching or groping a woman and disappearing immediately. This is just a glimpse of what happens everyday. When confronted with these issues, the simple answer that most women get from men and sometimes from women too is, "what did you do to entice him?" or "why were you dressed like that?" This is the society that questioned my mother, "What did you do to drive your husband to seek other women?" when my father was rejoicing promiscuously with several women and finally left us. So I expect nothing more equitable from them. Everytime I visit India, I admonish myself for having the anatomy of a woman!
Agreed, men would molest irrespective of the dress you wear. But surely even a least reasonable person would realize how easy it is to molest a woman in a sari as opposed to a salwar kameez? Women in saris are subjected to anything including getting their saris quietly removed and some more unspeakable acts (I dont want to give ideas to any predators, just in case). Even though I am a professor of statistics (not of South Asian culture or something where I am expected to) in a western nation, I adore the dress and wear it (sometimes even to class) when I feel like. I wear salwar kameez often to work. It is not about preserving my Indianness but about accepting change in such a way that it does not transform me altogether. Its about being given a choice.
But the Indian woman has recently been given the freedom to wear what she wants unlike the man who always could wear what he wanted (at least since Independence). The decline in the use of sari can be seen as an act of being freed from the chains that she was confined to. It could be seen as an act of preserving herself in whatever way she can so as to feel secure or as an act of embracing the culture of the west. Give her a choice and let her decide what to wear. If she feels like wearing a sari, let her. But dont tell her that by giving up her sari, she is giving up her culture. That reverse psychology doesnt work. Everybody knows that sari is the most graceful dress a woman can wear. But we'ld like to cater to the society's brain and development than to its genitals and eyes. As you said, you consider yourself to be a representative of India in the global arena. Similarly, we, the Indian women consider ourselves to be representatives of the free-willed Indian woman (which is an oxymoron but at least we try) who are simply trying to protect our body, our psyche, and our life.
In a society that strives to be equivocal, that wants women to compete equally, why are only women made as cultural ambassadors? Agreed the veshti (or the mundu) is not as graceful as a sari. But nonetheless, it is a beautiful garment. Why dont Indian men carry anything that shows themselves as Indians (although I do know a few handful who turn up with ashes on their forehead to quantum physics lectures in Texas)? Walk down the street and try to identify an Indian man without considering his skin color or accent. Can you really do that? If you think that women are better ambassadors for some reason, can you at least promise us that these molesters will severely be taken to task? Can we be sure that if we filed a complaint with the police, these men will not show up again the next day to take revenge on us by bringing a few more such specimens? The law does not protect us, neither does our society, on the other hand we are penalised for voicing our concerns, what more do you expect from us? Surely, you as a well-educated man with a handful of books articles, and several other achievements to his credit can understand that India is far from providing such "luxuries". I dont think I will ever live to see such day and neither will you. There is not a single day I thank that we are not Saudi Arabia, Libya or Pakistan where the girl who is raped is penalised. But we Indians are just a tiny (a very tiny) step above that.
Sari would have retained its stature, had one of the two happened. Either, women stayed at home and in the kitchen where there is no one to give them that nasty glare when the garment shifts, or in a hypothetical utopian society where women are respected. Give us an utopian society, a society where a woman REALLY is acknowledged to be equal to a man, where a woman is not seen as an object of pleasure, or been shattered by a hypocritical society that wants women to progress and still will have fun groping them, and then see what we can do! Then you will understand that most women are quick to embrace the western culture only because it offers them immediate freedom, an escape from the shackles they are subjected to at home.

Dance - for self or for others?

kitathaka tharikita thom...

I cannot begin to describe the feeling that swells in me when I hear these sounds. The beauty of dance transcends all cultures, languages, beliefs, and barriers. The inner transformation that a dancer undergoes when painting the fabric of space is so ethereal... Dance teaches you so many things when you are dancing for yourself. It brings such inner peace like nothing else (at least for me) which is the most important thing of all. Everything else such as getting applauded by thousands of people or being flashed across the front pages of a newspaper is immaterial if you are a true dancer. Yes, the appreciation helps, but is just a side effect and never a part of the equation that contains dance, self-realization, joy and peace. In a statistician's terms, you can call appreciation a covariate and it remains just that. I do not restrict this discussion only to Bharatanatyam or Kathak but to all dance forms (although on a personal level, I do believe that classical and folk dances from Bharatanatyam to ballet, and karagam to chhau are way above non-classical dance forms such as bollywood or informal dance forms such as salsa).

While the latter dance forms, in most, instances, serve as a visual treat to the onlookers, the former dance forms uplift the psyche of the dancer and the audience. Although this is a personal view, I believe it would be hard for anyone with average reasoning to contradict the fact that dancing salsa to Ricky Martin or bollywood to "You are my Sonia" cannot compare to dancing the ballet to Mozart or Bharatanatyam/Kathak to a Thillana/Tarana or kavadi to an "Arohara". There is a deeper meaning in the latter. It might not cater to the masses. They can take it or leave it. If they do not want to be taught the art of fine taste, why trouble them. These are probably the people who call Dan Brown a great author and cannot appreciate Tolkein or Wodehouse. Nonetheless, since I have tried some of these dance forms, there is a common quality to all of them and that is dancing for self. Setting this topic for another time, I will continue to talk about dance, in general.

The topic I had in mind when I started this blog, is the difference between dancing for one's self and dancing for others. I started out as a Bharatanatyam dancer and so did not care much for the appreciation of others because that is not what you are taught to do. As a student of classical dance, you are required to learn the do's and dont's of classical dance and apply it to bring out the bhava (or the essence) of the music that you are performing to. So that is what you concentrate on which means, you forget that there is an audience present. Yes, you can see them but that almost feels like a dream. You don’t care who or how many people are sitting there when you go on the stage. The applause almost merges with the background and almost never reaches your ears because you are too ecstatic to care about it (unlike what they show in Indian movies where the dancer literally stops to receive the applause in the middle of the dance). Isn’t that the condition under which one would bring out the most of the emotions in the dance?, when one is immersed in the performance, the lyrics and the music that one is least bothered about anything else?

In the Indian dance arena, unfortunately, the naive audience of today has not been provided with enough examples of good dancing that he/she can appreciate good from not so good to absolute crap. In the present times, the audience are carried away by name, fame, and other distractions such as the looks of the dancer (more about looks of a dancer later, but it is certainly a topic worth talking about). Let’s start with Bharatnatyam. If you ask anyone about a good Bharatanatyam dancer, due to lack of better knowledge, they would pick Shobana, mainly because they have seen her dance in Movies and the Vande Mataram Album. The two video links below showcase her dancing talent.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0hbHEf7TRMA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TT7EhwHjmuc

But understand that this was the result of several takes (that were probably not more than a minute each). Now, let’s see how much she has gotten away with being known nationally just because she is a movie actress. Watch the video in the link below:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lr0Jrhj7Eq4
This is a tired Shobana, out of breath, performing very simple steps (or adavus) that are not even difficult. It just contains hand movements and overdone neck movements (attamis.. BTW woman, you might want to go easy on that) and yet her elbows are sagging (which is a big NO in Bharatanatyam) and there is absolutely no aramandi. This not just a single instance, she continues to give bharatanatyam shows on Broadway and tours the U.S. every year parading as a "good" Bharatanatyam dancer। Dont get me wrong, the lady seems to have mastered the techniques long ago as a student itself, but she doesnt work hard enough to maintain her standard. Instead she is happy with the substandard dance she performs and has done nothing to improve it whatsoever. I dont want this blog to be a virtual flagellation for Shobana. There are several other dancers with similar attitude (Sonal Mansingh, Sheila Mehta, ... the list is endless).

Natya Shastra says, "Yatho bhavam thatho rasaaha" meaning that the audience appreciation follows the bhavam or the essence that you portray. Looking at these dancers, one is left to wonder is "yatho naamam thatho rasaaha" or is "yatho rasaaha thatho natyam" because? Would such dancers even dance if it were not for the naive audience who gape at them and have already decided that the show would be a good one because the dancer is famous?

Au contraire, I will show you a good dancer who has maintained her standards after being awarded the PadmaSri (which doesnt mean much nowadays because even Aamir and Shahrukh have been awarded those but nonetheless), has been called the dance goddess by the Guardian, and is undisputedly one of the best Bharatanatyam dancers of today.

Behold the goddess:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CuJqFGYA_HU
All these awards have not made her lax. Instead, she still continues to reign the dance arena with her strict standards, adhering to the laws of the dance and yet bringing fresh ideas by experimenting. Another fine example is Alarmel Valli who has been awarded the padmasri, padmabhushan, and the Chevalier des Arts at des Lettres by the French Govt. There are many more who dance for the true meaning of dance for the true joy of dance and for the true feeling that dance provides i.e., Guru Kelucharan Mahapatra, Pdt. Birju Maharaj,... even this list is endless.

But can the naive viewer differentiate between these two sects of dancers? Not many can। Instead they get carried away by the name and the looks। I agree, Shobana is an extremely beautiful woman, but that does not make her a good dancer. Big, beautiful eyes do not equal great dance. So for the naive viewer, the next time, you make a statement about a dancer, please make sure know what you are talking about (I have had people who have argued with me for hours saying that some of the aforementioned careless dancers are good). And to those careless dancers, try to realize that you are mutilating the art form just for materialistic things like money/fame. You owe it to the art that you once respected!

I will continue my ramblings in the next blog by turning to the (in)famous Bollywood, Tamil and Telugu Cinema where people cant differentiate between shaking your hips and dancing.