I’ve always loved comic books–actually, any illustrated book. It seems insane that you wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t you want words and pictures to work together, in harmony? But many people don’t. They think the pictures are a shortcut, that the words cheapen the images. This post is clearly not for them. I believe in shortcuts, as starting points to learning. When I was 10, I found a book of “collected stories of Shakespeare.” I didn’t know who Shakespeare was, but the book–illustrated, of course–introduced me to his wondrous, unlimited imagination. That kind of fascination does not die easily. For me, it taking and eventually teaching classes in Shakespeare, and rushing to every Shakespearean adaptation, no matter how bizarre (Ethan Hawke’s Hamlet springs to mind as does Pacino’s Looking for Richard). If it hadn’t been for that initial taste, in bite size 10-year old pieces, I might be one of those unfortunates who glaze over every time the Bard is mentioned.
So, back to comic books. I’m an avowed X-Men fan, and was weaned on Wonder Woman, but my first comic book love was and still is Amar Chitra Katha. Wait–is that eye-rolling I see? I hope not.
Amar Chitra Katha was my “short cut” into Indian culture. I was lucky; my parents always had Indian friends who they saw often, who had children I who I went to school with, and tried to surround us with the culture that they had grown up with. As soon as I learned to read, my father did two things: bought me a nice “Ex-Libris” leather bookmark, and the entire Amar Chitra Katha comic book series, bound with red paper covers.
Bear in mind that I grew up with parents who strictly limited my weekly library book allowance to 5 (and no magazines), and you will understand, as I did then, the significance of this purchase. By some quirk, I started with the second 10 books first–Chanyaka through Vikramaditya. But I quickly read every one.
For those of you who do not know, Amar Chitra Katha is a venerable old Indian comic book series that tells the tales of Indian myths, history and religious stories. There has been much recent criticism of the comics; here is a typical link.
This article throws a lot of heat at AKC’s way, some deserved. Racist? Of course–lots about the caste system in ancient Hindu culture. Sexist? Ditto. Badly written? Well, it was pretty pompous–I made the mistake of “taking a vow of silence” on the playground one day that ended somewhat badly for me. And I know that many people minded having to look up words like “dharma” or “asura” but I was fine with it. (of course, if you’ve read my Nerd/Geek entry, you’d know why).
I did not learn many bad lessons from Amar Chitra Katha. I was perplexed by how many people had blue skin. But mostly, I learned that my culture was beautiful, that it was old and important, that its values were very complex. I went easily from stories of Guru Gobind Singh to Buddha to Valmiki to Noor Jahan, unaware that I was supposed choose one over the other. That was the one thing that Amar Chitra lacked–animosity. I read stories, but I didn’t really grasp how many old angers divided the cultures I read about. And I still have a weak timeline of Indian history.
The AKC comics are not perfect, but what children’s literature is? It’s all exaggeration and fantasy, run through with threads of violence and death. It’s always about the beautiful conquering the ugly–but also about the clever conquering the stupid, and the lazy. My collection of AKC sparked a sense of identity in myself. I loved my MTV and played with Barbies, but this, this ancient, magical India, was part of me too.
As a non-practicing Hindu, I would hate, absolutely hate, an Amar Chitra Katha that didn’t allow all religions to tell their stories in comic book form, that allowed me to understand why Sikhs wear turbans and why Hindu sages once starved themselves, what the practice of syamvara is. The stories will never be fully accurate–they are just like my book of “Shakespeare stories” but the planted a seed of interest in Indian history that hasn’t gone away. With Amar Chitra Katha, I could incorporate my eight-year old interpretations of Buddhist teachings (that Siddharta was so good!)with Vedic ones (go Rama! go Krishna!), to investigate what traditions (polygamy, child marriage, widow burning) are no longer central to the culture. I want my children to have the same opportunity that I did to act out both the stories of Akbar the Clever and the Mahabharata. I’ve heard rumors that these comic books are or have been edited by the Hindu nationalist party–I sincerely hope not. I’ve never believed in silencing minority voices.
That said, I wouldn’t mind updated, glossy versions of the old AKC comics, a few more stories about clever apsaras or sage’s daughters who outwitted demons disguised as foxes. A few more warrior maidens like Noor Jahan rather than martyrs like Padmini, and I’d be ready to stock my library for future generations of lawyerwriters.
But all the excitement I feel is nothing compared to what I’d feel if someone did a really good adaptation of a Mahabharata–top of the line special effects, great storytelling, top writing. I haven’t seen it yet. Because I love the story, I have suffered through years of plastic-looking battle scenes, melodramatic line-reading and blandly smiling Krishnas. If movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can revolutionize action sequences, the least we can do is get the folks behind Xena the Warrior Princess to get us a convincing Ghatokacha, or at least Ravana with heads that don’t look like a row of masks. And can we get battle scenes that consist more that than men in cardboard armor fighting clanging swords in front a smoke machine to the sounds of pots and pans clanging? Please? Someone, look up Saving Private Ryan or even Gladiator for a good war sequence. What’s wrong with keeping the comic-book sensibility, the great visuals that AKC popped into my head, alive! If they can do it with Spiderman, they can do it with Abhimanyu.
After all, what more can I expect from the X-Men? I don’t have high hopes for the movie, which is coming out this Friday, and which I will probably see anyway. I believe this fixation will last about as long as the opening credits. First of all, as I have said before, no Gambit. What, was Josh Lucas too waterlogged from Poseidon? Second, lesser director. It’s a tough thing to go from Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) to Brett Ratner (Rush Hour). The latter is a competent action director; the former is a storyteller. Third: I just KNOW they’re going to blow the whole Dark Phoenix storyline.
If I get bored during the movie, I’ll work on casting my fantasy Mahabharata in my head. Unfortunately, I really don’t know too many Bollywood actors, which makes keeping the fantasy cast brown and proud very hard. Will we have to plug in key roles using….white actors? Maybe even…the token African-American? The scandal! The riots! The ritual suicides waiting to happen!
Just remember: anything is better than Salman Khan.
I should add that these Pakistanis I know do not deny or renounce their identities as being Muslim. They still consider themselves as Muslim, but have incorporated Buddhism into their daily lives.
you know, I leave this site for just two days…
I had SOME idea that classifying myself as a non-practicing Hindu MIGHT start something. I have always felt blessed that the religion of my parents and extended family did afford me the option of exploring other religions. It took me a long time to finally identify myself as a Hindu and I say “non-practicing” because I do not engage in any rituals of any religion. I find it fascinating that a few typed words (that may or may not have been typed under the influence) can instantly make clear to some of you my level of Hindu- or desi- ness. Please do enlighten me, as this is something I do not plan to calculate for myself.
Thanks to those who discussed Tharoor’s intriguing book (entertaining, but a bit forced) and casting a big-budget Mahabharatha (Shabana Azmi must have a bigger role–Kunti, of course, mourning Karna).
I beg your pardon. I refuse to go out with any man with a girlfriend or wife since my torrid fling with David Beckham. That Skinny Spice is one mean bitch!
I think we are asking the wrong questions. The debate purely is whether the “practicing religionists”, and people who hold important religious positions with substantial authority, lend equal status and respect to other adherents. We should also note that critiquing is different than denigrating. For e.g.
Tune to the 700 club for more information.
I, as a practicing Hindu, feel humiliated especially when it comes from an authority! I hope I dont ever say the same about non-Hindu’s and non-practitioners.
“Ekan Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti” – Truth is one, the wise call it by different names.
Neeraja:
I hope my posts didn’t cause offense; certainly, none was intended on my part. I have no interest in assaying the level of your ‘Hindu-ness’. In any case, I thought your comments were quite interesting and prompted me to bore the hell out of countless SepiaMutiny readers. Just look over my exchange with AK, continued below!
Ah, so there’s hope for some of us yet. J/K
AK:
Yes, I think we agree more than disagree on many of the issues under discussion.
Thanks for the invite AK. Post my exams (and the trolls of Sepia Mutiny willing), I may take you up on that in a substantive manner. For now though, let me simply trot out that old saw in comparative studies, i.e., the distinction between ‘thinking about’ and ‘thinking with’ a tradition. One of the worrisome effects of the disengagement with classical Hindu tradition is that far too many Hindus are inclined to do the former and not the latter.
Or, at the least, they don’t do enough ‘thinking with’ their (particular) Hindu tradition(s), which is a duty for Hindus I think. Not on all matters, of course, e.g., the sciences. (And, of course, one need not be a Hindu to ‘think with’ Hinduism.)
More, I fear that a tradition that is only ‘thought about’ is likely to decay into irrelevance, or worse. The result is already plain to see in India, or so I think: Shallow ‘spiritualists’ and ‘gurus’, politicos painting themselves saffron. All of it damaging to Hindus, not to mention the Indian polity.
Let me illustrate with an example human rights law (I take it youÂ’re a lawyer or interested in the law, from your previous posts). Purshottama Bilimoria, the Australian-Indian philosopher, has sought to investigate the extent to which universal human rights can be underwritten from a Purva Mimasaka p.o.v. As it happens, his conclusion is a negative one.
But his work illustrates the sort of thing I wish happened more often. A genuine engagement, and a wrestling with, ideas (seemingly) alien to Hindu tradition led Prof. Bilimoria to several novel ideas about how to apply Purva Mimamsaka ideas today, even though his conclusion was a negative one.
Btw, Shiva (# 83 , above) has given a good starting point in the work of Anantanand Rambachan. Rambachan has also written a book on the issue (Limits of Scripture; Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas); IÂ’m not sure I buy his causal thesis, but obviously I concur with his dismay at the current state of affairs.
Also you might want to check out BilimoriaÂ’s article ‘Is Adhikara good enough for Rights?’, as well as his very ambitious book (Sabdapramana).
KumarN:
Thanks for taking the trouble to change your screen-name (as well as the compliment).
Regards, Kumar
Anuj:
I donÂ’t mean to be provocative, but I genuinely would like to know why you feel as you do. I count myself a practicing Hindu as well. There is no reason for any practicing Hindu to quail at the thought that someone (somewhere) holds Hinduism in contempt.
That’s the nature of the world! People disagree. When the current Pope mocks Hinduism, it’s easy enough to answer in kind, if you’re so inclined (Btw, is it just me who thought of a ton of jokes about the Pope’s religion revolving around ‘autoeroticism’, when reading his remark?)
More to the point, the Xtn Pope is not an authority on any matter dear to me; his opinions count for as much (or as little) as any other man. I say we ought to join the debate and peddle our own arguments and counter-arguments. After all, that’s what our Acharyas did when confronted with Buddhism( Here, I’m thinking of Kumarila Bhat’s ‘Slokavarttika’).
Again, Anuj, I don’t mean to give offense, but the language you use (“…humiliated…”) is not the sort of thing one encounters in the classical Hindu tradition. I would urge you to read some of those commentaries, for their wonderfully bracing, no-holds-barred polemics against other religious traditions and adopt that spirit when encountering statements such as the Pope’s. Btw, when I write ‘polemic’, I mean it in the old-fashioned sense: A mode of disputation which involves argument and counter-argument. In the best polemics, both sides learn more about their own (as well as the other) faith.
Regards, Kumar
Kindly, point to me some references.
Also, are you implying that we can have polemic arguments with George Bush?
In case Kumar needs more explanation.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060607&fname=seema&sid=1
MoorNam brings up a valid point in post 81. Too many hindus, both in India and elsewhere think that Hinduism means reciting slokas, going to temple and avoiding meat. If you read the Upanishads, went to an ashram or did something of that sort, it would be clear that ritualistic practices actually are quite irrelevant to the true goal of Vedic philosophy: the recognition of consciousness. Also, Spoolam might be funny sometimes, but I bet he clearly seems to have a problem with Hindus more than “Abrahamics”. It must be nice to be online, where no one can tell if you’re just a funny brown guy or a seriously bigoted right-wing redneck.