Author Archives: Ennis Singh Mutinywale

As British as Chaz Singh

Posted on by

Come the Fourth of July, I often wonder what my life would be like if I was British. My father worked in the UK before he came to the US for graduate school, his only brother still lives in Zone 2, London. As a result, I have both literal and metaphorical cousins across the pond.

“Chaz Singh” as St. George

To their credit, Brits are the only westerners who assume that I must be one of them rather than a foreigner. When I’m travelling abroad (outside of India or the UK), British travellers will go out of their way to say hi, while Americans look right through me. In the London, I’ve had people make eye contact with me when they rolled their eyes in disapproval at the noisy tourists who just entered the tube. “Boy, aren’t those foreigners noisy” they telegraph silently to me, while I try to keep a straight face and signal back proper stiff-upper-lip sympathy.

In that vein, I bring you “Chaz Singh” [I suppose that is his real name] who I discovered via DNSI.

Chaz Singh is one of the recipients of the BBC Breeze bursaries that has enabled him to … a collection of images that portray his identity as both Sikh and British. The verses also reflect the image as a verbal translation.[Link]

The St. George photo is my favorite of the lot. The verse … well, it’s in rhyme, and I don’t find it quite as interesting as the photos. More examples of his words and pictures below the fold, including his paired compositions concerning being both “Chav and Goth”.

Continue reading →

Anar (is the) Key

Posted on by

Perhaps Uncle “all things desi are good for your health” was right. Turmeric may prevent Alzheimer’s. Mangosteens may combat bird flu. Ice in your soda may be bad for you. And now it turns out that pomegranate juice may reduce the risk of heart disease and even fight off prostate cancer.

Seeds of life?

Although Persephone’s consumption of pomegranate may have consigned her to the land of the dead, it looks like the fruit may have the opposite effect on us:

Scientists in Israel have shown that drinking a daily glass of the fruit’s juice can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Pomegranate juice contains the highest antioxidant capacity compared to other juices, red wine and green tea,” said Professor Michael Aviram, who led the team. [Link]

Drinking a daily eight ounce glass of pomegranate juice can significantly slow the progress of prostate cancer, a study suggests. Researchers say the effect may be so large that it may help older men outlive the disease. Pomegranates contain a cocktail of chemicals which minimise cell damage, and potentially kill off cancer cells. [Link]

No word on whether cooking with anardana has a similar effect. Of course, you know where the best anardana in the world comes from, don’t you?

Pomegranate seeds are sometimes used as a spice, known as anardana … The seeds of the wild pomegranate daru from the Himalayas is considered the highest quality source for this spice. [Link]

Continue reading →

Colonized clothing

Posted on by

When I was in India last, I acquired a new pet peeve, one that irritates me far more than it should:

Why is desi clothing called “ethnic” in India itself?

In the USA, sure, we’re different, we’re quaint, we’re ethnic. Salwar Kameez/Kurtas/Saris/Lehngas/Sherwanis are our traditional ethnic (read funny-looking)dress. We’ve all had this conversation with a non-desi at a desi wedding:

“Why is the bride wearing red?”
“Well, some brides wear white, but for others, wearing red or pink is our ethnic tradition.”
“Oooooh, that’s so exotic”

Ethnic means we’re different from them.

But in India, why are Indian clothes called ethnic? Ethnic connotes the other, the habits of the minority, things that are unfamiliar to mainstream society. None of this applies in India for Indian clothing. There is no them to be different from.

Why not call it “Western” vs. “Indian” clothing? Or (although this is not accurate) “Western” vs. “Traditional Clothing”? Or, if you think the term ethnic refers to the fact that various types of clothing have regional roots, why not say “Gujarati Lehngas” and “Punjabi Salwar Kameez” etc? Better yet, why not just say Sherwanis rather than “ethnic Sherwanis”? I just don’t get it.

Then again, if you consider the breadth of my ignorance about fashion, the fact that I don’t understand this one little thing is really the least of my troubles

Continue reading →

Fox News apologizes for Toronto terror error

Posted on by

[Don’t you expect this post to start: “Man hit by flying pig” ? ]

Earlier this month, Fox News reported on the Toronto terrorism arrests with a story shot in front of the Ontario Khalsa Darbar, “the largest and busiest Sikh gurdwara in Canada“.

The broadcast story showed the front of the Ontario Khalsa Darbar – a Sikh Gurdwara … as the house of worship the terrorists frequented and also showed members of the local Sikh congregation. [Link]

That’s right – a story about suspects from “Somali, Pakistani, Indian, Egyptian, and West Indian backgrounds” and what do they do? They choose to shoot using a Gurdwara and Sikhs as a backdrop, misidentifying them in the process. They all look same, massah, here, use the generic other!

To be absolutely clear, I am not saying “beat them up, not us!” I find that kind of talk completely abhorrent. If I was producing the segment, I would have used one of the targets as a backdrop rather than a mosque, precisely because of the fear of hate crimes and vandalism.

To their credit, Fox News responded and apologized when contacted by SALDEF:

In an email to SALDEF, the Fox News Correspondent noted, “I did pull our entire crew into the satellite truck and explained to them the difference between a Gurdwara and a mosque. I can assure you they realized the gravity of this situation. I’m very, very sorry. “

Additionally… John Stack, a FOX NEWS Vice President, … expressed similar regret in the mistake and vowed to make a personal inquiry into the matter to assure that it would not happen again. [Link]

By the way, if you need further evidence as to why “beat them up, not us” is not just morally bankrupt but also tactically ineffective as a response to hate crimes, it turns out that even in multicultural Canada, bigots are ignorant:

Hindu temples, including those where Guyanese worship, were attacked in Toronto last week. The temples were apparently mistaken for mosques and the Hindu worshippers as Muslims. [Link]

All hate crimes are bad, people, all of them (And that includes terrorism). Don’t make Pastor Niemöller return from the dead to kick your kundi.

Continue reading →

It’s up to you, New York New York (updated)

Posted on by

There is only one thing of which I am a rabid fan and that is my home city, my ancestral homestead, New York New York. This is where my heart is (although I did leave a piece in San Francisco). It is the place that I feel safest post 9/11, safest from both terrorists and violent bigots, despite the fact that both have been active there. What can I say? It’s home.

Not only is it home, but New York is what I think of when I think of America. In a freudian slip, the other day I said “when I’m in America next” when what I meant was “when I’m in New York next,” particularly ironic since I am currently based in the midwest. And why not? New York was America’s first campital and 40% of Americans are descended from at least one person who came through Ellis Island. Growing up, if somebody told me to “Go back where I came from” I would reply “After you!” We’re all immigrants here.

This is why these two news stories from this month have been sitting in my craw, and I’ve put off posting them. In the first week of June, Assemblyman Hikind introduced legislation that he had been promising for some time, legislation that would allow:

law enforcement officials to “consider race and ethnicity as one of many factors that could be used in identifying persons who can be initially stopped, questioned, frisked and/or searched.” [Link]

Hikind is very clear about who he wants stopped — brown people:

“The individuals involved look basically like this,” Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said … brandishing a printout of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists – all with Arabic names, most with facial hair, some wearing turbans.

“Why should a policeman have to think twice before examining people of a particular group?” Hikind asked. “They all look a certain way.” [Link]

[Hikind’s website shows no reaction to recent accusation that seven black men may have plotted to blow up the Sears Tower, nor to the fact that half the London bombers were black, nor to various reports from the US government about SouthEastAsian plots.] Continue reading →

Posted in Law

Paanchdrunk

Posted on by

Yet another in the everything comes from India (etymology) series. Have you ever noticed how desi college students all congregate around the punch bowl in the corner? It’s not because they’re alcoholics too cheap to buy their own brew and too goody-goody to get a fake ID (well, maybe it is), it’s really because punch comes from India. In fact, it’s not really punch, it’s paanch [Thanks Sameer]:

Originally, the word punch was a loanword from Hindi. The original drink was made from five different ingredients, namely arrack, sugar, lemon, water, and tea. Because of this it was named panch which is the Hindi for five. This name was adopted by the sailors of the British East India Company and brought back to England, from where it was introduced into other European countries. [Link]

In Germany, they call it ‘Punsch‘ and it (of course) includes wine or liquor. And in Scandanavia the meaning has morphed yet further, losing the other ingredients to the point where it is just an arrack based booze. Surprisingly enough, the custom used to be to drink it with (what else?) daal:

The first ready-made punsch was sold in 1845 and initially the custom was to serve it warm, often together with yellow pea soup. [Link]

If the drink “punch” is an Indic loanword, then what about the action “punch”? Shouldn’t that be desi too? After all, it takes five fingers to make a fist in order to punch, and desis tend to throw punches after drinking too much of the same. And of course a “paunch” is what you get from drinking punch. Step aside, Noah Webster! We’re Indian givers and we want our loanwords back!

Continue reading →

Today’s Carnegies? [Was “More money for karmaceuticals”]

Posted on by

Today’s business news had me thinking of two things: Andrew Carnegie and whether there are any significant brown philanthropists.

Carnegie was a self-made man who went from rags to riches, creating a steel empire which made him the wealthiest hombre alive. Three men in today’s paper might be seen as present day Carnegies — Laxmi Mittal, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet — the three richest men around. Laxmi Mittal is the most literal aspirant to the title since Arcelor-Mittal will soon be the largest steel company in the world. However, the other two capture what is to me Carnegie’s best attribute, his philanthropy.

Just as Carnegie gave away 90% of his fortune [he built a university, several thousand libraries around the world, and did various other good works], Warren Buffet announced that he will be giving away 85% of his wealth with most of it going to more than double the endowment of the Gates Foundation, now the largest charitable foundation in history.

Are rich brown people simply more selfish than rich white ones?Compare Buffet and Gates to Mittal, the next richest man in the world. Mittal is famous for his personal spending. He owns the world’s most expensive house, which he purchased for $128 million. He recently spent more than $55 million dollars on his daughter’s wedding. But his charitable giving rarely (never?) makes the news, and is not in the same league as either his personal consumption or the donations of his “peers”.

The question is, why not? Mittal competes on every level with his white counterparts except that of his charitable giving. Is this a desi thing? Are brown philanthropists as generous as white ones? Who are the major brown philanthropists anyway?

Continue reading →

Where’d you get those peepers …

Posted on by

When I want to feel good about charitable giving in South Asia, I look to ordinary people, not the super rich. Despite religious and cultural taboos against organ donation, there is one town in India where tens of thousands of people have pledged to donate their eyes when they pass away. And it’s not just talk, the people of Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh have already given sight to 3,000 others across India.

This large scale kindness to strangers started out in a more modest and typically desi way, with a gift of a cornea within a family:

Neemuch’s reputation as the town of eye donors began some three decades back when a venerable local politician Shyammukh Garg pledged his eyes before passing away at the age of 55. Mr Garg had pledged his eyes for a simple reason: his grandson had lost his vision after his birth, and he was keen that the little boy should try regaining his sight with his grandfather’s corneas… his grandson … received his grandfather’s eyes and got his vision back.

Inspired by Mr Garg, all his family members donated their eyes. [Link]

Where this story becomes unusual is that this tradition went beyond the family, and prevailed over superstition to become a local tradition:

The Garg family persuaded a local club to push a campaign for eye donation – newspapers, billboards, door-to-door visits – were used to extol its virtues.

It was not an easy mission. There were religious taboos to counter, including one that held that an eye donor is born blind in his next birth. The club members were also attacked by family members when they turned up at homes where somebody had died with a plea to donate the deceased person’s eyes.

But people soon began converting to the good cause – so much so that even the police began allowing removal of eyes before post mortems were conducted on people who had died unnatural deaths. [Link]

Continue reading →

India’s only world cup (dis)appearance

Posted on by

India did make it to the world cup, once. Kind of. Well, not really:

No, don’t rub your eyes in disbelief. India did make it to the 1950 World Cup finals. Well sort of. Four countries from Asia were invited to participate in the qualifiers. Burma, Philippines and Indonesia all withdrew, so India qualified automatically.

India was placed in Group 3 with Sweden, Italy, and Paraguay. But their request to play barefoot was turned down by FIFA and they withdrew! [Link]

Sadly, this was back in the hey day of Indian Soccer, too. Until some South Asian team makes it to the world cup, we’ve always got Vikas Dhorasoo and his action figures, right?

Continue reading →

War of the vores

Posted on by

Many decades ago, in my grandfather’s generation, a branch of the family moved to Ahmedabad, Gujarat. My “grand-uncle” had a hard time getting a place for the family to stay because they were (correctly) presumed to be omnivores. Ahmedabad was Gandhi’s town, and nobody wanted meat eaters around. When the family ate chicken, they did so in secret, with my grand-uncle secreting out the bones in the newspaper to dispose elsewhere during his morning walk. If a carcass had been found in the trash, they would have been summarily ejected from their dwelling, with no bones made about it.

Fast forward to today, where in secular Sodom-and-Gomorrah Bombay the one thing you can’t do is eat meat:

Never mind pets, smokers or loud music at 2 a.m. House hunters in Bombay increasingly are being asked: “Do you eat meat?” If yes, the deal is off…

In constitutionally secular India, there’s no bar to forming a housing society and making an apartment block exclusively Catholic or Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian. Vegetarians say they too need segregation.

Rejected home-seekers have mounted a slew of court challenges to the power of housing societies to discriminate, but last year India’s highest tribunal ruled the practice legal. [Link]

I’m having trouble reconciling this news with the fact that 70%-80% of Hindus in India are non-veg (thanks Ponniyin) and even the streets of Ahmedabad are full of little three wheeled trucks that sell chicken in Ahmedabad there is a line of 10 or so three wheeled lunch trucks selling chicken outside of the IIM campus.

Maybe it’s because I’m an omnivore, but I honestly I don’t understand the deep emotional resonance of this issue. While I recognize the ethical implications of various diets, I’ve never tried to define my personal identity according to what I eat.

However, for others, this goes far beyond a lifestyle choice. I know atheists for whom this is a dogma, something that encapsulates who they are and where they stand in the world more than any other set of beliefs they hold.

Furthermore, not only do people care passionately about what they eat, they also feel strongly about what others eat as evidenced above. This is something I especially don’t understand. I’m missing something here, something about what meat eating means both personally and socially. What is it about food that leads people to be offended by the lifestyle choices of others?

For those of you who feel your food choices strongly – what does your diet mean to you? How do you feel about the diet of others? If we are what we eat, how does that matter?

Selected related posts: Food for Ogling, er, I mean, Thought, Ravi Chand, melon eater, That Silver Isn’t Vegetarian, Meat without murder?, Holy Cow: Yet another school textbook controversy

Continue reading →