ഗൾഫ് പണവും, ഇടതുപക്ഷവും ശബരിമലയിലെ അയ്യപ്പനും പിന്നേ സാംസ്കാരിക മേൽക്കോയ്മയും

കേരളത്തിലാരുടെയും ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ പെടാതെ ഒരു പരിവർത്തനം നടക്കുന്നുണ്ട്- അമ്പലങ്ങളിലെ ദൈവ മാറ്റം. കേരളത്തിലെന്നും ദൈവങ്ങളുടെ ചരിത്രം വിചിത്രമാണ്. ഓരോ കാലഘട്ടങ്ങളിലും തനതു സമൂഹങ്ങളുടെ ഇഷ്ടാനിഷ്ടങ്ങളുടെ പ്രാധാന്ന്യങ്ങൾക്കനുശ്രുതമായി മാറ്റി മറിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഒരു ചരിത്രമാണ് ദൈവങ്ങൾക്കുള്ളത്. നൂറ്റാണ്ടുകൾക്കപ്പുറത്തെ ചരിത്രം ചരിത്രകാരന്മാർക്കു വിട്ടുകൊടുത്ത്  കഴിഞ്ഞ പത്തുനാല്പതു കൊല്ലത്തെ ചരിത്രമെടുത്താൽ തന്നെ ഈ വ്യതിയാനങ്ങൾ തിരിച്ചറിയാവുന്നതാണ് .   പൊതുവെ കേരളത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളെ  മൂന്നായി  ആയി തരാം തിരിക്കാം
൧. വൈദീക പാരമ്പര്യമുള്ളവ.
൨ താന്ത്രിക പാരമ്പര്യമുള്ളവ
൩. ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാര പാരമ്പര്യമുള്ളവ

ഇവയിൽ ആദ്യകൂട്ടത്തിൽ   പൊതുവെ ശൈവ കുടുംബത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളെയും , വൈഷ്ണവ കുലത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളെയും , രാമായണ കുടുംബത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളെയും, യജ്ഞ സംസ്കാര കുടുംബത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളെയും   ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്നു.  യജ്ഞ കുടുംബത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങൾ ഇന്ന് പൊതുവെ അമ്പലങ്ങളിൽ കാണാറില്ല.  അവരധികവും  വൈദീക പാരമ്പര്യ കുടുംബ സ്വത്തുക്കളായി  തീർന്നിരിക്കുന്നു.  രണ്ടാമത്തെ കൂട്ടത്തിൽ ആദ്യ കൂട്ടത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളും, ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാരത്തിൽനിന്നും പരിവർത്തനം ചെയ്തെടുത്ത പോഷക ദൈവങ്ങൾ എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്ന  ദേവി കുടുംബത്തിലെ ദൈവങ്ങളും, സർപ്പകാവുകളും, ബ്രഹ്മരക്ഷസ്സ് പോലെ പ്രേത പിശാചുക്കളും, അയ്യപ്പനെ പോലെ അധികമൊന്നും ചരിത്രമില്ലാത്ത ദൈവങ്ങളും ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തി അമ്പലങ്ങളിൽ ആരാധിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു . എന്നാൽ ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാര  പ്രേത, പിശാച് , തെയ്യം , സർപ്പം തുടങ്ങിയ ദൈവങ്ങൾ വൈദീക പാരമ്പര്യങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നുമകന്നു കാവുകളിലും, വയലുകളിലും, കുടുംബങ്ങളിലും തനതു സംസ്കാരത്തിന്റെ ആരാധന സമ്പ്രദായങ്ങൾക്കനുശ്രുതമായി കെട്ടിയാടപ്പെടുന്നു.

എന്നാൽ ഗൾഫ് പണം കേരളത്തിൽ കൊണ്ടുവന്ന  സാമൂഹിക പരിവർത്തനം കേരളത്തിലെ ഗ്രാമങ്ങളെ ഒട്ടൊന്നുമല്ല മാറ്റി മറച്ചത്.  കേരളത്തിൽ എഴുപതുകൾ വരെ നീണ്ടു നിന്ന സാമ്പത്തികവും സാമൂഹീകവുമായ ബൂർഷ്വാ- ജാതി   ഘടനകളെ  മറികടന്നു ഗൾഫ് പണം ഒരു പുത്തൻ സമ്പത്ഘടന   പടുത്തുയർത്തിയപ്പോൾ ഏറ്റവും അധികം മാറ്റപ്പെട്ടതും മുകളിൽ പറഞ്ഞ ആരാധനാ സന്പ്രദായങ്ങൾ ആയിരുന്നു. 

ശക്തരെ അനുകരിക്കുകയോ , ആശ്രയിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുക എന്ന ജൈവീക -പരിണാമ  പ്രക്രിയയുടെ പ്രതിഫലനമായി കേരളത്തിൽ ദൈവങ്ങളുടെ മുകളിലുള്ള ആധിപത്യത്തിലും വ്യതിയാനമുണ്ടായി. വൈദീക താന്ത്രിക പാരന്പര്യമുള്ളവർ ഗോത്രസംകാരത്തെയും, ഗോത്രസംസ്കാരമുള്ളവർ വൈദീക പാരന്പര്യത്തെയും തങ്ങളുടെ ആരാധനാക്രമത്തിലേക്കും ദൈവങ്ങളിലേക്കും പകർത്തി എഴുത്തുകയുണ്ടായി.  സന്പത്ഘടനയിലുണ്ടായ മാറ്റങ്ങൾ യാത്ര സൗകര്യങ്ങൾ വർധിപ്പിച്ചതും ഈ പരിണാമത്തെ ത്വരിതഗതിയിലാക്കി എന്നും കാണാവുന്നതാണ്.  അതിലും മുകളിലായി ഗൾഫ് പണം പ്രചാരത്തിൽ കൊണ്ടുവന്ന ടേപ്പ് റെക്കോർഡർ സംസ്കാരം, ഗോത്രസംസ്കാര "ജനപ്രിയപാട്ടുകളിലൂടെ ദൈവങ്ങളെയും അന്പലങ്ങളെയും യാത്രാസൗകര്യങ്ങളോടൊപ്പം കൂടുതാൽജനപ്രിയമാക്കുകയും മുകളിൽ പറഞ്ഞ സാംസ്കാരിക കൊടുത്തുവാങ്ങൽ ത്വരിതപ്പെടുത്താൻ ഉപകാരപ്പെടുകയും  ചെയ്തതു .

ഈ പരിണാമത്തിൽ ഗോത്ര ദൈവങ്ങൾ താന്ത്രിക സംസ്കാരത്തിലേക്കും, താന്ത്രിക  ദൈവങ്ങൾ ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാരങ്ങളിലേക്കും മൊഴിമാറ്റം ചെയ്യ്പെട്ടു.   . ഒരുകാലത്തു വളരെ പ്രധാനമായിരുന്നു സുബ്രമണ്യനെപോലുള്ള ദൈവങ്ങൾ അപ്രധാനങ്ങളായി, പോഷക ദൈവങ്ങൾ പ്രധാന ദൈവങ്ങളായി- അയ്യപ്പൻ, ദേവി , കാവുകൾ അന്പലങ്ങളായി, ദൈവങ്ങളിൽ ചില ദൈവങ്ങൾ സാമൂഹിക സമ്പത്ഘടനക്കനുശ്രുതമായി പ്രാധാന്യരായി - മുത്തപ്പൻ, ഗുരുവായൂരപ്പൻ, അയ്യപ്പൻ.  കേളത്തിൽ പക്ഷെ ഈ സാംസ്കാരിക കൊടുക്കൽ വാങ്ങൽ  പ്രക്രിയയിൽ  ഗോത്രസംസ്കാരം പതിയെ വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക മേൽക്കോയ്മക്കു അടിമപ്പെടുകയാണുണ്ടായത്. വൈദീക -താന്ത്രിക സംസ്കാരത്തിലിടം തേടാത്ത  ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാര ദൈവങ്ങൾക്ക് ഇന്ന് പൊതുസമൂഹത്തിൽ രണ്ടാംതര സ്ഥാനം  മാത്രമേയുള്ളൂ.

ഈ വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക മേൽക്കോയ്‌മാക്കും, ഗോത്ര സംസ്കാര അപചയത്തിനും ഇടതുപക്ഷ ചിന്താസരണികൾ ചെയ്ത സംഭാവനകൾ അപ്രമാദമാണ്.  ഇടതു പക്ഷ ചിന്തകർ ഗോത്രസംസ്കാര ദൈവങ്ങളെ കലയാക്കി തെരുവിലിറക്കി ജാഥകകളുടെ ഭാഗമാക്കിയപ്പോൾ, വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക ദൈവങ്ങളെ ദൈവങ്ങളായി തന്നെ നിലനിർത്തി. അറിയാതെയോ അറിഞ്ഞോ ഈ പ്രവർത്തികൾ ഹിന്ദുത്വ അജണ്ടകളാണ് പ്രയോഗത്തിൽ വരുത്തിയത്. സമൂഹം പതിയെ ഗോത്രസംസ്കാര ദൈവങ്ങൾക്ക് രണ്ടാം സ്ഥാനവും   വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക ദൈവങ്ങൾക്ക് പ്രഥമ സ്ഥാനവും നൽകി.  അതിലും മുകളിലായി സാംസ്കാരികപരമായി സമൂഹത്തിൽ  വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക പാരമ്പര്യങ്ങൾക്കു അപ്രമാദിത്യവും കൊണ്ടുവന്നു.

ഇപ്പോൾ നടന്ന ശബരിമല പെരുമാറ്റം ഈ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിൽ വേണം തിരിച്ചറിയാൻ. ശബരിമലയും ശാസ്താവും ഗോത്രസംസ്കാര പ്രതിബിംബങ്ങളാണ്‌, അയ്യപ്പൻ  വൈദീക- താന്ത്രിക സംസ്കാരത്തിന്റെ പ്രതിബിംബവും. ഇതൊരു മൊഴിമാറ്റം മാത്രമല്ല ഒരു സാംസ്കാരിക മേകോയ്മയുടെ സ്ഥാപനവും കൂടിയാണ്.  ഗൾഫ് പണവും, ഇടതുപക്ഷവും സംഭാവന ചെയ്ത ഒരു സാംസ്കാരിക പുനർപ്രക്രിയയുടെ അനന്തര ഫലമാണിത് . ശരിയോ തെറ്റോ എന്ന് കാലം തെളിയിക്കേണ്ടതായ ഒരു കാര്യവുമാണിത്. എന്നാൽ രാജ്യവ്യാപകമായി നടക്കുന്ന സാംസ്കാരിക മേൽക്കോയ്മ അധിനിവേശത്തിന്റെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിൽ തീർച്ചയായും ഇത് ഭീതി ജനകമാണ്. 

Art and Design or Art, Design ?

In this post-post-postmodern age of the Anthropocene, where the boundaries of binaries, authorship, and their semantics hold no significance in our pursuit of survival, the ongoing debates over distinctions like art versus design and theory versus practice appear outdated. By now, these arguments should have been relegated to the annals of history.

When individuals mistake the technical processes of tools, techniques, and methods of structural engineering as the sole design process for architectural form finding, or when architects confuse their architectural design process with home construction, it raises fundamental concerns about our designers' understanding.

The primary drivers in transforming a brick structure into a house and a house into a home are not merely the procedural outcomes dictated by tools, techniques, and methods, as some process enthusiasts might lead us to believe. Instead, they are deeply rooted in human aspirations and socio-cultural aesthetics, shaped within the context of individual egos influenced by their ecological surroundings.

It is high time we abandon the notion of a binary divide between art and design processes. Both designers and artists often make this distinction, with some artists considering design a lesser endeavor. However, at every stage of art creation, there is an inherent design component, and likewise, at every stage of design, there exists an artistic component. Consider the form of a brick artistically designed and engineered to yield a repetitive pattern in architectural form, arrived at through a structural engineering process. This evidence shows that neither the processes of art, design, nor engineering can claim isolated existence. Moreover, the most crucial element in the transition from a house to a home—the family and its aspirations, which render the entire art and design outcome relevant—is a socio-cultural construct based on faith and belief.

Put differently, in the processes of art and design, media, methods, tools, and techniques hold contextual relevance within human faith. The priority of their selection can change based on an individual's social construct of ego, which is a subset of their ecological context. It may manifest as either a reflective or adventurous engagement.

Those who confuse design as a reflective practice, focused on planning priorities among identifiable parameters, or art as an adventurous exploration within structural parameters, fail to see that both are essentially dealing with the same stream, albeit from different perspectives. A stream is more than just a flow, and a flow is more than just a stream. Remember, a stream always exists within a flow, and vice versa.

In the twenty-first century, when a single smartphone integrates a camera, movie camera, scanner, GPS, film theatre, torch, library, music system, typewriter, phone, pager, and more into a five-inch square device, the sanctity of old-school art and design processes rooted in form, function, and aesthetics becomes increasingly obsolete. These processes are at odds with our technologically advanced society.

Over the last two centuries of industrialization, technology, and globalization, our art and design practices have significantly impacted the world, leading to irreversible damage, destruction, and displacement. This era has been identified academically as the Anthropocene, where human activities aimed at production and material transformation to satisfy needs and greed have irrevocably altered the natural environment.

As we have witnessed the diminishing relevance of traditional art and design processes—focused on form, function, and aesthetics—in our technology-driven society, we find ourselves without sufficient time for reflective planning to rectify the damage we've caused.

In today's world, where everyone can become an image creator, sculptor (through 3D printing), video maker (with smartphones), writer, publisher, storyteller (through blogs and microblogs), product designer (using 3D printing), textile designer (utilizing auto design generators), and communication expert/brand builder (exploring social networks), the principles and processes of media and material production have become obsolete or have evolved at a much faster pace than anticipated.

Looking ahead, the need for art and design practices will shift from production to reduction. It won't be a reflective or adventurous engagement but, more aptly, a matter of the positions we take. The principles and processes will no longer revolve around tools, techniques, and construction methods, nor solely aesthetics and planning, but will focus on assessing the damage, destruction, and displacement affecting our environment and society. Many other aspects will have become passe.

In any case, the principles and processes of art and design have always centered around responding to human needs and aspirations. The way it is practiced today, whether constructing a font, sculpting a human form, creating visual compositions, or planning town layouts, they share the same underlying principles. They revolve around the observer, the observed, and the act of observation, creating a continuum that applies to art, design, architecture, and more. If anyone believes their particular continuum is exclusive, they may be hindered by a narrow understanding of the art and design process, or, worse, blinded by their own flawed judgments.

Art : idea vs skill

Another Perspective:

Since the days of the European Renaissance, the guild model had master artists and craftsmen coexisting in the art world of the post-humanist period. As new forms of artistic expression emerged, involving architects, music composers, film directors, and others where multiple contributors played a role in creating art, questions of authorship, both in terms of conceiving and crafting, have posed significant ethical and philosophical challenges in both the art world and academia. The relevance of this question grew substantially after Marcel Duchamp's introduction of readymades and reached its zenith with the rise of installation art. This was especially true with the arrival of the Young British Artists (YBA) and others in the new world of market-driven art, where artworks were often commissioned or outsourced. Interestingly, the arguments put forth by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement remained ever-present, ensuring that this debate stayed alive.

When we consider that it's not just the idea but also its translation through craftsmanship that is exhibited, the question arises: if the idea is the sole essence, then why does one need to rely on the craft of making or translating for an art exhibition, as discussed in Sol LeWitt's tenets of conceptual art? Conversely, if one argues that craftsmanship alone defines art, then questions arise about the evolution of aesthetics and the role of artistic imagination. Beyond mechanical reproduction, something even a computerized printer can achieve with precision, where does the creative aspect come into play? This dilemma, it seems, is one that the art world may never fully resolve.

However, despite these arguments, when one witnesses people admiring a painting of a soiled shoe, even though in real life, they wouldn't go near such an object, it continues to raise questions about the role of craftsmanship in art. Whether it's the art of imagination, the art of craft, the craft of imagination through the art of craft, or the craft of the art of imagination, this debate will persist. This debate becomes especially intriguing in an era when the concept of the author's demise is contemplated within post-modernist theoretical constructs, ironically often associated with the names of their authors – a conundrum that can be a nightmare for art teachers.

artists and designers as institution and institution as an embodiment of learning

"... those who sought a more active role for artists within the burgeoning field of higher education believed they had the necessary expertise to cover content that bridged studio experience, art historical themes, and philosophical issues.

This, after all, was what contemporary artists seriously thought about. It seemed reasonable to surround the artist(as a teacher) with aspiring students who would benefit from serious exchange on topics about art and life. As such, curriculum content could not be specified formally and techniques could not be introduced as prerequisites for creativity: Teaching became conversation and learning focused on individual aesthetic problem-solving. This version of the expert-novice model relied on the image of the artists as a social outsiders engaged in an intense pursuit of a personal vision. Consequently, the criteria for newness were not seen in relation to past or existing image banks or stylistic brands but by a measure of radical difference. The drive toward the illusion of “things never seen” reached a mythical status that kept the social constructed-ness of art practice at bay, at least until the theoretical onslaught of post-modernism.":: Graeme Sullivan

Although the last line is no longer relevant under the present theoretical constructs, the complex dilemma of artist/designer as an institution of learning or institutional as an embodiment of artistic learning are highlighted in Grame sullivan’s paragraph.

Even as one could argue for the validity of these academic positions of artists/designers as institution and institution as an embodiment of learning with sighting sufficient examples among the social construct of “successful artists and designers” in place, but then one will also have to accept the fact that present crisis in art and design world is also stemming from these academic positions. In reality, the assumed mutuality of “the worth of an outcome and its larger social value” with the procedural outcome of an academic process has always been a questionable pedigree among institutions.

Beyond the social influence of the artist in society and the market, historically artist as an institution of learning often hasn’t been able to contribute much to anybody’s creative practice more than defining a practice for a student within his/her domain of expertise. Same way beyond the subjective pruning of an idea and its construct in art and design practice, the academic /pedagogic approach with its scientific and theoretical construct also could not contribute much to creative practice than validating one’s preparedness for a practice based on, again benchmarks of subjective expertise of the teacher. Considering this process again is the exact subjective position of the artist(here teacher) as an institution, we find ourselves in a complex position without a valid option.

A methodology for coherent practice of mutuality with one's position in life - one to one, one to many and many to many( individual to individual, individual to community and community to society) if not evolved in academics, where one is considered simultaneously as a subjective possibility and limitation than a leader, and to that all theoretical or physical production remain only a subset, the emerging crisis of individual creative practitioner and their relevance in a society among egalitarian technological access system and with universal value, will remain a big question for the relevance of academics and institutions in the coming days.

Further add on to this crisis, unlike the pre-nineteenth century idea of the enlightenment value of meaning in creative practice and truth, in a post-twentieth century world, the statistical value of meaning and its subjective construction of truth will turn objectivity of institutional learning into a subject of conditional evaluation. In other words, if institutions do not address the need for a coherent practice of mutuality with one's position in life and elevate that position to objective living than subjective living as statistical inference of truth envisages, one would certainly start to argue against the larger objective of the process of learning by sighting examples of the success rate of reactionary practices and its sufficiency -elaborately speaking, the success rate of cut and paste job, something the present day art and design world are already over-flooded.

പാതി മുറിഞ്ഞും പാതി പറഞ്ഞും

"എല്ലാ മനസ്സുകളിലും
പറയാൻ കഴിയാതെപോയ
പറയാതിരിക്കേണ്ടി  വന്ന
പാതിയിൽ മുറിഞ്ഞുപോയ
ഒരു കഴിവുകേടിന്റെ
ഒരു ബന്ധത്തിന്റെ
ദുഖം മറഞ്ഞിരിപ്പുണ്ടാകും ..."

അശോകൻ  അസ്വസ്ഥതയോടെ മഷി പരന്നു പാതി നശിച്ച പഴയ ആ കടലാസിലേക്ക് വീണ്ടും നോക്കി. വേണുവിന്റെ എഴുത്തുകൾ പോലും മാഞ്ഞു തുടങ്ങി. കൊളേജിന്റെ വാതില്ക്കലവസാനമായി കാണുബോൾ അവന്റെ കണ്ണുകളിൽ മുൻപൊരിക്കലും കണ്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്ത ഒരു നിസ്സഹായാവസ്ഥയുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. കൈയ്യിലോതുങ്ങാത്ത ഒരു കേട്ട് കടലാസ് എന്റെ കൈയ്യിലേക്ക് തന്നു പടിപ്പു നിർത്തി   യാത്ര പറയുന്പോൾ, പതറാത്ത ശബ്ദത്തിൽ അവൻ പറഞ്ഞു " ഇനി എനിക്കിതിന്റെ ആവശ്യമില്ല..എന്റെ ആത്മാവും ശരിരവും ഞാനിവിടെ പടിയടചു പിണ്ഡം  വക്കുന്നു.."

പിന്നീടവനെ  അവനെ കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല. അവനെഴുതിയ കടലാസ്സുകൾ മുഴുവ്വനും ഭദ്രമായി സുക്ഷിച്ചപ്പോഴും പിന്നീട്  ജീവിത തിരക്കുകളിലെവിടെയോ   അവനെയും അവന്റെ കടലാസുകളെയും ഞാൻ മറന്നു പോയിരുന്നു.  മുന്നിൽ തുറന്നുവച്ച കടലാസുകെട്ടിന്റെ മടക്കുകൾ ഫാനിൻറെ കാറ്റിൽ പതിയെ മേശപ്പുറത്തുനിന്നു ശബ്ദമുണ്ടാക്കി.

പുറത്തു മെയ്‌ മാസ ചൂട് തിളച്ചുമറഞാപ്പോൾ അരികിൽ അവന്റെ കടലാസ്സിൽ അവന്റെ പറയാതെ പോയ വാക്കുകൾ ഒരോതുക്കത്തോടെ അവനെ പോലെ പതുങ്ങി നില്ക്കുന്നതായി തോന്നി.  
പാതി മുറിഞ്ഞും പാതി പറഞ്ഞും

''തിരിച്ചറിയാതെ  പോകുന്ന ആ വയ്ക്കുകളൊരിക്കൽ  നമ്മെ തിരഞ്ഞെത്തുന്പോൾ
ഒരു കുറ്റബോധത്തിന്റെ പാപഭാരം പേറി പിന്നെയും  ജീവിതം ബാക്കിയാകും
ജീവിച്ചാലും ജീവിച്ചാലും തീരാതെ  ...."

വക്കരിച്ചു പാതി മുറിഞ്ഞ മഞ്ഞച്ച കടലാസ് പിന്നെയും തുടര്ന്നുകൊണ്ടേയിരുന്നു. അശോകന്റെ കണ്ണിൽ  ഇരിട്ടു നിറയുകയായിരുന്നു...

Changing world and challenged minds- 2 : Internet architecture and socialism

Back in 1991, when a few of us were tired of working on share transfer system programming on a Unix platform, one of my colleagues and I decided to step out of the office on KG Marg in Delhi for a cup of tea at Barakhamba Road in Connaught Place. It was a chilly winter evening, and the streets were mostly deserted. The winter nights in Delhi often resembled the beginnings of an alien film, with fog and faint lights creating an air of mystery.

As we sipped our masala chai and discussed the new open-source Linux platform rumored to be launched by a company called Red Hat in a couple of years and its potential, my colleague brought up his challenge of reaching people at other terminals connected to our intranet. Although intranet protocols existed at that time, they were expensive for companies that still relied on in-house software development under their data processing centers. Upon returning to the office, I decided to delve into SQL and eventually solved the problem with a six-line SQL script. It allowed for seeking, displaying, broadcasting, and receiving feedback on terminals, with options for exit or loop. In essence, it was a rudimentary form of today's chat platforms like Google, with the only difference being a maximum limit of 256 characters per message. Before we could explore remote terminals further, I left the company, moving on to mini platforms and DOS, while my colleague moved to the United States and eventually developed it into a full-fledged inter and intranet file transfer and communication protocol software, which he patented under Red Hat Linux, the open-source platform. By then, hundreds of similar products were available in the market, and Sabeer Bhatia had launched Hotmail in 1996.

From those early days of automated communication protocols, we now find ourselves in a time, more than two decades later, where communication protocols are no longer a need for us; rather, we have become indispensable to communication protocols. Across the globe, billions of data packets traverse intricate networks of wired and wireless connections every nanosecond, destined for recipients who will process them, turning data into both cost and currency. Perhaps, alongside stock exchanges, gambling, and warfare, internet communication stands as one of capitalism's most lucrative discoveries—something it has monetized to the fullest. It seamlessly fits into its business model, characterized by exclusivity, monopoly, speed, multitasking, and a structure that values productive man-hours.

However, it's essential not to confuse data with the internet communication protocol. This distinction can be likened to the contrast between Microsoft's Windows model and Bell Labs' Unix model. While the former operates as a closed, unilateral system where users can only be operators, the latter fosters a cooperative, federal, and democratic system where users can also become co-creators. This subtle difference underlines the essence of the internet, which empowers users to engage in a liberal, democratic exchange of ideas and information.

The telecommunication network business model, where pricing is uniformly metered, and telephone instruments serve primarily as interfaces for receiving and broadcasting conversations, led Bell Labs to develop a nonlinear, democratically liberal, easily accessible, and modifiable software structure. These communication protocols operate much like individuals within communities under the rule of law in a federal state. Unix functions with small scripts within shells under a broader Unix operating system. These scripts can be independent or interactive shells, or they can form collectives with shared interests or areas of exchange.

It's somewhat ironic that a profit-driven telecommunications company and its capitalistic economy became the architects of an egalitarian socialist system, given their reliance on telecommunication networks. The internet, also dependent on these networks, adopted a liberal socialist architecture rather than an individualistic capitalistic structure.

A closer look at successful internet-based systems reveals that only heavily subsidized or free systems have thrived and endured. Services like Google, email, wikis, social networks, YouTube, maps, and navigation, which operate within an egalitarian system of access, have outlasted their paid, unilateral, capitalistic counterparts that repeatedly attempt to establish a foothold in this socialist network space.

A comparison between Microsoft Windows during the pre-internet era—when chip maker Intel and Microsoft held monopolies and reaped profits through their closed, user-restricted software—and the current era dominated by free Android and Google platforms provides a clear picture of this shift.

The failure of the capitalistic business model worldwide can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the structure of the internet. This structure, founded at Bell Labs and based on a socialist architecture, directly contradicts capitalism. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, recently advocated for a more socialist approach to computing and business. As long as this network model remains dominant and paves the way for the future, all other systems, including capitalism and its business models, will need to adapt to this non-negotiable reality.

Imagine a world of socialistic capitalism! On the other hand, Facebook and its founder are attempting to monopolize the internet using a capitalistic model of architecture. This dynamic illustrates the ever-changing world and the challenges facing our evolving minds.

I don’t make art : I am art - innocuous contemporary art

In western philosophy,  way back in history during the golden Greek period, Plato declared,  “art is fake- and not original” as an aesthetic dictum . But with the change of time and at the onset of 21^st century, we are now celebrating “what makes art?” as the new aesthetic order. 

Material, ,medium, idea, practice and the viewer, the basic entities  for any creative production have all undergone immense  transformation and to be more specific the contextual objectivity of art does not remain “observer-observed and observation” anymore. 

Even during the heights of abstract expressionism and conceptual art, it was considered  “the relative positioning of artist, work of art and the viewer” is the most important factor in an art practice. (1), but with the technological and mass media explosion like internet, motion pictures and television, the very idea of viewer, the one who has an interest or the one who is initiated has now become irrelevant. In today’s world, a work of art simultaneously becomes an expression; creative idea, investment, performance, manipulation or gimmick- in other words the relative positioning does not remain the same and it has changed forever.

While with the death of modernism, where body and its interactions were subjected to the explorations of structures in cubism, social objectivity in constructivism, protest in Dadaism, idea of redemption in conceptual art, essential in minimalism and celebration of possible in pop art, those artistic engagements used to   occupy the creative space. As mentioned earlier, when mass media such as television, motion pictures and Internet offer everything a fine art other wise would have offered: entertainment, joy, aesthetics, idea, design, decoration and above all an interaction, today artists find it difficult to negotiate that space anymore. 

In this context, it has become essential for 21^st century artists to seek spaces other than what is essentially a mass media art  occupy; a space relevant but unexplored in its equation with mass appeal and importance. As it occurred during the surrealistic period of art, where the artist dealt with subjectivity of human mind and its fantasies, these days artists are dealing with subcultures more often than normal to the mainstream sensibilities.

                                                           

Rather than protesting, artists now provoke human mind with their artwork that deals with subcultures. These works of arts does not make you comfortable, an idea of aesthetics prevailed over thousands of years, but provoke you to seek the undeniable existence of sub-terrain facets of the world we live. It shatters the sense of security, the spectator presupposes in front of an artwork and it does not pose any question like Mark Rothko or Duchamp who had to deal with the self-sufficiency of art.

These new age artists rather try to be powerless to deal with such redundant subjects of the day.  Artists of the day subjects themselves to vulnerability along with their work of art like anyone else from outside the four walls of the white cube. Their work of art undergoes all traumas of living including its necessity of making material gain, market, power, brinkmanship and social pruning. Artists are not proving they are better than others neither in skill nor in expression.

But at the same time on the other side of the dice, Art, idioms and its scales did not remain the same anymore. With the kind of scaled up market stakes on one side and vulnerability on the other, the positions one take, the choices one adopt, the practice one derive now have more consequences in society than ever before. Now there are layers of media, communication and gallery practice along with a well-crafted curatorial regimentation with sound theoretical and academic arguments laid out for  the art practice.

Interestingly despite this inflated importance, visual art unfortunately is yet to be conceived as something very relevant to society. George Lechner in his essay “ Art- east and west” quotes Herbert Read, from Philosophy of modern art” (3) that “Do not let us deceive ourselves: The common man, such as we produce in our civilization, is aesthetically a dead man. He may cultivate art as a “culture”, as a passport to more exclusive circles of society. He may acquire the pattern of the appreciation, the accent of understanding. But he is not moved: he does not love: he is not changed by his experience. He will not alter his way of life – he will not go out from the art gallery and cast away his ugly possessions, pull down his ugly house, storm the Bastille where beauty lies imprisoned. He has more sense, as we say”.

This tragic alienation of art and artist in society can not be completely ascribed to lethargy of society at large as in the same essay (4) he further points out that “We must wait; wait perhaps for a very long time, before any vital connection can be reestablished between art and society. The modern work of art, as I have said is a symbol. The symbol, by its nature, is only intelligible to the initiated. It does not seem that the contradiction, which exists between the aristocratic function of art and the democratic structure of modern society, can ever be resolved. “,

This dichotomy of contemporary art, the one that is important in society but irrelevant in appreciation becomes a tragedy for artists as their practice has became completely vulnerable to a slow but steady degradation to craft by curators of theoretical regimentation with much popular textual articulation. A historical similarity could be drawn here to the bhraminical practice of Indian art where the one who worked with hand is looked down upon while the theoreticians celebrated with creative ownership of idiom.

The biggest tragedy of this diabolic act is, as Thomas Craw explains in his foreword to Charles Harrison’s Art and Language “The current situation in art practice is one in which almost no possible artistic decision is free from the burden of historical and theoretical self consciousness”, that no artist is an inheritor of practice like craftsmen but in spite of the practice being a conscious effort, artists are losing out their independence of practice for curatorial articulation of textual excellence. Word is slowly and steadily displacing the work of art. I don’t mean to say that word is not work of art but certainly would like to remind word is not the only art.

Today conventional art forms like painting, sculpture, installation, performance, theater, singing, photography, cinema, computer graphics or the new age art forms like virtual reality, gaming, internet / transponder projections are no different from the word as all of them promise certain possibilities and certain limitations.

As avenue of art is vastly promising and liberated, it is rudimentary for any artist to stagnate or stretch one form of art over another or one for the other. Validity of every form of expression still holds valid and will hold valid. As discussed in the beginning “what makes art?” may be the new aesthetical order but since time immemorial the basic tenets of relationship, the foundation for human endeavor to that art is relevant remains the same.

“If there is a relationship, there exists an innate need for an aesthetical expression and it is not separate from the creator. So artists don’t make the art but artist is art, one is not secondary to the other and it is relevant enough for the world.”

A nation’s sketch

By Narendra Raghunath

Published: 12th July 2009 07:02 AM

Last Updated: 15th May 2012 10:38 PM

• Photos

• 

It is ironic that when it came to popular imagination Tyeb Mehta shared his space with M F Husain. For, one was a reclusive loner who resisted the temptations of the art market, the other has alw­ays been famously flamboyant. But at the end of the day, if not for artistic merit, certainly in general perception, the huge money his works fetched changed Mehta’s image forever.

It all happened in 2002 when Celebration was sold at the Christie’s. The most thing striking about this Mehta triptych was the price: $317,500 (Rs 1.5 crore) — the highest sum for an Indian painting at an international auction. And, perhaps more significantly, that it set off the great Indian art boom.

This singular achievement in the evening of his life apart, Mehta wasn’t alone at the start of his artistic career. He was from early days a close associate of contemporary artists Akbar Padamsee and Ram Kumar. Together their Progressive Artists’ Group represented that vibrant era of Bombay. In fact, it reverberates as “modernism” even

today in the heart of Indian art.

F N Souza, whose works also went on to figure later in the list of most

expensive Indian paintings, had in 1949 declared in the catalogue of the group’s debut exhibition that “Today we paint with absolute freedom for content and technique, almost anarchic, save that

we are governed by one or two sound elemental and eternal laws, of aesthetic order, plastic co-ordination and colour composition.”

This new course they charted out with the modern European sensibility within the revivalist Bengal school and Victorian academic art certainly changed the way art was looked at in India. Suddenly, in art, “taboos” were no longer untouchable. And, piquantly,  a vital part of this was coming from someone hailing from an orthodox Shia community — in Gujarat. Born in 1925 as a Dawoodi Bohra at Kapadvanj in Kheda district, Mehta had begun his career at a film laboratory in pre-Independent Bombay.

S H Raza, another highly-priced artist these days, had recalled in a 1984 interview (to Bombay magazine) that a hope for a better under­standing of art was what he had in common with Mehta — “besides our youth and lack of means”. They shared “a sense of searching and we fought the material world…. The works of the French Impressionists and the German Expressionists insp­ired us and we were particularly indeb­ted to Irving Stone’s book Lust for Life, on Vincent Van Gogh.’’

From those early days of romantic idealism, many of them moved on, some of them lost out. And a few of them rem­ained unchanged — like

Mehta. He kept his art at a nostalgic altar where the sanctity of the intention was unquestionable. Even in an interview, only weeks before his death on July 2, he said, “I do not paint for money, or for what people think of me or of my work. I am not part of this hyped up ‘art world’. Yet, this changing world outside my window is reflected in my work. I paint of my times, but I am not of this time.”

This detachment of an artist from his subject is not surprising if one takes the trail of Mehta’s work. One may find a great concern for the human condition in all his paintings, but there’s also the coldness of the surgeon’s knife that cuts through those explorations. A 1971-72 exhibition catalogue of his (at Kunika Chemould Art Centre) carries a quote of the late French Expressionist pain­ter Wassily Kandinsky: “… the most inte­nse coldness is the highest tragedy. And this is cosmic tragedy, in which the human element is only one vibration, one of the contributing voices and in which the centre is shifted to a sphere that approaches the divine.”

Nothing better explains his not-so-common attitude towards his art. But then, this detachment also led Mehta to destroy more work than he preserved. “For every painting of Tyeb’s that came out, he destroyed seven or eight paintings,” recalls Arun Vadehra, his friend and gallerist who, for the last two decades, consigned all his paintings for sale. Mehta, however, is one of those few Indian artists who kept reinventing his own style with a newfound vigour.

The School of Paris and post-war despair of English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) did influence his work, but the Kandinskyian concerns of space, splits and implications are also equally prominent in his work. From his early “Trussed bull” series of the 1950s, figurative work like Head and torn matte-finished semi-abstract paintings like Falling figures, All Is Always Now, Reclining figure and Situation of the ’60s, “Diagonal” series of the ’70s, the Santiniketan Triptych of the ’80s and his last anchoring at the Mahishasura and onwards, Mehta handled his subject with a clinical precision. All the same, as a genuine human being who once attended to sick people in Bombay hospitals, his concern for human sufferings remained intact.

In ’69, carried away by a mood swing,  Mehta thought he had hit the dead end of his artistic explorations, and swung his brush across the canvas with a black stroke. That only revealed the enigma of diagonals to him. On a philosophical note, Mehta later considered it as an equivalent to the biblical term ‘cleave’ that at once joins and divides. There­after, within those signature diagonals, he explained the history of common man and his encounters with suffering for a long time to come.

If artists are born as social resp­o­nse in any culture, Mehta still exemplifies the norm best in India. His works have always been intertwined with the historical build-up of his nation. The mind-boggling auction prices that made him rich in his autumn are a minor matter while looking at his artistic merit.

The writer is an Ahmedabad-based artist. narendraraghunath@gmail.com

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/article93977.ece?pageToolsFontSize=70%25

Its power my friend, the violent power: GRAB IT

Examining global crime statistics, it becomes evident that crimes committed by men against men significantly outnumber those against women. This observation is not intended to undermine the significance of crimes against women but rather to shed light on the deeper issue within our social framework. Let us confront a harsh reality: throughout the history of human civilization, we have witnessed a relentless power struggle where the powerful use violence to establish dominance over the powerless. Crimes against women are no exception to this pattern.

When we analyze our social structure, we find an inherent human nature that instills the fear of its potential for violence to maintain a cohesive social order. Whether within families, communities, societies, politics, the judiciary, or nations, this potential for violence serves as a cornerstone for preserving socio-political structures. For instance, consider our political hierarchy: there are police officers, the military, the judiciary, and the government, and our respect for them varies based on their capacity to influence our lives. We hold greater respect for an officer over a constable, for the judiciary over an officer, for a minister over an MLA, and for the government over the judiciary. To reiterate, our adherence and respect for this hierarchy are not determined by wisdom but by the potential for violence or the extent of violence they can inflict. What concerns us is not the violence itself but the capacity for violence. Our socio-political structure has cunningly harnessed this fickle aspect of human society to construct itself. From police constables to the government, the ability to inflict violence grows at each level, step by step and structure by structure.

However, it is not just the ability to inflict violence but the capacity to instill greater fear through violence that defines our social order. In such a structure, advocating stringent punishments for crimes against women makes little sense unless women possess the power to enforce these punishments.

The use of violence as a mode of governance is certainly questionable in the 21st century, but devising an alternative system to replace this brutal and archaic approach will take time. Waiting for such change would be asking too much and coming too late for our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and friends.

In our society, men are respected for their power, and it is also a fact that powerful women receive respect and experience less violence. Therefore, it is imperative for Indian women in the 21st century to hold power if they wish to ensure their safety. No law can protect them unless they are positioned at the highest echelons of the power structure – the government – with a strong presence that instills fear of their ability to bring about significant changes in society. Thus, it is crucial to bring the Women's Reservation Bill to parliament and enact it without further delay if we want to safeguard women's lives.

The Philosophy of Interconnectedness in Gandhian Thought and Quantum Mechanics

by 

Narendra Raghunath

Interconnectedness signifies all entities' deep interrelation and mutual dependence, a pivotal theme in Gandhian philosophy and quantum mechanics. Though these fields of thought emerge from entirely different realms—Gandhian philosophy from ethics, spirituality, and political theory, and quantum mechanics from theoretical physics—the notion of interconnectedness offers a profound bridge between them. For Mahatma Gandhi, interconnectedness was a moral and ethical principle, while it manifests as a physical reality in quantum mechanics. This essay will explore the importance of interconnectedness as a philosophical foundation in Gandhian thought and quantum mechanics and how it invites broader reflections on reality, morality, and the universe's structure.

Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy was deeply rooted in the interconnectedness of all living beings, a concept that shaped his ideas about non-violence (ahimsa), truth (Satya), and Swaraj (self-rule). For Gandhi, interconnectedness was not merely a metaphysical idea but a moral principle guiding how individuals should live in harmony with others.

Gandhi's principle of ahimsa or non-violence stems from the belief that all living beings are interconnected, and thus, harm inflicted upon one being reverberates throughout existence. Gandhi held that hurting another individual—whether through violence, exploitation, or indifference—is ultimately harming oneself because all lives are fundamentally linked. According to Gandhi, this interconnectedness extends beyond human relations and includes all sentient beings, reflecting his deep respect for life in its broadest sense. He argued that only by recognizing this oneness can humans foster compassion, reduce conflict, and work toward the collective well-being of society.

Gandhi's satya (truth) concept also reflects his understanding of interconnectedness. For Gandhi, the pursuit of truth was not an individual endeavour but a collective journey, where the welfare of each person was tied to the welfare of others. His idea of Sarvodaya (the upliftment of all) captures this essence: true freedom and prosperity cannot be achieved unless it encompasses the freedom and prosperity of everyone. He believed societal change would only come through recognizing this deep relationality, which links personal ethics to the broader social and political order.

Quantum mechanics, while a scientific domain, touches upon philosophical questions about the nature of reality and the deep interconnectedness of particles. Unlike classical physics, where objects are considered separate and distinct, quantum mechanics reveals that the very fabric of reality is deeply intertwined.

One of the clearest examples of interconnectedness in quantum mechanics is quantum entanglement, a phenomenon where two particles, once linked, remain connected no matter how far apart they are. When an action is performed on one particle, the other responds instantaneously, even across vast distances, suggesting a level of communication or linkage that transcends the classical notion of separateness. This phenomenon undermines the idea of locality in physics and suggests that the universe is non-local and interconnected at a fundamental level. The implications of this are profound, as it challenges our everyday experience of the world as composed of distinct, isolated objects.

Another aspect of interconnectedness in quantum mechanics is the observer effect, which posits that observing a particle can change its state. This suggests that the observer and the observed are inextricably linked, blurring the line between subject and object. The quantum world challenges the notion of objective reality, showing that observation plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of an event.

Though arising from distinct contexts, the philosophy of interconnectedness in Gandhian thought and quantum mechanics points to a shared understanding of reality as inherently relational. Both perspectives challenge the notion of separateness that often underpins our everyday experiences and conceptual frameworks.

In Gandhian philosophy, interconnectedness is moral, spiritual, and social. Gandhi argued that the community's health depends on its members' ethical actions and that true freedom (Swaraj) is only possible when individuals recognize their obligations to others. His constructive programs, such as promoting self-sufficiency in rural India, reflected this principle of mutual interdependence. Just as individuals are connected within society, Gandhi believed that nations are interconnected globally, a relevant principle in today's age of globalization and environmental crisis.

In quantum mechanics, interconnectedness is demonstrated physically, as quantum phenomena like entanglement and the observer effect highlight the fundamental linkage between particles and observers. This challenges traditional Newtonian views of an objective, deterministic universe where entities exist independently.

There is also an intriguing intersection between Gandhian truth and the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics. While Gandhi believed in Satya as an ultimate, unchanging truth, he acknowledged that human understanding of this truth is limited and evolving. Similarly, with principles such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, quantum mechanics suggests that certain aspects of reality cannot be fully known. The uncertainty in quantum mechanics is not just a limitation of measurement but a fundamental property of nature, implying that the universe operates in probabilistic rather than deterministic ways.

Gandhi's acknowledgement of the imperfection of human knowledge and quantum theory's recognition of uncertainty leads to a typical humility before the vast complexity of reality. Gandhi's pursuit of truth was coupled with the understanding that humans can only grasp it progressively, and quantum mechanics underscores that complete knowledge of the universe may be beyond reach.

The concept of interconnectedness is foundational to Gandhian philosophy and quantum mechanics, though each approaches it from different angles. Gandhi's interconnectedness is grounded in ethical, social, and spiritual relations, emphasizing the moral imperative to care for others and live harmoniously with nature. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, reveals interconnectedness at the subatomic level, showing that the universe is a web of relations, not a collection of isolated objects. Both perspectives challenge reductionist and individualistic worldviews, offering a more holistic understanding of reality—whether in moral, social, or physical terms.

The philosophy of interconnectedness is increasingly relevant in today's world, which faces growing political, social, and environmental crises. Whether through Gandhi's ethical lens or the quantum mechanical understanding of reality, recognizing our interdependence can inspire deeper cooperation, compassion, and a commitment to the common good.

References:

• Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science.
• Gandhi, M. K. (1960). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
• Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order.
• Schrödinger, E. (1944). What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell.