Paradesi: Bala's exercise in sado-masochism

"Our sweetest songs are those that tell our saddest thoughts" warbled Shelley in his 'Ode to a skylark'. The genius of Shakespeare reaches its apogee in his tragedies. Music can haunt us with a sad strain. Movies like 'Life is Beautiful' and 'Bicycle Thieves' leaves us with a pang in our heart. Portraying tragedy in a play or music or a movie calls upon the deepest reservoirs of creativity in any artist because  the portrayal can easily slide into a maudlin meaningless assault on the senses. Life abounds in tragedy. War zones with children starving and maimed continues till today. Promising lives cut short by disease and poverty is an all too common truth. So many children die of cancer after an unspeakably horrifying ordeal. How does any art form deal with all that? When does a tragic story become epic? When does a portrayal of tragedy become art and not a documentary? If one can answer with an example of showcasing a work to say this is how it should NOT be then Tamil director Bala's 'Paradesi' is a good example.

Bala gained quite a reputation for gritty movies that revolve around those that languish in the margins of life. His 'Naan Kadavul' with its cast of deformed individuals eking out a life under a slave holder made stomachs churn. Such moviemaking has earned Bala a halo of making 'unflinching' movies that are difficult to watch and for that reason alone praised. Yet his movies are only difficult to watch as much as one cannot stand next to a gutter infested with pigs. Neither has any profundity. If one wanted to make art by showing on screen what we would turn our eyes away from then all that we have to do is give a camcorder to a child and let it loose in some slums and conflict zones in the world, say in Ethiopia.

Seeing me disinterested in the movie my cousin, who loved the movie and who knows my deep love for  studying Holocaust, asked "if this movie was about Holocaust would you not be watching it enraptured". I told him "Exactly. Go watch 'Schindler's List' or 'Pianist' to understand how tragedy is portrayed'. I also added "watch out for Charu's review he would mention those movies". Next day morning my cousin told me "you are great. Charu just now posted a review and he cited 'Schindler's List' and 'Pianist'".

Millions perished in the ovens of Auschwitz and other concentration camps. How does one portray it in a movie and not come across as documentary? Why would 'Pianist' be a work of art but the documentary 'Auschwitz', however expensively and detailed its production might be, remain just a documentary?

Roman Polanski and Spielberg did not show people just being marched to death. There is a reason they both picked stories that had a redemptive element, a sense of hope amidst unspeakable horror, a faith in the triumphant spirit of humanity. A Nazi officer being moved by listening to Chopin, a Nazi war profiteer weeping about the lives he could have saved had he been more frugal in his expenses, give hope in humanity. It is that sense of hope that saves those movies from being dreary. Is that naive? No. That is the proper function of art.

Take 'Sophie's Choice'. Another movie centered on Holocaust and one that ends in heartbreaking tragedy. The heroine had to choose between her babies as to which she will give up to die in Auschwitz. But that is not the choice that the movie pivots on. That choice haunts the heroine and propels her to make one final choice, between her lover and husband. The tragic ending is poignant and one that the story inexorably churns towards. Its like how Macbeth, Hamlet and Lear churn towards their climactic tragic conclusion. And in their conclusion the reader or viewer strangely feels a liberation. Its a liberation in having peered at a profound layered truth that often glides by us unnoticed in the rush of life.

Wladyslaw Szpilman's memoir 'Pianist' is a mediocre book and certainly not to be ranked alongside Elie Wiesel's 'Night' or Viktor Frankl's 'Man's search for meaning' or Primo Levy's 'Survival in Auschwitz'. Yet Polanski turns a mediocre memoir into art with creative re-telling that includes even some fictional moments, one of which, when Szpilman plays an imaginary piano, is very poignant.

Bala is no sensitive artist or a keen student of literature and this shows. He took a book, 'Red Tea', about the travails of bonded laborers in British era tea estates and turns it into a documentary that pretends to be a movie.

The movie has dialogues scripted by Nanjil Nadan, a Sahitya Akademi awardee. Nanjil has a repugnant anal fetish. I've seen his stories abound with remarks about farting or piles. I guess in his mind nativity means speaking of the rear end and its functions. Even with a much respected author by his side Bala slips on characterizations. The movie garnered rave reviews particularly for Nanjil Nadan's dialogues. The dialogues were not exceptional and could have been written by anon with a sharp pen. I'd hazard a guess that Nanjil was not integral to movie making but wrote dialogues for scenes narrated by the director and I'd even guess that Nanjil's dialogues were edited mercilessly by the director.

Many have fondly recalled Nanjil's short story 'Idalaakudi Rasa' being used in the early portrayal of the hero. But that story, particularly the characterization of Rasa, had no context in this movie. Only in Tamil Nadu would reviewers wax eloquent about a misplaced short story out of affection for the author. Nanjil did not enhance his literary credentials a bit by taking part in this movie. Why do Tamil authors crave for cinema fame and attention?

The hero who appears like a retarded bumpkin in the opening scenes later emulates higher cognitive emotions of deep sympathy and even a sense of righteousness. A panoply of characters come and go with cardboard like qualities. A character is either villainous or innocent. A pyramid of exploitation crushes the gullible villagers with the middleman, a hack and few others up the totem pole all under the British estate owner.

The cinematographer was a much spoken about Chezhian. Other than employing a sepia toned lens I am not sure what he accomplished. As the villagers, by the tens, drink water from a pond like animals the camera sweeps across them and a scene with potential for poignancy just glides by. Long shots, sweeping panorama, sepia tone etc do not make up for cinematography. Cinematography is more than just handling a camera and knowing technology. It is not a mean feat that Schindler's List, filmed in black and white, won an Oscar for cinematography.

Music was sheer torture in a movie where music should have been one of the pillars. Again, G.V.Prakash probably knows how to play instruments and bang a few notes but that does not make him a musician. Incidentally the result would be no different even if Ilayaraaja, a has been, had scored the music.

The worst part of the movie was the Christian doctor. The characters was a pathetic caricature of evangelical christians who proselytize tribals. Yes proselytization remains a stigma for many missionaries. But equally undeniable is the role of CHristian missionaries in bringing education and health services to many remote corners. Ironically the book that the movie was based upon was written by a Christian doctor, P.H.Daniel, who toiled amongst the laborers. The doctor in the movie even dances a ridiculous dance with his White wife to celebrate Christmas. As they dance they assume the position that depicts the crucifix and they cavort while throwing bread to the laborers. A clear allusion to the Gospel miracle of feeding 5000. Thankfully Bala, in his perversion, did not pick on Muslims.

The story itself just plods and in fact the central theme of the movie happens only at half point (interval). Until then it is filled with inane jokes of the heroine teasing the bumpkin hero and a very thin portrayal of village life. Bala had used villagers as actors. He hit a bumper prize with the hero's grandmother. Everyone else has no idea of what acting it. There is a reason why professional actors should be used in a movie.

Upon reaching the plantation the movie drops any pretense of being a movie and is sheer documentary of the repressiveness and exploitation. The scene where the Britishers party and talk of Gandhi showcases the cardboard nature of characters and the pathetic quality of the actors. The movie, with a fetish for tragedy, the careens from one contrived tragedy to another. The ordeal finally ends with the hero's wife and newly born child entering the gates of hell. This was supposed to leave the viewer dazed and angry at a world of hopelessness. Yet, most viewers heave a sigh of relief and dart towards getting into their cars to drive back home. There is no lingering sadness just a vicarious pleasure of having slithered out of a gutter.

Vittoria De Sica's much lauded 'Bicycle thieves' too ends on a sad note. A father and son walk away with no hope about tomorrow in war ravaged Italy. What is worse the father had been humiliated as a thief before the eyes of his son. There is poignance in that simple story of a father desperately trying to get a cycle so he could go to his just secured job.

Satyajit Ray's 'Ashani Sanket' is a sensitive portrayal of the Bengal famine, in which millions perished. Ray takes us on a journey to understand the ravages of a famine that wrecked a once prosperous state. He narrates sensitively the breakdown of traditional relations. The famine is both central theme and a backdrop to a changing world.

All that Paradesi indulges in is a kind of sadism in tormenting the viewers and it is masochistic in as much as Bala wallows in making such movies.

Bala released a 'making of Paradesi' trailer prior to movie release. He would painstakingly instruct each and every actor on what postures to assume, how not to stare at a camera, how to engage in conversations and look natural etc. Bala, I am sure, has a great future as an assistant director. 

Holocaust and the Israeli/Jewish psyche

Hollywood found a convenient story in Rwanda and romanticized the story of Tutsi persecution by Hutu's. 'Hotel Rwanda' did not delve into the complex history of the conflict, a history in which Hutus and Tutsis killed each other in turns culminating in a horrific genocide that saw a million Tutsis butchered. Paul Kagame, leader of Tutsi rebels, won a military victory and took office. Kagame later went to war with Congo for purely imperialistic purposes and presided over retributions killings of Hutu's in Rwanda. Yet the world only speaks of the Tutsi dead. Rwanda is not lectured to about learning from its past. If Rwanda was Israel American college campuses would gleefully scold about their inhumanities.

Last year Afro-American mayor and fellow Afro-American legislator of the city of Washington D.C. let loose a racist rant against Asian shopkeepers and Asians in DC. If one did not know the speaker was an Afro-American and listened to the remarks, given the history of USA, one would mistake it for a rant by a white racist. Al Sharpton and Malcolm X were established anti-semites. One protest organized (related to an unfortunate car accident caused by a Jewish driver) by Al Sharpton targeting Jews in Manhattan resulted in the death of a Jew. The Crown Heights riot tore apart Manhattan. Afro-Americans and Latinos (most of who are illegal immigrants) share a testy tenuous relationship in cities like L.A simply because Latino, since most are illegal, lack access to elected office unlike blacks.

Gandhi's India, Putin's Russia, De Gaulle's France, China and more countries indulge in naked imperialistic aggression against neighbors. Yet those countries are not the most scolded in UN. That dubious honor is reserved for Israel.

Do Israeli's and the Jews in general suffer from perpetual victimhood? Is holocaust a convenient 'victim card' that Israel plays? No and No. Never. Ask those questions to the small child who was killed in southern French town of Toulose by a jihadist because the child was Jewish. Ask those questions to the innocent Jews, including both parents of a toddler, who were mowed down in a Chabad in Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists because they were Jews.

For those bleeding heart liberals who say "we condemn those acts but Palestine..." I say 'shame on you'. Not even Indians knew that Jews lived in Mumbai. That were targeted by Pakistani terrorists speaks of how hatred had hijacked a religion. If those same Jews in Mumbai injured any Muslim as retribution for Palestinian intifada would any sane minded person accept that as rationale. We would condemn it unequivocally.

The Jewish people, given their history of being persecuted over 2000 years, have long memories. Scattered around the globe and living amidst hatred they nurtured hope for living in Jerusalem saying 'Next year, in Jerusalem'. The holocaust gave rise to another slogan, 'never forget'. How can they forget? Can Israel afford not to be a hawk? Can Israel depend on international bodies in times of need? No and No.

When Israel pleaded to be left alone after the UN partition the Grand Mufti croaked 'we will push you into the Red sea'. No country, not even US, guaranteed Israel its right to exist. UN abandoned Israel after the partition vote. Having lost 6 million, with no cash coffers of friendly governments, nobody to buy ammunition from legally, surrounded by enemies Israel defended itself in a drama unparalleled in human history. As soon as the British left, as they always do, it was chaos. Armies from Syria, Jordan, Lebabon and Egypt descended on Israel from all sides barring the Red sea side. Golda Meir landed in New York with nothing but a handbag. Ms Meir told the Jews of New York "it is not your choice to decide whether or not we fight. It is ours and we will fight. But it is your choice whether we live or die because we need money without which we will die".

The war of 1967 is looked at as the most pivotal moment in Arab-Israeli history. Israel humiliated Egypt and Syria in a swift and decisive campaign that altered the maps and left a searing wound in the Arab psyche. Egypt and Syria were baying for Israel's blood and Israel lived under the scepter of war and total annihilation. Again, this was a campaign that US did not support or wish to happen. A Syrian paper published a cartoon of mountain of Jewish skulls leaving no doubt as to what would happen to a defeated Israel.

 Photo Courtesy : "The Six Day War" Michael Oren

                                                                                                

Then in 1970 came 'Black September'. Yasser Arafat unleashed naked terrorism against Israeli athletes who were in Munich for the Olympics. It was terrorism on live relay. Jews were once again threatened on the soil of Germany. While the world ignored this heinous act Israel once again found itself alone battling for the lives of its beloved citizens. No one, not even the US, came to the rescue of those Israelite athletes. In a botched rescue attempt the athletes were killed and the Olympics proceeded on schedule without so much as a pause. Till today in no Olympics are those athletes mourned. If only they had been from any other country.

Today Bibi Netanyahu is reviled as a hawk. How can he not be one after losing his brother in Operation Entebbe. A plane carrying Israelis was hijacked by PLO terrorists. With 106 Israeli lives at stake Israel looked around for help and once again God's chosen people found themselves alone, all alone. In a daring rescue attempt, one for the history books, a commando operation liberated the hostages during which Yonathan Netanyahu was killed. Can Israel afford to rely on world opinion? Can Israel afford to 'forget'? Never. Not in a 1000 years must Israel forget. 

Would Sonia have signed a peace treaty with Prabhakaran? Would Putin shake hands with a Chechen leader? Would an Armenian shake hands with a Turkish leader? Yet, Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with Yasser Arafat and paid for it with his life at the hands of a murderous Israeli. 

When two sides fail to arrive at a negotiation what would they do? If they asked Yasser Arafat they would launch terrorist attacks on the other sides. The Camp David negotiations shepherded by Bill Clinton, in a desperate attempt to rescue his legacy post-Lewinsky, ended, according to most observers, only because of Arafat's intransigence. To cover up his failed talks Arafat launched the second intifada, a campaign of terror. Ehud Barak conceded more than what any Israeli had ever conceded and Arafat had almost everything he wanted at hand. Arafat who knows only to inflict terror and not to build a nation stomped out. Arafat is no Ben Gurion and both Israel and Palestine pay a price for that.

It was a rich irony for Arab states to move a motion in the UN to label Zionism as 'racism'. This by a bunch of people who run tin pot dictatorships with no semblance of human rights. Israel's ambassador to UN Chaim Herzog in a stirring speech 'hate, ignorance and evil' ripped apart the motion figuratively and literally, watch it here:

Time magazine in a shameful cover asked recently if Israel desired peace. The cover featured an Israeli lounging on a beach side. Israel has forged its destiny amidst an unprecedented sustained campaign of military assaults and terrorist attacks. That a magazine would take the picture of a man at a beach side and wonder if a nation desires peace shows the depths of depravity to which journalism plunged to. Would that same Time magazine, after 9/11, show Americans in revelry and ask "do Americans desire peace"? 

America became a staunch ally of Israel due to strategic real politick as Egypt became ensconced in the bosom of USSR. America stands by Israel for its own strategic reasons. Much is made of American aid to Israel. Pakistan practically blackmails America into giving billions in aid without which, Pakistani leaders claim, fundamentalists would run amuck and destroy America. Just last week America released $750 million to Egypt, a country which has no friendly intention toward America. But for America Saudi Arabia would have been overrun by Saddam. What America refused to do for Israel in 1948 it did for Muslims in Kosovo. 

Is it an accident that Israel has the largest number of companies listed in the Nasdaq after USA. The book 'Startup Nation' explores how Israel focused on development and human capital amidst the constant fear of death. Warren Buffet is investing in an Israelli company that is within distance of being annihilated by Hamas's rockets. Buffet reasons that he is investing in what the employees are capable of producing not in the brick and mortar that Hamas can destroy.

When Mitt Romney spoke of cultural differences in the context of how Israel and West Bank/Gaza develop the politically correct left wingers erupted in anger. Many were livid that Romney would compare Israel with strife torn, segregated, walled off West Bank. What the critics forgot was how immigrant Jews created Tel Aviv out of the swamps. Israel was nothing but swamps and vast tracts of land unused with pockets of habitation. Israel was built by hand kibbutz after kibbutz. If Palestinian leadership know nothing but terrorism is it Israel's problem?

A recent analysis of Israeli and  Palestinian textbooks found rampant stereotyping on both sides with the Palestinian textbook far outranking Israeli texts in preaching hatred. Egyptian textbooks practically inculcate a culture of hatred in children with outrageous texts. 

It is easier to find Jews in Israel who are sympathetic to Palestinian cause than to find a Palestinian who is critical of Yasser Arafat or Hamas. Many Jews in America are now increasingly critical of Israeli policies particularly on the settlements. 

All the above notwithstanding it would be in Israel's own interest to help Palestinians realize their own state. The settlement policies are human rights violations and territorial aggressions. It further messes up an already intractable problem. 

Just as Gandhi's India is militaristic and Christian West is guilty of every human rights violation on the textbook Israel too is not without blemishes. The blemishes of Israel should be seen as the blemishes of a nation and nothing more. Holding Jewish people everywhere as guilty is anti-semitism. Speaking of Israel's questionable acts as the acts of 'Jewish people' is as silly as speaking of America's militarism as the militarism of Christians. The holocaust is bigger than even the state of Israel. It has universal lessons for all.

Let us all study and learn from holocaust. I wish nothing but peace for the people of Palestine and Israel. May their God's give their leaders wisdom to achieve what has eluded generations for the past half century. 

My Pilgrimage To Auschwitz And The Tragic 'Uniqueness' of The Holocaust

I am not a religious person and therefore the idea of a pilgrimage has never appealed to me. My journey to Auschwitz should aptly be called 'pilgrimage'. It is a trite cliche to say that it is the journey that matters not the arriving. I experienced it as my flight was about to land in Krakow.

As the flight from Berlin entered the airspace of Poland I could see that it was chillier than Berlin. As we landed in Krakow I could see snow. Krakow airport looked like a suburban airport in India. I was now worried whether my light jacket would stand the cold. Then I worried if my baggage would be handled properly or would it be lost on a wintry rudimentary airport in Poland. I consoled myself that I can wear a knitted T-shirt underneath by thick cotton shirt with suede patches and top it off with my jacket to beat the cold.

I've watched so many movies and documentaries of Holocaust and read so many books. I remember how Meryl Streep, in 'Sophie's choice',  stands shivering in the cold on that notorious 'selection platform' in Auschwitz with two infants at hand. Then of course 'Schindler's list'. And then a wave of shame washed me over. Here I am, a healthy guy with credit cards and the ability to buy anything I want at any store in case of emergency. Even if my bags are lost its only an inconvenience for me. In the case of a dire necessity as American citizen I can walk into a US consulate. Millions of women, children, aged and the sick have been dragged to this city in box cars, families have been torn asunder at the whim of a Nazi thug at the platform. The victims were depersonalized, their bodies did not belong to them let alone their possessions. In that one moment I realized why a pilgrimage is a spiritual necessity. Whether one calls it a pilgrimage or a study tour the idea is that nothing, no amount of reading books or watching movies, can substitute for being in a place. Of course a study tour or pilgrimage is useless without the reading and watching prior to that. Only a mind that is pullulating with memories will find that aha moment at a place. Else one would be a mindless tourist sauntering through Auschwitz like one would stroll in a park or a museum.

When our tour guide pointed to a serene innocuous swimming pool like water and asked us "what do you think that is" most thought it was a swimming pool for the Nazis to relax. No. Auschwitz was insured by the company Allianz. As an insurance requirement, like today, Allianz stipulated that Auschwitz should have a pond like place to store water to fight any fire hazard. No book had written about that. Looking at the pond and the memory of millions who died a chill ran down my spine at the grotesque nature of human affairs.

Our tour guide made a penetrating observation that Auschwitz was not a concentration camp but an 'extermination' camp built to kill on an industrial scale. Auschwitz's central location played a key role. A map showed the places from which Jews (and others) were transported to Auschwitz from as far as Budapest.

These are insights that become readily available and would take several books to cultivate. That is why a history study tour is essential for students. Next on my agenda is to stand on Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma where Afro-Americans went on a march braving mounted police and police dogs. Several trips like that are pending.

I've often been confronted with the question of whether Holocaust is unique? Being from Tamil Nadu I am also often asked "would you not consider the killings of Sri Lankan Tamils as holocaust, is Rajapakse not Hitler". Of course a Rwandan could ask the same, so would somebody from Darfur. What about an Armenian? The massacre of a million Armenians is still not officially classified as 'genocide', let alone a holocaust. What is so 'unique' about the holocaust? Is it the numbers, a staggering 6 millions? Yes and no.

For any victim in an ethnic conflict his/her tragedy would be, in his/her perspective, the greatest tragedy to befall humanity. I've to respect how a victim feels. A Tamil mother grieving over a child blown to death or a wailing child who had lost both parents or Rwandan who was gang raped and mutilated or a Darfur native who is maimed would all be legitimate in feeling remote to a tragedy that befall a different people decades ago.

It is however the unpleasant duty of a historian to put things in perspective. Let us not forget that from Jaffna to Darfur to Rwanda the deaths and killings were part of and result of civil war with both sides being engaged in an armed conflict. That 6 million Jews were murdered like sheep without a single bullet being fired from their side is indeed unique. That they went to their deaths without a fight has been cruelly used to criticize them or even discredit the scale of the horror.

Syria is burning. UN report says that a million Syrians have crossed over to neighboring countries as refugees. However feeble maybe the efforts of the world in stopping the bloodshed it should be noted that at least the world bodies are 'trying' something and there are nations to open their doors to the refugees. A plaque at Dachau states bluntly "when the inmates at Dachau were liberated most went back to their home countries but the Jews had nowhere to go".

FDR's inaction to bomb Auschwitz is a hotly debated topic. Just last week a new book claims that if the transit lines to Auschwitz had been bombed and if the crematoriums had been bombed it still would not have saved many because allies had the ability to do those only late into the war when many had already been killed. It is 2013 and even today new evidences and new rationale is being investigated in the most complex savagery of humanity.

It is a modern shorthand to refer to any despicable ruler as 'Hitler'. Only Stalin, in reality, matched the cruelty and horrors of Hitler. It is impossible for any ruler of any country to inflict on any race the horrors that Hitler inflicted on humanity at large and at Jews in particular. Doctors, I mean doctors, non-chalantly indulged in medical experiments on Jews. Dr Mengele used to select twin children and subject them to blood curdling medical experiments. Doctors in Berlin thought it unnecessary to wonder how come so many body parts of so many children is turning up for analysis. Dr Mengele had a peaceful anonymous death and never was brought to justice.

Do concentration camps (or the modern internment camps) make up the holocaust? Historian Timothy Snyder in a book review of 4 books writes that it was 'not yet holocaust' referring to Warsaw Ghetto, the laws that prohibited Jews from practically living as human beings etc. In very penetrating analysis Snyder comments that Hitler's murderous scheme was able to take root only because Hitler, in every country he invaded, destroyed every civil institution. In Poland non-Jewish Poles had to be killed first. But in Lithuania which had already been ravaged by Stalin and lost its civil structures Hitler found willing allies in the puppet right wing regime. Close to a 150,000 jews were killed in the matter of a year with Lithuanians being eager to outdo the Nazis and prove themselves as valuable subjects of Nazi state. Death visited the jews in the form of the invader and aided by people who used to be neighbors.

The Nazi regime was an industrial killing machine that took the contours of a holocaust as it brought countries under its jackboot. Stalin had to content himself killing mostly Soviet citizens. Wholesale murder of the Czech or Poles was something even Stalin could not do. Jews were made to pay for the cost of cremating the murdered jews. Snyder writes "Nazi Germany was a special kind of state, determined not to monopolize but to mobilize violence".

Sick minds have caviled about whether it was indeed 6 million who died. Two weeks ago New York Times reported that what we thought we knew of holocaust and the camps is but a fraction of truth according to new evidence. Recent research, gruesomely detailed and verified, asserts that there were nearly 40,000 death camps. Way more than what was thought of.

Only when I planned my trip to go to concentration camps I realized a sobering fact. All the notorious camps were actually close to cities. Dachau is an hour away from Munich, Auschwitz and Birkenau are just 2 hours away from Krakow, Bergen-Belsen where Anne Frank and her sister were killed (not died) is 2 hours away from Berlin, Berlin itself had a concentration camp, Ravensbruck was 90 miles north of Berlin, Buchenwald was near Weimar. The NYT article concludes that given the number of camps it is impossible that people did not know what was going on. At Dachau I saw a photograph of stunned German citizens, dragged to the the camp by allied army liberators, looking over emaciated corpses and the ovens. Were the people of Dachau truly ignorant? I don't think so.

When communist jackboot replaced the Nazi boot in Eastern Europe covering Auschwitz talk of jewish victims was muted as Stalin's regime wanted to speak only of communist victims. That, after nearly 65 years since the camps were liberated, we are still learning and unearthing evidence gives us a perspective of the tragic uniqueness of holocaust. This new knowledge is not an incremental addition to the existing knowledge but it is a paradigm shift that practically enlarged the scope of what was already a too big to digest horror.

Holocaust remains a unique tragedy unparalleled before or after in history. Let us not, juts to rob the Jewish people and Israel, deny this uniqueness and nor shall we wish it upon any people for ages to come.

The one remaining question that I promised to answer was about the lessons from Holocaust that Israel learned. In another perversely unique manner no other tragedy that befall any people draws the question "did they learn from it?". No other people who have suffered are being asked "how different are you from your tormentors". Whenever I speak of holocaust to most people the invariable question is "what about the suffering of Palestine". People are more eager to hold Israel and the Jewish people accountable for todays mess all the more so because of holocaust. In this aspect too, sadly, Israel and the Jewish people are treated uniquely. I'll answer them in my next blog.

'Vishwaroopam' And The Need For Religion.

Would the world be a better place sans religion? Would humanity be served better if we all woke up as rational atheists with no shred of religion in us? Without religion there would be no religious fundamentalism, there would be no crusade, no jihad, no theology, no wars over theological hair splitting, no Taliban, no finger wagging evangelicals, so say atheists disgusted by all that goes in the name of religion.

When the Tamil movie 'Vishwaroopam' was made a football amidst religious groups, a suspect government and a strange acting judiciary a self-styled social commentator, Gnani, wrote in Facebook "I don't care for religious sentiments being hurt, I'd rather see the world of religion. I'll never defend any religious person from any hurt he/she suffers from arguments of other religions or atheists". Tamil Nadu's patron saint E.V. Ramasamy Naicker (in short E.V.R) made it his raison-de-etre in life to rid Tamils of religions. He felt religion was the root cause of a horrendously iniquitous social structure where the very touch or even sight of another human being was considered 'polluting'. Ayn Rand railed against the 'zombies of zen Buddhism' and every one who looked up to the skies.

During Crusades the Christians, riding out in the name of a man who preached love, killed Jews, the chosen race, saying 'God wills it'. White Americans could find verses in the Bible to prove that God willed Blacks into slavery. A Brahmin (and every other upper caste in the ladder) would consider the shadow of a Dalit to be polluting. Osama Bin Laden clothed himself and his act of terror in religion finding verses in Koran to justify his ends. Protestants and Catholics went to war with each other all over Europe killing thousands of each other until this very day. A Sikh guru who refused to convert to Islam was tortured and killed by an Islam king. Ziegenbalg learned Tamil in order to convert the 'heathen' by speaking in vernacular.

India, home to all three major religions and tens of others, superstitious beliefs about what causes small pox, a girl's zodiac signs, the time of birth and so much more have caused the death of millions. In one day, in the very modern age of the recent 90's, millions believed that a stone idol could 'drink' milk (it was just capillarity). In ancient India Saivaites and Vaishnavites killed each other simply because they worshipped variants of the same god and smeared ash differently (horizontal vs vertical) on their foreheads. A modern Indian politician made a career out of promising to build a temple for a mythical god who, he and millions others, believed was born in the very spot where a mosque stood. Of course the mosque itself stood on the place where a temple had stood. India, born out of orgiastic religious violence, convulsed every now and then in riots between Hindus and Muslims.

All the above is but a very brief survey of the ills attributed to what Karl Marx called 'the opiate of the masses'. Seeking to rid the masses of their opium Marx's followers, the world over, instituted their own opium and proved that one can kill one's own citizens by the millions in the name of another god, 'Communism'. The modern world's most monstrous savages, Hitler and Stalin, who industrialized savagery in concentration camps and Gulags were atheists. How come we never hear Stalin or Hitler's killings attributed to their atheism? I think it should be.

EVR's followers, particularly, Annathurai, would often speak of Voltaire without having ever read Voltaire. Voltaire, it should be crucially noted, revolted against, ecclesiastical organized religion and superstition, not against 'God' himself. Voltaire spoke of superstition as "a serpent which chokes religion in its embrace; we must crush its head without wounding the mother whom it devours". Will Durant is categorical in stating that Voltaire rejected atheism. Asked by Bayle "if a society of atheists could subsist?-Voltaire answers, 'Yes, if they are also philosophers".

Not everyone is a philosopher. The common man in his simplicity gets his ideas of morals from the New Testament or Hadith or Sura or Gita. In a striking manner religions mostly agree on what is good and moral. From the illiterate villager in India to a farmer in Idaho religion gives a compass to what might be otherwise a rudderless life with nothing to fear or aspire for.

What have atheists given to the world of literature or art or music or painting that would match the scope of religious outpouring. There is poetry in the defiance of Thyagaraja telling a king that he will not sing of a man as he sings of his lord Rama. Milton reconciling to his blindness saying 'they also serve who only stand and wait' elevates religion from an emotional crutch to a philosophical wondering of meaning of suffering.

Harold Khushner, grieving from the loss of his young boy who died of progeria, wrote his heartfelt 'When bad things happen to good people'. John Gunther, also grieving of his son, wrote 'Death be not proud'. Everyone who has faced strife in life has cleaved to books like those or to passages within religious texts to understand or at least to console one's own suffering. The atheist looks at all those with a smugness. Would the atheist rather have a world gone mad with people unable to suffer stoically? What a monied rich man can gain from fancy psychiatry to address grief the common man gains from religion or the local priest.

Unlike atheism, which is flat and barren, religion exists at different levels. There is Einstein who loved the idea of an abstract God that was beyond any conventional idea of labels. A Hindu steeped in Vedas can understand that the Brahman is to be searched within and is an individual journey. A Christian can boil down all of Bible to loving one's neighbor.

Voltaire, Will Durant tells us, does not believe in miracles or that prayers can change what has happened or about to happen. Asked by his apostle to teach how to pray Christ gives the Lord's prayer which, in all its simplicity, does not ask for anything to be changed by the very act of prayer. Acceptance of what has happened and not to expect miracles is a very cardinal principle of religion.

What of the atheists themselves who put so much store in rationalism and logic. In a strange irony that only life can offer both EVR and Ayn Rand, tied at the hip by their strident opposition to religion and exultation of individual reasoning, lived a life that was anything but rational. Of course I am insulting Ayn Rand, a far greater and subtler intellect, by comparing her to EVR who had no instruction in anything classical.

Both EVR and Ayn Rand demanded absolute unquestioning loyalty from their followers. And oh yes they loved to have people they could call 'followers'. Both left behinds stewards of their fame, Leonard Peikoff and Veeramani, who are extremely intolerant of any openminded justifiable critique by any one of their idols.

Ayn Rand's untrammeled individualism shocked many on the right wing even. William F. Buckley who was fashioning himself as the intellectual vanguard of America's right wing, rejected her atheism as dangerous. An individualism not circumscribed within a limit subject to divine authority was too fearsome to an American who had just battled Hitler and was locked in a mortal combat with Stalin.
EVR's bete-noire and famous Tamil writer Jeyakanthan wryly noted 'Veeramni and his DK partymen are not atheists, their god is EVR'.

Imagine Martin Luther King and hundreds of blacks standing at the bridge in Selma facing baton wielding horse mounted cops ready to strike down. They stood arrayed against brute force. In the front was what force in its visible form, behind them, if they retreated, was the yawning chasm of dark racist present day waiting to devour them invisibly. If they thought of Jews standing in front of Red sea pursued by the Pharoah's chariots I'd not be surprised. In that moment when hope is far away and suffering is at hand they found succor in religion and God.

Malcolm X decried Christianity as the religion of the oppressor. Yet MLK Jr saw that it is not Christianity that was the problem but the perversion of its message by racist bigots. MLK Jr, like Ganhdi, rooted his struggle in religious overtones. What can a leader do when they are fighting against the greatest empires of their day?

Cast out in the night from a train Gandhi 'clings' to his beloved Gita. Is this 'clinging' morally inferior to a stoic? Not in any way. This is clinging as a creeper clings only to rise and grow. Religion is often a tool. Gandhi and Jinnah both used religion as a tool. Gandhi was more heartfelt and sincere in using the tool to integrate an inchoate mass and even to reform the ills of Hinduism. Jinnah used religion as a wedge.

For the striking workers in Gdansk shipyard the message of a Polish pope gave hope. The Nikolai Church in Leipzig was the refuge of those who chafed against communist suppression for decades. The Nikolai church was the epicenter for a people without hope. When there is no hope in mankind and one has to keep struggling where does one go but to a divine omnipresence. In blighted neighborhoods in America it is the local church that still does what no government can ever hope to do.

I've seen crucial differences between how religion is practiced in India compared to America. A key aspect of the difference is Hinduism, the majority religion in India, is not organized religion unlike Christianity, which is the majority religion in America. The philosophical differences and the lack of organizational structure has its pros and cons. Indians have not seen religion as a force for good and societal change at a level beyond the local. Not at least since Gandhi. Churches are vehicles of philanthropy and service in America. To be fair, churches in India are not similar to churches in America.

Religions, particularly Christianity and Hinduism have continually thrown up reformers who re-interpreted, revitalized and reformed them from within. EVR, with his simplistic understanding of caste structure and penchant for scapegoating Brahmins could not see beyond destroying religion as a panacea. Gandhi wanted to reform Hinduism from within. EVR mistook being a bull in a china shop for iconoclasm. By focusing on Brahmins in a Neo-nazi manner EVR gave every other upper caste a pass to institutionalize casteism. In fact Dalits in recent times have argued that EVR was no friend of Muslims or Dalits. A free India, Gandhi's India, banished untouchability and institutionalized the reforms that Gandhi and many other fought for. Of course, as always, much remains to be done. But the foundation is there.

In Tamil Nadu the so called rational movement spear headed by EVR and later carried forward by Annathurai and his cohorts played mischief upon the ignorance of the ordinary Tamil. Annathurai would lecture tamils that Americans, devoid of superstition, progressed in science and technology. Nothing was or is further from truth. EVR, given that he did not read much, never understood the role of Christian theology in unleashing scientific curiosity and America's capitalism. The West owes a lot to Islam for geometry and algebra. It is not an accident that EVR's message of hate took root more easily than his atheism which floundered pathetically even amongst his own followers. Seeking political office and broad based acceptance the first principle of EVR that Annathurai abandoned was atheism.

Religion is not just about power and race. There is am indefinable beauty in the traditions and rituals that forms an envelope for religion. The harvest festival in Tamil Nadu where the Sun god is worshipped brings joy in a simple manner to a village of farmers. It is silly to question if a demon lived and if his death should be celebrated as Diwali. Even a villager in India can instruct an atheist that such a story is but a symbolism. Metaphors and symbolic constructs abound in religious rituals and festivals. Those festivals give a meaning to daily life. Ridiculing them by taking the stories literally only shows the impoverished mind of a smug atheist who preens that he is an intellectual while in reality he/she is a boor.

Much is made of sex scandals involving priests or the church. The abuse of boys by catholic priests in US is a despicable blot on the church. In Tamil Nadu Veeramani and his acolytes incessantly point to scandalous hindu priests (never from other religions for fear of being seen as anti-minority). The common man does not profess a religion based on the conduct of the local priest. Let it be noted that atheist Annathurai and Karunanidhi, self-styled ideological heirs of EVR, were scandalous in private life. Yet their private life is not taken as a yardstick to judge every atheist including EVR, who actually, was a more sincere person.

Scientists are prone to their own obduracies. Let not any man or woman of science think too superior of themselves compared to a farmer who prays for rains. The history of science is replete with examples of men (rarely women) failing to see the mistakes of their proofs or for entertaining the most basic principle of science, 'falsifiability'.

Hamlet tells his friend Horatio, "the world has much more to offer than what is dreamt of in your philosophies". Since not everyone is a philosopher Voltaire concedes "if God did not exist we would have to invent him". Religion has a place in human life. To deny it or to ridicule it is useless. Nothing in human life along the stretch of history is good for all time to come. Governments and markets and social mores evolve constantly. So does religion. So should it be. But to wish for the demise of religion is a death wish.

From Parasakthi to Vishwaroopam: Fascism In Tamil Nadu

More than 50 years ago it was possible for a movie character to ask  a temple priest "when did your god speak?", "you worship a goddess and yet molested my sister". The dialogues in that movie, Parasakthi, were penned by upcoming screenplay writer and atheist ideologue M.Karunanidhi. It was possible only because the god he mocked was Hindu and the priest he scolded was Hindu too. To be sure, where the hero says that the god is 'stone' the word 'stone' is muted but it is clearly apparent given the context of the rest of the dialogues. Karunanidhi's mentor E.V.Ramasamy, more stridently atheist and self-styled iconoclast, took a rally with a picture of Lord Rama garlanded with slippers. Again, it was possible only because he chose a Hindu god.

In 2013 Kamal's magnum-opus (at least in his mind) Vishwaroopam became a political football between radical Islamist groups , vengeful government and a supine judiciary. Radical Islamist groups raised a ruckus and wanted a total ban on the movie on the pretext that it injured the sentiments of Tamil Nadu Muslims by portraying all Muslims as terrorists. They took further offense to how some Islamic habits, like praying, were used by terrorists.

There is nothing demeaning to Islam or muslims in Kamal Hassan's 'Vishwaroopam'. Yes the story revolves around terrorism and yes the perpetrators happen to be muslims. To be specific, they are Afghan Taliban. The protagonist who stops them is muslim too. In a telling scene where FBI agents and Kamal, playing an undercover RAW agent who is muslim, wait outside the door of a terrorist who is about to detonate a dirty bomb. As the agents peer through a camera suddenly an agent exclaims "what is he doing" pointing to Kamal who is offering prayers. Another FBI agent answers "he is praying, for you too". In that one frame Kamal, the director, deftly shows the divide that is often frustrating in this debate about terrorism. Unfortunately his depiction of the protagonist as an observant muslim is brushed aside as tokenism but his depiction of terrorists as muslims is taken as an indictment against a religion.

The depiction of Taliban is pretty accurate and in fact tame compared to what the Taliban really inflicted on the people of Afghanistan and regions of Pakistan. Some muslim organizations that have taken to the streets to get the movie banned were silent when the Taliban shot at point blank range, Malala Yousufzazi, a 15 year old girl. When Tamil poet and commentator Manushyaputhiran, who is muslim, condemned the brutal beheading of a Sri Lankan Tamil girl, he was threatened by one muslim organization which is now openly calling for Sharia law in Tamil Nadu, India.

In a contrived sequence to convince viewers of a Tamil speaking Taliban there is reference to Kovai and Madurai. This is made in the passing with no reference to actual terrorist events that took place in Kovai. In 1998 a string of bomb blasts ripped the industrial town of Kovai and one location included an ICU in the local government hospital. Supposedly tensions between Hindutva and Muslim organizations had simmered there for a while. Later raids in Muslim neighborhood unearthed a huge cache of explosives sufficient to wreck the entire city. The docile state was stunned.

The depictions of beheading with religious overtones and a hanging that is preceded by religious intonations of justice etc are exactly what transpired in Afghanistan. Let us not forget how American journalist and a Jew, Daniel Pearl, was lured in the pretext of giving an interview and later beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. KSM, master mind of 9/11, recorded the gruesome beheading and mailed it to Pearl's wife who was pregnant at that time. Today KSM is rotting in Guantanamo. Videos recovered, by CNN, in Afghanistan showed terrorists being trained on inflicting sheer terror on innocent populations. The instructions included textbooks, video tutoring etc , for instance, poisoning community water storage with botulinum.

Jihadi videos regularly use, with telling effect, religious symbols and religious texts. They, unfailingly, situate their depraved acts within a religious context. A documentary that traced 9/11 plotters to Hamburg shows how places of worship became beehives of terror plots. This is fact. To take offense to movie depictions that show a man praying before detonating a bomb is silly and whitewashes what happens.

Intellectuals who love to be politically correct recoil with horror at the term 'clash of civilizations' when referring to the conflict between the West and Islam. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

If Christian west can put up with Martin Scorsese's 'Last temptation of christ' that shows Christ fornicating with Mary Magdalene or a New York City art exhibit that shows a crucifix in a jar of urine or a pop star denigrating the cross then it is silly to expect the same Western countries to ban anything critical of Islam including any intentional insult.

Philip Pullman publishes a book titled 'Good man Jesus and scoundrel Christ' with the back flap saying, cheekily, 'this is only a story'. So why not Salman Rushdie publish 'Satanic Verses'? I also object that Rushdie is to be defended because his work is art. Even if it is trashy his freedom to trash is to be protected. If one can trash Rama or Christ why not another god? Free speech is a rare commodity in India. Press Freedom Index rates India lower than Afghanistan on free speech. Pulitzer finalist author Suketu Mehta wrote in New York Times "in India today, it seems, free speech is itself an atrocity".

The radical group Towheet Jamat and its fiery leader used the hypocrisies of Indian democracy deftly to further his agenda in banning the movie. Every political party and every religion and every caste has stifled free speech when it suited them. The speech is at http://vimeo.com/58302985 . Apart from a very unsavory remark on Kamal's daughter it is a speech that puts to shame everyone and tells 'don't throw stones from a glass house'. Every religion has flexed its muscle seeking to ban critical opinion. No Bollywood film maker would dare to make a movie on Mumbai riots that the Sri Krishna committee squarely blamed on Bal Thackeray. 'Da Vinci Code' was banned by Tamil Nadu to placate a publicity hungry bishop.

Whether it is Afghanistan or Kashmir or Iran or Saudi, oppression of women, trampling of human rights across the board, lack of liberal democracy etc are hallmarks of those Islamic societies. When a mullah declares that new born babies need a burqa or that a women only music band should be banned the rest of the world lets out a collective gasp. In India Muslims enjoy many concessions like being able to run their educational institutions as they  please, yet their womenfolk are the least educated. That Rajiv Gandhi, in order to appease Islamic fundamentalists, robbed a destitute Muslim woman, Shah Bano, of her right to alimony, stands as a shameful chapter in India's record on human rights. 

Discrimination is another bogey that is raised by Muslims. I say its a 'bogey' in as much as discrimination was not invented by Tamils of other religions as an exclusive weapon against fellow citizens. Discrimination in housing, places of work, schools etc are a shameful, despicable yet pervasive part of Indian life. It is not only a Muslim who is discriminated against when they try to rent a home. A Dalit trying to rent in Mambalam, a Hindu trying to rent in a Christian enclave, vice-versa are all discriminated against. Can a Hindu open a shop in Burma Bazaar? How many non-Muslim students study in Islamic educational institutions? 

Islamic terrorism is a fact of life. If words like Saffron terror and Christian fundamentalism can be used to refer to extremism in those religions I see no reason why we should shy away from 'Islamic terrorism'. A simple listing of terrorist activities over the past few years would illustrate that almost all were Islamic terrorism. Talking of 'look at the context, look at the bigger picture' etc is pure sham. Britain gave refuge to thousands of muslims fleeing persecution in Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet that is where innocent people were killed because……British army was in Afghanistan and Iraq. What can one say when a Pakistani immigrant, whom the US had the grace to allow to become a citizen, plots to blow up tourists and innocent citizens in New York City Time Square? What can one say when an organization plots, in the name of religion, to blow up tens of airplanes killing innocents by the planeloads? 

If Towheet Jamat wants to stop stereotyping I'd love to see them protest against every such incident. I'd love to hear from the so called 'Arab street' loud denunciations of such heinousness. Let us remember that unlike North India Tamil Nadu has been relatively more secular and more peaceful towards its Muslim citizenry. The only protests we hear from the Islamic world are violent bloody protests against a cartoon, a Papal quote, a mediocre movie, a despicable youtube video. 

That a movie certified, under Indian laws, can be stopped by a lumpen organization on the sheer power of threats is chilling. Now any fundamentalist organization will feel emboldened to flex its muscle just to gain political mileage. The High court should have put its foot down on the case and yet they were mere spectators in this shenanigans. Once a movie has been certified by a censor board what is the need for a judge to have a screening. That a court would nullify its own ruling issued barely the night before and let a film maker run from pillar to post portrays the law and order situation in a bad light. The government's vindictiveness was merely capitalizing on the situation for reasons that are not just speculative. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Towheet Jamat has done a disservice to Tamil Muslims because the general population has only re-affirmed its stereotypes and a climate of "this is what they are" has come about. Given today's social media many a Tamil has watched the incendiary speeches of the Jamat speakers and has drawn his or her own conclusion. That the movie is Taliban centric made many to wonder on social media comments: 'so are those who protest against the movie support Taliban'? 

A parting word on the movie. There is much talk of whether or not the movie measures up to Hollywood standards. What is 'Hollywood standard'?

Terrorism is a difficult subject to deal with in a movie as Spielberg learned in 'Munich'. 'Munich' depicted how Israel sought and killed Palestinians who murdered Israeli athletes in Sep 1968 at Munich Olympics. Spielberg who is Jewish sought to explore the minds of those Mossad agents who were on a trail of vengeance. Charles Krauthammer, Jewish conservative columnist, ripped into Spielberg in a withering op-ed in Washington Post (Read it here 'Munich:The Travesty')

"...the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names -- Spielberg's List -- and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.

The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper -- before he is shot in cold blood by Jews." 

Even Spielberg's much revered 'Schindler's List' had its share of critics who felt that Spielberg trivialized Amon Goeth's brutal sport killings. Kamal Hassan, with no Tony Kushner by his side, and no Spielberg himself might have been incompetent to stage even a modicum of a discussion. It could also be the fear of how it would be received by an audience benumbed by inane mindless entertainment and a populace where mischief mongers are a dozen a dime. However Kamal had no compunction in his usual snide tasteless jokes about Brahmins and Hindu religion.

Kamal is no serious intellectual. He dabbles in a lot and is a power house of talent. He is a wonderful actor. Social commentary, intellectual analyses is not his forte. In an interview, possibly rattled by the protests, he made stupid claims and plainly idiotic assertions. 

Kamal opined "if Jews who had lived for just 60 years in Israel feel patriotic about Israel then what would a Muslim feel about a country he has lived in for 500 years". When actor pretend to be intellectual such stupidities happen. His ignorance of Jewish history and Israel is appalling. He goes on to claim that Muslims feel dispossessed today because "they have suffered so much injustice. They have ruled this country for centuries and where are they today. They chose to live and die in this country". Bollocks. Muslims in India are far better than any non-Muslim in Saudi or Pakistan. I do not mean to say that there is no injustice or nothing bad has happened to Muslims. Yes Babri Masjid, Bombay riots have happened. But that is not all there is to Muslims in India. Violent Islamic conquests cannot be swept under the carpet either. Islam did not enter India peacefully. It is stupid to claim so.

The movie shows Taliban indoctrination of children, how schools were closed, treatment of women (just hinted upon). All of that is fleeting and is not dwelled upon or dissected intelligently. Everything is captured only fleetingly as the movie slides into classic hero versus villain in a spy caper. Context is dead. Incidentally Kamal, in an interview, proudly said that when the US embassy read the script they were impressed by the details. The details include scenes of Taliban target practicing on Bush photographs.

Kamal has indeed slogged. Some, like the Kathak dance, are self-indulgent. The character could very well have been a Bharathanatyam dancer but Kamal chose to do Kathak. It is admirable that he did so in order to slog hard under Kathak maestro Birju Maharaj just so it does not come off as cheesy.

I've always felt Kamal tries to do a lot like a glutton and is finally weighed down by what he brings on himself. He is not a good director or a screen play writer. He needs, for his own good, to have a third person to do those just so he is reined in. The screen play is muddled, many characters just flit by. I am not too bothered about loopholes in some logic. After my staple diet of Rambo and Bond movies I know that logic is for the naive.

Kamal has accomplished a decent movie that is 'Hollywood' class if one considers Vin Diesel and Rambo and 'Die Hard' as 'Hollywood'. Also to be charitable let us remember that Kamal has to be mindful of political sensibilities and he does not have a free creative hand as in Hollywood.

Salzburg: Mozart And 'The Sound of Music'

Happy New Year. I want to start off this new year with a pleasant blog about my travel to Salzburg the city of Mozart and 'The sound of music'.

Salzburg is an hour and half by train from Munich. I arrived on a pleasant Thursday morning. A tourist information center is situated within the train station. The center sells tickets for a hop-on, hop-off tour and a day trip ticket that can be used on any tram or bus in Salzburg. The day trip ticket is just 4.5 Euro.

My first stop was at Mozart house. The house was completely destroyed in the allied bombing raids during World War II. What stands today is reconstructed. In a city where Mozart died a pauper and was buried in an unmarked grave today he is celebrated in every nook and corner and his name is used to make money. In the fictional biopic the character of Mozart would protest to the emperor "I am a vulgar man your majesty but I assure you my music is not". In this museum a vivid documentation shows how vulgar Mozart can get. Mozart sent his father detailed instructions for a picture to practice shooting. The instructions and the picture are plain vulgar to recount here. I appreciate the honesty of the museum curator in show casing that too.

Musing on Mozart's prodigy Indian philosopher Radhakrishnan theorized that Mozart's genius could be the result of accumulated genius over many births. Far from it Mozart's genius was the result of very handwork as Malcolm Gladwell highlights in 'Outliers'. Mozart's father Leopold was an accomplished musician and even published well received books on music. Books arranged like pyramids were 'supposedly' read by the Mozart family. Curious items like a Abbot's diary entry about Leopold's death, portrait of Anna Maria Mozart in 'India ink', Mozart's employment contract data 17th Jan 1779 with 450 florins as salary (approx 10,350 Euro today) are all on display.

The display I liked most was Mozart's score sheet for 'Fantasy and Sonata in C minor K475 and 457'. Mozart, myth says, composed music in its entirety in his head before writing down. Not really. Mozart's use of different layout for manuscripts and how the he wrote the 1st and 3rd movements before writing the 2nd are curiosities that shed light on his style. During his Viennese years Mozart used paper imported from Italy for writing his music because it had space for improvisation.

The day I went to Salzburg was 'All Souls Day' and practically everything in the city was shutdown including other museums. So off I went on a tour of mountains of Wolfgang See along with a family from erstwhile East Germany. The tour guide was very knowledgeable about History, US politics (including Obama's pathetic performance in his first debate) and music. The guide introduced me to a music played on an instrument called 'Zither'. I showed the East German family photos I had taken at the Stasi museum. They laughed and confirmed that those were indeed horrifying days. For those looking to a holiday resort spot in Salzburg I'd recommend the 'White Horse Inn' which has a pool that opens to a lake.

Captivated by what I saw in Salzburg I went the next day too. Since I had a Eurail pass I could go any number of times to any place within Germany and Austria for 5 days. Unfortunately I went to Salzburg on Nov 2nd and Nov 3rd. All tour packages stop on Oct 31st. I just visited Salzburg museum and Salzburg cathedral. The Salzburg museum was fabulous as always with intricate arrangement of lighting to accentuate exhibits. German and Austrian museums impressed me a lot.

I've never seen a city that markets filming locations of a movie filmed there as much as Salzburg does for 'Sound of Music'. There are 3 hour tours that would take you to every spot from many famous scenes in the movie. I only walked by the river where Maria and kids run singing 'Do Re Mi'. In a memorable scene Baron Von Trapp would pull down a Nazi flag and tear it. Austria wanted to object to that scene and have it removed since they felt that it showed Austria as Nazified. The director and producers just said either the scene stays or they would show actual newsreels showing Nazi Swastika flags around Salzburg. The Austrian Anschluss, unification of Austria with Germany, was a very peaceful and enthusiastic event. Hitler paraded around Austria like a hero.

Theodore Herzl, father of Zionism, studied in Austria but left Salzburg because he could not practice law owing to him being a Jew. Austria had a deeper anti-semitism than even Germany. Simon Wiesenthal, holocaust survivor who gained reputation as Nazi hunter stayed back in Austria even after the war rather than emigrate to Israel. When Wiesenthal's wife went to a school to admit their kids the official deadpanned "I thought all of you jews were killed off". It is in this city that famous music conductor Herbert Von Karajan also lived.

Food and clothes in Europe are always classier than I'd found in USA. Salzburg was no exception. Thanks to my day trip ticket I could take a tram to an outlet mall at the outskirts of the city and saunter around for some shopping.

Other possible day trip from Salzburg is a trip to 'Wolf's Lair' where Hitler stayed and worked. 'Wolf's Lair' is where an assassination attempt on Hitler was plotted and executed. Hitler survived that attack. I could not make that trip as it stopped after Oct 31st.

Very interesting town to visit. Very urbane and charming.

Berlin and Nuremberg: Museums For A Ghostly Past

I've written the past few tourism blogs in a thematic manner overlooking the chronology of when I visited those places. Also I've not delved into the anecdotes of what I 'experienced' as a traveler in those cities about food, commute, people etc. I'll get to the tourist aspect in the coming days.

Subsequent post-war generations of Germany have confronted their parents with the question of "how did Nazism happen", "how did we allow holocaust to happen" etc. Ever since the unification Germany and Germans have taken it upon themselves to answer all that forthrightly. This is also possible only after the unification for several reasons. The historical sites in Berlin are now accessible giving an authenticity that was not possible earlier for a museum constructed anywhere. For instance the museum 'Topography of Terror' which details the repressive Gestapo regime during the Nazi era stands in Berlin in the same spot where Gestapo headquarters used to be. The Berlin Wall used to pass right next to it hence after the fall of the wall it is now possible for the museum to exist. Another reason is now Germany tries to view the Soviet repression and Nazi era in a connected manner of how they mutilated the soul of Germany.

Several erstwhile Nazi places that are now museums in Germany are often referred to as 'Documentation Center'. The 'Topography of Terror Museum'  constructs in artistic and painfully detailed manner the emergence of a repressive thuggish state apparatus. Running along the remnants of Berlin Wall is a series of very nice display of glass panels that are hung from steel frames detailing in chronological manner aspects of the rise of Nazism (check the picture at the right of this page http://www.topographie.de/en/exhibitions/berlin-1933-1945/#c1068). Every Siemens factory that utilized slave labor is mapped out. An artistic display tells us by using pull-outs on a calendar how holidays were declared based on Nazi festivals. Unflinching accounting of how many Nazis managed into slip into civilian life and even become judges in West Berlin is recounted in full. USSR wanted to embarrass West Germany and released a list of judges who were known to have been Nazis. While some of who lost property under Nazis some like condom manufacturer Julius Fromm, a Jew, were branded as 'Jewish proprietor of the capitalist kind' and refused restitution. Nazism which gifted the word 'Goebbelsian propaganda' was all about propaganda. A poster depicting a muscular healthy man carrying on his shoulders 'hereditary sick people' informed school students of the 'cost' of such an effort.

The inside of the museum is breathtaking. The colors are not too bright in the room, the expansive hallwith chronologically arranged labrynthine looking hanging displays with surrounding glass walls conveys a surreal feeling of openness in discussing a shameful chapter of German history (see the pics in the link http://www.topographie.de/en/exhibitions/topography-of-terror/#c1069 ).

Himmler talking of extermination, interrogation records of Jews stamped with 'J', transport lists, pictures of Jews having their beards snipped by smiling Nazis, details of camps and so much more is laid out for anyone wishing to study and learn. I'd say come to this museum not just to learn of Nazism or of how Jews were persecuted. Come to this museum to learn how hatred manifests human soul. Come here to learn what a set of human beings man did to their fellow human beings. Victims and perpetrators may change but the theme is sickeningly continuous. 

The holocaust museum in Berlin is situated, intentionally, I was told, right next to the notorious Fuhrer bunker were Hitler committed suicide. This museum is uniquely constructed with large cement blocks with grid like cobbled stone pathway that rises and falls in an undulating manner. The museum architecture evokes a sombre dark mood albeit not too depressing. The use of steel and glass is deftly combined to give a sense of openness and grimness. A room details stories of families, again with very well researched documents to trace the families path through holocaust. The room itself is imposing with mammoth cement blocks hanging from the roof inlaid with backlit glass panels of photos and documents.

The Fuhrer bunker was razed to the ground and filled up with mud by invading Red army in order to prevent any future 'shrine'. Today the place is a car park. This bunker was identified only recently. Sadly I saw some hooligan had scribbled 'holocaust ist luge' in a cycle stand nearby (and hence opposite to the holocaust museum). I jotted it down and used google to translate, it read 'holocaust is a lie'.

Nuremberg is an hour away from Munich by train. This city was the cradle of Nazism. There are no good English speaking hop on hop off tours. I just went to the 'documentation center' which is next to the large grounds where Nazi rallies took place. The taxi driver who dropped me said "look at that steel arrow like structure piercing the colosseum style building. This colosseum was left unfinished by the Nazis and the arrow like structure is there to signify an arrow into the heart of Nazism". Here we learn how Nazis used mega rallies as a method to project power and popularity. A room had displays of front pages from world newspapers that spoke of the rise of Hitler. It is sad to note how much the world knew and indeed feared Nazism and yet allowed it all to happen until an unspeakable price in human lives was paid to undo it. 

Nuremberg is not just any city. It was the center of German culture. It is here that Nazism took its shape and it is from the notorious Nuremberg rallies, so often pictured in Hollywood movies of that era, that Hitler mesmerized a nation and plunged it into untold misery. I could not visit the famous Albrecht Durer home. 

Coming a full circle Nazism faced the long arm of justice in Nuremberg. It was in Nuremberg the famous trials that convicted and executed many top Nazis took places. Those trials form the basis of today's war crimes trials. Ironically USSR which killed thousand of Polish officers in Katyn sat as part of the judges. During the trials none of the Nazis could even say a word of the conduct of Red Army which could easily be accused of war crimes that are only less severe in relation to what the Nazis did. Red army plundered and raped German villages. Allies punished Germany by obliterating most of the nation in punitive bombing raids. Dresden was flattened. The British who had their boot on India's throat and the French who plundered North Africa too were the judges.