What Scale Do You Sing In?

If you sing Rabindrasangeet like, oh, say 85% of all Bengalis, then this is the first question your musical accompanist will ask you. If you ask him/her to elaborate, you’ll hear something like, “Yes, what’s your scale? Is it A or B-flat or C-sharp or.. ?”

“Setting the right scale” is of paramount importance in the “chorus” songs where men and women sing together, usually accompanied by much grumbling from the women that  “The men are singing way too high”.

At this point, anybody trained in Western classical music – where the concept of a scale comes from – will be scratching their heads in perplexity.

To begin with, things like B-flat and C-sharp are not scales – they are musical notes.

As for “men singing too high”….. well, just keep reading….

What follows is “original research” -  the pieces are all there, but based on my conversations, what I am about to say is certainly not common knowledge among Indian singers.

Western singers and musicians use the nomenclature of scales and so on, but the words are used quite differently in the Indian music context, resulting in much unnecessary confusion when talking “across cultures”.

So, let’s first get the language straight. 

Every note in music corresponds to a certain pitch or frequency, measured in Hertz (Hz). A higher frequency gives a higher note.

Musicians, however don’t refer to notes by frequency (too unromantic, I guess), but give them names as we shall see below.

Absolute Notes on a Piano

Take a look at the image of a piano keyboard. Each key sounds a note when pressed.

The white key on the extreme left is A0 (pronounced “A  zero”).

It corresponds to a frequency of 27.5 Hz, which is very close to the lower limit of human hearing (around 20 Hz). In fact, if someone plays an A0, you pretty much feel it as a vibration rather than hearing a sound !

The second white key from the left is B0, with a frequency of 31 Hz (still really low).

But we start our analysis with the third white key from the left.

This is C1 (“C one”) with a frequency of about 32.75 Hz.

The 7 successive white keys starting with C1 are: C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, A1 and B1.

The next white key is C2 (“C two”) and the cycle starts all over again with C2, D2 and so on.

The eight notes going from C1 to C2, form an octave. Every note in the octave has a fixed relative frequency to the other notes. For example, G1 is about 1.5 times the frequency of C1.

Most importantly, C2 has exactly twice the frequency of C1.

Similarly, D2 is twice the frequency of D1 and so on. (Also, A1 is twice the frequency of A0).

Now the cycle of keys just keeps repeating as you move from left to right – with C3, D3, etc, then C4, D4, etc – until you reach the extreme right of the keyboard.

That final white key is C8.

With a frequency of approximately 4192 Hz, it is well beyond the reach of any human voice. (But nowhere near the limit of human hearing, which goes up to 20,000 Hz)

So much for the white keys. What about the black ones ?

Firstly, note that every black key lies between two white keys.

The nomenclature formula is simple – If X is the white key immediately to the left, then your black key becomes “X sharp” (written “X#”),  if Y is the white key immediately to the right, then your black key becomes “Y flat” (written “Yь”).

The first black key from the left lies between A0 and B0.

Using our formula, it would therefore become A#0 (“A sharp zero”) or Bь0 (“B flat zero”).

Similarly, we have notes like C#1, Eь3 etc.

Two points to note here:

- The ordering of the keys starts with C. Hence, A1 and B1 are higher notes than C1 or G1, but lower than C2 or D2. (This is what happens when you leave nomenclature to musicians rather than scientists J)

- The sharp and flat notation has considerable overlap.  C sharp is the same as D flat, B flat is also A sharp and so on. Which name is used depends purely on convention.

Exercise for the reader:

Rank the following in ascending order of pitch: C4, B3, G#3, A4, Eь4, D5

I hope this clarifies why I said that B flat and C sharp are notes rather than scales.  In fact, one needs to be even more specific and pinpoint which C sharp you are talking about.

This is, in fact, what happens in Western classical music.

When a pianist plays, say, the Moonlight Sonata, the musical score specifies exactly which notes she needs to play.

I will call these absolute notes, as each note corresponds to a specific frequency.

Western musicians often talk about “middle C”. This is simply C4, near the centre of the keyboard, and having a frequency of about 262 Hz.

The notes around C4 are most frequently used in vocal music as they fall into the “comfort zone” of the human voice.

Relative notes in Indian music

A Western classical musician trying to learn Indian music starts off with complete confusion.

To begin with, the concept of notes seems to be absent.

Her guru will frequently allude to the Sapta Soor (“Seven Notes”) – Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Dha Ni

In fact, people will often explicitly speak out the names of these notes while singing.

But there is no straightforward mapping from these onto the notes on a piano.

Even worse, different singers will sing out the same sequence of  Sa Re Ga Ma, but the actual notes they sing (as per piano), may be quite different !

After a while, however, the bewilderment begins to abate.

She observes that the relative pitch of the Sapta Soor notes remains fixed although the absolute notes being sung may change.

In fact, if she is familiar with the Sound of Music movie, she quickly realizes that Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Dha Ni corresponds precisely to Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti  J

(You see, Indian music is starting her off at the very beginning…)

Swaralipi in Rabindrasangeet

So, Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Dha Ni  spans an octave. But what if you want to go higher ?

Well, just like the notes on a piano cycling back to C, when you want to climb higher than Ni  in Indian music, you get back to Sa. Only it’s a “high Sa”. I will call this Sa^*.

Just like C2 and C1, the high Sa,  Sa^*, corresponds to a note with twice the frequency of the ordinary Sa. 
(But which notes are they on the piano ?? Patience, patience…)

Now you can continue upwards with Re^*, Ga^* and so on.

Similarly, if you want to go lower than ordinary Sa, you have Ni_* , Dha_* , (“low Ni” and “ low Dha”) which are half the frequency of the ordinary Ni and Dha.

Indian vocal songs – and especially Rabindrasangeet – typically span a maximum range of two octaves, so in terms of Indian musical notation, you rarely climb above Pa^* (“high Pa”) or go lower than Pa_* (“low Pa”).

However, in any given song, the bulk of the notes will lie within the “ordinary notes” – i.e. between Sa and Sa^*.

Now to illustrate the crucial difference between absolute and relative notes:

Suppose you are a western choir singer. Your music score requires you to sing C4, D4, E4 and F4

Instead you sing C3, D3, E3, F3.

Your choirmaster immediately hauls you out for singing out of tune.

Now in Indian music school, three singers are going to sing Sa Re Ga Ma.

Singer 1 hits the notes - C4, D4, E4, F4

Singer 2 goes - C3, D3, E3, F3

Singer 3 sings - A3, B3, C#4, D4

To your surprise, the guru is perfectly happy with all three!

“They are just singing in different scales”, he says.

Scales again! What on earth are these pesky scales?

Well, with all this background on absolute and relative notes, we are finally ready to answer the question.

What scale do you sing in?

Here’s an example of a scale in Western music – it’s called “C Major”.

It consists of the notes: C D E F G A B
Another one is "B Minor"
It consists of the notes: B C# D E F# G A

What the … ??!! What about scales like B flat, G sharp and so on?

Now the Western musician gives you a blank stare – “Those are not scales. Those are notes.”

A scale in Western music is a collection of notes.

Vocalists and musicians practice singing/playing these notes to perfect their technique.

Occasionally, you’ll see things like “XYZ Symphony in C Major”.

What it means is that XYZ Symphony only has notes from the set of notes in the scale.

So, you may have a C5 note somewhere in the score, but never a F#3.

In that sense, a scale is somewhat like a raga in Indian classical music, although the rules of a raga are somewhat more elaborate.

But then, what are Indian musicians talking about when they mention scales ?

Well, recall that the Sapta Soor of Indian music only defines relative pitches.
However, once you specify the absolute note corresponding to any one of the Sapta Soor, all the other notes become uniquely determined.

So, if you had to sing Sa Re Ga Ma and you set Sa to be the note C4, then you get C4, D4, E4, F4.

If you set Sa to A3 instead, you get A3, B3, C#4, D4 instead.

And that’s what the whole deal is about.

Your accompanist needs to know what absolute notes to play, and for that, all he needs is what piano note your Sa (ordinary Sa, not the high Sa) corresponds to.

So, here’s the dictionary translating the most popular “scales” in Rabindrasangeet to notes.

Scale                       Piano note corresponding to Sa (ordinary Sa)

G Sharp                    G#2 or G#3

A                                  A2 or A3

B Flat                         Bь2 or Bь3

B                                  B2 or B3

C                                  C3 or C4        (C4 = Middle C = 262 Hz)

C Sharp                     C#3 or C#4

(Just to irritate you further, the scale B Flat is often called “B” in Bengal and B is called “natural B”. This is just idiotic terminology. Please, people, there are no natural versus unnatural Bs, just good old B and B Flat.)

But wait, hang on, why the “A2 or A3” and so on? Why not just A3, say?

This brings us to the final question in this post.

Do men really sing high?

“Definitely yes”, answers the Rabindrasangeet singer.

In fact, it’s something he’s known since his early days in singing school - “Men always sing the higher notes in choruses and generally sing at higher scales.”

“No way”, responds the Western choir singer. “In fact, it’s the women who sing the high notes and the men who sing the low notes. Ask any choirmaster.”

The laws of physics concur.

Humans sing by vibrating their vocal cords. Men have longer and thicker vocal cords than women. Now, a vibrating string which is longer and thicker generates lower frequency sounds.

Hence, men must sing at lower frequencies – i.e. men must sing the lower notes. QED.

So, what’s going on in Indian music?

As a youngster learning Rabindrasangeet, this question puzzled me greatly – especially the contradiction between who sings the high notes in Indian versus Western music.

My music teachers in India brushed me off with an impatient, “Oh, that’s because Indian music and Western music are completely different.” (Nonsense !)

And of course, nobody understood the argument from physics.

But, now I do know the answer.

And if you have been trained in Indian music, you very probably don’t – so listen up!!

In Indian music, when men and women sing together, they are NOT singing the same notes (in the sense of absolute notes).

In fact, every note the woman is singing is one octave higher – i.e. twice the frequency – as that being sung by the man !

Knowing this immediately explains everything.

To begin with, the laws of physics aren’t being violated and the choir singer is correct – it is, in fact, women who sing at higher frequencies.

So, why are the women in India complaining about men singing too high ?

The reason is actually very interesting.

It seems that a typical woman’s voice is pitched at about 1.5 times a typical man’s.

In other words, if a typical man’s singing frequency range goes from X to Y, a typical woman’s range goes from 1.5 X to 1.5 Y.

But, in Indian music, the woman must sing at twice the frequency of a man.

So, if the highest frequency the man can hit is Y, the woman must hit 2Y rather than 1.5Y, which is of course, extremely hard on her voice, if not outright impossible.

Similarly, a man will find it difficult to sing along when the woman sings her lowest notes.

Thus, in an amusing inversion of the Western choir, the “high parts” in Indian vocal music are left to the men, when in fact, they are actually singing low!

So, ladies, don’t grumble in future about “men singing too high”. We really aren’t.

It’s just that, apparently, evolution didn’t intend men and women to sing in harmony. J

Finally, to explain the ambiguity of “A2 or A3” in the scale-to-note translation dictionary.

As you may have guessed, it’s due to the fact that men and women are singing different notes.

Hence, when “setting the scale”, the Sa must correspond to different notes depending on the gender of the singer.

Here’s the completed dictionary which adds in that bit.

Scale                       Piano note corresponding to Sa (ordinary Sa)

G Sharp                    G#2 (men) or G#3 (women)

A                                  A2 (men) or A3 (women)

B Flat                         Bь2 (men) or Bь3 (women)

B                                  B2 (men) or B3 (women)

C                                  C3 (men) or C4 (women)       (C4 = Middle C = 262 Hz)

C Sharp                     C#3 (men) or C#4 (women)

So, where do you go from here ?

Well, you can start by testing some of the things I said by connecting to this virtual piano
The key marked with a red dot is C4. The first key marked C to the left of that is C3.
Try playing the notes and matching them vocally. For best effect have a singer of the opposite gender with you. Its a real eye opener. J

PS: I’ve used the words Indian music and Rabindrasangeet interchangeably. This is, of course, inaccurate. Indian music has enormously many branches with Rabindrasangeet being just one.

However, from my experience, the usage of “scales” as I have described and the myth that “men sing higher than women” persists across all branches of Indian music I have encountered, including Hindustani and Carnatic classical music.

Govinda - Book Review

The least appealing aspect of the Mahabharat, I feel, is the intrusion of the divine.

The marvelously multifaceted narrative is, in my opinion, severely compromised by the heavy-handed attempt to present it all as a good-versus-evil morality tale orchestrated by God Himself in the form of Sri Krishna.

It’s not just that I find the idea of an avatar rather ridiculous. It also makes for lousy fiction.

An arrogant and cocksure God-in-human-form, always slated to come out on top with smug smile on face and pithy proverb on lip, makes for an unappealing character at best, while ruining any element of suspense in the story.

What if the Mahabharat were presented as historical fiction without any attempt to inject a “moral of the story”? What if Krishna was just a man among others, struggling to shape his destiny amidst the forces of his time, rather than achieving it all by effortless divine will?

To get a flavor, look no further than “Govinda”, first book of the “Aryavarta Chronicles” by debutante author Krishna Udayasankar.

The geographical backdrop of the novel is Aryavarta, the northern half of the Indian subcontinent in the second millennium BC. The historical setting is a deadly conflict between two groups of Brahmins.

On one side are the Firstborn, scholar and sages, upholders of sacrificial rituals and social norms, makers and breakers of kings. Opposed to them are the Firewrights - master scientists, inventors, and iconoclasts.

When Firewright technology gone awry dries up the Saraswati river - turning a fertile kingdom to barren desert - the Firstborn seize the opportunity to launch the Scourge. With the active support of the ruling nobility, Firewrights across the nation are mercilessly tortured and killed. Some survivors go into hiding; others seek refuge with kings who are willing to surreptitiously exploit their expertise to manufacture lethal weapons.

One such is Jarasandha, king of Magadha, gradually extending his sway over Aryavarta in a bid to become Emperor. Other kingdoms, including the Kurus and Panchalas, officially acknowledge his sovereignty, while secretly seeking to counterbalance his power.

Into this landscape of intrigue steps the character of Govinda Shauri – the author’s preferred name for Krishna. Arisen from humble origins as a gwala (cowherd) to become king of Mathura, he has since abandoned his kingdom in the face of Jarasandha’s attacks to establish an outpost at Dwarka on the southwestern edge of Aryavarta. This act of “dishonor” has earned him the eternal contempt of the ruling Kshatriya nobility who are already ill-disposed to accept him as an equal due to his cowherd past.

The Firstborn, however, see him as a convenient pawn in their bid for supremacy. In the past, Govinda has been instrumental in the success of the Scourge. His enmity with Jarasandha makes him the perfect foil to the would-be emperor and last refuge of the wrights. As Vyasa, leader of the Firstborn, tells his disciples, Govinda is a “tiger who needs to be tamed” to their service.

A resourceful politician and wily warrior, Govinda is happy to aid Vyasa’s efforts.

But there are hints of a deeper, darker plot in the background, a plan which makes even his brother and friends uneasy…

Udayasankar wields her prose deftly, drawing you swiftly into the story and holding your interest thereafter.

In her hands, the Mahabharat takes on a darker, grittier aspect.

This is no tale for children with the reassurance of a happy ending.

Prisoners are brutally tortured and executed, ruling classes treat commoners with contempt and derision, women are marginalized and restricted – especially in the Kuru kingdom.

Bad things can, and do, happen to good people.

While the characters are all from the Mahabharat, those familiar with the epic only through Amar Chitra Katha or teleserials may find themselves at a loss.

Characters are referred to by unfamiliar alternate names found in the epic. Yudhisthira is Dharma, Arjuna is Partha, Duryodhana is Syodhana, Karna is Vasusena and so on

A number of characters are presented in a refreshing new light.

Dharma (Yudhishthira) – complex and self-serving, forever trying to project an image of righteous otherworldliness while hungering for personal glory, disguising his bids for power as burdensome duties he must take on for the greater good.

Syodhana (Duryodhana) – peace-loving family man, increasingly dismayed to find himself cast in the role of villain by Yudhsthira’s machinations.

Shikhandin (Shikhandi) – a guerilla warrior par excellence, maligned as a coward because he refused to blindly condone his father’s actions.

Panchali (Draupadi) – Intelligent, thoughtful and every bit as fiery as her epic counterpart, she takes a very active role in the politics of the day, far beyond merely goading her husband/s into action.

Finally, there is the fascinating Govinda Shauri (Krishna).

Charismatic, charming, unfailingly polite and kind to everyone around him.

Yet, at the same time, strangely detached and dispassionate, willing to manipulate or sacrifice loved ones and unleash great suffering to achieve a desired end.

An intriguing persona indeed - far more so than the annoying Bhagwan Sri Sri Krishna we usually encounter.

In summary, I heartily recommend Govinda. Can’t wait for the next book to come out.

The Official Phoren Glamour Ranking List

Finally! After months of painstaking research and much conversation with non-resident Indians (henceforth, NRI’s) and resident ones, I have successfully compiled the definitive ranking of the various foreign (henceforth, phoren) countries where Indian diaspora are settled.

To provide the necessary background, one must realize that beloved though our country is, it is much lacking in glamour and glitz. Resident Indians who have never left the country sadly shake their heads at the materialistically fulfilling, but spiritually devoid lifestyle of their NRI brethren. Interestingly though, they tend to make a rapid beeline for aforesaid materialistic lifestyle if given the opportunity.

But having successfully transitioned to NRI status, it is considered extremely non-kosher to declare that you want to stay on in the country you spent so much effort moving to. Instead you must always say that you intend to “go back after some years”, where the “some” is very nebulously defined.

On the other hand, actually going back to India is considered even more non-kosher, and causes much shock and awe – like saying you want to drop out of college and then really doing it.

Now, having lived in two phoren countries and then come back to India (shock! awe!), I have also observed that all phorens are not equal in the Indian psyche and some have decidedly more glamour than others. Hence, here I compile a carefully researched ranking for my readership, so that they may choose the level of glamour that best suits them.

So, firstly, the three major criteria that glamorize your phoren land:

1) Wealth and shine: No country is truly phoren unless it obviously has mucho moolah with shiny-shiny buildings, fast-fast cars and big-big highways.

As the brother of my Philadelphia resident friend keeps getting asked, “Aap ka behen phoren mein rahti hai, toh aap Nigeria mein kyon rahte hain?” Clearly, Nigeria is not phoren.

Ditto for Russia, Iran, Brazil, and Thailand (whatever other appeal it may have.)

2) White people: The race of our former colonial overlords must be present in copious quantities to legitimize phoren glamour. Don’t ask why. It’s an axiom.

3) English: More a matter of convenience, but helps fine-tune the rankings as we shall see.

So noooow…without further delay…. we give you the rankings.

Rank 1: Take a guess, anyone!

Numero Uno! The Best of the Best!! Undisputed All-Time Champ!!!!

Introduuuucing…. THE U…..S……OF…..A!!!!!! (Drum roll and thunderous applause)

Nothing, and I mean nothing, remotely compares to the glamour of living in the land of the brave, the free and the morbidly obese.

Even if you live in a nondescript small town of Idaho, the aura of the USA surrounding you will dazzle all onlookers, and allow you to sneer with impunity at Bangaloreans, Bombayites and maybe even Londoners.

Rank 2: UK, Canada and Australia

Presented in no particular order, these are the Salieris to USA’s Mozart – all the right attributes, but not quite there. The NRIs living in these countries also exhibit the mentality of those who have almost reached heaven’s door, but not quite.

So, the NRIs in the US keep talking of “going back home” while applying for a Green Card.

The UK ones talk of going back home while applying to jobs in the US.

Similar behaviour is reported for those in Canada and Australia.

Rank 3: Non-UK Western Europe

So, that means Germany, Switzerland, France, etc. Not Hungary, Poland and all those places.

Shiny-shiny – tick. White people – definitely.

But language. Such a problem, the language. Can’t you possibly move to the UK? Or maybe even, nudge, nudge, the US?

Amsterdam gets a partial exemption since the language of cannabis and red light districts is universal.

Rank 4: Singapore and Hong Kong

Aaaah, we can speak English again. But what’s with all these Chinese people everywhere?

I mean, can you even make out what they are thinking? No, no, definitely not done.

Hong Kong is sinking in status as Mandarin is increasingly becoming the spoken language.

Meanwhile, Singapore has almost risen to rank 3, because of proximity to India and relaxed visa procedures. But the Chinese itch refuses to go away, it seems.

Rank 5: Dubai and the UAE

Immense flash and glitter, no doubt. English speaking - good. Also, Muslim. Long pause.

We are in serious bad news territory here, folks. Whispers of brutal punishments, second class citizenship, Indian labourers treated as virtual slaves. Plus Dawood Ibrahim and links with Pakistan (oh no, the Muslim connection again!).

Some phoren glamour remains here, but tinged with darker hues.

Rank 6: Japan

Once a favourite of the older generation, only a lot of wealth and tremendous shine keep it on the glamour list at all. Severe language problems and a worldwide reputation for xenophobia.

Plus, what’s with all the raw fish and cut throat prices, eh?

This is definitely a place where you can tell the visa official, “I intend to stay here a few years and then leave”, without having your fingers crossed behind your back.

So, what do you think? Feel free to suggest fine tunings and alternative rankings, or make indignant comments.

Much Ado About Nothing

Anybody seeking a perfect example of making a mountain out of a very harmless molehill need look no further than the supremely silly "Park 51 Mosque Controversy" dominating the US media nowadays.
Rumours of a vague plan to erect a mosque on Ground Zero - the site of the World Trade Center buildings - have even reached India. It sounded rather unlikely, and I was disinclined to pay much attention to the matter. After all, the US media is always roiled by some storm in a teacup or another, unlike India where we only discuss issues of the greatest import. :)

All this changed when I ran into an old friend, Ameena, on Facebook, after several years.

What follows is a guest post by my sister, Bisakha Sen, written after I reported my e-conversation with Ameena. Read on, and contemplate the idiocy of the human race.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Musings on Park51

Maybe I should have titled it "Banning Unitarian Universalist churches because you hate Pat Robertson"?
If there is a God that specializes in irony.....this whole mess must surely be laid at His altar !
Till recently, the whole Park51 'Mosque at WTC' was a matter of principle to me, not much more. I have no particular fondness for ANY organized religion, including Islam. However, there are certain religious freedoms in USA. Those religious freedoms cannot be denied to Muslims. And anyway, the site is a few blocks AWAY from WTC, in an area where strip clubs and bars abound -- so its not exactly 'desecrating hallowed ground' to begin with. Plus there are mosques in that vicinity already.What changed things was an email from my brother, a few days ago with a subject line screaming 'UNBELIEVABLE'."Can you believe
it, this is AMEENA'S community mosque that all these (unprintables) are going loony over !"




Ameena. My lovely friend. Looks like a sylph and has a spine of steel. Writer, fashionasta, feminist, passionately progressive, gay-rights advocate, generous-to-a-fault. Who has been known to march out of 'traditional' mosques with her three daughters in tow because the imam had spouted some typical nonsense of 'good women should be meek and subservient' during service! Who can destroy every stereotype you held about Muslims in about 15 minutes of conversation. Who is a dedicated Sufi Muslim herself. Part of a Interfaith community full of free-thinkers of every stripe. My brother visited Friday services at this mosque when he first visited Ameena. He was absolutely enchanted -- "Sis, we had the BEST dancing with chants......sooo much fun". He assured me he had greatly enjoyed conversations with New-age artistic free-thinking types from every background as well, but clearly it was the dancing that truly impressed him ! (side note, this is a community mosque where men and women not only pray together, they dance together !!!).

When we last visited Ameena in New York, we met El-Farouk Khaki at her place. Brilliant, impassioned, extravagantly tattooed and as flamboyant as they come -- El Farouk Khaki is a Canadian activist for Muslim LGBT rights and founder of the 'Salaam', one of the biggest suport groups for gay Muslims in the west. He'd been a guest at the community mosque earlier. We all chatted deep into the night over an endless supply of kabobs -- starry-eyed social liberals imagining days when ALL organized religious groups would be welcoming to all, when imams and priests presiding over exchange of vows of gay/lesbian couples would be a norm, not an exception.
As I now hear the cacophony about this community's mosque, I can't help but wonder -- is THIS why Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and the rest are up in arms against this community and their mosque ? Are they worried that a progressive interfaith Muslim group that is pro-gay rights will dent their cherished construct of Muslims uniformly being more 'socially backwards' and 'anti human-rights' than Christians of their ilk ?

Ameena wrote to us saying: "Traditional Muslims don't like us because we're hippy New Age types, and now Fox News says we're jihadists dancing on graves of 9/11 victims !" Frankly, I'm struggling to get my head around the sheer scale of the irony ! That opposition to Al Qaeda and Islamist fundamentalism is now taking the form of opposition to a highly progressive Sufi group! What could be a possible parallel ? Opposition to Pat Robertson's followers resulting in demonizing Unitarian Universal churches might come close!

I fear that the average American protesting this community center is getting played for a fool, and Al Qaeda members are hooting with laughter! An article in this week's Newsweek confirmed today that the Taliban are DEFINITELY hooting with laughter (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/taliban-using-mosque-controversy-to-recruit.html) -- it doesn't get better than this for them! Americans turn on Sufi Muslims --- whom both Al Qaeda and Taliban hate with a passion -- and in process of doing so, America projects an 'anti-Muslim' image around the world that helps Al Qaeda and Taliban to recruit !!!!!!!

I keep hoping for a happy resolution. Maybe the cacophony will die down a bit, and people will set aside those "9-11 taught me ALL I need to know about Islam" posters, and just be a LITTLE more curious ? Even asking "so who are the Sufis anyway" -- would be a good start! Now that its been revealed that the so-called 'shady Saudi Prince' who MIGHT have been helping with the mosque funding is actually Fox News's second largest shareholder (and among other things, has funded the George HW Bush scholarship at Phillips Academy, MA), maybe some of the anti-mosque protestors will take a small step back and reconsider the possibility that maybe they haven't *quite* been given the full picture ?

If nothing else -- maybe some people could at least start railing against this particular group of Muslims for more APPROPRIATE reasons, like they are "TOO darned" socially liberal, and therefore un-Real-American ?

I can think of no better way to finish this note than with a link from Ameena's own blog, where she talks about her own hope for Park51 leading to awareness and dialogue. Amen to that!
http://ameenameer.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-park51-needs-ayaan-hirsi-ali-and.html

The Western Experience

If you’ve read the ‘About Me’ part of the blog, you already know I’m not a galaxy. Good start. To be a bit more explicit, I’m human, male, grew up in Kolkata till end of college, went off to the US, lived in the West (USA and UK) for about 12 years, and came back to India for good (Yes ! Really !!).

It seems de riguer for an NRI, or ex-NRI, to write an angsty piece about their life in the West and make grand extrapolations to the experience of ‘all Indians’. (It’s generally considered totally uncool to just say, “Ya, life was/is very chilled out t/here”). So, here it comes.
Ok, to begin with, I didn’t feel I was abandoning my parents and cultural roots, I wasn’t appalled by the ‘lack of family/spiritual values’, I wasn’t in the least bothered by women in tank-tops or couples snogging in public. For all that, there’s Jhumpa Lahiri.

But here’s what did bother me.

I grew up on a pretty rich diet of English books and movies. Tintin and Asterix comics, Famous Five, Hardy Boys, Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, you name it. Then there was Star Trek, Mickey Mouse and Spiderman on TV, and the big surge of Hollywood films during Christmas was always eagerly anticipated. Being a bit of a geek (just a bit?), I was heavily into science fiction and fantasy, which are genres of literature almost completely dominated by North American and British authors. Then there were all the great popular science authors, once again, mostly American or British.

So, to cut it short, I grew up absorbing, enjoying and admiring many of the products of western culture, and I believe my experience of quite typical of urban, middle-class Indian children (extrapolations have begun!).

It was a shock, therefore, to go to the West, and find that this feeling is absolutely not reciprocated.

To the average urban, middle-class westerner, India is invisible. Some people may have heard of Gandy (“what was that? Oh, Gandhi”), some New Age types have some curiosity about Indian religion (“chakra, chakra, not shakra”) and you get asked whether you like ‘curry’ (“curry is not a dish, idiots! Its like asking, Do you like soup?”). But apart from that, there’s just a very vague awareness of India as a land of starving people and cows, and nowadays, telemarketers and IT nerds. And there it ends.

Once, this sank in I re-read my beloved science and SF authors and realised with great disappointment that this was true of them as well. People like me were never part of their intended audience, and in fact, probably outside their mental horizon altogether. A very notable exception was Arthur C. Clarke, who often introduces Hindu and Buddhist names and themes into his novels. Carl Sagan dwells at some length on Indian cosmological speculations in Cosmos. But that’s about it.

And then I started seeing it in all the English books and movies I grew up with. Here I’d been thinking, like any eager reader, that the authors were ‘talking to me’, so to speak. But no, they weren’t. In fact, they had no idea that people like me might even read their work, just like all the ignoramuses I kept meeting in everyday life!

Now I’ll make a grand extrapolation and say that my experience is quite typical of Indians arriving in the West. And this is a problem. Most of us grow up with an awareness that our country has a vibrant culture with deep roots and this is a source of pride. To suddenly end up in a place where all of that is completely ignored or peripheralized, feels like, well, Arthur Dent looking up the Hitchhiker’s Guide and finding that the only entry under ‘Earth’ is ‘mostly harmless’! (If you didn’t get that reference, er..., let’s just have a chat sometime, ok?)

People react to this in different ways. Some decide that the best way to regain importance is by trying to act as ‘western’ as much as possible. Nowadays, their numbers are dropping and good riddance. Others embark on private crusades to raise India-awareness. As a result any unfortunate westerner in the vicinity is subject to long lectures on ‘glorious Indian culture and traditions’ (and subsequently avoids any Indian event like the plague.) Many get into an angry defensive crouch – “If they can’t be bothered about us, screw them! We can’t be bothered about them either”. Kind of difficult if you are living in their country, so what happens is a gradual tendency to segregate into rather claustrophobic all-Indian communities.

Of course, the circus really begins when the next generation comes along, but that’s a can of worms to be opened elsewhere.

Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Flick

SPOILERS GALORE !!! READ AT YOUR OWN RISK !!!

Right off the bat, let me admit that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is a cut above the previous five movies. But only because the others are so lame.

The movie starts off at a brisk walk with storm clouds gathering above London and Death Eaters streaking out like sooty comets to wreak havoc in the city. By half-time it looks like it might even run. Then it shoots itself firmly in both feet to collapse in an anticlimactic heap. In what follows I will assume, that you like myself, have read and loved the book (and preferably, all the books.) So, I’ll abandon the usual refrains of “Harry Potter and friends are back in a deeper, darker, scarier, more adult, more mature, ...... yakkety yak yak”.

In a bizarre inversion of quality, the film shines precisely where the book fails and vice versa. Anybody who has read the series (or is it just the old and cynical ones like me ?) tends to agree that Rowling’s depictions of teenage romance and angst are by far the most annoying aspects of Book 4 onwards, and a general lowering of overall standards. However, the romance bits of the movie are genuinely entertaining and often very amusing. Jessica Cave delivers a hilariously over-the-top performance as the lovestruck Lavender Brown. Rupert Grint’s idiotic grin as Ron under the effects of love potion has to be seen to be believed. Also very amusing are Harry and Ginny’s awkward attempts at romance, continually interrupted by the bumbling Ron.

Unfortunately that’s where the good news ends. Now for the bad.

The central thread of the Half-Blood Prince book is a series of revelations about Voldemort’s life, seen in Dumbledore’s pensieve. Dumbledore is demystifying Voldemort – showing Harry that the Dark Lord is not an invincible superbeing as he wants all to believe. He is just a man, who was once a child, and then a teenager. In a fascinating series of snippets, we read about his ancestors, obsessed with heritage and wizard pride. We see him as a boy already inclined towards cruelty and domination, a teenager ever adept at flattering teachers to get the information he needs. We find out about his obsession with objects of antiquity and value. Then the final revelation and the key to bringing down the Dark Lord – the multiple Horcruxes, each created by murder, which bind him to the world.

All this is replaced by two hasty scenes totalling not much more than 5 minutes!!
Then the chilling scene of locating the Horcrux locket – the huge underground lake, the deadly potion in the basin, Dumbledore screaming in terror and agony, then lying in a faint begging for water... Once again,very clumsily done. To begin with the sets look so obviously fake,that disbelief is hard to suspend. The lake looks tiny. Dumbledore flails about a bit all right, but in half a minute, looks quite fine. When he asks Harry for water, it seems he’s just being lazy.

And now the finale.

I remember how it felt when reading the book. The Dark Mark hovers above Hogwarts. Harry suddenly finds himself petrified beneath his invisibility cloak. He watches, helpless, as a visibly weakening Dumbledore faces Malfoy, who has come to kill him. But the old wizard is completely unfazed. He is sure Draco’s heart is not in it. In fact, yes, Malfoy is losing his nerve and lowering his wand. All’s well after all...

Then four Death Eaters burst in. Tension once again. Dumbledore remains composed but now the outcome is far from certain. Then Snape enters. At this point I know all will be fine. Dumbledore trusts Snape. Snape will surprise the Death Eaters and rescue him, he’s the ace in the old man’s sleeve.... Snape kills Dumbledore !!! What the ****** ???!!! While this is yet to sink in, we find Hogwarts in chaos. Death Eaters are battling the students and the Order of the Phoenix. Spells fly everywhere and pandemonium reigns, while the Death Eaters make their exit. And as a last, shocking revelation, Snape is the Half Blood Prince, whose potions book has helped Harry all year round !

That’s the book. Now for the film.

They come back to Hogwarts all right. Then Dumbledore tells Harry to stay out of sight. No petrifying spell, no cloak. Enter Malfoy, enter Death Eaters, enter Snape. No build up, no tension, nothing. Snape does the Avada Kedavra almost as an afterthought. And all the while Harry just watches with the moronic, vacant expression that seems to be Daniel Radcliffe’s trademark. Then the Death Eaters sort of saunter out with Harry obligingly following behind, with no attempt to attack them, raise the alarm, or create any resistance. And I’m thinking, “Is everyone finding this as stupid as I am?”

Bellatrix Black trashes the great hall and sets fire to a couple of buildings. Nobody wakes up, nobody notices. Is everybody in Hogwarts on drugs or what? Only when the Death Eaters are well out of the building, does Harry challenge them and get his butt thoroughly kicked. Serves him right for being such a retard!

Ok, that’s it. The film ends shortly in a total anticlimax. I don’t know if this is a deliberate ploy in order to get a PG rating, but every previous Harry Potter movie shows the same tendency to downplay and rush through the darker, chilling parts that make Rowling’s books such a pleasure to read. It is unfortunate that the Half-Blood Prince movie makes the same, tired mistake and leaves you with the same insipid taste in your mouth.