Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘MACBETH’

Cat fight on ECR, Chennai!

It has been the pet notion of many in the parts North of the Vindhyas that Chennai, formerly MADRAS, was a conservative city producing timid bureaucrats and clerks in good measure. This perception has been propagated, in no small measure, by the Hindi cinemas, where an innocent looking Tamizh Brahmin boy matures into a bookish type, taking a public exam and gets into a government job and attends his humdrum job with a streak of holy ash either vertically or horizontally drawn (depending on whether he is a Vaishnavite or Shaivite) and attending to his tasks dutifully, day in and day out. He is portrayed as one who shuns controversies and runs away from a place which might disturb his peace.

This portrayal has taken deep roots, and when people north of Vindhyas see other types of belligerent and combative Tamizhs, it shakes the very foundation of their beliefs. Most succeed in believing that the belligerent and combative ones are aberrations and that a true blue MADRASI “OUGHT” to be TIMID and COMPLIANT! So much for false beliefs disseminated by other language  movies, based on an expatriate  unrepresentative few.

A true blue Tamizh is combative and he is ready to rise and defend himself and mostly his language, which is the mother software to his thinking process. This morning, in TIMES OF INDIA (10/05/2012) there was this article about a woman of 35 years chasing a 25 year old woman on the EAST COAST ROAD  in a car, overtaking the younger one and blocking the car and picking a street fight with the younger one, as the wife (the older one) believed that the younger one was not merely sharing her husband, but also his “resources”!

The above link would bear me out on the gist presented.

So where is the man? And while the two cars were on a chase, a few motorbike borne guys followed the cars! I LOVE IT MAN. If there is sincerity to such a story, it could be only in CHENNAI. The interesting part is that the altercation was publicized by the older woman and there was no bloody violence. There was a mere verbal fight over the younger woman stealing the resources of the man who had probably been nursed by the older woman into his present state of success!

To exemplify my point, if MACBETH after murdering DUNCAN and assuming the Kingship were to fall in love with a pretty young thing and spend his resources on the young one, LADY MACBETH would not have taken kindly to such a liaison by the younger woman. LADY MACBETH would have taken out her anger on the younger woman and not on the King MACBETH, as she would not want to destroy the comfort of being the queen, yet would do everything to decimate the resource sharing aspirations of the younger females . But fortunately, India is a democratic country.

Chennai is evolving into a DETROIT in FLORIDA! A geographical impossibility in the US, but considering Chennai turning out to be the automotive capital of the Country with a weather and a coastline state highway, qualifies for such a possibility in India!

What i like about the whole incident is that, there was no internecine and murderous intent by the older woman. She wanted to take off on the younger woman and make a good scene of it. Maybe, the older woman wanted to DEMONSTRATE to “THEIR” man, that she would go to any lengths to not only keep him but also “fight” for him! And she wants all to LIVE PEACEABLY without believing in getting her opponent murdered or maimed and spend the rest of her life between courts and jails!

But the biggest problem that a woman finds to overcome is that when she had taken a man under her wings and nursed him to success and then to see that the man fall for a woman, who knows nothing of his weak past, and hero-worships him into a different type of MANHOOD!

MY SYMPATHIES ARE WITH NEITHER, LIFE GOES ON WITH ALL ITS CONVOLUTIONS! Yet, AS SHAKESPEARE SAID, ” FOR WILL IN US IS OVERRULED BY FATE!” But it is the duty of everyone to keep our reactions outside the zone of violence and crime.


Mayawati & Germaine Greer!

Two events last week, have left me dumbfounded.

The first is the proposal for TETRAFICATION of the state of Uttar Pradesh and the Cabinet recommendation by the UP cabinet. The second is the statement made by Germaine Greer in THE HAY FESTIVAL conducted in Kerala on the 18th inst. where Germaine had stated that in the plays of  Shakespeare the male characters depicted by the Bard, were boyish and not “manly” and “mature”.

Both the resolution and the statement made by the ladies suffer from “INCOMPETENCE”.

To take Madam Mayawati’s issue first, the Constitution of India, at Article 3 empowers the Parliament and also prescribes a procedure for bifurcation, trifurcation and tetrafication or pentafication etc. of the States of the UNION of India. The Parliament of India is the only body competent to send a bill with such proposal to the President and thereupon the President may send the Bill to the affected state for its views. Period. There is no other body or institution which is COMPETENT to INITIATE this division of State legally. Yet, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has got a resolution passed by the Cabinet. This is EXCEEDING the powers mandated under the Constitution of India.

Next is the preposterous “observation” made by Germaine Greer about the male characters in Shakespeare’s Plays. Yes, Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway, who was 8 years elder to Shakespeare, so naturally Shakespeare must have been very well acquainted with Oedipus Complex (as enunciated by Sigmund Freud!) at a personal level. Germaine might be right in her observation that Shakespeare had made his female characters very strong. The strength of these female characters get accentuated more by the fact that they in some way are responsible in putting their menfolk to sleep. For example, Cleopatra, in ANTONY & CLEOPATRA, by withdrawing her forces at the crucial point without going for the aid of her ally, is not a strong feature, but a “WEAKNESS” rather the “FRAILTY” of the woman, who doesn’t follow the etiquette of a war. Cleopatra was a decadent. Her sensual pleasures came ahead of her duties as the ruler of Egypt. She was a scheming and a runaway ruler.

In the case of MACBETH, lady Macbeth just hardens herself in the presence of Macbeth, who suffers from pangs of guilt. Lady Macbeth is like Ahab’s wife Jezebel in the BIBLE. She had always provided solutions  (mostly Procrustean) to Ahab, who suffered from remorse or guilt. Jezebel had no such compunction. Lady Macbeth was just another manipulative Queen, who wouldn’t let go of her privileges and position, and thereby provokes the man to do deeds which are patently criminal or sinful.

Getting  to Gertrude (HAMLET), the character is pitiable. She was sharing the matrimonial bed with her husband’s murderer and balancing her love for her son Hamlet with the comfort and cosiness provided by Claudius.

On the whole, the women characters in the TRAGEDIES of Shakespeare do not have any strength of character, but show great manipulative skills and ability to hold on to what they have and make the most of a bad bargain.

In KING LEAR, there is more character shown by Lear, after the tragic defeat and loss, which arose more out of error in judgement and an inability to see through the guile of Goneril and Regan! His paternal feelings blocking off realpolitik.

Character is not to be a winner ALWAYS, but an ability to take the LOSSES and DEFEATS squarely and go through it without DITHERING and make amends.

Germaine Greer’s statement seems without COMPETENCE, as the male Characters of Shakespeare are shown blending their DUTIES with their EMOTIONS and failing in the process. That does not make the men BOYISH. Whereas, the women characters are GREEDY, RAPACIOUS, PUSILLANIMOUS and PLEASURE -SEEKING, nor do these traits make the women characters “STRONG”!



In this world of immense possibilities, even within the stratum of society in which one finds himself, it has become necessary to acquire the power to say NO.

If we see the evolution of man, as a child he could only state his discomfort thru crying when found in unpleasant circumstances or with unpleasant feelings/sensations. But this crying does not automatically turn to the power of saying NO.

It needs a certain conviction of the self to utter NO, notwithstanding the feelings and thoughts lying within. A NO, in legal parlance is the DECLARATION OF REFUSAL. It is a statement made in personam or in rem or to one’s God or to oneself. But what is visible is what is known to the other beings, and therefore here i wish to explore the outward import of the POWER OF NO.

First and foremost is that, a person who doesn’t have a choice needs to say no NOES. Therefore there must be other possibilities of fact before one chooses the option of a  NO.

Secondly, it is a higher power than YES, because it is NEGATIVE. A YES is an affirmation without any exclusion, but the moment a NO comes in something is carved out and taken away from the whole- which has already an existence or has already been envisaged.

The President of the USA has the VETO power, it is the power to say NO. The big five in the UN Security Council have the power to say NO. It is that power that sets them apart from the rest, whether as an individual to over-rule the Congress or as a nation to over-rule the non-permanent members of the council. Politics is the ultimate power, as it decides for others, but my scope is much less ambitious and it shall hereafter deal with the POWER OF NO at a personal level.

In the first statement to be made by any CHRISTIAN, in his own personal capacity, endowed with a power to say NO is during his CONFIRMATION. Confirmation is the taking of the vows to be a Christian and to abjure and depart from devilish ways. The candidate reconfirms the vows taken by his guardians during his baptism. During the confirmation he is asked:-

DO ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh, so that ye will not follow nor be led by them?”

The question is affirmatively worded, but the contents reflect that the candidate shall say NO to the Devil and all his works.

So the FIRST NO, is ironically uttered as an AFFIRMATION of his FAITH.

Most of the world religions do have the TABOO practices. A taboo is a NO, NO and NO to certain beliefs, practices and acts.

Therefore the power of NO, not only keeps one within the bounds of what is right as prescribed by the society, but also gives one a certainty of the guiltlessness to one’s actions and thoughts.

Notwithstanding all the above, the power of NO, reflects the choice a man makes for himself, which ultimately shapes his personality and the perception of others.

There are moments in a man’s life when he can’t say NO. To follow what is gonna be narrated below, one shud have a decent memory of the movie CASABLANCA, where in the salon RICK’S, Ingrid Bergman meets Sam , the piano player and requests him to play and sing AS TIME GOES BY. Sam’s boss, Rick (@ Richard)- played by Humphrey Bogart-, had instructed Sam never to play AS TIME GOES BY. The lady- played by Ingrid (i wish i had been in first name terms with her- what bone structure!!)- uses her feminine charms to make Sam play AS TIME GOES BY, and succeeds. Sam, the piano player, finds himself in a situation where it would be his DUTY to say NO, but since his boss’ emotions were involved and further the request was made by the lady who could have been his master’s wife, he finds himself powerless and plays AS TIME GOES BY.


Macbeth found himself in a position to say NO, when the proposition of murdering Duncan was put forth to him, but he couldn’t.If only had he said NO, we’d have been less critical of Lady Macbeth. That NO would have smothered an evil idea at its infancy.

A NO is the mental brake. That might seem to delay progress, but it also provides the TIME to take a turn from the undesirable destination.

If one recalls the MARSHMALLOW TESTS, one could see that delay in appeasing one’s immediate sensual desires could lead to better rewards. That also is the power to say NO for the immediate gains and postponement of smaller satisfaction for greater REWARDS. With every NO uttered to an attractive thing or proposition, the person increases the HOPE component of his consciousness.


Tag Cloud