Dashrath’s Dinner Party
By Amiya Sen Translated from the Bengali by Bhaswati Ghosh Originally published as “Dasharather Atithijawggo” in Desh As she pulled the curtains off the doors and windows and dumped them on the floor, Shakuntala hollered, “Munga, come here, fast!” Dashrath was at the dining table, shaving. Casting a glance towards Shakuntala, he said, “Why are you taking those off yourself? Have Munga do that…if you fell down—” “That worthless servant of yours. You brought home a rascal from the orphanage. It’s eight in the morning, and he is yet to finish his work in the kitchen. A heap of clothes remains to be washed. I must load them into the washer myself and wait until the cycle is completed. If left to him, he will ruin the clothes like he did last time. Sigh, your new safari suit and Gudiya’s expensive zari-bordered lehnga-choli.” “Let it be. Where will you get a servant for 30 rupees in today’s market? We are managing just fine. Hey, Munga, get up on the stool, take down the curtains and pile them in the backyard. Then bring a duster. Clean everything in all the rooms. Khabardar, nothing should break, or else I will beat you to a pulp, you understand?” Munga, once a resident of a developmental home governed by the Delhi Administration, said with a broad, foolish smile, “Ji.” Literate and illiterate, rich and poor, all kinds of residents in the capital make use of these homes. Any mentally retarded or low-IQ child in the family is swiftly dispatched to institutions like these. The Delhi administration has opened a lot of centres for the mentally challenged. The poor occasionally come to visit their children (they grow up into young men and women in the homes, though many also die from the ‘care’ they receive from the home staff). They even take the children home during holidays. But well-to-do families are interested in only admitting their children. They return at the very end, honking their cars, to collect the dead children’s bodies. It’s a relief to keep such social disgraces away from their day-to-day lives. This has been one of the boons of independent India. Alongside running several other types of homes, the Delhi Administration carries out a lot of social welfare activities by instituting shelters for insane and mentally challenged people. This has created thousands of jobs and countless official posts. It is quite remarkable. Munga is a lucky one. He caught the attention of the superintendent and found a place in his home as a child servant, thus being spared the decrepit paradise of the government home. Of course, the superintendent had to pay a price for it every month–30 rupees. Considering the scarcity and steep cost of domestic servants in Delhi, this is a small amount. Five years ago, Dashrath Sharma, the superintendent’s brother-in-law, brought Munga to his own house. The child grew up into a young adult at his home even as Dashrath’s own fortunes blossomed. The fifteen hundred rupees that he earns as salary for the job he poses to be doing in Delhi Administration’s Social Welfare department is just his pocket money. As with many others, the job is only a front for him. His primary enterprise comprises a variety of side businesses. It began with a scooter dealership that he started with a small investment. Next, he moved to real estate. Thanks to the arrival of Maruti, he now has a dealership for automobiles. Before this, he also dealt in colour television sets for a while, but left that because of the high profitability in the auto business. In Delhi, money overflows from people’s pockets; there’s no place to store the cash. Black money can’t be stashed in banks either. This explains why even seemingly innocuous looking middle-class people have an underground basement in their house–even if it’s no bigger than a match box. One only has to place a life-size photo of Rama or Hanuman on the wall next to the stairs leading to the basement. That does it. It’s a god-fearing country after all. Even Information Bureau and Income Tax officers are forced to bow down and take leave. As two-wheelers like scooters, mopeds and motorbikes started becoming vehicles of the lower middle classes, the demand for cars was at its peak. Dashrath made the most of it. Every car brought a fat amount, including the booking cost. Most people didn’t want to remain stuck in the waiting list–they were willing to spend a few extra thousand rupees if that could get them the car faster. When Dashrath hadn’t made it big, he had also opened a marriage bureau. That brought the telephone in his house. But as the phone came to be used more for inquiring the market rates of limestone, sand and cement, the butterfly of the marriage bureau fluttered away. Not a big deal. Dashrath harbours no regrets over it. His three older brothers were reasonably well-heeled. He was way down on the scale, a member of the lower middle class. He had funded his graduate studies by offering tuition classes. After searching high and low for a job, he found one with a salary of 35 rupees. To keep the job he had to buy a bicycle in installments. That’s when it struck him that one could no longer get to the top by climbing one stair at a time. In order to succeed, it was necessary to have a political party’s support. So he joined a party. The results were instantaneous. Using the party affiliation he obtained a fake social worker certificate that got him his current job as a probational officer in the Social Welfare department. At the time, his party was a superpower–everything from the corporation to the municipality was in its control. Dashrath had to participate in some party activities, though. Dashrath Sharma was at the forefront of the mutiny that erupted in the university campus, gunning for the removal of the Vice Chancellor who came from
The Bernhard Case
Max Weber [There are many institutions of higher education—universities and research centres, where we have periodically seen academic administrators being appointed/elevated in significant positions for reasons of ideology or expediency. Each such decision hits at the very foundation of the world of ideas. In multiple ways. In this context, HUG remembers Max Weber’s classic pronouncement on The Bernhard Case] ———————————————– We have received the following from academic circles: The investigations in the press into the much discussed “Bernhard Case” have by no means put an end to the interest the case has aroused. It is, of course, scandalous that the government (or, to be precise, the minister, acting entirely on his own personal initiative, although directly influenced by the government) has imposed a professor on the largest university in Germany, and that the academic staff involved, who are among the most distinguished scholars in Germany, only learned of this fact through the press or when their new colleague paid them a visit. Such scandals are typical. Some other circumstances, however, are perhaps even more typical. Firstly, the behavior of the man who was so suddenly promoted. In the days when the writer of these lines was as young as Herr Ludwig Bernhard himself is today, it was regarded as a fundamental requirement of academic decorum for someone who had been offered a chair by the ministry to satisfy himself, before doing anything else, and before deciding whether or not to accept the offer, that he enjoyed the scientific confidence of the faculty, or at least of the most prominent of the colleagues with whom he would be working in his field; and this applied irrespective of whether or not he feared that it might create difficulties, even if these were only of a moral nature, for his appointment. Anyone who, merely because he was “in favor,” chose to disregard these generally accepted rules, in order to “get on” in the academic world, was subject to exactly the same judgment and exactly the same treatment at the hands of his colleagues as that which is meted out to people who speculate on furthering their career by taking “inferior” professorships [Strafprofessuren] for denominational or political reasons. Since it is clear that Herr Bernhard did not find it necessary to observe these rules, he has shown that he is not personally worthy of further consideration. Of more general importance, however, is the fact that this kind of attitude is evidently on the increase among a section of the new academic recruits and that moreover the Prussian Government is deliberately cultivating these types of “operators” [Geschäftsleute], as they say in academic circles. Indeed, there are professorial chairs that are regularly used as “way stations” for the sustenance of such elements. As far as the University of Berlin itself is concerned, it is, of course, true that appointment to a professorship there is generally regarded as good business in financial terms even today. But the time has passed when it was thought of as a high scholarly honor. True, even now we are happy to recognize that there are many scientists in Berlin who are genuine leaders in their various fields and are absolutely independent personalities. And yet the number of “complacent” mediocrities there, who are sought after for their very mediocrity, seems to be growing, if anything, faster than elsewhere. And then there are the people like Herr Bernhard, people for whom, from the point of view of the government, membership of the university is essentially a reward in the pecuniary sense or in the sense of social prestige. No doubt it is to some extent a welcome bonus to provincial universities that this practice enables them to retain a far greater number of outstanding scholars than would be the case if professors in Berlin were selected on solely scholarly criteria. Naturally, from the point of view of the University of Berlin, these matters are probably seen in a different light. There is a curious irony here. In a number of Berlin faculties, despite increasing numbers of students, there have been attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to limit the number of professorships. Indeed, one faculty created a special statute restricting the securing of a Habilitation for academic teachers from other higher education institutions, and then promptly made use of this obstacle, which the faculty had itself created, to exclude an outstanding academic teacher from appointment as an adjunct lecturer [Privatdozent], who was acknowledged as such, against the votes of the faculty [Fachmänner]. The irony is that this same university must now accept that its university chairs are used as rewards when some ministry happens to feel the need to have politically desirable research carried out by an able young man. The price to be paid for any concessions by the faculties to inappropriate proposals, and in particular for any deviation from the principle of gaining as many highly qualified academic staff as humanly possible, will ultimately be the weakening of the moral authority of the faculties themselves. And of course the consequences of this will not be limited to cases like the present one. After all, Herr Bernhard has written a book that, allowing for a certain scholarly immaturity, I, for one, find very impressive; it is important in its field and shows a distinctiveness of method. But everyone knows that in the field of economics, for example, at least two other people are waiting outside the door of the faculty who are “deserving” in different ways, in the case of one of them for services rendered back in the “Stumm era.” Sooner or later, their time will undoubtedly come. It seems quite unlikely that the eventual successors of men such as Adolf Wagner and Gustav [von] Schmoller will be important and scientifically unique personalities. The situation is similar at the other Prussian universities. None of them today are dealing with Herr [Friedrich T.] Althoff, who despite the questionable nature of his “system” nevertheless had a certain impressiveness. Instead, for the foreseeable
‘We Will Spirit You Out’ : Kabir Suman in Conversation with Maya Angelou
Maya Angelou, born Marguerite Ann Johnson; poet, memorialist, novelist, educator, dramatist, producer, actress, historian, filmmaker, and civil rights activist. Kabir Suman, singer-songwriter, musician, poet, journalist, political activist, TV presenter, occasional actor and Member of Parliament, India. ——————————————————– Kabir Suman. In your autobiographical work, The Heart of a Woman, you wrote: ‘Being a black American is qualitatively different from being an American.’ Would you please elaborate a little on this and tell me if that statement would be valid today? Maya Angelou. Absolutely. That’s a recent book. The Heart of a Woman is only a part of a series of autobiographies. I believe myself to be the only serious writer in the United States who has chosen to use that medium as a vehicle for the expression of my work. That book was written only about three years ago. There is still, and there always has been a qualitative difference between being an American and being a black American. Let’s look at the differences: all white Americans arriving on this soil, before America was the United States or after, for the most part came here willingly. Only a very small percentage of white Americans, that is Europeans came here under bondage. And that bondage was a different bondage. In truth, less than two percent of the colonialists came here as bondsmen and bondswomen. For the most part, Europeans (English or Anglo-Saxon or whatever) came here willingly, escaping conditions which they found untenable. No African paid his or her way on a slave ship, paid passage—other than in blood and tears and sweat and agony and fear. That quantitatively makes the difference in the spirit and the intent between the two peoples. If everything had worked out back in 1650 so that there were no slaves and no bondsmen, even that would already make a difference. But 1650 was one of the peak years, because slaving had not by that time so crystallized, it was not ‘big business’ at that time. It only became big business by the end of the seventeenth century. Early in the eighteenth. The majority of the Africans brought to this country were brought from the period until 1850. These people, my ancestors, were brought and they lived under a condition called ‘Chattel slavery.’ That made quite different psychological complexions—first for the slave and for the slave-holder, and for the white who didn’t hold slaves. We bring the baggage of our inheritance, whether we like it or not, with us—the intangible and invisible baggage with us. And it weighs upon us to varying degrees, but it does weigh, and it makes for a different carriage, a different physical carriage between us. If one person has no baggage and another is carrying a hundred pounds, it weighs upon that ‘another’ person. That makes for the different stance, if you will. And my suggestion is that the psychological stances are different, depending upon the varying baggage. K.S. I am going to borrow your statement I quoted before. Is ‘being a black American’ writer qualitatively different from ‘being an American’ writer too? Angelou. Yes. I would say so. The pressure on me, Maya and me, the collective black, is such that I cannot write esoterically. My pen owes its every movement to the struggle. I know it sounds terribly romantic and all that, but I don’t mean it to be. I am who I am because of who I am. I am all those people who have been oppressed, who have been enslaved and murdered, and who have been discriminated against. And so, that’s who I am. So, when I write, I am obliged to write because of who I am. And that means then that I am obliged to talk about it. So, the white writer sometimes feels he or she can talk about the clouds, the sky, the waving of the first green, and I write about that too. But when I am really on my job—black Americans say ‘when I am on my J’—I have to get to my axe. My axe is always hewing on the same stone, and that is: how can we make this country more than what it is today? K.S. Considering your views about the differences between the American and the Black American, would it be justified to suggest that there is an America and an Black America? Angelou. Yes, of course. Some years ago I was on a plane and I picked up a Time or Newsweek magazine, and there I found this quote: “I don’t know why people think this is one country. There are at least, forty Americas, or more. The people of Kansas are convinced that they are America, they are the real America. Go in Texas. People in Texas know that they are America. And then if you go to New York and they know that after New York, you leave New York and you ain’t going nowhere. So, that’s where it is. That’s America. There certainly is a black America. There are many black Americas for that matter. People who are convinced, who stand tall in their conviction that they are black America. Some are radicals, some conservatives, some are religious, some are very young, some are very old—these are all black people who are certain that they represent Black America. So, certainly, it si safe to say, at least, there is a White America and a Black America. And there are, at least, fifty White Americas. K.S. If you say there is an America and a Black America, that would be one thing. But if you say there is a White America and a Black America, don’t you think it would be another? Angelou. I see what you are saying. Well, the Black America is different from America. It is not our wish. Our current president [Ronald Reagan] for whom black Americans did not vote in herds, in millions, is still our president. Whether the people vote for him or not, the moment he comes in and takes office,
Zollikon Seminars: An Evening’s Exchange
from Z O L L I K O N S E M I N A R S 1 9 5 9 – 1 9 69 [The Zollikon Seminars were a series of philosophical seminars delivered between 1959 and 1969 by Martin Heidegger at the home of Swiss psychiatrist Medard Boss. The topic of the seminars was Heidegger’s philosophical method as it pertained to the theory and praxis of medicine, psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy. The protocols of the seminars, along with correspondences between Heidegger and Boss, were published in German in 1987 under the title Zollikoner Seminare, Protokolle- Gersprache- Briefe Herausgegeben von Medard Boss. The English version of the text was published in 2001. Here is a section from an evening’s informal discussion ] July 6,1964, at Medard Boss’s Home But let us praise not only the sage Whose name shines on the book, For first of all one has to tear the wisdom from the sage. That is why the customs collector should also be thanked. He was the one who asked it of him. Legend [“Legend of the Origin of the Book Tao-te-Ching by Lao Tzu on His Way to Emigration”] (Bertolt Brecht) MARTIN HEIDEGGER: For once we must disregard all science in view of what we will now discuss, that is, no use should be made of it now. It must be asked then in a positive sense: How then should we proceed? We must learn a new way of thinking—a thinking which was already known to the ancient Greeks. Returning to the theme of our last meeting, we ask: Is this the same table which stands before me today? SEMINAR PARTICIPANT: I remember it differently. It’s really not the same! It’s been exchanged. MH:Suppose it is the same [derselbe]. Is it also alike [dergleiche]?* SP: No, I remember it differently. MH: In the aide-memoire [seminar protocol] which lies in front of you, the expression “pure and simple” is used. How about it? SP: It has something to do with something simple and plain. MH: Yes, but is this “acceptance” [hinnehmen] actually so simple? Obviously not. Direct acceptance is not an absolute certainty. Does it have the character of certainty at all? SP: It has a momentary certainty: It is here and now, not absolute. MH: What characteristic of certainty does direct receiving-perceiving have? SP: Empirical existence. MH: It is an actual, but unnecessary existence. This is called assertoric certainty. This is in contrast to what is called apodictic certainty, for example, 2 X 2 = 4. Apodictic certainty is not absolute either, but it is necessary. Why isn’t it absolute? .. . In 2 X 2 = 4 “the same as” [=, equals] is presupposed. It is also presupposed that two always remains identical to itself; therefore, it is a conditional certainty. Now, we first described this table, but that is not what interests us. Only “the table which exists” is of interest to us. We took this existence for granted in the sense of what is called acceptance. Now, what does it mean to exist? Being is not a real predicate according to Kant, but we speak about the table’s existence. What is meant by this “real”? It indicates relating to the nature of a thing [Sachhaltifrkät]. In this sense, existence is not real. Nevertheless, we attribute existence to the table. Existence belongs to it. How does it belong to it? What does existence mean? SP: The table is in space. MH: Does this belong to the nature of the thing? SP: Extension is a property of space. MH: How? SP: It has extendedness [Ausgedehntheit]: how high it is; how wide, and so forth. These are its dimensions. MH: Are extension and dimension different? What is the difference? SP: Dimension is an arbitrarily selected extension. MH: How do particular spaces relate to “space”? SP: Space contains them. MH: Space is not “the universal in relation to [particular] spaces, as with trees, for example, as the tree is [the universal] to particular trees. Now, what characterizes this space? SP: It is space, which is demarcated. MH: It is a space for living; it contains useful things. There is an orientation to things in space. Things have a special meaning for the people who live there. They are familiar to some [of the people], but strange to others. This space has characteristics other than “space.” How is the table in space now? SP: It belongs to space; it takes up space. MH: But how? SP: It has a shape which limits it according to its space. MH: Yes. Now you can see how it is with this aide-memoire, as they call it. What meaningless sentences! That’s why we*re so helpless with this scribbling on paper! Now, we are asking whether this table would still be here if Dr. R. were no longer here to see it. SP: Both of them are located in the space, which separates the observer from the table, as well as connects him to it. MH: Separates? Are you sure? If something is separated, it must have first been connected. SP: Better to say distant from, removed from. MH: Distance [in the originary, ontological sense] has nothing to do with separating and connecting. Now, last time we asked: If we put a wall between the table and Dr. R., [then] is the table still there? SP: Then the table is no longer visible to the observer.