From the Sidelines of a Seminar

JohnyML attends the Ram Kinker Baij Centenary Seminar at Santiniketan and finds out some unpalatable truths, which otherwise every one would like to overlook.

Where have the women faculties gone?

The Ram Kinkar Baij Centenary Seminar at Santiniketan was in many ways interesting. On the second day, suddenly provoked by the injustice done to the women by the Viswabharati University authorities someone from the audience observed that he could see so many young female students as volunteers (who carried around refreshments for the intellectuals-cold for the hot ones and hot for the cold ones) but he could not see any female faculty members as participants. He was hinting at the fact that Kalabhavan, despite its liberal claims did not have female members as teachers. Then the veteran art historian Janak Jhankar Narzari stood up to explain certain things to the audience. An agitated art historian and writer, Amrita Gupta Singh of the Mohile Parekh Centre for Visual Arts (MPCVA) jumped up and said, “I had been a student of this institution and I know that no woman faculty members are entertained here.” She sounded like a typical argumentative Indian feminist from the land of Amartya Sen. Those girls who were doubling themselves up as volunteers soon became fire spitting individuals. They wanted justice then and there.

From the sidelines, later I asked someone who could tell me the truth of the whole thing. Requesting anonymity he explained a few things to me. Viswabharati has never entertained women teachers is a false notion, he said. Even in Kalabhavan there were three women faculties and in due course of time they got retired and left. Then a post was advertised in the Art History department. This time there were two applicants. One of them was the person who now holds the position of Dean at the Arts and Aesthetics Department in Jawaharlal Nehru University. The second applicant was one Indian woman from the US. There was a legal tussle between these two applicants. The legal fight went on for a long period and the American one left art history altogether. The first applicant opted for another institution and left the case. Finally the position was liquidated.

Accommodating women as faculties come with a tag. Most of the academicians are married to academicians. That is part of the hormone drive during the student days. But practically hormones do not settle when it comes to professional things. Most often when the wife seeks a position in Santiniketan, the husband must be working in some other university located in some other part of the country. So the minimum demand comes before the selection committee is this: accommodate both of us. University replies: we cannot bend the rule for making your familial bonding strong. So the eternal deferring happens.

It is said that Santiniketan has at least nine qualified ‘wives’ whose husbands are working as faculties in various departments. University rules cannot be bent for accommodating these qualified ‘wives’. So they become either frustrated academicians or perfect wives, though having the two in one is a difficult proposition. Amrita Gupta Singh is a dear friend of mine. I respect her Joan of Arc like passion for justice. But has she or anyone like her tried to investigate what prevents the women faculties from entering in Santiniketan and find out the truth? May be this could be a subject for another doctoral thesis. Hope Amrita Gupta Singh would not say no to me when I ask her for the next write up.

This issue of women faculties has another side. It was first kicked up by the noted art historian and scholar Saleem Hashmi during 1990s. Hashmi was speaking in one of the Khoj seminars in New Delhi. She said that in Lahore college of Art, the Painting Department has a female head. However, for Hashmi having a woman as the head was a shameful thing! To a shocked audience she explained the truth of it. In Pakistan, painting was considered to be a ‘lower form of art’ (as you know why). So having a woman as the head of it was not at all a problem! Then someone raised the issue of Santiniketan. She very coolly replied that in India it was a blessing in disguise. At least the woman head wouldn’t be looked down upon by other ‘heads’ who handle better departments. Any takers for Saleema Hashmi’s argument?

Why do we labor so much?

A few years back, I had asked a question, ‘Why Indian Boys would like to Shit in Western Toilets?’ This article on Indian new media art of 1990s had provoked many of my friends and they turned overnight enemies. Time heals everything. So, most of them have become friends again. Now I ask a different question, why do our academicians labor so much while presenting their arguments? In Santiniketan, once again I witnessed except for a few most of the academicians and even the observers laboring with language.

While Irit Rogoff, Grant Watson, Wo-nil Hee, Prof.Sivakumar and Geeta Kapur presented their cases so smoothly, Shivji Panicker was laboring like anything. In his presentation he paraphrased someone’s argument then said “I quote” by scratching the air with index finger and middle finger of the right and left hands and said the same thing in quotation. I could not understand a bit. A few others were also like this. They would not ask for water. They will only ask for H2O. And I will take that with a pinch of NaCl.

I try to put myself as a culprit. Perhaps, my lack of academic knowledge would be the reason for not understanding all what was said. But I understand Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Chomsky, Homi Bhabha, Paul Gilroy, Stuart Hall, Kobena Mercer, Bell Hooks, Lucy Lippard, Linda Noachlin, Carol Duncan, Julian Stallabrass, Dave Hickey, Hans Ulrisch Obrist, Sarat Maharaj, Apinan Poshyananda and so on. If someone gives me chance and a time to refresh I can even lecture on them to any post graduate and doctoral level students. But I don’t understand a word from some of the Indian scholars. Miya culpa, miya culpa, miya maxima culpa.

Again Language

This is a contest for my readers. Those who send the answer in a week’s time will get a Maruti 800 (second hand)*. Decipher the following excerpts and translate them into simple English and send them to johnyml@gmail.com

“Do elective affinities imply the bridging of structural differences; when do discrete cultural and economic formations translate into active affiliations? The suggested subjects are wide-ranging and deliberately enigmatic so that speakers have a place of manoeuvre and bring new, even tendentious, arguments to bear on familiar concepts.”

“In a more provocative mode: if the Asian ‘hordes’, viewed from the perch of old Europe, provokes (after the ironical poem of Cavafy), a familiar cry, “The barbarians are coming!”, we have to ask ourselves the following, and critically: considering Asia’s inherited, and  reconstituted systems of knowledge (including religions), is the ‘ interim’ historicity of the  modernist project-—multi-ethnic nationalisms and secular mediations-- under scrutiny and, if so, where does that leave us in terms of  contemporary  art?”

(Remember Rene Magritte, This is not a paragraph, This is a sentence)

I will not quote anymore. Then you might ask for a Rolls Royce.

And if you want a trip to Dubai Shopping Festival*, find out where these excerpts are from. If you can’t ask me johnyml@gmail.com

* Terms and conditions apply

The Pranabranjan Ray Factor

In every seminar you will find a scholar who would like to passionately connect with what is being discussed. His or her passion will be so much that they loose all the grip on their selves. In Santiniketan, the passionate man’s role was played by the senior art historian Dr.Pranabranjan Ray. Whether it was Irit Rogoff or Grant Watson, Geeta Kapur or Parul Dave Mukherjee, Mr.Ray had questions.

Mr.Ray’s questions start off as questions, then they take the form of an elaboration of facts, then an analysis of those facts, from there he will quote from Indian classic treatises. He would not mind whether the audience or the scholar he is addressing to mind it all or not. He becomes Salvador Dali’s Narcissus. Several times the moderators had to admonish him by saying, ‘Time, time’. Several times he was denied microphone.

The anti-climax came later. In one of the sessions, Mr.Ray was asked to chair. He chaired it well. Whoever raised the hand for the second time or jumped the stipulated time, like a headmaster from the village school, he chided everyone. He did not allow anybody to meander through the memory lanes. In my opinion, that was the only session where time frame was kept.