Herein lies the problem

It is hard being back. Sensory overload would be a stab in the right direction but a phrase that comes painfully short of the confusion in my mind. Walking up 5th Avenue, exhausted, my mind doesn’t know what is going on as it undergoes a mental marathon, a grueling test of endurance and contrast. With each step, I get a second farther away from my work this summer, friends, a burgeoning slum with no end in sight, a place of eternal contradiction where smiles and destitution tango to the rhythm of 90s rap lyrics.

Fatigue is not the reason I stumble forward but rather a jet-lagged mental incompetence, no way of reconciling the disconnect between what I am living now and was living 48 hours ago.

Herein lies the problem, the true challenge to vitriolic blog postings, grand notions of social activism, and self congratulating college groups: how do I mend that gap, live in the U.S. knowing what I know? Slogan t-shirts are one thing, but consistent lifestyle is another, telling of a commitment to an idea that goes beyond the hip Urban Outfitters version of its commercialized self, somewhere uncomfortable at some point.

It is hard being back. I ask myself, well aware of the problems that face some people, one small community in a specific city, what am I going to do about it? Better yet, what am I going to live about it? Truthfully, I am a little afraid of the answer because I know it is a lot easier not to.

Aaron Charlop-Powers

 

Blogging in Tehran

Some of the more curious sites on the Internet are the websites and blogs of world leaders. Kim Jong-il, my favorite despot and premier of North Korea, has a website that is essentially devoted to him, and Iraq’s top Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has a website, complete with a Q & A section with the cleric himself.  

The latest leader to jump on the bandwagon, despite the fact that his country attempts to ruthlessly censors its citizens’ access to the Internet (with not entirely successful results), is Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has started his own blog.  With solicitations to email the president and posts by Ahmadinejad, the blog appears to be an attempt to reach out to younger and more distant audiences that are prone to political dissent, particularly since such dissent often finds its way into the Internet, which is less successfully censored than the country’s print and broadcast media. However, given the president’s first post — a lengthy homage to himself — the blog might amount to little more than a transparent piece of propaganda.

Mimi Hanaoka

 

The courage not to choose (part two)

Picking up the thread I began last month about the book Peace Is Every Step —E…

Picking up the thread I began last month about the book Peace Is Every Step

Even those who profess themselves to be peacemakers often cannot resist the trumpet call to arms. The author, Thich Nhat Hanh, relates a story from his days as a peace activist during the Vietnam War. During a talk he gave in the United States in 1966, a young man stood up and told Hanh to go home. “The best thing you can do is go back to your country and defeat the American aggressors! You shouldn’t be here. There is absolutely no use to your being here!”

The young American and his fellow activists wanted peace, Hanh says, but “the kind of peace they wanted was the defeat of one side in order to satisfy their anger.” Frustrated with the lack of progress toward a ceasefire, some activists had even begun calling for the defeat of their own country. Though they said they worked for peace, what they were really doing, Hanh says, was taking the attitude of violence that had brought war into Vietnam and unleashing it upon their own countrymen and women. “We Vietnamese who were suffering under the bombs had to be more realistic,” Hanh writes. “We wanted peace. We did not care about anyone’s victory or defeat.”

Lasting peace does not emerge from any kind of partisanship that denies the opponent’s humanity. The work of ending war cannot begin with a heart full of hate; it requires not just a worthy end, but also worthy means. To practice nonviolence, we must first become nonviolence, Hanh points out. “Because without being peace, we cannot do anything for peace. If we cannot smile, we cannot help other people smile. If we are not peaceful, then we cannot contribute to the peace movement.”

In a world where every action, however small, has consequences, what the individual does matters. And so the choices she makes — to favor war or peace in her dealings with other people — has much to say about the choices her country makes in its dealings with other countries. “The roots of war are in the way we live our daily lives — the way we develop our industries, build up our society, and consume goods,” Hanh writes. “We have to look deeply into the situation, and we will see the roots of war. We cannot just blame one side or the other. We have to transcend the tendency to take sides.”

Yet many of us are under the illusion that we have no say over matters of politics and war. We insist that the country’s top politicians and generals and intellectuals have all the power, and what say or do has no effect on the course of events. Hanh disagrees. “You may think that if you were to enter government and obtain power, you would be able to do anything you wanted, but that is not true,” he writes. “If you became President, you would be confronted by this hard fact — you would probably do almost exactly the same thing as our current President, perhaps a little better, perhaps a little worse.”

It is difficult to accept this — especially if you’re not a fan of your country’s current head of state. But the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy made a similar point in his novel War and Peace. We believe great leaders to be all-powerful, but we forget that their decisions are never made in isolation, but rather a refraction of the influence of many factors, including the actions of those they supposedly command. “The life of the nations is not contained in the lives of a few men,” Tolstoy wrote. Yet most of us live our lives under this delusion of impotence.

According to Hanh, the simple act of looking deeply into our reality and changing ourselves — a practice he calls meditation, though it is not limited by religion or belief — can bring our world closer to the peace we seek. “If we are aware of our lifestyle, our way of consuming, of looking at things,” Hanh writes, “we will know how to make peace right in the moment we are alive.”

Victor Tan Chen

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

 

A hundred highways

Not long before Johnny Cash died, he recorded a collection of songs that were to become the next segment in his American Recordings series.  Although Cash didn’t live to hear the final result, producer and friend Rick Rubin recruited a group of musicians and added acoustic guitars, strings, and keyboards to Cash’s baritone, creating the album American V: A Hundred Highways, a haunting meditation on death that embodies Cash’s sincerity at its finest.

Like much of his previous work, the album is an exercise in contradictions: resilience vs. defeat, humor vs. misery, permanence vs. transiency, love found vs. love lost, the secular vs. the religious.  Each song is another link on his cavalcade towards finality, and Cash’s knack for making other performers’ compositions his own is on full display here.  

The album begins with Cash singing, “Oh Lord, help me to walk another mile, just one more” and hints at the singer’s broken down, brokenhearted state while his voice, reduced to a near whisper, sounds so brittle it could crack.

As these words indicate, spirituality is one of the running themes on the album, and is best seen in the traditional “God’s Gonna Cut You Down,” where Cash reflects on the universal notion of mortality through God’s eyes, although his own mortality clearly weighs on his mind.  A razor-like slide guitar cuts across Cash’s evangelical vocals as the backup band stomps its way through the song’s duration, pounding home the Biblical message.  

Two of the compositions were written by Cash himself, including “Like the 309,” the last he wrote before his death.  Here we see a defiant Cash staring down death with his confident swagger, reminding us that he’s not gone until his casket’s on the 309 (a little more poignantly now since he is in fact gone).

Almost directly paralleling “Like the 309” is Hank Williams’ “On the Evening Train,” the story of a man whose deceased spouse is being carried back home.  Given his physical state and his own wife’s death shortly before this recording, Cash turns in a remarkable performance containing arguably the strongest vocals on the album.  

Most of the other tracks continue along a similar vain, telling stories of love, death, and God.  The final cut, “I’m Free From the Chain Gang Now,” would have taken on a wholly different meaning at an earlier period of his life.   As the last song on this collection, its metaphorical connotations become quite apparent.  

While each person experiences death individually, most of us won’t know how we’ll react until our own fates are nearby.  As one of the few performers infused with the spirit of the American outlaw, Johnny Cash left us one last piece of music and a final lesson on our own mortality.  

Mike Robustelli

 

Taggin’ through the streets

Graffiti is art. Graffiti is not art. Wherever your opinion lies, it’s probably black and white. There’s no gray, no Cherry Red, Regal Blue, or Castle Rock, for that matter. Graffiti is either a blight on the landscape, or a form of expression encompassing the socio-political dynamics of the day.

Either way you play it, graffiti is not going anywhere. With corporations from Sony, Nissan, and Nike to McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and the X-Games co-opting the form, graffiti is mainstream. Graffiti exhibitions have been shown in the bastions of “legitimate” art throughout the world, including the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney, and the Smithsonian.
But whether graffiti is vandalism or art, there is an interesting question underneath all of those letterings and colors, and that question is motivation. The young kids of the ‘70s who began the graffiti movement are older now, and when asked about what it all meant, their answers were wide-ranging, thought-provoking, and complex.

An article in a recent issue of New York Magazine spoke to the early graffiti creators (referred to as “writers”), many of whom sat on different sides of the fence when it came to defining graffiti.
For example, Ivor L. Miller, author of Aerosol Kingdom: Subway Painters of New York City, called graffiti, “a younger generation’s artistic response to the public protests of the Black Power and civil-rights movements.” Writer MICO backs this theory, explaining, “Graffiti is a term that The New York Times coined, and it denigrates the art because it was invented by youth of color. Had it been invented by the children of the rich or the influential, it would have been branded avant-garde Pop Art.” Author Jeff Chang also ties graffiti in with hip-hop, as art form and political expression.

Yet, other graffiti writers hesitate to put graffiti into a political context. Writer RATE claims, “Graffiti is vandalism. If it becomes too legitimate, it loses part of what it’s about in the first place.” And SHARP adds, “I think what people are doing today is really destructive. I don’t see any artistic value in etched windows.”

One point that cannot be argued, in my opinion, is that graffiti has been, and always will be, a form of expression. Whether it’s art or not, it has been a way for youth to express themselves, their worlds, and their vision. “I think these guys are doing what they are supposed to be doing. If you want to be a true writer, a true rebel, you have to make do with what you have,” says MICO.

Ultimately, as writer LEE says about graffiti, “This movement is about movement. It is about reinventing itself. And it’s about the streets.”

Desiree Aquino

 

Iraq’s art hero

Through dictatorship, war, occupation, insurgency, and counterinsurgency, Esam Pasha kept painting.

Iraqi artist Esam Pasha at his studio in New London, Connecticut.

On a warm afternoon in early March, I went to New London, Connecticut to visit Esam Pasha, a 30-year-old Iraqi artist. At the time, Esam lived in an apartment at the Sapphire House, a renovated mansion, owned by the Griffis Art Center, where he was an artist-in-residence. I had met Esam in January at a gallery in New York’s SoHo district, which had opened an exhibit featuring Esam and five others, billed as the first opportunity for Americans to view works by leading contemporary Iraqi artists.

Only six months prior to the exhibit opening, Esam was still living in Iraq. The juxtaposition raised several questions. How did Esam become an artist in the first place? How did he end up in the United States? I also wondered how Esam’s experiences could serve as a window to view and understand Iraq’s past and present.

Sitting in the living room of the Sapphire House, over coffee and countless cigarettes, we began talking. A former national judo champion and discus thrower, Esam has an imposing presence that is offset by a calm demeanor. Flecks of grey in his beard make him look older than he is. Born in Baghdad in 1976, he is one of seven children. His parents divorced in the 1980s. His grandfather, Nuri al-Said, was prime minister until he was assassinated in 1958 as part of the coup that toppled the Iraqi monarchy.

Growing up, Esam studied English at school, which he perfected by watching American movies, and then taught himself three other languages. On weekends, he prowled a book market on Mutanabi Street. It was there that he caught his first glimpses of Western art. He devoured a wide range of art books, but was particularly drawn to Klimt, Miro, Rembrandt, and Durer.

Esam lived through the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and the ensuing sanctions. He worked odd jobs as a teenager in construction, carpentry, and commercial painting before becoming a full-time artist in 1999.

During this period, Iraq suffered years of economic hardship and isolation, and as such, only two art galleries in Baghdad remained open. The only patrons were United Nations and NGO workers who typically requested works depicting scenes of “exotic Arabia.” Even these pieces fetched prices so low it was hardly worth the time and expense of artistry, Esam said. “You would get more money if you just broke a bronze sculpture down and instead sold the bronze.”

The intelligence service, or mukhabarat, kept a watchful eye on Iraqi artists for any sign of dissent. Being seen with foreigners raised suspicions. When Esam got a commission from the U.N’s Baghdad office for a panorama, the mukhabarat made it clear that he should not paint anything political. Stick to landscapes or abstracts, they said.

A sense of paranoia became widespread. Some friends warned Esam about a painting he had lying around his apartment of an eagle soaring down. Government censors could interpret the eagle as symbol of the regime’s demise, they said.

Any remnants of an authoritarian state quickly dissolved as the American military moved into Baghdad. In its place emerged a bonanza of opportunity, particularly for an English-speaker, like Esam.

Esam remembers the early days after the U.S. invasion. After the fall of Baghdad, the Americans set up a base near his home. Officials began recruiting local Iraqis for hire. Esam waited in a separate queue for English-speakers. “I thought I’d have to fill out a lot of paperwork and would hear back from them in a few days or weeks,” he recalls. In less than an hour, though, he was shaking hands with an army captain who hired him on the spot.

After the war, people’s spirits were lifted, Esam said. His fellow Iraqis could express opinions, go to cafés, talk politics, and publish newspapers and magazines. In September, Esam landed a commission to paint the first public mural in post-Saddam Iraq.  

But before he could paint anything, he had to rip down a portrait of the former leader. “I kept peeling back layers,” Esam said, shaking his head. “But each time I did, I discovered another portrait. It took me days before I got to the bottom.”

His thirteen-foot tall mural, described by one critic as “yellow, orange, and purple paint swirling around images of doves, traditional Baghdadi architecture, and the sun rising over a sky-blue mosque,” came to symbolize a crystalline break between past and present, despair and hope. He purposely avoided black paint in this piece because “we needed color, after all those years of suffering.” He named the mural “Resilience.”

However, as security deteriorated by early 2004, Esam was getting nervous. Unlike some translators, he chose not to wear a mask. “My face was well-known,” Esam says. At that point, he began thinking of coming to America.

A Connecticut art dealer, Peter Hastings Falk, read about Esam’s mural and took notice. “I had to find out who this guy was,” Falk recalls now. Hebegan emailing Esam about organizing an exhibit of Iraqi artists.

Esam applied for and was selected as an artist-in-residence at the Griffis Art Center, which he had learned about from Falk. In June 2005, Esam flew to JFK. He initially stayed with Steve Mumford, a New York artist who had worked in Iraq. Falk recalls first meeting Esam, who was carrying a traditional rug he had brought from Iraq as a gift for a friend. “Steve has a walk-up apartment, and we had to lug that rug up those flights of stairs. It weighed a ton.”

When asked if he had experienced any culture shock, Esam said no, but then apologized, sensing his answer was disappointing. “I knew all about Dunkin’ Donuts and Waffle House. I even had Starbucks,” he says, alluding to the time he spent on U.S. army bases in Iraq.    

Since coming to the U.S., he has visited many of the soldiers he worked with at their homes around the country. “We are real friends,” Esam says. “We’re not just polite to each other. When we call each other, it’s not a courtesy call. It’s to discuss real things.”

In his studio behind the Sapphire House, Esam discusses the practical difficulties of being an artist in Iraq. “During the embargo, I had to paint with whatever materials were available, mostly industrial oil paint. It wasn’t the best quality,” he says matter-of-factly. “Paint knives were hard to find, so I just started making my own, but even then, I used them sparingly.”

During the war, Esam was unable to buy oils or acrylics. After scouring his apartment for supplies, he noticed a box of crayons. So he heated a few and began applying the hot wax to a canvas. Pleasantly surprised by the results, he continued working until he produced a triptych, “Tears of Wax.” Falk later told Esam that the technique he employed, using molten wax, has a long history. Known as “encaustic painting” — the ancient technique was actually used by artists in what is present-day Iraq, among other places.

What stands out in Esam’s works is the swirling of color, conveying a sense of unease that runs through his repertoire. The images he employs form a discomfiting tableau: waiting vultures, floating coffins, faceless women, thrashing whales.

The dark mood is a stark reminder that the young artist’s lifetime spans the rule of Saddam Hussein. While Esam is adamant that he does not infuse politics into his art, he does not shy away from contemporary themes either. In one painting, he includes references to Iraq’s three distinct regions—marshes and reed homes for the south; minarets for the center; and mountains for the north. It is an attempt to stress that while differences exist, a national identity binds everyone.

Esam says the question he gets asked most often is whether conditions in Iraq are better or worse than portrayed by the media. Skirting the question, he prefers to talk about Iraqi culture—a topic he says is unfamiliar to most Americans. “It’s not surprising. For thirty years, we were pretty much cut off from everyone. And they were cut off from us. We didn’t have magazines, or satellite dishes, or Internet.”

The government no longer censors its artists, but limited exposure and security concerns make conditions tough, Esam says. The Internet has provided some relief. After the U.S. invasion, for instance, Esam sold several pieces to foreign clients on artvitae.com, a website for artists.

While Esam wants to return to Iraq, he has decided to stay in the U.S. as long as possible because he feels it is best for his career. At the same time, his decision to remain in the U.S. comes at a steep personal price. Esam says he greatly misses his family, all of whom remain in Iraq. Thinking about home, Esam sounds a bit homesick. “I miss just walking down the Tigris,” he says.

Esam has started building a new life. He has a girlfriend and travels to New York frequently to visit friends and museums. He likes New London and the people there, whom he says are “very friendly, kind of like Iraqis.” In July, Esam emailed me to let me know about an upcoming solo exhibition and talk he was giving at the University of Connecticut. He is also working on a memoir, which he hopes to get published.  

In an essay written when he was still in Iraq, Esam summarized his defiant spirit. “I have come to accept the daily electrical blackouts in Baghdad. On a good day, we would have one hour of electricity on and seven or more hours off. I have even come to accept the ever-present dangers of simply getting around Baghdad.” Concluding, he writes: “But I could not accept running out of pigments to create my art.”

Esam’s future, much like his country’s, is uncertain. If he has to return to Iraq, there will be much danger waiting and difficult conditions in which to work. But Iraqis, Esam says, are resilient. He has, after all, been through it before.

 

Writer without borders

Shooting Water author Devyani Saltzman discusses her new memoir, Indian politics, and her global sense of self.

In her debut book, Shooting Water, Canadian-Indian writer Devyani Saltzman chronicles the personal and political tumult she endured during the making of Water, the third film in the Indian trilogy, along with Earth and Fire, by her director mother Deepa Mehta. As her mother faced death threats from Hindu nationalists and the disappointment of shutting down filming, the young author found an uncommon opportunity to reconcile her mixed heritage and the emotional rupture left by Mehta’s divorce from Saltzman’s father, Canadian filmmaker David Saltzman. Recently, InTheFray Magazine’s Anju Mary Paul took part in a group interview with Saltzman.

The interviewer: Anju Mary Paul, InTheFray Travel Editor
The interviewee: Devyani Saltzman, author of Shooting Water

Do you think that the upheaval that took place in the 2000 shoot brought you two [Mehta and Saltzman] closer together?

Absolutely. I was excited by the three months of being with her, and those three months were cut short when the film was shut down. We were in Varanasi for a month and a half total. I was in the room answering the phone when she got death threats and staying with her and watching her go through something very painful. And I think it definitely brought us closer together because we had to support each other because all of a sudden, her country and a country where my grandparents live, a country I love, was turning against us. So it was a very violent time and it definitely made us stronger as mother and daughter. But it also cut short our reconnection. So I actually left for Canada and she went to West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, two different states, to try to make the film, though it didn’t work out. We left with these two minutes of silent footage that have never been seen, that are in our archives, with the original cast. And I was there on the day we shot those two minutes and a mob was outside chanting, “Water picture murdibad!” (Kill the Water picture!)

You acknowledge in the book that George Lucas supported the film. Were you disappointed that not many people in India itself spoke about your right to make the film?

There were a few artists, maybe not enough who supported it. The government at the time, which was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Hindu right, was strong enough to drown that out. There were actually a lot of lay people who stood up in support in Calcutta when we were shut down. A whole number of sex workers, women, marched the streets of Calcutta with black cloths tied around their mouths, symbolic of the suppression of freedom of speech…. One of the big things for me was that the BBC, the Guardian, the American press all reported, “Controversial film shut down” in 1999. But nobody asked the deeper question: Why? So, for me, and with my writing background, this was the opportunity to go into depth about Hindu nationalism, and what happened with Fire, which was her first film in the trilogy. And there’s a great quote — do you know Pavan K. Varma? He’s a writer and member of the Indian Foreign Service and he once said, “All nations indulge in a bit of myth-making to bind their people together.” And I love that quote because I think Water was one of the casualties of maintaining this myth of a Hindu India, an India without widows, an India without this really dark side of its history — especially in terms of its women — and so I wanted that story out there.

Why do you think the state government cleared the script in the first place?

Because I think that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which any foreign production has to give their script to, genuinely loved it. I think it was really a ruckus started through the RSS and then it just snowballed…out of being just about the content of the script and into this idea of Hindu nationalism and purity and preserving the Ganges.

The writing is so lucid and so emotionally confessional. Did you keep a running diary or did you just recap how you felt?

A mixture of both. I’ve always been a diary writer so I did have a diary and research going back to press from the time — the Indian press and foreign press for 1999 — and photography and memory. I work through visual imagery so, when I wrote, I just tapped into that.

So it’s not like you went back every night and …

Not at all. I didn’t know I was going to write this book until 2004. The book that inspired me to be a non-fiction writer was Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish To Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with our Families. When I was 18, I worked at a photo agency in New York and I called up the New Yorker from a street corner and said, “Can I speak to Philip Gourevitch?” thinking that nothing would happen, but they put me through! So I said, “Hi, I’m a student. You don’t know me but I loved your book and I want to meet you.” And he met me for two hours and we had coffee on Columbus Avenue and we talked about writing. I’d thought he was a Ph.D. with a specialty in African politics. And he was like, “Yeah, I studied art but I dropped out, went to Cornell, worked as a waiter.” He showed me that you don’t have to have that credential to write. You just need your eyes and a pen.

What was the actual impetus to write this book?

It was two-pronged. For many years, I’d been feeling this is a great story and this film is finally out there. And emotionally, I talk about there being this existential weight, years of having to deal with being an only child and the guilt of divorce and it had to go somewhere. And so I just started writing. But I don’t know why that particular confluence of timing worked. A Canadian publisher said, we’re interested but you’ve only written 5,000 word articles. This is a 90,000 word book. Do three test chapters. And I did and they bought it. That’s just incredible luck but I had an editor who believed in me, so it kind of came together.

Given that your parents were filmmakers, were you ever tempted to go into movies?

If anything, it would be documentaries. But I’ve never wanted to be a filmmaker; I’ve always wanted to be a writer.

How do you think your mother transcended her anger through this film?

She basically went away and did Bollywood/Hollywood, and I think that was how she released her anger about the film, to go do this really irreverent comedy. And then she always said that she couldn’t make Water until she didn’t feel any anger because she didn’t want to taint the purity of the script. And Sri Lanka (where the film was eventually shot) gave us the distance, because it was a Buddhist-Sinhalese country and we were removed from India. It gave her a little more space to approach the film.
In terms of us, I had to deal with the guilt of a daughter choosing a father, and she had to deal with the guilt of why I chose him. As you know from reading the book, I never write about it in a linear fashion, it’s more of an emotional, literary experience. But it was realizing that I always loved her, that divorce tears people apart but, ultimately, underneath it, there’s a love, and it’s about finding that love again. And that’s the emotional journey. I learned to respect her, watching her as a director. And she learned to respect me as an adult, starting to work in photography and writing. So we just learned to find that love underneath the choices we all make.

You introduced yourself as half-Canadian, half-Indian. Is that really how you see yourself? Fifty-fifty?

Do you know Pico Iyer’s Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home? It sounds corny but I like the words “global soul” because I did grow up that way. My father’s Jewish. His parents — my grandparents — emigrated from the Ukraine, escaping the pogroms. My mother’s Punjabi. I was born in Toronto. I went to Oxford. I lived in England for three years. And I’d like to think of a world that’s borderless. People are always scared of their identity not being one or the other. I went through a little bit of that confusion but ultimately, it’s what made me a writer. That in-between space enriched me. So Canadian is the passport I carry, but I’m a global soul.

To read Anju Mary Paul’s review of Shooting Water, click here.

 

No place like home

Devyani Saltzman searches for belonging in Shooting Water.

Marriages break apart so quickly and so often these days that we too easily forget how traumatic a divorce can be for the children caught in the crossfire. Devyani Saltzman’s first book, Shooting Water — a memoir, serves to jog our memories in a terribly effective manner, leaving readers heart-bruised and aching for the girl she was when her parents divorced.

An only child, Saltzman was asked to choose which parent she wanted to live with. She chose her father, Canadian filmmaker and producer David Saltzman. “As an eleven-year-old with a child’s instincts, it seemed only natural to choose him over my mother,” she writes. “I felt safe with him, while my mother’s pain and anger sometimes scared me.”

Saltzman’s mother, acclaimed Canadian Indian film director Deepa Mehta, never forgave her. And even though she knew instinctively that she had made the right choice, Saltzman never forgave herself either.

For the next eight years, Saltzman drifted anchorless through life — torn between her mother and father, their two homes in Toronto, and their two countries, India and Canada. On the surface, she was the good daughter: studious, polite, and docile. But inside her, there was “a lonely space filled with guilt and with the fear of disappointing my parents,” she explains early on in her book. “I wished more than anything to escape this vicious cycle and somehow break free.”

Saltzman’s chance came in 1999, when Mehta, who was about to start filming the first installment in her elemental trilogy on India — Water, Earth, and Fire, invited her then-18-year-old daughter to work with her on the set as an assistant cameraperson. Shooting Water is, above all else, the personal story of their reconciliation. But it is also an eyewitness account of the struggles Mehta encountered in making her film.

Water focuses on the widespread problem of Hindu widow abuse that existed in pre-Independence India. Many people know of the now-outlawed practice of sati, or widow burning, an ancient Indian tradition where a dead man’s wife is placed on his funeral pyre to burn to death alongside his corpse. But few are aware of the equally ancient tradition of widow abuse and neglect that is still very much present in modern-day India. Many widows are cast out or exploited by their families for the bad luck of having had their husbands die. Often they travel to holy cities like Vrindavan, dubbed the “city of widows,” by the banks of the Ganges and settle in ashrams where they must beg daily for alms to survive.

Saltzman writes about visiting a widows’ ashram hidden in the basement of a guesthouse soon after arriving in the northern Indian city of Varanasi, where Water was to be filmed. “They all wore dirty white saris and heavily darned shawls,” she notes. “Their heads were shaved … The room was freezing, but there was no direct sunlight or heaters to keep them warm.” These conditions were pretty much the same as those Mehta wanted to depict in Water. But two days into production, the film set was burned to the ground by Hindu fundamentalist protesters who accused the film of being part of a foreign conspiracy to besmirch the image of Hinduism. Mehta and her cast received death threats and the state government that had initially cleared the script retracted its permission.

The outcry against the film reflected the tumultuous changes India was going through at the time. The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) controlled the government, and Hindu militancy and fundamentalism were on the rise even as India as a country was modernizing and Indians were growing more self-confident as citizens of a rising economic powerhouse.

Saltzman ventures into stormy waters (pun intended) when she takes on the topic of the destructiveness of blind nationalism in the book, using the reception her mother’s film was given to illustrate her point. “You can’t pollute the Ganges! The Ganges will not tolerate your dirty Water!” shout female protestors waving their rolling pins in the air outside the film crew’s hotel in Varanasi. Saltzman says the women had never read the screenplay, nor did they know the plot of the movie; they were protesting simply because they believed their religion, and their nation, to be under attack. Both in her book and in an interview to promote the book, Saltzman cites a quote from Pavan K. Varma, a noted author and civil servant in India: “All nations indulge in a bit of myth-making to bind their people together.” According to Saltzman, “Water was one of the casualties of maintaining the myth of a Hindu India, an India without widows, an India without this really dark side of its history — especially in terms of its women.” That troubled period in India’s history has since passed but there are many other sacred cows that still exist within the country. (Recently, the Congress Party threatened legal action against a proposed biopic on Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the political party and the most powerful woman in India.)

But even as the political terrain was changing under their feet, mother and daughter were not able to change enough individually to reconcile. Saltzman recounts their struggles to heal their broken relationship: the tentative overtures toward one another, the lapses into shouting matches and bitter accusations of “You never loved me!” The conflicting demands on their time fuel this disconnect: Mehta is busy trying to salvage her film. Saltzman, meanwhile, is falling in love — for the first time in her life — with a young man who is so right (and so wrong) for her that you cringe following the progress of their affair, already seeing its inevitable conclusion. But the 19-year-old — so desperate to belong to someone — is blind to all of this and moons over her love when she should be with her mother.

So mother and daughter separate once again, their issues unresolved. Mehta travels to other parts of India, to search for alternative locations for filming. Saltzman returns to Canada, and then to Oxford University, to study anthropology.

Four years later, in 2004, the two receive a second chance at reconciliation when Mehta secures sufficient funding from the Canadian government to film Water in Sri Lanka. She invites her daughter, fresh out of college, to join her during the filming.

Everything is touch-and-go once again. Both India and Sri Lanka are in the middle of national elections. In India’s case, it appears the BJP will win a second term, putting an end to the country’s experiment in secularism. And in Sri Lanka, the outcome of the elections will determine the fate of the ceasefire with the Tamil Tigers. Fear that word of the film might torpedo it again results in the replacement of all the major actors and the film being given a fake name — Full Moon. And mother and daughter start their reconciliation almost from scratch again.  

The film is completed as Saltzman and her mother continue to oscillate between healing and hurting each other. But when, during yet another argument, her mother shouts at her, “Why don’t you just call your father. You chose him,” Saltzman is able for the first time to break the cycle of recrimination. “I looked at her sitting on the couch, rigid with anger. My own anger was numbed, but it was tinged with a clarity I hadn’t felt before. I didn’t run away to cry, or to call my dad.” Instead she tells her mother, “Mom, I chose Dad because it felt safer. I was 11. I’m 24 now.” And the process of forgiveness on both sides begins.

In Shooting Water, the parallels between the rebirth of the film and the rebirth of the mother-daughter relationship are as stark as can be, but so are the differences. In life — unlike in film — you can’t edit out the sad or painful scenes; there are no retakes. Saltzman chronicles all of the arguments, misunderstandings, betrayals as only the daughter of two filmmakers can: steeped in the aesthetics of film, with an eye for tight scenes and an ear for crisp dialogue. She writes with a deceptive simplicity — keeping her descriptions as spare as her mother’s screenplays — that reveals a deep, personal understanding of loss, guilt and the need for belonging. In a telling scene, she describes, how her parents flew from Canada to London when she suffered a nervous breakdown before her final examinations, undone by the realization that she could no longer be the perfect A-student for them. “They had sat together, side by side, on the itchy red synthetic seats of the Oxford Tube, an express bus service between the city and the university. And they had talked about me. They had talked about me as parents are supposed to talk of their children, perhaps for the first time.”

Perhaps the only flaw with Saltzman’s book is that it’s more descriptive than analytical — once again, very similar to her mother’s films. She does not discuss in great depth the rise of Hindu nationalism in India: When and how did it start? How does one combat it? What does it mean for minorities in India? This is a disappointment since patriotic hubris is an issue that will only become more important as India and other Asian countries continue to rapidly modernize their economies.

Equally, Saltzman’s disarming honesty about her own thoughts and actions doesn’t extend to her mother. She never quite explains why Mehta was always so angry or what caused the break-up of her marriage in the first place. Was it because Mehta’s start as a director was on the ascendant, causing professional tensions with her husband? Or something else? We aren’t told. There is a sense of conversations not yet attempted between mother and daughter — a distance still not bridged — and the story is weaker for it.

Despite these lapses, working on and writing about Water helped Saltzman carve out a new identity for herself, one no longer at war with her complicated heritage. When asked recently if she thinks of herself as more Canadian than Indian, Saltzman replied that she sees herself as a bit of a “global soul,” after the essayist Pico Iyer’s book Global Soul: Jet Lag, Shopping Malls, and the Search for Home. “I’d like to think of a world that’s borderless,” she says. “People are always scared of their identity, not being one or the other, or how can you be this or that. I went through a little bit of that confusion but, ultimately, it’s what made me a writer. That in-between space enriched me. So Canadian is the passport I carry, but I’m a global soul.”

And with that, Devyani Saltzman leaves listeners heart-warmed that this child of divorce and difference can so confidently claim a space in this world — even if it is an “in-between space” — as her very own.

To read Anju Mary Paul’s interview of Shooting Water author Devyani Saltzman, click here.

 

Sex and the death penalty

…Deportations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender asylum-seekers to Iran would violate Dutch government’s obligations to people facing torture or execution in their country of origin. We are particularly concerned that Human Rights Watch’s findings in a particular case appear to have been used to make a sweeping, and inaccurate, analysis of the legal penalties for homosexual conduct in Iran in general…


—Scott Long of Human Rights Watch (HRW), writing to Minister Verdonk, Minister of Alien Affairs and Integration of the Netherlands, requesting that the Netherlands not deport Iranian homosexuals back to Iran.  HRW argues that the Dutch goverment is obligated, according to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to grant such people asylum on the basis that such individuals face torture or the death penalty in Iran.    

What, if anything, HRW’s letter had to do with a recent case in Stuttgart is unclear, but a 27-year-old Iranian lesbian has been granted asylum in Germany. She successfully argued that a forced return would sentence her to the death penalty, which is the punishment for certain homosexual acts in Iran.

The letter from HRW outlines Iranian policies on homosexuality.

Within the region, Iran is distinguished by the overt severity of the penalties it imposes on consensual, adult homosexual conduct. “Sodomy” or lavat—consummated sexual activity between males, whether penetrative or not—is punishable by execution, regardless of whether the partner is passive or active. (Article 111 of the Code of Islamic Punishments or Penal Code states that “Lavat is punishable by death so long as both the active and passive partners are mature, of sound mind, and have acted of free will.”) Tafkhiz (the rubbing together of thighs or buttocks or other forms of non-penetrative “foreplay” between men) is punishable by one hundred lashes for each partner, according to Articles 121-122 of the Penal Code. Recidivism is punishable by death on the fourth conviction. In addition, Article 123 of the Penal Code further provides that “If two men who are not related by blood lie naked under the same cover without any necessity,” each one will receive ninety-nine lashes. Articles 127 to 134 stipulate that the punishment for sexual intercourse between women is one hundred lashes and if the offence is repeated three times, the punishment is execution.

Mimi Hanaoka

  

 

The long road home

issue banner

In the face of record temperatures, many of us rationalize wasting gas and not walking the dog. While running from our air-conditioned homes to our air-conditioned cars to our air-conditioned offices and back, we can’t imagine staying outdoors longer than necessary.

But not everyone can escape to someplace cool. In this issue of InTheFray, we pay homage to those who continue to seek a place to call home and examine what it means to be homeless, to lack the comforts others take for granted, to lead a life of uncertainty, to be an outsider in a world where everyone seems to have someone and someplace to call theirs.

We begin by visiting three kitchens. First, Inez Hollander, whose own middle-class existence has grown increasingly tentative, takes us to the soup kitchen where she volunteers in “Homelessness hits home.” There, she discovers how ordinary the people she serves are and how the American Dream remains evasive.

Then, on New York’s Lower East Side, Jared Newman learns that even though the anarchist group Food Not Bombs has just one goal — feeding the hungry a healthy meal — they’re often dubbed terrorists. And in Morocco Jillian C. York, who has left the familiarity of her Vermont home to teach English abroad, finally finds acceptance in the kitchen of a Muslim woman in ”For couscous and conversation.”

Back on U.S. soil, Geoffrey Craig discloses the challenges of creating art during and after Saddam Hussein’s regime in his profile of 30-year-old Iraqi artist Esam Pasha. As his illustration of ”Iraq’s art hero” suggests, Pasha, despite creating a life for himself in the United States, remains nostalgic for Iraq.

ITF Travel Editor Anju Mary Paul adds to the mix in her review of Devyani Saltzman’s memoir Shooting Water, a tale of her battles to embrace her identity in the wake of her parents’ divorce while negotiating their respective allegiances to two continents. Registered users can read Paul’s exclusive interview with Saltzman.

Rounding out this month’s stories is Guest Columnist Thomas Rooney’s take on the controversial phenomenon that has rendered many Americans homeless, or at least jobless — outsourcing.

Thanks for reading!

Laura Nathan
Editor
Buffalo, New York

personal stories. global issues.