East Culture and the Western Culture. What a very interesting topic to ponder upon. My good friend Sze told me that I should write about this after much concern on Pre-Marital Sex. Well there are numerous things I could say to differentiate these two cultures. Conversely, to state the pros’ and cons’ of these two crucial cultures is a bit thorny. Why?? Because I as a Malaysian probably for example, might find Western Culture influencing our day to day life in Malaysia. Therefore, I sustain to stand on neither field.
I would like to talk about Malaysia and its culture, corresponding towards the East Culture. Malaysia as we know is undeniably a multi-racial country. Because of the multi-racial dynamic, Malaysia is well known for its beautiful, momentous, and exotic culture, principles, social norms and values. Nevertheless what’s the main question here? It is not about the outstanding festivals we celebrate, but exactly how is it different than the Westerns’? Festivals can still be celebrated no matter where you are. But it is the principles, the norms and values that tend to differ from an individual to a society.
I have seen people talking and whispering about one person’s attitude or behavior to another. Take a look at the following conversation:-
Grace : Wa! Your daughter so modern want ah! Wearing mini skirt all!
Devi : What to do? After watching that movie, “Mean Girls” she also wants to wear
sexy sexy!
Grace : Oh!! Just like the Westerners!
Devi : Ya!
We as Malaysians tend to blame the Western Culture if a certain someone changes its’ roots and personality or behavior, to mention a few. Why? Because, adults have been brought up in a given set of principles and values that we Malaysians’ are sort of bound to follow. And when one child changes them, the parents, aunties or uncles blames the upbringing and also the Western culture influences.
Now as an individual, we all have our freedom to opt to any culture we desire. If I think Malaysian Culture is what I want to tag along, then I track along the principles, values and the norms. But if you opt to choose Western Culture, you can go ahead! There is absolutely no harm in that at all. But to a guardian, if a child or kin changes his or her roots to something far more different then what they have been practicing, it is hard to let go and be reasonable. But understanding is the key to this matter. Like for the Hindus’, a young girl is not suppose to hang out with bachelors or any guys once they are matured, neither are they allowed to wear mini skirts, short dresses, sleeveless tops or a two piece swimming attire. But the Western Culture does not pay much attention to this detail probably because it’s nothing but just an individual’s significant signature fashion sense no matter whether they are young, old, amateur or matured! There is such vast difference to this. It is as how we all have different opinions and thoughts about so many things, so does the culture.
Like the dialogue above, maybe Devi’s daughter is just following part of the Western Culture, but it doesn’t mean she has forgotten her mother roots. She is still able to follow certain other values but she has her own options in other sense. Therefore, there is actually no debate to the western and east culture topic. But as I’ve mentioned before, I am supporting neither sides. However, if you are in a Malaysian Bench, wanting to debate this topic, then there’ll be a lot to mention and say from your point of view against the Westerners point of view.
But as for now, I can only say that each culture has its own uniqueness. We are not in power to say which culture is the best nor the worst. Every culture is like a wild jungle, filled with amazing creatures and beings, filled with exotic flowers which vary in colors and species, filled with warmth and tender, filled with a direction of righteousness, filled with its own exclusivity.
In Conclusion, I love both the cultures very much and I find both cultures equally interesting.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Pre-Marital Sex
I have just read the SUN newspaper recently, an article about "Britons fine with pre-marital sex." It attracted me. What the newspaper has failed to analyze is Malaysians' opinion about pre-marital sex. Anyway, according to the Sun Newspaper, "Britons are taking a more liberal attitude towards sex and marriage, but retain traditional views on how best to raise children."
So this is what Britons think about it. I am here to talk about what Malaysians' think about pre-marital sex. First of all, generally, people in Malaysia has been brought up to conform themselves into social norms and values. That includes religious values as well. Remember back to our grandmothers' and grandfathers' time, pre-marital sex is a serious no no! For an example, in the Indian culture back to those days, if a girl had an intercourse before marriage, she is said to be an outcast and nobody is suited to marry her. She is spoiled and she has no dignity and self respect for herself and her family.
I believe every religion does not sustain to the idea of pre-marital sex. In Christianity for example, says, "Thou should not commit adultery" under the Ten Commandments. Even Islam goes against the idea of pre-marital sex. Nonetheless, as the world and society moves towards modernization, every person has different views about this issue. Even Bryan Wilson agrees that secularization is taking place. Furthermore, August Comte believed that human history will come across the positive stage (Science alone will dominate human thinking and behaviour) after theological and metaphysical stage.
As we can see, religious views do play a part in this question. According to Miss SK, under a religious context, she believes, pre-marital sex is not accepted. In her view, Malaysians’ are embarrassed to admit that pre-marital sex without a doubt is a biological need. However she also said apart from that, pre-marital sex is fine as long as that person loves that special someone truly. According to another Malaysian, Mrs. SF, pre-marital sex is wrong in the context of Christianity. Another Malaysian, Miss R replied that she doesn’t agree to pre-marital sex because she as a Muslim lady is bound to rules and regulation. Many people are concern about the fact that their religious values hold strong principles which does not accept this issue of pre-marital sex.
Yet, as I mentioned earlier that since our society is progressing to a more modern way of thinking, they do not include religious ideals into what they wish to do. For instance, indirectly, 5 other Malaysians answered that pre-marital sex is not wrong without distinguishing their answers into traditional views and modern views. As we can perceive, even though an individual is bound to conform to meet the values and culture in the society, he or she still moves towards the expectations he or she wishes to meet. From the small sample of people I gathered information from, only 6 people including Miss SK agree and 2 disagree about pre-marital sex. This doesn’t mean that those 6 people aren’t religious. They are much more open as they move along to the flow of what is accepted in nowadays society.
Malaysians are more influenced with the Westerns’ lifestyle. And there’s nothing wrong about it. It is every person’s choice to become what and who they want to be.
However, parents’ and families still nurture their children according to the traditional values. Why?? Well most probably they don’t want their children ‘doing it’ with some orange stripe purple coloured hair dude who probably has himself infected with HIV/Aids disease?? Or a father doesn’t want his little princess getting pregnant at the age of 16 for unprotected sex? A family doesn’t want their pride and joy getting caught kissing and ‘doing it’ with a guy recording it in his ever so modern technological cell phone and soon leak it out in youtube and the internet? This is also another clear reason why so many Malaysians still disagree about pre-marital sex. But there’s another argument to this factor. We have so many married couples, caught in a video doing it with another person. Well there we go. “Post-marital sex??” How funny is that? You don’t want your beautiful daughter to commit pre-marital sex, and you’re so happy that she didn’t, and you married her off to some nice guy whom you thought was “THE ONE” for her and later find out when you are happily surfing the net that she has a short clip of her doing it with some guy whom you don’t even know????????? So you see, nowadays, everything takes place beyond your own expectations.
I am not questioning anything about how parents’ and families nurture their young. But what we have to understand here is that, the environment is changing. The young minds are so rebellious that if they find anything so attractive and interesting, and if they are not strong in holding into the principles and values that they have been thought to conform to within their own family, they are just going to build their own conception and principles and move on. This my friend, is what we call circle of life. You can no longer tell anyone what to do but only furnish an advice towards them no matter to the young or old.
In conclusion, I cannot say that Malaysians’ agree or disagree to pre-marital sex. I have only conducted my research in a small scale. There is certainly not enough data to proof a point. It is up to you as an individual to agree on this fact. But to my own assumption, to a certain level and I’m not speaking in a general manner, I think that most Malaysians find that pre-marital sex is fine and so on but it is not fine when one of their kin is committed to it. It is okay if they are committed into it but if their brother, sister or aunty commits it, it is so wrong!! So here I am sitting in between the fence.
So this is what Britons think about it. I am here to talk about what Malaysians' think about pre-marital sex. First of all, generally, people in Malaysia has been brought up to conform themselves into social norms and values. That includes religious values as well. Remember back to our grandmothers' and grandfathers' time, pre-marital sex is a serious no no! For an example, in the Indian culture back to those days, if a girl had an intercourse before marriage, she is said to be an outcast and nobody is suited to marry her. She is spoiled and she has no dignity and self respect for herself and her family.
I believe every religion does not sustain to the idea of pre-marital sex. In Christianity for example, says, "Thou should not commit adultery" under the Ten Commandments. Even Islam goes against the idea of pre-marital sex. Nonetheless, as the world and society moves towards modernization, every person has different views about this issue. Even Bryan Wilson agrees that secularization is taking place. Furthermore, August Comte believed that human history will come across the positive stage (Science alone will dominate human thinking and behaviour) after theological and metaphysical stage.
As we can see, religious views do play a part in this question. According to Miss SK, under a religious context, she believes, pre-marital sex is not accepted. In her view, Malaysians’ are embarrassed to admit that pre-marital sex without a doubt is a biological need. However she also said apart from that, pre-marital sex is fine as long as that person loves that special someone truly. According to another Malaysian, Mrs. SF, pre-marital sex is wrong in the context of Christianity. Another Malaysian, Miss R replied that she doesn’t agree to pre-marital sex because she as a Muslim lady is bound to rules and regulation. Many people are concern about the fact that their religious values hold strong principles which does not accept this issue of pre-marital sex.
Yet, as I mentioned earlier that since our society is progressing to a more modern way of thinking, they do not include religious ideals into what they wish to do. For instance, indirectly, 5 other Malaysians answered that pre-marital sex is not wrong without distinguishing their answers into traditional views and modern views. As we can perceive, even though an individual is bound to conform to meet the values and culture in the society, he or she still moves towards the expectations he or she wishes to meet. From the small sample of people I gathered information from, only 6 people including Miss SK agree and 2 disagree about pre-marital sex. This doesn’t mean that those 6 people aren’t religious. They are much more open as they move along to the flow of what is accepted in nowadays society.
Malaysians are more influenced with the Westerns’ lifestyle. And there’s nothing wrong about it. It is every person’s choice to become what and who they want to be.
However, parents’ and families still nurture their children according to the traditional values. Why?? Well most probably they don’t want their children ‘doing it’ with some orange stripe purple coloured hair dude who probably has himself infected with HIV/Aids disease?? Or a father doesn’t want his little princess getting pregnant at the age of 16 for unprotected sex? A family doesn’t want their pride and joy getting caught kissing and ‘doing it’ with a guy recording it in his ever so modern technological cell phone and soon leak it out in youtube and the internet? This is also another clear reason why so many Malaysians still disagree about pre-marital sex. But there’s another argument to this factor. We have so many married couples, caught in a video doing it with another person. Well there we go. “Post-marital sex??” How funny is that? You don’t want your beautiful daughter to commit pre-marital sex, and you’re so happy that she didn’t, and you married her off to some nice guy whom you thought was “THE ONE” for her and later find out when you are happily surfing the net that she has a short clip of her doing it with some guy whom you don’t even know????????? So you see, nowadays, everything takes place beyond your own expectations.
I am not questioning anything about how parents’ and families nurture their young. But what we have to understand here is that, the environment is changing. The young minds are so rebellious that if they find anything so attractive and interesting, and if they are not strong in holding into the principles and values that they have been thought to conform to within their own family, they are just going to build their own conception and principles and move on. This my friend, is what we call circle of life. You can no longer tell anyone what to do but only furnish an advice towards them no matter to the young or old.
In conclusion, I cannot say that Malaysians’ agree or disagree to pre-marital sex. I have only conducted my research in a small scale. There is certainly not enough data to proof a point. It is up to you as an individual to agree on this fact. But to my own assumption, to a certain level and I’m not speaking in a general manner, I think that most Malaysians find that pre-marital sex is fine and so on but it is not fine when one of their kin is committed to it. It is okay if they are committed into it but if their brother, sister or aunty commits it, it is so wrong!! So here I am sitting in between the fence.
VK Lingam
I am sure many of you have heard about VK Lingam. Who is VK Lingam? Well this is what I picked up from Malaysia Kini :-
"To many he is the senior lawyer in the videotape apparently brokering the appointment of ‘friendly judges’ into top positions in the judiciary but to others, he is a powerful and well-connected lawyer"
So what we know is that Lingam was discussing about the appoinment of judges and who should be the next Chief Justice. As we know they were discussing about former Chief Justice, Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah. Lingam was having a conversation with then Chief Judge of Malaya, Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim. This is what Malaysia Kini said about the case :-
"Appointed in 2000, he was seen as a fresh break from his two previous predecessors - Mohd Eusoff Chin (1994-2000) and Abdul Hamid Omar (1988-1994). Dzaiddin was to retire in 2003, and the video showed Lingam expressing concerned that the outgoing CJ was moving his 'men' into top judiciary posts.
The conversation revolved around the urgent need to get Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, then chief judge of Malaya - the judiciary's No 3 - appointed as Court of Appeal president (No 2) and then chief justice (No 1).
There was also the plan to get former attorney-general Mokhtar Abdullah, who was then a Federal Court judge, to replace Ahmad Fairuz as No 3. To do that, Lingam had roped in tycoon Vincent Tan, a close crony of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, a key minister in PM's Department.
They were to talk to Mahathir on the appointment of judges. "
There we go. So now roughly we all know what is going on in Malaysia other than Hindraf. So many things are taking toll on Malaysia. Like hellooo????? This is not suppose to be happening.
It is so interesting. Everytime I read the Sun Paper, article by Surenthira Kumar (newsdesk at Sun Daily) there's yet to be a solution. Everyday a new topic, a new discussion. It is never going to end. But what's worthwhile, we all have something interesting to read upon.
And look!!! I've gathered some opinions from the Malaysia Kini. It's always like this. Whenenever something comes up, then there will be changes. After getting its' implications, then we find the factors and solution to build a new system. :)
Raja Aziz Addrusse (Nov 26, 07 12:14pm) :- "The government has finally decided to set up a royal commission to look into the video clip showing a lawyer engaged in a telephone conversation with a senior judge, allegedly brokering judicial appointments. After two months of dragging its feet, the government now appears to have come to recognise that the implications of the video clip are indeed very serious and warrant a thorough inquiry. When the video clip was released on Sept 19, the government did not quite seem to grasp the ramifications of the telephone conversation. It did not seem to see the need for urgent action. "
"To many he is the senior lawyer in the videotape apparently brokering the appointment of ‘friendly judges’ into top positions in the judiciary but to others, he is a powerful and well-connected lawyer"
So what we know is that Lingam was discussing about the appoinment of judges and who should be the next Chief Justice. As we know they were discussing about former Chief Justice, Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah. Lingam was having a conversation with then Chief Judge of Malaya, Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim. This is what Malaysia Kini said about the case :-
"Appointed in 2000, he was seen as a fresh break from his two previous predecessors - Mohd Eusoff Chin (1994-2000) and Abdul Hamid Omar (1988-1994). Dzaiddin was to retire in 2003, and the video showed Lingam expressing concerned that the outgoing CJ was moving his 'men' into top judiciary posts.
The conversation revolved around the urgent need to get Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, then chief judge of Malaya - the judiciary's No 3 - appointed as Court of Appeal president (No 2) and then chief justice (No 1).
There was also the plan to get former attorney-general Mokhtar Abdullah, who was then a Federal Court judge, to replace Ahmad Fairuz as No 3. To do that, Lingam had roped in tycoon Vincent Tan, a close crony of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, a key minister in PM's Department.
They were to talk to Mahathir on the appointment of judges. "
There we go. So now roughly we all know what is going on in Malaysia other than Hindraf. So many things are taking toll on Malaysia. Like hellooo????? This is not suppose to be happening.
It is so interesting. Everytime I read the Sun Paper, article by Surenthira Kumar (newsdesk at Sun Daily) there's yet to be a solution. Everyday a new topic, a new discussion. It is never going to end. But what's worthwhile, we all have something interesting to read upon.
And look!!! I've gathered some opinions from the Malaysia Kini. It's always like this. Whenenever something comes up, then there will be changes. After getting its' implications, then we find the factors and solution to build a new system. :)
Raja Aziz Addrusse (Nov 26, 07 12:14pm) :- "The government has finally decided to set up a royal commission to look into the video clip showing a lawyer engaged in a telephone conversation with a senior judge, allegedly brokering judicial appointments. After two months of dragging its feet, the government now appears to have come to recognise that the implications of the video clip are indeed very serious and warrant a thorough inquiry. When the video clip was released on Sept 19, the government did not quite seem to grasp the ramifications of the telephone conversation. It did not seem to see the need for urgent action. "
Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (Sep 26, 07 12:16pm) :- "A lawyer was captured on video fixing the appointment of judges. A little girl was sexually molested and murdered, and the police is planning to take action against the parents for negligence. A plain-clothes policeman went into the middle of a crowd of opposition supporters armed with a gun, and ended up shooting live bullets and nearly killing two members of the crowd. The government response to the video has been a terrible disaster. The PM and deputy PM question the credibility of the video. The minister says that the other man on the line is not the Chief Justice. The Attorney General says that the lawyer was in monologue! Is the information minister not doing his job, to coordinate the spin? "
If you are so very interested in this case, do visit this website. It has all the full information, dialogues, interviews, opinions, and video links to this case. http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/72772
Video of "The Lingam Tape".
Deanna Yusof
Have you guys heard about Deanna Yusof?? Probably you have heard about her kissing some dude on screen? Well I didn't know until I saw this video.
It's always a big fuss when a celebrity does something out of the blue. Juts like this. I love what one of the commentator stated, "aw....bisingnya.....its always like this...when it comes to it...well...kiss...kiss....kiss....as if u never kiss at all?? admit it..".
Haha!!! Isn't that so true??? But as for us viewers, it is simply entertainment.
It's always a big fuss when a celebrity does something out of the blue. Juts like this. I love what one of the commentator stated, "aw....bisingnya.....its always like this...when it comes to it...well...kiss...kiss....kiss....as if u never kiss at all?? admit it..".
Haha!!! Isn't that so true??? But as for us viewers, it is simply entertainment.
.::The NEW 7 Wonders of The World::.
Hey the world has recently announced its’ 7 new wonders of the world. According to the CNN News, voters were flooding the internet service, until there was a message asking voters to send in their votes by text messaging. However, after that trouble, we now have the new 7 wonders of the world.
PRESENTING
•The Great Wall of China
• Petra in Jordan
• Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer
• Peru's Machu Picchu
• Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid
• The Colosseum in Rome
• India's Taj Mahal
1. The Great Wall of China
-Spanning about 4500 miles, the Great Wall is one of the largest construction projects ever. Portions of the wall date to the 17th century B.C, but most of thework completed from 1487-1505.
2. Petra in Jordan
- On the Corcovado Mountain in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, the Christ the Redeemer statue portays Jesus Christ that stands 125 feet tall. Work on the statue begin in 1927, it was officially installed in 1931.
4. Machu Picchu
-Peru’s chief tourist attraction, built in 1400s, is believed to have been a retreat for the Inca royal family. The ruins are nestled between two peaks at 7,710 feet above sea level.
5.Pyramid at Chichen Itza
PRESENTING
•The Great Wall of China
• Petra in Jordan
• Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer
• Peru's Machu Picchu
• Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid
• The Colosseum in Rome
• India's Taj Mahal
1. The Great Wall of China
-Spanning about 4500 miles, the Great Wall is one of the largest construction projects ever. Portions of the wall date to the 17th century B.C, but most of thework completed from 1487-1505.
2. Petra in Jordan
-This ancient city, in what is now Jordan, thrived around 400 B.C, when it was a major trading between Arabia and the Mediterranean Sea. Its people carved intricate homes and tombs out of red sandstone cliffs.
3. Christ the Redeemer
3. Christ the Redeemer
- On the Corcovado Mountain in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, the Christ the Redeemer statue portays Jesus Christ that stands 125 feet tall. Work on the statue begin in 1927, it was officially installed in 1931.4. Machu Picchu
-Peru’s chief tourist attraction, built in 1400s, is believed to have been a retreat for the Inca royal family. The ruins are nestled between two peaks at 7,710 feet above sea level.
5.Pyramid at Chichen Itza
-Chichen Itza, in the Yucatan Peninsula of current say Mexico, was a hub of Mayan civilization about 900 and 1200. The city’s largest building is the pyramid of Kukulcan, dedicated to a feathered serpent god.
6. Colosseum
6. Colosseum
-At the center of themodern day Rome, Italy, is the predecessor to modern-say stadiums, the Colosseum. The amphitheather could seat as many as 50,000 spectators for the gladiator fights and other public exhibitions.
7. Taj Mahal
7. Taj Mahal
-The indian ruler Shah Jahan built the gigantic tomb in the nothern India to honor his favorite wife, who died in 1629. The white marble building sits on a platform of red sandstone, and each tower is 133 feet high.
So there we go folks. The new 7 wonders of the world.
So there we go folks. The new 7 wonders of the world.
.::Kiranjit Ahluwalia-True Story::.
Hey…here’s me again!! I’ve got a fantastic true story to tell you people. This time it’s about Kiranjit Ahluwalia! She’s the lady who had experienced marital abuse and finally burned her husband in fire and was convicted for manslaughter, for her husband’s death. But was then released after organizations stepped up in protecting her!
Aishwarya Rai and Kiranjit Ahluwalia
Here’s the story from wikipedia.
In 1979, at the age of 24, Ahluwalia left her home of Chakkalal in Punjab to travel to the United Kingdom after wedding her British Indian husband--a man she had only met once. For ten years, she suffered domestic violence of profound severity. Her husband's abuse took the form of physical violence, food deprivation, and rape.
When Ahluwalia looked to her family for help, they reprimanded her, saying it was a matter of family honor that she remain with her husband. She ultimately tried running away from home, but was found by her husband and brought back into her abusive environment. During her marriage, Ahluwalia had two sons, Ravi and Sanjay, who often bore witness to the violence she endured.
One evening in the spring of 1989, Ahluwalia was attacked by her husband as he tried to break her ankles and burn her face with a hot iron, apparently trying to extort money from her extended family. Later that night while her husband lay sleeping, she draped a blanket soaked with gasoline around his feet, ignited it with a candle, and ran into a garden with her three-year-old son.
In a later interview she discussed her thoughts that night, "I decided to show him how much it hurt. At times I had tried to run away, but he would catch me and beat me even harder. I decided to burn his feet so he couldn't run after me."
Five days later, Deepak died from complications of his burn injuries. Ahluwalia, who could only speak broken English at the time, was arrested and ultimately charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment at Lewes Crown Court on December 7 1989. At the time, her council made little of the violence she had endured, while the prosecution suggested that Ahluwalia was motivated by jealousy due to her husband's repeated affairs.
Her case eventually came to the attention of the Southall Black Sisters (SBS) and Ahluwalia became a symbol of the repression of Asian women as the group pressed for a mistrial. Ahluwalia had her life sentence remanded in 1992 on grounds of insufficient council--Ahluwalia had not been aware that she could plead guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. In addition, it was brought to light that she was suffering from severe depression when she lashed back at her husband, which had likely altered her decision making abilities at the time.
Ultimately, Ahluwalia's struggle helped raise awareness of domestic violence in families of non-English speaking immigrants to Western countries, as well as changing the laws for domestic abuse victims in the United Kingdom. Her case, known in British legal textbooks as R vs. Ahluwalia, changed the definition of the word 'provocation' in cases of battered women, so as to reclassify her crime as manslaughter instead of murder.
Cool huh!! See what one lady can do!! Amazing isn’t it??!!!
Ok la..What prompt me into publishing this is, I bought Provoked cast by Aishwarya Rai and found out it was a true story. So I looked it up!! But see…now you know about Kiran Ahluwalia right!!
And check out the awards she received:-
Ahluwalia was honored in 2001 at the first Asian Women Awards for helping to bring to light a subject that had been kept behind closed doors in the patriarchal Sikh culture. She has also since written an autobiography with co-author Rahila Gupta, Circle of Light.
Her story was fictionalized in the controversial film Provoked, which was recently screened at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival. Naveen Andrews
That’s that for now.
-End-
Aishwarya Rai and Kiranjit Ahluwalia
Here’s the story from wikipedia.
In 1979, at the age of 24, Ahluwalia left her home of Chakkalal in Punjab to travel to the United Kingdom after wedding her British Indian husband--a man she had only met once. For ten years, she suffered domestic violence of profound severity. Her husband's abuse took the form of physical violence, food deprivation, and rape.
When Ahluwalia looked to her family for help, they reprimanded her, saying it was a matter of family honor that she remain with her husband. She ultimately tried running away from home, but was found by her husband and brought back into her abusive environment. During her marriage, Ahluwalia had two sons, Ravi and Sanjay, who often bore witness to the violence she endured.
One evening in the spring of 1989, Ahluwalia was attacked by her husband as he tried to break her ankles and burn her face with a hot iron, apparently trying to extort money from her extended family. Later that night while her husband lay sleeping, she draped a blanket soaked with gasoline around his feet, ignited it with a candle, and ran into a garden with her three-year-old son.
In a later interview she discussed her thoughts that night, "I decided to show him how much it hurt. At times I had tried to run away, but he would catch me and beat me even harder. I decided to burn his feet so he couldn't run after me."
Five days later, Deepak died from complications of his burn injuries. Ahluwalia, who could only speak broken English at the time, was arrested and ultimately charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment at Lewes Crown Court on December 7 1989. At the time, her council made little of the violence she had endured, while the prosecution suggested that Ahluwalia was motivated by jealousy due to her husband's repeated affairs.
Her case eventually came to the attention of the Southall Black Sisters (SBS) and Ahluwalia became a symbol of the repression of Asian women as the group pressed for a mistrial. Ahluwalia had her life sentence remanded in 1992 on grounds of insufficient council--Ahluwalia had not been aware that she could plead guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. In addition, it was brought to light that she was suffering from severe depression when she lashed back at her husband, which had likely altered her decision making abilities at the time.
Ultimately, Ahluwalia's struggle helped raise awareness of domestic violence in families of non-English speaking immigrants to Western countries, as well as changing the laws for domestic abuse victims in the United Kingdom. Her case, known in British legal textbooks as R vs. Ahluwalia, changed the definition of the word 'provocation' in cases of battered women, so as to reclassify her crime as manslaughter instead of murder.
Cool huh!! See what one lady can do!! Amazing isn’t it??!!!
Ok la..What prompt me into publishing this is, I bought Provoked cast by Aishwarya Rai and found out it was a true story. So I looked it up!! But see…now you know about Kiran Ahluwalia right!!
And check out the awards she received:-
Ahluwalia was honored in 2001 at the first Asian Women Awards for helping to bring to light a subject that had been kept behind closed doors in the patriarchal Sikh culture. She has also since written an autobiography with co-author Rahila Gupta, Circle of Light.
Her story was fictionalized in the controversial film Provoked, which was recently screened at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival. Naveen Andrews
That’s that for now.
-End-
.::Grigori Kozintsev King Lear::.
I went to KLPac on 10th June and watched Grigori Kozintsev King Lear in Russian. And I’ve came across certain things and I will like to mention those.
Firstly, the film was all black and white. Some of the audience found it really dull. However, Kozintsev did that for a reason. The black and white setting of the play gives more effect and impact towards the audience. Since it’s all black and white, it symbolizes death, mourning and gives a very dark imagery. It doesn’t give a pleasant sight. Kozintsev wants the audience to feel this ruthless place, the dark and dull setting, and the dark imageries, and thus making the audience involved in the play.
The act opens, showing peasants, poor people, and all wearing black attire. All were heading towards King Lear’s castle. Yet, these peasants, weren’t just peasants, but they are peasants with broken leg, with only an eye, scars and marks on their bodies, thin physic, and all sickly looking. This shows that Lear is not one of an ‘ideal king’ that the audience though he would be. He has failed to keep the country right in shape. Lear doesn’t even bother to greet his people when they are all dried up by the sun, sitting and kneeling in front of the castle.
The time where he was dividing his kingdom, Cordelia stood aside wearing white. While others in the play were all dressed in black. Including King Lear himself dressed in black. This illustrates not only symbolizing death but also symbolizes Lear mourning over his own irrational and rash decision in the later scene. It foreshadows Lear’s future. Cordelia’s white garment portrays her innocence and purity. It also symbolizes her death in a way because of her country’s failure in winning the war. (Between France and England).
And I’ve also noticed that, Lear sits down near a burning fire. And he seeks warmth. And he desires that warmth obviously. But it’s such a contrast to Act 4; Scene 5 where he says “..there is the sulphurous pit, burning, scalding, stench, consumption. Fie, fie fie; pah pah!” The repetition of the diction “fie” and “pah” shows how he could feel the burn of Goneril and Regan, the two daughters who betrayed him. The alliteration “f” and “p” makes the character enunciate the word which gives a stronger impact to what he is saying. And thus this shows the pain and hurt Lear has gone through. Shakespeare connects Goneril and Regan as fiends and Lear who seeks warmth at first (referring both to Act 1 and Act 2 when he visits Goneril and Regan for accommodation) now rejecting it. In Act 3; Scene 2, he prefers to be in the storm.
In the storm scene, Lear fights the storm with poor Fool hiding behind him. And the storm pushes Lear backwards. I find this amazing. The storm symbolizes Lear’s state of mind. And since it’s seen like that, I find that the storm (Lear’s mind) is pushing Lear backwards yet Lear still tries to stand firmly and go against it. This symbolizes Lear (storm) wanting to go back and undo his mistakes but yet his ego (Lear’s characteristic) makes him go against that. He could go back to Cordelia, but he doesn’t want to because of his ego.
Some other things I noticed in the film was that the Fool is a boy rather in the BBC Production King Lear, the Fool is man, somewhat to Lear’s age. And in my perspective, why Kozintsev made a boy play Fool, is because the Fool is seen as a jester to the king and a small boy is always seen naïve. But here in this play, the Fool conveys important message behind his jest. In Act 1; Scene 5, “Nor I neither; but I can tell why a snail has a house./ Why, to put’s head in, not to give it away to his daughters, and leave his horns without a case”. It reveals that even though the Fool is a boy and thought to be naïve for his age, yet he knows Lear’s big mistake. This is to illustrate the line of how rash Lear’s decision is and how blind he is that he couldn’t see the mistake that he made before. Hence this evokes the theme of Blindness or Appearance vs. Reality.
In another scene, when Lear was leaving his castle and was going to Goneril’s palace, there was an animal imagery inserted by Kozintsev. There were many white birds flying in the sky. And this symbolizes the many knights (100 knights) that Lear still has. Or it can also symbolize the departure of the oily art. As in, the fake appearance of Cornwall, Regan and Goneril had vanished and their true values are revealed. And in the end of the play, there will be only one white bird flying which symbolizes Cordelia or if we take the first interpretation of the white birds “100 knights” then it symbolizes Kent disguised as Caius.
Other than that, the Fool plays the music in the end of the play. I guess that, that audio imagery can symbolize the beginning of something. Even in Act 1, the music was played, and the betrayal begins and at the end the music was played again to exemplify the beginning of another event because Edgar will be up for the throne.
So yeah, these are the few things I notice in the film. There are other things too but it’s just that the others very obvious. See…I can analyze! Yay!
Firstly, the film was all black and white. Some of the audience found it really dull. However, Kozintsev did that for a reason. The black and white setting of the play gives more effect and impact towards the audience. Since it’s all black and white, it symbolizes death, mourning and gives a very dark imagery. It doesn’t give a pleasant sight. Kozintsev wants the audience to feel this ruthless place, the dark and dull setting, and the dark imageries, and thus making the audience involved in the play.
The act opens, showing peasants, poor people, and all wearing black attire. All were heading towards King Lear’s castle. Yet, these peasants, weren’t just peasants, but they are peasants with broken leg, with only an eye, scars and marks on their bodies, thin physic, and all sickly looking. This shows that Lear is not one of an ‘ideal king’ that the audience though he would be. He has failed to keep the country right in shape. Lear doesn’t even bother to greet his people when they are all dried up by the sun, sitting and kneeling in front of the castle.
The time where he was dividing his kingdom, Cordelia stood aside wearing white. While others in the play were all dressed in black. Including King Lear himself dressed in black. This illustrates not only symbolizing death but also symbolizes Lear mourning over his own irrational and rash decision in the later scene. It foreshadows Lear’s future. Cordelia’s white garment portrays her innocence and purity. It also symbolizes her death in a way because of her country’s failure in winning the war. (Between France and England).
And I’ve also noticed that, Lear sits down near a burning fire. And he seeks warmth. And he desires that warmth obviously. But it’s such a contrast to Act 4; Scene 5 where he says “..there is the sulphurous pit, burning, scalding, stench, consumption. Fie, fie fie; pah pah!” The repetition of the diction “fie” and “pah” shows how he could feel the burn of Goneril and Regan, the two daughters who betrayed him. The alliteration “f” and “p” makes the character enunciate the word which gives a stronger impact to what he is saying. And thus this shows the pain and hurt Lear has gone through. Shakespeare connects Goneril and Regan as fiends and Lear who seeks warmth at first (referring both to Act 1 and Act 2 when he visits Goneril and Regan for accommodation) now rejecting it. In Act 3; Scene 2, he prefers to be in the storm.
In the storm scene, Lear fights the storm with poor Fool hiding behind him. And the storm pushes Lear backwards. I find this amazing. The storm symbolizes Lear’s state of mind. And since it’s seen like that, I find that the storm (Lear’s mind) is pushing Lear backwards yet Lear still tries to stand firmly and go against it. This symbolizes Lear (storm) wanting to go back and undo his mistakes but yet his ego (Lear’s characteristic) makes him go against that. He could go back to Cordelia, but he doesn’t want to because of his ego.
Some other things I noticed in the film was that the Fool is a boy rather in the BBC Production King Lear, the Fool is man, somewhat to Lear’s age. And in my perspective, why Kozintsev made a boy play Fool, is because the Fool is seen as a jester to the king and a small boy is always seen naïve. But here in this play, the Fool conveys important message behind his jest. In Act 1; Scene 5, “Nor I neither; but I can tell why a snail has a house./ Why, to put’s head in, not to give it away to his daughters, and leave his horns without a case”. It reveals that even though the Fool is a boy and thought to be naïve for his age, yet he knows Lear’s big mistake. This is to illustrate the line of how rash Lear’s decision is and how blind he is that he couldn’t see the mistake that he made before. Hence this evokes the theme of Blindness or Appearance vs. Reality.
In another scene, when Lear was leaving his castle and was going to Goneril’s palace, there was an animal imagery inserted by Kozintsev. There were many white birds flying in the sky. And this symbolizes the many knights (100 knights) that Lear still has. Or it can also symbolize the departure of the oily art. As in, the fake appearance of Cornwall, Regan and Goneril had vanished and their true values are revealed. And in the end of the play, there will be only one white bird flying which symbolizes Cordelia or if we take the first interpretation of the white birds “100 knights” then it symbolizes Kent disguised as Caius.
Other than that, the Fool plays the music in the end of the play. I guess that, that audio imagery can symbolize the beginning of something. Even in Act 1, the music was played, and the betrayal begins and at the end the music was played again to exemplify the beginning of another event because Edgar will be up for the throne.
So yeah, these are the few things I notice in the film. There are other things too but it’s just that the others very obvious. See…I can analyze! Yay!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)