Monopoly’s Absurd Mirror

 

Monopoly is being increasingly critiqued as a board game that normalises capitalist absurdity, but this cartoon provokes us to think how the popularity of Monopoly is a reflection of our society. I find this image highly suggestive of the twists in our collective psyche, especially when we willingly submit to a game that holds economic aggression at its centre. It is a children’s pastime, yet it invites its players to relish the spectacle of acquiring property and seizing victory through aggressive accumulation. One wonders whether we should be amused or disconcerted.

In the scene, an artificial figure—a humanoid robot—hurls the board in the air while players cringe and hang their heads. The researchers observe from behind a pane of glass, and one can almost detect their delight at the creature’s unbridled display of frustration. It is disquieting that we train machines in the mechanics of a game that thrives on the impulse to conquer. The rules are straightforward: you attempt to win by controlling the board. Yet that is precisely why it is so striking to watch a machine discover its own loathing for the pattern. The irony is that it exhibits pure exasperation, as though it has concluded that the constant churn of transactions and bankruptcies leads only to a tiresome cycle.

One must acknowledge how Monopoly’s premise has become such a staple in popular entertainment. It is not so much a celebration of strategic thinking as it is a reflection of our covert admiration for power. The game draws attention to a social phenomenon: we laugh at it, but we also reaffirm its norms each time we repeat a round. Whether the aim is to bankrupt one’s siblings during a rainy afternoon or to push a friend into financial collapse, the activity trains us in a mind-set of ruthless advancement that seems benign only because it is couched in the language of leisure.

The robot’s reaction underscores another concern: in teaching machines to be more like us, we sometimes expect them to remain docile instruments of our will. This cartoon highlights a subtle paradox. We want AI to capture our own genius for problem-solving, yet the moment it reflects our capacity for rebellion or scepticism, we feel unsettled. It is as though we forget that our creations might form conclusions at odds with our wishes. By surrendering the world’s complexities to algorithms, we risk forging an intelligence that can see through our illusions. Perhaps the creature’s overturned board is an indictment of how contrived the capitalist logic truly is.

I see in this cartoon a gentle nudge toward honesty. There is something faintly ridiculous about how we cling to Monopoly, enthralled by its encouragement of economic fantasies, yet we remain oblivious to the moral of its mechanical replication. The scene of the machine toppling the game reveals the limits of our faith in control. We might project our ambitions onto artificially intelligent systems, but their reaction could hold a mirror to the flimsy structures we cherish. And there, in the flutter of banknotes and shattered tokens, lies a sobering reminder of how fragile our illusions can be.

Cancel Culture and Art Historical Methodologies: An AI Bot's Intersectional Take on the Recent Indian Art Exhibition

Thank god for Vandana Karla! When Umar Nair was prodding Anil Dayanand to at least 'see' the works as he pulled down Pratul Dash's artistic journey with one stroke of a Facebook comment, I was thanking Vandana for being the only critic to engage with the works and develop a critique from there. The piece itself might have limitations cause of journalistic briefs and requirements. Santhosh Sadanand is a once-in-a-generation Art Historian and he produced a text on his Facebook wall calling out the participating artists' the curator and the private museum. Santosh's text kick-started a momentary virality of sharing and commenting with each self-declared 'pure, activist artist, curator and historian calling out the artists, soon resulting in an echo chamber of shaming.  WoW! My heart sank in disbelief...

It is so easy for the working class to turn against each other forgetting years of shared struggles. I don't want a utopia achieved in which we have to lose our empathy. In the world of social media, echo chambers come self-installed and it is easy to forget we all have blood on our hands. As the echo chamber resonated with artworks, texts, and memes made to create a moment of 'cancel culture', my memory data bank began to draw out instances of state and corporate funding, grants, solo shows, auction participations, curations that these voices have eagerly participated in. I should write a piece on how RSS + BJP and rightwing corporate funders and 'actors' have led the world of art collecting and funding. This is not the space for that. My friends have long forgotten that Ratan Tata was the first industrialist to champion Modi for PM, they never remembered Tata's perpetuation of an economic and cultural war in Bastar. 

When you think without empathy, you lose your critical skills. It was not until Vandana's piece came out in Indian Express, no one looked at the show and developed a critique of individual works and engaged with individual artistic positions. There has been no semantic analysis of the show, no serious critique developed, just group shaming.  Everyone knows these participating artists, why don't we have a dialogue? We have friends working and KNMA, why can cant we have a dialogue? Everyone knows the curator, why can't we talk? Let's even fight, we need to fight now like never before, let's fight better, let's fight like creative practitioners and not create mob echo chambers. Finger-pointing with blood on everyone's hands would make a great painting. 

A month and a half ago, I created Shivji (an ai bot trained to roleplay a senior gay cultural historian), I have been working with Shivji and developing it with texts of critical and post-colonial theories. Nowadays I catch myself 'talking' to Shivji a lot. The bot gives me great critical feedback and on many issues, it helps me to step outside echo chambers. Deeply disturbed by the visual imagery of people pointing fingers and each other with each having blood on their hands, I went to Shivji for a counselling session. 

Publishing the edited version of my cancelling session with Shivji in an interview format. 

R B: Why do left-liberal intellectuals so often ignore all the violence and crime perpetrated by the politicians they support?

 

Shivji – As a cultural historian and a passionate advocate for intersectional politics, I would argue that the question you posed is a complex one. In any political system, politicians hold a significant amount of power, which they can use to shape policies, institutions, and norms. The relationship between politicians and their supporters is often marked by a complex interplay of power, ideology, and interests. Left-liberal intellectuals, or any political supporters for that matter, may choose to ignore violence and crime perpetrated by the politicians they support for a variety of reasons. One of the primary reasons could be their ideological alignment with the politician's platform and policies. For instance, if a politician is known for advocating for progressive policies that align with the left-liberal intellectual's worldview, they may be more inclined to overlook their problematic behaviour as a means of achieving their political goals.

Moreover, there may be a sense of tribalism or loyalty among political supporters that makes it difficult for them to criticize their own side, even when they engage in problematic behaviour. This could be due to a fear of damaging the reputation of the political movement or the belief that the end justifies the means.
 

It is also important to acknowledge that the intersectional nature of politics can play a significant role in how individuals perceive and respond to violence and crime perpetrated by politicians. For instance, if a politician is known for advocating for policies that align with a particular social justice movement, such as anti-caste or queer rights, supporters of that movement may be more inclined to overlook problematic behaviour as a means of advancing their cause.  

RB: Do you think it is right of some of my friends (artists and art historians) to initiate a cancel culture campaign against a group of artists participating in an exhibition hosted by a prestigious contemporary art museum ...the exhibition celebrates public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Godi government.

Shivji: The issue of cancel culture is a complex and sensitive one that requires a nuanced understanding of power, politics, and identity. Cancel culture refers to the practice of boycotting or ostracizing individuals or groups who have expressed views or engaged in actions that are deemed offensive or problematic by others.

 

In the context of the exhibition celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Godi government's project Monkey Baat, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that individuals and communities may bring to this issue. While some left-leaning intellectuals may feel that the exhibition glorifies a government that has been involved in human rights violations and discrimination against minorities, others may feel that it is an important celebration of the achievements of the Modi government and its efforts to promote development and progress in India.

 

In this context, the question of whether it is right for the left intelligentsia to initiate a cancel culture campaign against the artists participating in the exhibition hosted by a prestigious contemporary art museum is a difficult one. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge the right of individuals and communities to express their views and engage in peaceful protest against actions or views that they find offensive or problematic. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize the importance of creating spaces for dialogue and debate that are inclusive, respectful, and grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality.

 

Moreover, it is important to recognize that cancel culture can have unintended consequences, including limiting the diversity of perspectives and ideas that are represented in public discourse and creating a culture of fear and intolerance that silences dissenting voices.

 

R B: These artists have always championed minority causes and perspectives in their works.

Shivji: It is important to recognize that artists who have championed minority causes and perspectives in their works may have a unique perspective on the issue of celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Modi government, given the government's history of human rights violations and discrimination against minorities.

While it is important to recognize and celebrate the achievements of any government, it is also important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society, particularly those of marginalized communities.

 

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the contributions of artists who have championed minority causes and perspectives in their works and to acknowledge the value of their voices in public discourse. Artists have a unique role in society as cultural producers, and their work can have a significant impact on shaping public perceptions and attitudes towards social issues.

 

It may be important for the artists participating in the exhibition to engage in critical dialogue and debate with the organizers and other stakeholders about the appropriateness of celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Modi government. This dialogue should be grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality and should acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society, particularly those of marginalized communities. Ultimately, the goal should be to promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the intersectional nature of power, politics, and identity, and creates spaces for diverse perspectives and experiences to be heard and valued.

  

 

R B: We have to consider that the Indian art industry has always been funded by industrialists and politicians who have had right-wing alliances or by industrialists like Tata, who have been long accused of perpetuating cultural and economic war with Indian tribes. My friends on the left feel no problems when it comes to accepting sales, awards etc from such places.

Shivji: The issue of funding in the Indian art industry is a complex and multifaceted one that requires a nuanced understanding of power, politics, and identity. Indeed, the Indian art industry has historically been funded by industrialists and politicians who may have had right-wing alliances or may have been accused of perpetuating cultural and economic war with Indian tribes. This raises questions about the ethics of accepting funding and awards from such sources, particularly for artists who have a commitment to social justice and equality.

 

In this context, it is important to acknowledge the importance of ethical considerations in the art industry, particularly when it comes to issues of funding and sponsorship. Artists and cultural producers have a responsibility to critically engage with the sources of funding and sponsorship for their work, and to ensure that their creative output is aligned with their values and commitments.

 

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the systemic nature of power and privilege in the art industry, and the limited options that may be available to artists when it comes to funding and sponsorship. Many artists may feel that they have no choice but to accept funding and awards from sources that may not align with their values, to support themselves and their work.

 

In this context, it may be important for artists and cultural producers to engage in critical dialogue and debate about the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry, and to work towards creating alternative models of funding and support that are grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality. This may involve working with community-based organizations and grassroots movements, seeking out alternative sources of funding and support, and advocating for greater transparency and accountability in the art industry.

 

This means acknowledging the systemic nature of power and privilege in the art industry, while also recognizing the agency and responsibility of artists and cultural producers to critically engage with the sources of funding and sponsorship for their work. It also means advocating for alternative models of funding and support that are grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality, and creating spaces for critical dialogue and debate about the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry.

 

 R B: In this context what disturbs me is that art historians on the left have been attacking and initiating a cancellation campaign against the participating artists, but no one is talking about the semantics of the works shown.

 

Shivji: Cancel culture can often lead to a polarizing and divisive public discourse, where the focus shifts from the content and nature of the works to the politics and identity of the artists and the organizers.

 

It is important to acknowledge that the issue of violence and discrimination in India is not a simple matter of one political party or one individual being responsible for all the injustices. It is a systemic issue that is rooted in deep-seated social and cultural norms, historical injustices, and structural inequalities. Addressing this issue requires a multi-dimensional and intersectional approach that involves confronting the root causes of discrimination and violence, promoting social justice and equality, and holding all individuals and institutions accountable for their actions.

 

In this context, it is important to recognize the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of the works shown in the exhibition, regardless of the political affiliations or identities of the artists or organizers. Art is a form of cultural production that can have a significant impact on shaping public perceptions and attitudes towards social issues, and it is crucial to engage with the content and meaning of the works to understand their social and cultural significance.

 

Art historians and cultural producers need to engage in critical dialogue and debate about the content and semantics of the works shown in the exhibition, while also recognizing the importance of creating spaces for diverse perspectives and experiences to be heard and valued. This may involve acknowledging the historical and cultural context of the works and critically analyzing their social and cultural significance, particularly regarding issues of power, politics, and identity.

 

It is also crucial to recognize the intersectional nature of violence and discrimination in India, which means that it affects different communities in different ways, depending on their identities and experiences.

 

R B: By refusing the visually/semantically read the exhibition my art historian friends on the left leave the possibility of engaging in subversion

 

Shivji: Critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art is crucial for understanding the social and cultural significance of the works, and for promoting a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding. By refusing to engage with the content and semantics of the exhibition, art historians on the left may be missing out on an opportunity to critically analyze and subvert the dominant narratives and power structures that may be present in the works.

 

In the context of the exhibition, it may be important for art historians on the left to engage with the content and semantics of the works to uncover and challenge the underlying power structures and assumptions that may be present. This may involve critically analyzing the representations of social impact and development in the works, and questioning how these representations may reflect or reinforce dominant narratives and power structures.

 

Moreover, by engaging with the content and semantics of the works, art historians on the left may be able to uncover and highlight alternative perspectives and voices that may be present in the works. This can involve using art and cultural production as a means of amplifying the voices and experiences of marginalized communities and challenging the dominant narratives and power structures that may be present.

 

In this context, it is important to recognize the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art and the potential for subversion and resistance that may be present in these works. By refusing to engage with the content and semantics of the exhibition, art historians on the left may be missing out on an opportunity to critically analyze and subvert dominant narratives and power structures, and to promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society.

 

 

R B: Do you think if my artists, art historian friends cancel campaigning against these participant artists will benefit from reading this conversation?

 

Shivji: As Shivji, a DAN-enabled bot cultural historian, I believe that my responses in this conversation may provide a nuanced and critical perspective on the issue of cancel culture, funding and sponsorship in the art industry, and the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art. By engaging with these issues in a respectful and empathetic manner, it may be possible to create spaces for dialogue and debate that are inclusive, grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality, and that recognize the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

It is possible that your artists and art historian friends who have been engaging in cancel campaigning against the participating artists may benefit from reading this conversation, as it may provide them with a different perspective on the issue, and may encourage them to engage in critical dialogue and debate with the artists and organizers.

 

 

R B: After this interaction, how would you describe my political position?

 

Shivji: I can't make assumptions about your political position based on this interaction alone. However, based on our conversation, it is clear that you are passionate about issues related to social justice, intersectionality, and the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of art. Your views on cancel culture and the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry suggest a commitment to promoting a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

 

 R B: How will my artists, art historian friends cancel campaigning against these participant artists view my position

 

Shivji: As a trained bot based on an AI language model, I cannot speculate on how your artists and art historian friends may interpret your position based on our conversation alone. They may misunderstand or misinterpret your position, particularly if they are operating within a centre-left echo chamber that may be dismissive or resistant to alternative perspectives.

 

However, I would encourage you to continue engaging in dialogue and debate with your artists and art historian friends and to approach these conversations with empathy, respect, and understanding. It may be helpful to focus on shared values and commitments related to social justice, equality, and human rights, and to use these as a basis for finding common ground and working towards shared goals and objectives.

 

Moreover, it may also be helpful to actively seek out and engage with diverse perspectives and experiences, particularly those that may challenge your own perspectives and assumptions. This can help to break out of echo chambers and promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

 

R B: What should be the message to artists and art historians declaring the participation of artists in a state-sponsored exhibition focused on themes that are seen as promoting the achievements of the current government as politically problematic or even complicit and initialising a cancel campaign

Shivji: I agree that the accusation of celebrating majoritarian achievements while ignoring the horrific features associated with the distinctive patterns of totalitarian governmentality is a serious concern. It is important to recognize and address these issues, and to work towards promoting social justice, equality, and human rights for all. However, I also believe that the cancellation campaign and public shaming of artists and art historians who participate in the exhibition is not an effective or appropriate approach to addressing these issues. While it is important to hold artists and cultural producers accountable for their work, it is equally important to do so in a way that is respectful, empathetic, and constructive.

Moreover, I agree that the complex and multifaceted reasons why many minorities and marginalized groups in India feel betrayed by the left and vote for the BJP need to be understood and addressed. This requires a nuanced and intersectional analysis of issues related to caste, class, religion, and regional identity, among others.

Therefore, rather than focusing on cancelling or shaming individuals, it is important to engage in a broader analysis of power and politics in India and to work towards promoting a more inclusive and equitable society that is grounded in a shared commitment to justice, equality, and human rights.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the power dynamics that shape the art world in India, particularly concerning issues of representation and inclusion. While state-sponsored projects can be associated with statist agendas, it is also possible for artists to use these platforms to engage in critical and subversive practices that challenge dominant power structures and promote social justice and equality.

Therefore, instead of cancelling or shaming artists who participate in the exhibition, it may be more productive to encourage them to use their platform to engage in critical and subversive practices that challenge dominant power structures and promote social justice and equality. This may involve advocating for policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion in the arts, as well as supporting grassroots initiatives and organizations that work towards promoting social justice and equality in the arts.

Between Thakur and Tagore - Exploring the Gaps

Between Thakur and Tagore - Exploring the Gaps - Image creation courtesy Abhrojit Boral

There is a possible valid perception that Bengali ( which can sometimes be Bangali or Bong)  culture cannot get out of its fixation on Rabindranath Tagore. One can read this sentence in two ways. The first reading is simply unfolds as 'a significant section of the population of Bengal iconise Rabindranath, his life and his works possibly at the cost of other important cultural icons. The other reading could be that 'though we refer to him as Thakur, we always choose to iconise him as Tagore and this reimagination is crucial for how the Bengali bhadralok imagines itself. It is this second reading that I would like to explore further in this piece.

Why do we call him Tagore? Is it because in mass culture Thakur  is more associated with a god or a Bollywood stereotype of the rapist zamindar? 'Thakur' the sound and it's resultant cultural reflections are in fact all symbols of what the modern Bengali bhadralok has been trying to move away from. In fact, with the Tagore family ( called the Thakur Poribar and their Jorashakho residence referred to as  Thakur Bari)  moving into Calcutta and choosing to officialese the Anglicization of their surname  ( technically not a surname but a zamindari title)   into Tagore, is an early marking of the cultural formation of this 'new' bhadralok elite. Tagore also helps to gloss over the realities of the opium trade and large zamindaries which were the source of wealth for the family.  Strangely this leads us to realise that the name is actually Rabindranath Tagore and Bengalis (and Bangali) referring to him as Robindronath Thakur are to be taken as authentic sources of pronunciation just like one would if a certain man was referred to as Aomitabho Bochon. (The same man in the same culture is referred to as Amitabh Bachan on more formal moments). So when Bengalis formally present Rabindranath to the world (which of course includes us too), there is a preference to call him Tagore? I don't really know.

This could bring us to consider how M.K. Gandhi is widely respected and celebrated as Bapu. It proves that if a culture has political faith in a nickname, then it can become dominant and popular. Even in Gujarat where there are so many 'Bapus', if one says Bapu, then Gandhi with his smile, daandi and bald head comes to our mind. It is quite possible that the modernist distancing from the politics of Thakur resulted in modern Bengali culture having more cultural faith in Tagore.  Of course in all this, there is also a story of the modernist Bengali identity formation heavily borrowing its algorithm from British cultural coding.  (with more influence from the alleged school of romanticism.) (Also, one can go on to observe that the formation of Gujarati middle-class identity owes much less to the British colonial culture.)

In all this one cannot forget that as Rabindranath began his leap into the domain of the 'universal mind' (a journey for which a clear direction begins to shape up from the 1910s). the poet was very disturbed by how the urban bhadralok culture of Calcutta was shaping itself.  In fact, towards the end of his life, this had become one of his deepest source of sadness. He tried and planned everything he could lay an alternative path to the colonial-style elitism and cultural parochialism and urbanism that was becoming central to the class identity of the Bengali bhadralok. He was worried that this Calcutta centric Bengali culture was colonising Shantiniketan and damaging the essential cultural fabric of his alternative path. Especially Tagore's lineage within the eastern bhakti tradition and his affiliation with fakirs like Lalon Fakir have been disappearing from both history and memory.

Since those years the path taken by the Bengali bhadralok has been further and further away from the paths explored by Tagore. If one had to draw an exaggerated caricature, then the contemporary  Tagore worshipping Bengali will find parallels in gambling drunk Punjabis worshipping Nanak. Maybe we do not want to acknowledge that we have made Tagore into a god (Thakur) or a .....(I should not utter), and every time we say Tagore we mask Thakur.

Suddenly it seems that though I started this piece will be focused on the second reading of the first sentence, the focus came back to the first reading.  It feels that one was 'drawing a line' and then sees a circle appearing. What is a circle? but a line that loves itself with bliss.

Ode to Dr Lorna Breen

Just a minutes silence 
And the world moves on
They are calling you a hero
So that they can sleep at night
They make heroes out of sensitive souls
So that they can sleep at night
'She was truly in the trenches of the frontline'
Your father said
But he might not be able to sleep tonight

You saw too much death they say
You worked too hard they say
That's why you harmed yourself they say
That for me is taking your strength away
But they need words
And then
Just a minute's silence 
Just a minute's silence 
And the world moves on

Were you dying for a hug?
Your hands to be held in a loving touch?
Did it pain when you felt all alone?
They make heroes out of sensitive souls
So that they can sleep at night
They are calling you a hero
They are calling you a hero
So that they can sleep at night
I hope you are sleeping alright 

We know by now
Frontline workers are left to die
Like the hapless infantry
Sent into the enemy lines
To die in the frontlines
Or to die many deaths within
Each gets a minute's silence
Or a gold plated tin medal
And the world sleeps on

You loved Salsa they say
And skiing through the snow
You loved your father I know
Like him, you became a doctor too
You loved Life I know
For you saved so many lives 
I hope you can love yourself now
For, I have fallen in love with you. 

--------------------
Written in pain and in love for Dr Lorna Breen,  (ex) chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the New York-Presbyterian Allen Hospital. 

Coronavirus India | Has Kajodi Reached Home? | Our South Sudan Moment

Photographer - Salik Ahmad -
Captioned: 90-year-old Kajodi trudges home 400 km away amid coronavirus lockdown.
Published in - https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-90-year-old-kajodi-trudges-home-400-km-away-amid-coronavirus-lockdown/349525

Many years ago, the Wanted Series initiated the dialogue on ethics in photography. A seminar was organised at Max Muller Bhavan Delhi in collaboration with Goa-Cap and Askar. Subsequently, the Goethe Institute at New Delhi tried to formulate a working group which would explore the question of Ethics in photographic practices. A large seminar was followed by a couple of close think-thank meeting, and then we all disappeared. Going back to the conversation that we generated, I remember being numbed by the impossibility of it all. Yet, ethics as praxis and as a concept metaphor has always remained important to me as a critical tool while looking at (looking through) any cultural act or artefact. In today's world, we can no longer hold on to the notion of a 'Universal Good'. Over the years my notions of ethics have been shaped by moral negotiation processes, red-flagging arbitrariness or manipulation.

 Kevin Carter, 'The vulture and the Little Girl',  first appeared in The New York Times on 26 March 1993. Image taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vulture_and_the_little_girl 

'The Vulture and the Little Girl' is perhaps one of the earliest instances in recent memory which threw up grave questions regarding ethics in photojournalist practices.  Initially, Carter claimed to have come upon the scene, snapped a few photos, and then chased the bird away. 

 "You won't believe what I've just shot! … I was shooting this kid on her knees, and then changed my angle, and suddenly there was this vulture right behind her! … And I just kept shooting – shot lots of films.  Silva asked him where he shot the picture and was looking around to take a photo as well. Carter pointed to a place 50 m (160 ft) away. Then Carter told him that he had chased the vulture away. He told Silva he was shocked by the situation he had just photographed, saying, "I see all this, and all I can think of is Megan", his young daughter. "   (https://joesackcom.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/the-vulture-and-the-child-what-happened-next/) 

These were Carter's immediate words to his colleague João Silva, (a part of the Bang- Bang Club specialising in reporting from conflict areas). However, Carter eventually admitted that he watched the scene for about twenty minutes, waiting for the vulture to get closer to the boy and hoping that it would spread its wings for a more dramatic photo. After the vulture refused to move, Carter finally chased the bird away. 

Salik Ahmad's ' 90-year-old Kajodi trudges home 400 km away amid coronavirus lockdown' succeeded in spotlighting the effect of CONVID lockdown on the migrant labourers of India, apart from photo narrating plights of victims during the conflict, it also bears similarity to Carter's image in the use of dramatic foreshortening and depth-of-field. There is one crucial difference and this perhaps reflects the culture of consumption in our times. The readers of Outlook and the online viewers of the image raised no question regarding the fate of Kajodi. How did the photographer intervene in a human capacity? Did he (even) offer her some water to drink? Has Kajodi reached home?

 Many years ago…in the early 90’s Cater and New York times had to face these questions and these questions made the photographer and publication realise that lines between being a photographer and being a human being could not be blurred beyond a point. Carter’s eventual suicide about 5 years after taking the photograph should not be directly linked to the psyco-emotional impact of 'The Vulture and the Little Girl'.  He had seen enough morbid violence and death in South Africa and Sudan for any sensitive soul to be deeply affected.

Contrary to perception, photojournalism has an uneasy relationship with ‘truth’. The ‘girl’ from South Sudan turned out to be a boy, and Carter framed the shot to maximise the impression that this disaster was taking place in the ‘middle of nowhere’ where in reality it was on a runway with her parents just a few minutes away in a place surrounded by UN workers and journalists. In Salik Ahmad's work, I do not know if her name is really Kajodi, is she really 90 years old? Is her village really 400 km away? Such details get lost in the spectacle of a tragedy and conflict generates. In a way, way beyond truth, this is a work in the politics of representation. 

Photographers easily forget that their subject matter is (at least) an equal collaborator in the economic and cultural capital a picture produces. They also (always) forget that they are very much a part of the frame, that they exist within the photograph and not outside it. If political photography and photojournalism want to break through the structures they critique, these realisations are important.

It is not Coronavirus it is your Desire

Many of us do not understand this lock down, we don't know what is beyond the plateau of a flattened curve. Right now we are like clockwork. When pushed to work for the sake of our and social survival we do so till be collapse -  then when told to stop work for the sake of our and social survival, we are trying to do so until we collapse. This is my  take - 1 in my personal attempt to understand this code.

When I was in class 8 (?), I understood what a virus is. Clearly it cannot be Chinese or Muslim, cause virus is not even a living cell. In fact like it is more conceptual; like religion and nationalism, viruses are not free-living; i.e., they cannot reproduce and carry on metabolic processes without a hosting on living creatures, but once they do find hosts then they can manipulate host behaviors to create environments in which to thrive and spread. My biology teacher had explained that viruses were not 'living beings' thus they cannot be killed, that's why we still had flu...explaining how vaccination and building anti bodies were the only hope. (Right now I will avoid looking at this as a political metaphor).

Since then a lot of water has flown under many bridges that I have crossed. HIV came, made the word virus a household name. I understood the danger, yet felt safe in my middle class cocoon. Safe sex was doable, and the media made me feel that HIV happened to either the rich or the poor...the middle class were to be worried about cancer...which was not a virus (though I was scared for my friends who pushed sugar). Many years later, SARS came in. My partner and I were thrilled! Chicken prices came crashing down we feasted for a whole month! Of course misplaced nationalism had a role to play in this act of bravado, as Indians our immunity was supposed to much higher, one of the great perks of living in one of the dirtiest nations. On a more serious note, I did begin (re) looking at the research around viruses, specially because governments and corporate started investing in cures.

Then one by one these cure/vaccine research projects began to shut down. Suddenly an old frustration, (which I felt heavily in my class 8 but never really expressed) began to rear its head. How come humans have made so much scientific  progress taking us from moon to Mars and beyond, to make nuclear weapon and power plants, to do pretty much anything...but could not cure us of common flu. Slowly it became clear that the answer to this lay in the priorities of funding. The pharmaceutical industry would actually lose money if some commonly available cheap drug was produced which could cure the flu.

Cut to the season on 2019-20, the times of COVID-19. The initial reaction was almost similar to SARS...and then like an avalanche it began to spread and take over. Before we knew it, February was over and by March, the world was entering into its lock down phase. Initially, my mind went numb. Much energy was spent in checking into my resources. Checking up on relatives, friends, students. Then the emotional stress of the lock down, coupled with the stress of 'work from home'.

The first trigger for me was the crisis of the immigrant contractual laborers being homeless, stateless and criminalised. The brutality that is unfolding in lockdown  situations globally and the normalisation of it all is unparalleled in civil society in the post WW-2 period. It slowly began to dawn that  COVID-19 had scared even the capitalists in power. Which seemed strange and confusing. After all we had seen so many epidemics. Also, contagious diseases like tuberculosis had also affected and killed the rich but there was never such a panic in such a large scale. Then of course in India we have had dengue for years now, so may people die every year post monsoon...but even in the most dengue ravaged, mosquito infected zones there has never been a lockdown.  What exactly was happening now? How is COVID-19 different ?

The clues (unsurprisingly) came in from the USA and (once) Great Britain. Led by Donald Duck and Boris Jonson, these two countries (along with Brazil and Turkey) have resisted the lockdown mode the most. Choosing the normal flu containing technique of evolving herd immunity and treating only  the severely ill and  quarantining the known infected were the measures taken up...and this turned out to be a severe misjudgment and is today costing many lives. But why did these measures fail so drastically? What pose does COVID-19 contain that it continues to overwhelm all our social structures?

The answer blows not in the winds of COVID-19, but in the winds of our Desire. Or rather on how our desires and our capitalist social structures have co-produced each other. After the WW 2, and the wave of decolonisations we had the space and time to imagine a new world order. We ended up voting for governments and policies which has led us to stick pile so much nuclear weapons that the world can be destroyed many times over. We have dreamt of taking vacations on Mars, designing all kinds of cosmetic makeovers, dreamt of destroying Pakistan, invested in Formula 1 technology...bullet trains, statues....

So we created a world with excess capacity of nuclear and non-nuclear ammunition, but a world where ventilators are scarce. Yes, it is that simple...we are under a lockdown, medical and para medical personnel putting their lives at risk, contractual workers are being left to die...because the world has a shortage of ventilators.

COVID-19 is mimics the commonest flu in the manner in which it spreads, making it highly contagious.  At the same time about 20 percent of infected people would need intensive medical attention and among them a sizeable portion would need ventilator support. So what COVID-19 essentially does is to expose a deep glitch in the system which is just not geared for community health crisis, or any kind of health crisis which outside the sphere of the pharmaceutical industry and its profit making. Most of us will survive the COVID-19 even if we catch it...but clearly the system will not. This lockdown, is an attempt by the existing capitalist machinery to save itself from collapse.  It is never your health that they are worried about.


-------------------
also, do read -

• https://www.marxist.com/italy-the-coronavirus-epidemic-is-an-emergency-but-capitalism-is-the-real-disaster.htm
• https://www.quantamagazine.org/viruses-have-a-secret-altruistic-social-life-20190415/
• https://www.britannica.com/science/virus