As primates we are social animals. Loneliness and isolation are almost deadly. So it's strange that our group behaviour is often appalling and that our sense of alienation is so strong.
Our governments mostly lack empathy towards the wishes of their citizens and readily permit large scale suffering to take place; facilitating or abetting genocides, profiting from arms sales, allowing private corporations to run amoc, impervious to growing social disparities and instituting planet-wrecking policies for short term gain.
Our billionaire-owned news media are full of lies, our social media platforms reward division and foster hatred, our religions are all corrupt and our cities are places of alienation. There are few safe social spaces.
None of this is inevitable, and the problem seems insurmountable only when viewed as monolithic. It can only be overcome by first becoming conscious of the ways in which we are manipulated towards building and augmenting it. By mindfully taking control of our interactions, by taking small steps, with great humility, we can begin to reverse the dynamic.
Group behaviour is a projection of individual ego. Ego is based on the false premise of actual division, whereas fundamentally our existence is based on wholeness and all-encompassing unity.
There is no isolation, no loneliness, when that is understood. All of our social interactions will automatically improve when we understand that the divisions are false. They will be based instead on respect and empathy.
The article reasons that our view of the universe as divided into separate objects is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental unity. It states that it is this wrong vision that has led to the current crisis we are facing. It casts doubt on claims that the situation can be be changed through solely personal transformation and suggests the practice of dharma as a more practical method of tackling our problems and transforming the world. It claims that the practice of dharma is also a sadhana, i.e. a means to gaining an integral understanding that the “world of things” depends upon underlying unity.
https://hub.vikshepa.net/cloud/hosh8764/Documents/dharma.html
https://hub.vikshepa.net/cloud/hosh8764/Documents/dharma.html
I have been watching the (old) BBC series "The Genius of Photography" and it has made me think what appeals to me about taking pictures - I mean not just holiday snapshots and family portraits...
Read
Read
This article looks at the responsibility of Israelis towards genocide, or genocidal policies that it has perpetrated in Gaza. It consciously examines solely matters concerning Israeli responsibility and avoids a discussion of the moral responsibility of Palestinians and their leadership. That’s a different question, or a larger issue which is indeed relevant to the discussion, but it is not covered here.
First the question of the meaning of “genocide”: this is mainly relevant in terms of the legal definition, as established under the Geneva Conventions. Experts have looked at the question of whether what we have been seeing constitutes genocide, and the International Court of Justice has begun to examine it. The court’s role is to establish whether a state has broken international law by committing genocide. As we have seen, it is unable to establish this within a relevant time frame (i.e. a final ruling will be issued long after the incidents currently taking place), but has only been able to determine that it is plausible that a genocide is being committed. It has issued warnings and rulings that in so far as there is a danger that genocidal actions are being committed, military activity must cease, etc.
However the question of responsibility needs to be looked at not just in terms of criminality but also in terms of morality. Courts rule in terms of criminal culpability and can hold nations to account or individuals to justice only when these have direct culpability. But a wider group can be held to share moral responsibility, and even in the absence of a strict ruling that a crime as serious as genocide has been committed, moral responsibility for what has been perpetrated can be established.
Responsibility must also be looked at with regard to time: such as not just whether we are responsible for what is currently happening, but the degree to which previous decisions led up to it, and the degree to which what is currently happening affects outcomes in the future.
- victims
- perpetrators
- bystanders
- rescuers
Unfortunately the majority from the perpetrators' side are always bystanders, while rescuers - those who oppose a genocide or try to or save people from it - are few, because they need to be brave, endure personal risk, sometimes to the extent of placing the lives of themselves and their loved ones in danger.
Moral responsibility cannot easily be determined, so we should not be quick to pass judgment over others. It's a question that individuals or a group or a society must grapple with. There is a matter also of degree. Did an individual or group express their objection, take individual action, instigate or participate in organized action; were they willing to take risks in order to do so, etc.?
I don't think ignorance, spread by the lies or omissions of news media, is sufficient to excuse individuals or society, because it is the obligation of the individual to seek out information, even when it is being kept out of mainstream media (assuming that it is available somewhere, and not totally banned or censored). Threats against the individual from the state or those who act on behalf of the perpetrating group cannot be classed as preventing speech or action, because exigent conditions demand commensurately brave opposition.
In the disproportionate aggression towards Palestinians since October 7, not just Israel is to blame, but also countries that give direct or indirect military or diplomatic support to Israel. Therefore, in the same way that Israelis can be held morally responsible for the actions of their government, so can the citizens of those countries. Again, we are speaking of moral rather than criminal responsibility, but it exists in parallel to that of Israelis. However, there is the problem that the wider we cast the net of responsibility, the more diluted can be the charge of moral culpability. If everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible.
At the end of the second world war, the defeat and surrender of Nazi Germany and of imperial Japan forced both nations to institute deep changes, such as constitutional reforms, to ensure that these nations would henceforth live in peace with the family of nations. International frameworks (including the ICJ) were also established to try to prevent future conflict.
Various conflicts have, to a greater or lesser degree, been settled from the mid-20th century, either by international arbitration, mediation or internal processes. The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa is a good example of a home-grown mechanism. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, developed there, was partly successful in bringing about a peaceful transition of power. The process was based not on punishment but on acceptance of responsibility as a path to reconciliation. In other cases, such as the treatment of indigenous populations, concepts and policies like restorative justice have played a major role.
In all such successful resolutions to conflict there needed to be a strong consensus within the country that deep processes were needed to bring about change.
In the ongoing Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the difficulty is that we have yet to see an occasion as momentous as capitulation or surrender (by either party). For there to be a real change, there must be a firm majority conviction that previous patterns have to be changed.
Though it is unlikely in the current geo-political context, a watershed moment could arise if the International Court of Justice determines that a genocide has taken place, or if the International Criminal Court convicts Israeli military and political leaders of perpetrating genocide. In their current frame of mind, most Israelis would likely vilify these courts, reject their jurisdiction and ignore any unfavourable verdicts. So in order to be effective, the rulings would need to be backed up by the threat of stringent sanctions.
In parallel, there would need to be a plan to effect real change, such as international acceptance and imposition of the two-state solution, or even the imposition of a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israeli Jews will enjoy political, judicial, religious and economic freedom within a single state framework.
These processes could also determine what previous patterns within Israeli society have contributed to the conflict and need to be changed, in the same way that Germany and Japan were required to make deep changes to their societies (which have served them well ever since).
The degree to which Israelis would understand and accept such processes could determine the attitude of the world towards them. Just as we could not, after the defeat of Nazism in Europe, accept any continued expression of Nazi ideology or positions from those who had lived under the regime, the international community should not accept Israeli statements of support for those who have been judged to be directly responsible for the genocide and should castigate and ostracize the bearers of opinions who do not accept the verdict or an imposed international peace plan.
So a clear ruling on the current genocide by the international courts, combined with a coherent program for change, imposed if necessary by the international community, could bring about real change and a moment in which it would be fair to hold individual Israelis to account regarding their acceptance or non-acceptance of these processes.
We have not reached that moment yet, so any examination and analysis regarding the moral culpability of ordinary Israelis towards the genocide, needs to be evaluated less formally, in terms of the earlier mentioned roles of perpetrator, bystander or rescuer.
First the question of the meaning of “genocide”: this is mainly relevant in terms of the legal definition, as established under the Geneva Conventions. Experts have looked at the question of whether what we have been seeing constitutes genocide, and the International Court of Justice has begun to examine it. The court’s role is to establish whether a state has broken international law by committing genocide. As we have seen, it is unable to establish this within a relevant time frame (i.e. a final ruling will be issued long after the incidents currently taking place), but has only been able to determine that it is plausible that a genocide is being committed. It has issued warnings and rulings that in so far as there is a danger that genocidal actions are being committed, military activity must cease, etc.
However the question of responsibility needs to be looked at not just in terms of criminality but also in terms of morality. Courts rule in terms of criminal culpability and can hold nations to account or individuals to justice only when these have direct culpability. But a wider group can be held to share moral responsibility, and even in the absence of a strict ruling that a crime as serious as genocide has been committed, moral responsibility for what has been perpetrated can be established.
Responsibility must also be looked at with regard to time: such as not just whether we are responsible for what is currently happening, but the degree to which previous decisions led up to it, and the degree to which what is currently happening affects outcomes in the future.
The present
Prof. Yair Auron (a retired specialist in genocide studies living in my community) says that when genocidal actions take place, people can be divided into four main groups:- victims
- perpetrators
- bystanders
- rescuers
Unfortunately the majority from the perpetrators' side are always bystanders, while rescuers - those who oppose a genocide or try to or save people from it - are few, because they need to be brave, endure personal risk, sometimes to the extent of placing the lives of themselves and their loved ones in danger.
Moral responsibility cannot easily be determined, so we should not be quick to pass judgment over others. It's a question that individuals or a group or a society must grapple with. There is a matter also of degree. Did an individual or group express their objection, take individual action, instigate or participate in organized action; were they willing to take risks in order to do so, etc.?
I don't think ignorance, spread by the lies or omissions of news media, is sufficient to excuse individuals or society, because it is the obligation of the individual to seek out information, even when it is being kept out of mainstream media (assuming that it is available somewhere, and not totally banned or censored). Threats against the individual from the state or those who act on behalf of the perpetrating group cannot be classed as preventing speech or action, because exigent conditions demand commensurately brave opposition.
In the disproportionate aggression towards Palestinians since October 7, not just Israel is to blame, but also countries that give direct or indirect military or diplomatic support to Israel. Therefore, in the same way that Israelis can be held morally responsible for the actions of their government, so can the citizens of those countries. Again, we are speaking of moral rather than criminal responsibility, but it exists in parallel to that of Israelis. However, there is the problem that the wider we cast the net of responsibility, the more diluted can be the charge of moral culpability. If everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible.
The past
All of the above relates to the present, or while genocidal actions are taking place. There is also historical responsibility and responsibility towards the future. The current situation came into being as a result of a long process. It followed from or was influenced by many contributing factors such as ideology, philosophical positions or movements (in this case Zionism), religious views, racism, educational bias, government policies, previous military actions, political choices, failed leadership, failures in civil society... the list is long. In order to reach an understanding of how we arrived to the present moment, all of these elements need to be assessed and individual soul-searching needs to take place.The future
Do our current actions feed into an endless cycle of violence in which future acts of atrocity or genocide will take place? Or are we taking measures to ensure a future in which the conflicting parties will be able to live in peace? Do we regard the conflict as a zero sum game or are we actively working for a future in which peace, equality, justice and security will be there for all sides of the conflict? Can we establish a genuine framework that will lead us forward to such a result?As we go forward
The net of responsibility has to be defined in terms of various criteria and according to degree. If we limit it only to political or military leaders, or to those who serve them, i.e. those with criminal culpability, this is clearly too narrow. On the other hand, as we have mentioned, to spread the net too widely and claim that all Israelis, or even all of those in countries in other countries who directly supported Israel and did nothing to oppose the genocide, are universally responsible, is too broad to be meaningful. The question of criminal culpability can be settled by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Moral culpability of the wider society is more tricky, but could ultimately be influenced by the same processes.At the end of the second world war, the defeat and surrender of Nazi Germany and of imperial Japan forced both nations to institute deep changes, such as constitutional reforms, to ensure that these nations would henceforth live in peace with the family of nations. International frameworks (including the ICJ) were also established to try to prevent future conflict.
Various conflicts have, to a greater or lesser degree, been settled from the mid-20th century, either by international arbitration, mediation or internal processes. The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa is a good example of a home-grown mechanism. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, developed there, was partly successful in bringing about a peaceful transition of power. The process was based not on punishment but on acceptance of responsibility as a path to reconciliation. In other cases, such as the treatment of indigenous populations, concepts and policies like restorative justice have played a major role.
In all such successful resolutions to conflict there needed to be a strong consensus within the country that deep processes were needed to bring about change.
In the ongoing Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the difficulty is that we have yet to see an occasion as momentous as capitulation or surrender (by either party). For there to be a real change, there must be a firm majority conviction that previous patterns have to be changed.
Though it is unlikely in the current geo-political context, a watershed moment could arise if the International Court of Justice determines that a genocide has taken place, or if the International Criminal Court convicts Israeli military and political leaders of perpetrating genocide. In their current frame of mind, most Israelis would likely vilify these courts, reject their jurisdiction and ignore any unfavourable verdicts. So in order to be effective, the rulings would need to be backed up by the threat of stringent sanctions.
In parallel, there would need to be a plan to effect real change, such as international acceptance and imposition of the two-state solution, or even the imposition of a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israeli Jews will enjoy political, judicial, religious and economic freedom within a single state framework.
These processes could also determine what previous patterns within Israeli society have contributed to the conflict and need to be changed, in the same way that Germany and Japan were required to make deep changes to their societies (which have served them well ever since).
The degree to which Israelis would understand and accept such processes could determine the attitude of the world towards them. Just as we could not, after the defeat of Nazism in Europe, accept any continued expression of Nazi ideology or positions from those who had lived under the regime, the international community should not accept Israeli statements of support for those who have been judged to be directly responsible for the genocide and should castigate and ostracize the bearers of opinions who do not accept the verdict or an imposed international peace plan.
So a clear ruling on the current genocide by the international courts, combined with a coherent program for change, imposed if necessary by the international community, could bring about real change and a moment in which it would be fair to hold individual Israelis to account regarding their acceptance or non-acceptance of these processes.
We have not reached that moment yet, so any examination and analysis regarding the moral culpability of ordinary Israelis towards the genocide, needs to be evaluated less formally, in terms of the earlier mentioned roles of perpetrator, bystander or rescuer.
We know the easily predictable course that the US and the UK have chosen, but it will be interesting to see how the European countries will react, now that the ICC and ICJ have put the world in a moral bind, and provided a chance to save face by ceasing to support the alleged war crimes or genocide and their perpetrators.
I don't think Israelis actually realize the seriousness of the situation and what it could mean for the country if western countries actually come to regard Israel as a liability and begin break off ties. It wouldn't be so hard to do. Israel would stand to lose a lot more from this than would others. In fact, almost everything they have managed to create over years of hard effort.
I don't remember a time when there has been such a gap between what people believe and their governments believe should happen. But it's also true that that it's really hard to gauge how people of all countries "think" (if they think at all) and how they come to their opinions, in an era of massive media manipulation.
If we could all (including Israelis) just break away from the manipulation of those who are pulling the strings / pushing our buttons for a while and consider the situation and the choices before us, I think our decisions might be more humane, rational, and conducive to a better world order.
Ukraine is possibly an even harder conundrum, but we are only in the "pre-war" situation that Donald Tusk spoke about because of gradually building up a situation that probably no one really wants (again if we only stop to think about it) . Surely it would be possible to slowly take slow steps in tandem down from that dangerous situation? Why do we not hear more discussion of that possibility?
---
Relevant: As the ICC seeks arrests, I ask those who facilitated the Gaza slaughter: what were you thinking? by Owen Jones
I don't think Israelis actually realize the seriousness of the situation and what it could mean for the country if western countries actually come to regard Israel as a liability and begin break off ties. It wouldn't be so hard to do. Israel would stand to lose a lot more from this than would others. In fact, almost everything they have managed to create over years of hard effort.
I don't remember a time when there has been such a gap between what people believe and their governments believe should happen. But it's also true that that it's really hard to gauge how people of all countries "think" (if they think at all) and how they come to their opinions, in an era of massive media manipulation.
If we could all (including Israelis) just break away from the manipulation of those who are pulling the strings / pushing our buttons for a while and consider the situation and the choices before us, I think our decisions might be more humane, rational, and conducive to a better world order.
Ukraine is possibly an even harder conundrum, but we are only in the "pre-war" situation that Donald Tusk spoke about because of gradually building up a situation that probably no one really wants (again if we only stop to think about it) . Surely it would be possible to slowly take slow steps in tandem down from that dangerous situation? Why do we not hear more discussion of that possibility?
---
Relevant: As the ICC seeks arrests, I ask those who facilitated the Gaza slaughter: what were you thinking? by Owen Jones
Watching "Until the end of the World" again helped to clear some of the pessimism I have been feeling over the last few months. The four-and-three-quarter hour director's cut fills out the story in a good way, and perhaps makes it clearer what Wenders is trying to say in the movie; why it was important for him. I think in those years he was contemplating cinematography and the hundred-year legacy of the Lumiere brothers.
The film seems to reflect upon the central place of images in our society and the importance of weaving these into a cinematic story. Absorbing these images hurt the retina so much that Sam Farber, one of the characters, almost goes blind. Towards the end of the film, the characters are so wrapped-up in the images from their individual dreams that they become morosely alienated from one-another. This almost destroys them, as in the Narcissus myth. Perhaps we too, bombarded by a proliferation of images from the news, our phones and social media, struggle to process our reality in a coherent, or meaningful way.
Eventually, the only medicine that can heal Claire from her narcissistic addiction to her own dream imagery is the common story woven by the narrator, Eugene. Other than the aboriginals, he is the one character with a feeling for the common thread that holds together all the disparate elements of the tale: its wild romp across many countries and it's strange cast of obsessive individualists.
It is not at all arbitrary that the film makes its way to Australia, and to the aboriginal people whose entire sense of themselves is deeply bound up with the common dream and cultural myths that are preserved through the custodianship of individuals:
Claire: [of an elder aboriginal sharing their truck] What's he singing?
Sam: He's singing the country. The country is like their Bible. It's like that tree is Jonah. That rock is the whale. Everything is part of the story. He's the custodian of this stretch of the country, of this part of the story. If he doesn't keep it alive by telling it, it'll die. And so will he.
Eugene [narrating]: It was then, as we ran before the fatal winds that might bring about the actual end of the world, that I realized that the loss of my novel had freed me. Freed me to write it anew. Not dwelling on the past as I had done, but looking out into the future.
The characters in the film have no idea at this point if the world at large still exists, as they have lost connection with it. For all they know, they could be the sole survivors of a nuclear cataclysm that has wiped out the rest of civilization. But Eugene sees his role to be like that of the aboriginal elder:
Winter: I can't see the point of all this strutting and fretting - we're all as good as dead.
Eugene: Not in my book we're not. I'm not dead in here and neither are you. I'm saving your ass, Winter.
Winter: Writing won't help. Your stories won't help me.
Eugene: Winter, the future is always a fiction.
Winter: I'm more worried about reality than fiction. I'm worried about the present, Mr. Fitzpatrick!
Eugene: The present will look after itself. But it's our duty to realize the future, with our imagination.
I couldn't help but think about our own condition here. The last few months have seemed to be the end of the world for our dream of a better future for this country. I decided that, as in the film, the present, however bleak, "will look after itself".
Our responsibility, for example the role of a peace village, is to collectively preserve, and be the custodians of, the dream for a better future, no matter how heavily the odds are stacked up against it. Otherwise, this future may die.
Pessimism comes naturally when a genocide is taking place. But even the Nazis, who were so much more efficient at mass killing, were unable to realize their final solution for Jews (or gypsies or homosexuals). Berlin has become again the coolest place for Jews to live, within only a generation or two since the Holocaust; topping the destinations bucket-list of many young Israelis.
It will be the same for Israel/Palestine. Neither people will be able to eliminate the other completely. Both Palestinians and Jews are buoyed up by their distinct mythologies and cultural identities.
Our role must be to preserve the dream of a future in which Jews and Palestinians can live - together or separately - as good neighbours, rather than as rivals and enemies. The two-state solution conceived by the European countries and sometimes locally, may never emerge. It may well be that Israel, with its ever more extreme right wing governments, will eventually annex the West Bank or even Gaza. But this does not mean the end of the dream that we are struggling to implement already today in the village: of an equal shared society for the two peoples.
Actually, I am not sure that I even wish to be part of this particular dream. As an outsider that belongs to neither cultural identity, I do not align so well with it.
My own vision is of a future in which nations are simply there as a convenient framework of support for their citizens; where our association with government will consist in a social contract for mutual benefit. The state will be agnostic and indifferent with regard to our individual or group identities. It will support our endeavours, as long as these are not harmful to others. It will offer protection against exploitation, will safeguard the environment and exist as a responsible member of the family of nations or regions. That's the vision I cherish, though not all the details are worked out.
In Hubzilla's Cards system I've assembled some links to Digital Gardening.
I think the Cards system itself, which can be used to compile links and place these in categories, is a powerful, probably neglected, feature of Hubzilla that illustrates its distinct advantage over a simple chronological system (although admittedly, the items themselves end up being placed chronologically rather than one I might choose).
One of the articles bookmarked, which is apparently considered to be ground-breaking and formative in the history of digital gardens, is The Garden and the Stream: A Technopastoral by Mike Caulfield. He makes there a powerful argument for the digital gardening style of web publishing instead of the reverse-chronological form that has dominated the web since blogging and micro-blogging platforms took over much of it, as a means to assemble and broaden knowledge.
Intrinsic to the metaphor is the idea that rather than present "finished pieces" in the manner of published works, digital gardening aims to gradually improve upon what one has written, in response to further thought, new knowledge, or the integration of valid criticism. An article that speaks of this is Digital Garden Terms of Service (by Shawn Wang).
In a post by Anne-Laure Le Cunff, various tools are mentioned for the creation of digital gardens: for non-technical people: Obsidian Publish, Public Roam Database, Notion, Tiddlywiki, Mental Nodes. For more technical people, Jeykyll, Eleventy, Gatsby and static site builders are suggested.
Although it is never mentioned among the sites that I've found, Hubzilla too places at our disposal various tools that can facilitate digital gardening. As I have often said on Hubzilla, these are quite adequate. Yet they deserve to be further developed, alongside the "stream" model (which even Mike Caulfield admits has its place).
One of Hubzilla's still under-used advantages is that it could harness its community base to establish shared wikis. Till now, my still fledgling Hubzilla wikis have been publicly readable, but written only by me. Responsibility for these could be shared and it would be great to see further community efforts.
I think the Cards system itself, which can be used to compile links and place these in categories, is a powerful, probably neglected, feature of Hubzilla that illustrates its distinct advantage over a simple chronological system (although admittedly, the items themselves end up being placed chronologically rather than one I might choose).
One of the articles bookmarked, which is apparently considered to be ground-breaking and formative in the history of digital gardens, is The Garden and the Stream: A Technopastoral by Mike Caulfield. He makes there a powerful argument for the digital gardening style of web publishing instead of the reverse-chronological form that has dominated the web since blogging and micro-blogging platforms took over much of it, as a means to assemble and broaden knowledge.
Intrinsic to the metaphor is the idea that rather than present "finished pieces" in the manner of published works, digital gardening aims to gradually improve upon what one has written, in response to further thought, new knowledge, or the integration of valid criticism. An article that speaks of this is Digital Garden Terms of Service (by Shawn Wang).
In a post by Anne-Laure Le Cunff, various tools are mentioned for the creation of digital gardens: for non-technical people: Obsidian Publish, Public Roam Database, Notion, Tiddlywiki, Mental Nodes. For more technical people, Jeykyll, Eleventy, Gatsby and static site builders are suggested.
Although it is never mentioned among the sites that I've found, Hubzilla too places at our disposal various tools that can facilitate digital gardening. As I have often said on Hubzilla, these are quite adequate. Yet they deserve to be further developed, alongside the "stream" model (which even Mike Caulfield admits has its place).
One of Hubzilla's still under-used advantages is that it could harness its community base to establish shared wikis. Till now, my still fledgling Hubzilla wikis have been publicly readable, but written only by me. Responsibility for these could be shared and it would be great to see further community efforts.
Yesterday I bought an e-bike from a woman here who was selling hers. There are a couple of things that needed fixing, but in general it is in good shape. Today I took it for a ride into town, which was a little nerve-racking, given the rush-hour traffic, though the experience was similar to being on a TVS, and, in some situations, less stressful. You just glide along quietly.
It can go in full electric mode, assisted or manual and is manufactured by Hero, an Indian make.
In the morning I walked around the mountain, taking it slowly. Along the way I stopped at the Shirdi Sai Baba temple and sat for a while.
It can go in full electric mode, assisted or manual and is manufactured by Hero, an Indian make.
In the morning I walked around the mountain, taking it slowly. Along the way I stopped at the Shirdi Sai Baba temple and sat for a while.
Walking around Tiruvannamalai, there is a generosity of spirit, and such a paucity of means. Life hangs on a thread for many (others are well-fed). And how this rich and poor nation conducts its business in such a haphazard way; burning piles of rubbish lining the streets, monkeys scrounging through food containers. Beggars, pilgrims, tourists from the new age. Gurus, charlatans, get-rich-quick businessmen whizzing by banana vendors. Washed-out dirty would-be saddhus smoking beedies, women street sweepers spitting over shoulders in the muck. Strutting peacocks calling from walls.