https://www.voot.com/shows/comedy-nights-with-kapil/1/360559/askhay-kumar-airlifts-kapil-s-family/365155

Hi friends it is very interest to watch both of our performances.we both have a different approaches to our materials. yours film and pictures speaks many things. film talked about sexual politics. Staged in individual  and isolated space. If we talking about gender, in the personal level male female relations will come first. All political, social, economical will come later. Alice wrote about fertility day and low birth control in the Italy. Government take the issue seriously and encouraging through advertisements  people marriage, and give children. Is this issue can come in your film?. And also what about to buy a contraceptive pill in medical shop, any one can buy without showing any ID card, regardless gender, age. If this type a conditions is there what about gender citizenship?
    Gabby three pictures talks about women body as  performance  space placing tattoos, symbols, creating mimetic resemblances. women are consumers and consumed.  another picture women in the bath tub filled red surface, it says about violence of an unending.
     third work is arranging materials in receding color pattern. This pictorial data tells many things. Says about gender citizenship in physical manner, we didn't aware till you say, these all things taken from people, they chooses these things when talk about citizenship. It was good researched work on gender citizen ship. Citizenship always lies in cards, like voter IDs, passports, in India Adhaar card, also in culture, particular clothes, daily consuming goods, man and women individual passions.  can tell more about your interactions with people on this issue or your experience. If we construct a performance with this material how it can help?

What is the citizenship of dead people?
            In India states are divided as per linguistics basis.we have 29 states, the 29th state was Telangana, formed in 2014. which is divided from United Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh is the first state in India which is formed as basis of language in 1956. Nehru government brought all Telugu speaking area people put into the one umbrella state. Costal Andhra, Rayalaseema, Telangana,these are the three parts, but people speak same language. But there is dialectical and  slightest cultural differences are there. these areas are under different rulers. Telangana before merged into Indian government it is under the rule of the Muslim king Nizam. Andhra is Under the colonial rule. In the colonial period Andhra is developed economically and educationally. There in the Telangana , the king is rich but people remain poor. No education is there and also it is not developed. when they came under one linguistic state, problems remain there in same condition. There is a feel in Telangana people, Andhra people dominated them. when the capital is shifted to Hyderadad, which is the part of Telangana, that time they brought many officials from Andhra area. they says because of their English communication skills and work ability. There is no participation and placement of Telangana representations in the bureaucrats. this issue rag the Telangana people, they started movement of separate Telangana. that issue is solved. In 1969 again the movement started with political cause. 1969 to 1973: This period was marked by two political agitations, namely 'Jai Telangana' and 'Jai Andhra' movements. Social tensions arose due to influx of people from the Coastal Andhra region. Protests started with the hunger strike of a student from Khammam district for the implementation of safe-guards promised during the creation of Andhra Pradesh. The movement slowly manifested into a demand for a separate Telangana. from there the separate Telangana moment struggle started. but when the politicians get fulfillment's, they stopped the movement. in 2004 to 2013 period time Telangana movement went high level. Telangana people want their home rule, our water, our land, our jobs only for our selves this their motto. the Andhra rulers, politicians looted their lands and  suppressed their culture. Telangana region politicians succeed in the provoke people against Andhra rulers.mainly students bring the movement front.regional conflict went high in this period. In 2009 central minister Chidambaram announced that parliament started the process of Telangana. For against that announcement Andhra people started United Andhra Pradesh movement. two area people competitive each other with their movements. Citizen identification issue emerged. you are Andhra people go back to Andhra (people who are living in the capital Hyderabad).they protest the common popular film stars to say 'Jai Telangana'. In every government offices there is a divide of Andhra, Telangana employers. Each other forms separate joint action committees for their respective areas. Both side singers sing songs for areas. fear of loss of the political support, government stopped the Telangana process. they put a committee on it, 
         Telangana people started high protest against this. 400 students sacrificed for special Telangana. In 2011 Telangana political JAC( joint action committee) called people for "millennium march" on the Tank Bund, which is located in the bank of Hussian Sagar, center of Hyderadad city. they want to organize Egypt like mass protest. Projections for number of people to be mobilized varied from one to five million. Police issued prohibitory orders to prevent gatherings  and no permission had been granted for the march. police took a large number of activists into preventive custody. TJAC chair man asked the police, "people can protest in Egypt and Tunisia but not in Hyderabad?". But people reached the Tank Bund from different ways.Tank Bund filled with thousands of people and politicians started speeches, protesters uprooted the barricades. and lot of violence staged in the protest.Protesters raised slogans of "Jai Telangana, sang pro-Telangana songs and played games. one of the Osmania university student attempted suicide. 
destruction of statues;
          Pro-Telangana activists damaged 16 statues representing Telugu culture and language on Tank Bund. They threw some of the remnants into the lake. The agitators used iron rods and ropes from the barricades put up by the police to uproot the statues. The agitators did not touch the statues of Nizam-4 Mir Mohammad Ali Khan. These statues were installed by the state government in 1986. The protesters were reportedly designed to deepen linguistic and political divides between pro-Telangana and Pro-United state groups.The police says this was preplanned. Politician KTR, who the son of KCR, in a speech in October 2010 gave an ultimatum to the government to install a statue of Komaram Bheem, Telangana freedom fighter, on the Tank Bund or else the existing statues would not be allotted to remain. And ruling class intentionally ignoring prominent personalities from Telangana. Kodandaram said that he does not think the destruction was an act against the contribution of those figures. protesters were angry with the police for creating obstructions to the march and they directed their anger at the statues , which represent the Seemandhra. 
           Here is the citizenship is only on living beings or on the apply also on the dead people? performing violence  and desecration statues, what it denotes? it is a staged event . Citizenship constantly evolving and changing concept. protesters destructed the one of the statue of the King Srikrishna Devaraya who lived in 16th century and give a lot of contribution to the Telugu language. what he to do in 21 st century Telangana Movement? They didn't touch the king Nizam statue, who did a lot of violence in his ruling period..  

Protesting Women in the time of Demonetisation

In the past three classes which were related to our broad subject "Gendered Citizenship", I could really understand the concept of citizenship more deeply. The concept of 'State Apparatuses' and How the State apparatuses create or shape the ideology.  Citizenship is not a card issued by a state in any form. it is furthermore than this very certificate, e.g. Passport, voter ID. However here I would like to discuss  'Civil Society' and 'Political Society': the two concepts developed by the  Indian Scholar Partha Chatterjee, in his book Lineages of Political Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011). 

Professor Bishnupriya Dutt in her article Performing Resistance with Maya Rao: Trauma and Protest in India (2015) writes, "For Chatterjee, civil society in India resembles an active public sphere, in which a rights-based discourse according to Western normative notions is practised. ‘Political society, in contrast, comprises the vast majority of the Indian population, who negotiate advantages for themselves outside of legitimate rights-based discourses". One fascinating fact Professor Dutt brings up in her essay is that the performance allows these two exclusive communities to come together.

 In this regard, I  believe the utterance of the Indian Prime Minister about the demonetization (₹500 Note and ₹1000 note) on the 8th of November was an instant performance as proposed by Dutt that devalued the currency the same midnight. In the name of the "surgical strike on black money" the policy has affected badly to the larger community of society which is seen as a 'Political Society' by Chatterjee and Dutt.  The site or space of ATMs and Banks changed into protest sites all over India. In one voice, people opposed the action of the Indian Prime Minister.

As Chatterjee suggests that political society negotiates advantage outside right-based discourse, there might be chances that the people suffering from demonization did not want to oppose the PM, and thus forget about the negotiation. However, as Dutt claims that performance allows both to be a part of a group. So here, where no civil society was even, present to raise the right-based discourse, the utterance of the PM that I see as a performative act in fact forced both groups to stand in one line and thus both came together not to protest but suffer.

However, one group of political society that was directly affected by the action were the women as a homogenous group. They were targeted as thieves, and the Indian Prime Minister accused them of hiding money from their husbands. In a feudal structure in India where women are not allowed to go out for work. Whereas their work is not counted as productive inside the home due to not earning money. Thus they save the money in ration containers to use it later for the education of their children and in the period of economic crisis.

However, accusing them of having black money on the basis of holding the economy of the home has not only hurt their sentiments but has also affected their daily work and economic planning.  Therefore in most of cases, Women came out to be the main protesting force against the Indian PM.

As a concluding remark, I would like to introduce the very important archival work of development journalist P. Sainath "Visible Work, Invisible Women". It reflects upon the work of the women in rural India, the citizen who is ignored most of the time has been shot in camera from 1993 to 2003. This is basically a photo exhibition, That is very beautifully narrated and arranged by the journalist himself.

Can a woman in power be anti-feminist?

This late August, in Italy, the health minister decided to promote a so-called "Fertility Day", a day where in some of the biggest cities of the Country there would have been meetings and info points about why and when we should give birth.
It is true, birth rate in Italy is one of the lowest in Europe (if we only look at the effective Italian citizens, as immigrants, on the other hand, have more children per family and are those who maintain birth rates somehow stable, but this is yet another story), and this campaign aimed to "make the citizens aware" of what is going on in Italy, and how THEY, or better WE, should improve it, by promoting a proto-fascist anti-feminist campaign based on the shaming of the woman who "chooses" not to have kids because she is too focused on her education and career, calling it "male-like behaviour".
In less than 24h the campaign website crashed, protests rose, people enraged, and the Ministry tried to rectify the message, but the bomb had already been thrown.
Not only the campaign shamed women, of course the main targets, but 20-somethings as well, and men, though in a lighter way, only saying that smoking decrees fertility.

These are only a few examples of what the tone of this campaign was:

Beauty has no age. Fertility does.

                           

Young parents. The best way to be creative

And the most insulting of all

Fertility is a common good.

This campaign shamed also those people who cannot have kids, although they would love to, like couples battling infertility, cancer, or same-sex couples.
Is then how politics of a so-called "developed Country" acts?
Shaming its citizens? Blaming it on its women?
I should also point out that there are no helps whatsoever for couple with children, being them more or less young. No economic help. No job perspectives. One of the highest pay gap in Europe and I could go on and on about it.
But of all this, the possibly most striking things is:
The Italian health minister is a woman.
A woman with a career in politics.
A woman with a career in politics and who had children in her forties, because focused on her career.
A woman who went against the interest, struggles, desires and achievements of her own gender, shaming them for being what she is.
She would be the perfect example of a woman in career and a family, the example that we can do both.
Instead, she acted against us. Why?

First step towards the democracy

The idea of the citizenship is an attempt to create a sense of belonging to a community, which is, as Benedict Anderson would say, essentially imagined. It is inherently an inclusive attempt, however, it might not get realized on the ground due to the class, gender, social and other inequalities, differences and injustices. But essentially it requires a sense of inclusion and equality. But in India it has been always a sphere of contention. What we call an India society, is basically a structure of exclusions, which Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the radical democrat and chief architect of Indian constitution, used to call a society of ‘compulsory segregation’. Here one starts with the exclusion, punitive norms and identities and this saturates the notions of citizenship in India.

This is the background, against which Dr. Ambedkar started his political work of reforming the society, and after his first few experiments, he understood that while remaining within the caste fold, there cannot be real reform and this failure of the reform will bury the aspirations of any real democratic revolution in the society. He emphasized that Hinduism is incompatible with the democracy. Thus he concluded that first the ‘Untouchable’ (now known as Dalits, the depressed which is the lower social strata of Indian society) need to denounce the Hinduism, and get converted into another religion to usher a social reform which would become base for the political revolution.

This, as a method, remarkably resembles with the V-effect which German dramaturge Bertolt Brecht formulated for his own theatre. Through my research project, I am trying to see models of V-effect in both Ambedkar and Brecht.

Here is the speech where Ambedkar denounces the Hinduism.

What Path to Salvation?

Reflections from Wk5 Reading

Reflection on the material 

Those who do not fit within the heteronormative boundaries are often excluded as citizens. Their identity removed for being ‘Other’. 

This Other may be: 

• Women- marginalised through the patriarchal society and without the same opportunities.
  
• Refugees seeking a safe place (citizenship removed geographically, politically, economically) their sense of belonging has been removed and they become displaced within society. Thus, creating an unfair and unequal society that is not democratic and does not value all citizens as equal. This removes the notion of Civic Republicanism, as the idea of the greater good no longer exists. The society can therefore not refer to itself as a collective citizenship, working towards the greater good, if not all members/ civilians are represented.
  
• Individuals who identify as ‘Trans’- in some countries completely excluded or not-recognised, made invisible. 

• Homeless citizens

In the introduction to ‘Gendered Citizenship’ it is clearly stated that a lack of representation suppresses justice (Dutt et.al) Those who are already displaced within society are oppressed, lacking representation. The Sparks article highlights the idea that courage has traditionally been viewed as a ‘masculine’ trait; we do not have representations of courageous women who perform dissident acts. 

Ignoring difference excludes the marginalised, those who are displaced and oppressed. Those require equal opportunities and treatment are denied justice through lack of representation.
How can we expect change in society when we erase those who need to be represented. We cannot strive for justice through ignorance. 

If we begin to recognise difference, encouraging plurality of citizens, we can create a space in which people are more fairly represented and encourage a healthy discourse that is inclusive.
How can we create a better society if we do not give a voice to the oppressed? 

 Examples to illustrate reflection 

Homelessness (Cardboard Citizens)

 https://youtu.be/8J8gKD-G_RE

HIV (Ron Athey)

https://vimeo.com/47239842 

Questions/ provocations 

What is the best model of citizenship for positive social change? Is there such thing as a ‘best’/ is the combination of models a better way forward? 

What kinds of ‘everyday resistance’ are performed by the oppressed in 2016?