Sunday 19th April 2026
Blog Page 896

St. Hugh’s drops Aung San Suu Kyi’s name from common room

0

St. Hugh’s JCR has voted to remove the name of its Junior Common Room, currently named after the controversial leader of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi.

In a meeting last week, the JCR resolved to remove the name of their common room. According to the motion, it would be a statement of “solidarity with the persecuted and oppressed minority of Myanmar”. The motion aimed to show students of the college “condemn crimes against humanity and Aung San Suu Kyi’s stance on this issue”.

The motion also mandated the JCR Committee to petition the Principal and other college officials to write an open letter of condemnation to Aung San Suu Kyi on behalf of the college.

The vote was in the form of an anonymous online ballot. The motion passed with 115 votes in favour of the motion, 45 votes against, and 11 abstentions.

Affnafee Rahman, the second year student who proposed the motion, told Cherwell: “The fact that Aung San Suu Kyi studied in this college… makes the Rohingya crisis far more relevant to the students of Hugh’s.”

According to Rahman, the passing of the motion means “that we, as concerned global citizens and promoters of peace have done some justice to our moral responsibility in standing up for the oppressed and those who don’t have a voice, and that for me is the most important thing”.

The motion was delayed following Sunday night’s JCR meeting. Several students felt that the highly important nature of the resolutions should be settled in an anonymous online ballot.

Elise Page, who seconded the JCR motion, said: “the symbolism of our condemnation has more weight,” given Aung San Suu Kyi studied at the college.

Recognising the meeting’s debate on the issue, they said: “Several members of the common room have pointed out that this is a complex issue – it is. What is not complicated is deciding whether human rights offences are wrong.

“We cannot sit by idle while the suffering continues. We must work with what we have namely, the prestige of an Oxford college, and one associated with Aung San Suu Kyi at that – to help those in need as much as we can.”

Aung San Suu Kyi, the State Counsellor and de facto leader of Myanmar, studied PPE at St. Hugh’s, graduating in 1967. She has received international condemnation for the Myanmar government’s treatment of its Rohingya minority.

The decision to rename the room follows the college’s earlier removal of an Aung San Suu Kyi portrait to in September. Last week, Oxford City Council concluded that it was “no longer appropriate” for Aung San Suu Kyi to hold Freedom of the City of Oxford.

The Myanmar leader has also been criticised by fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureates including current Oxford University student, Malala Yousafzai.

This condemnation extends from the view that Aung San Suu Kyi has been perceived as inactive in actively dealing with the severe humanitarian crisis in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

The UN described the atrocities being inflicted upon the Rohingya as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

Speaking about the consequences of the ballot passing, the JCR Secretary Curtis Crowley said: “JCR Committee will be going back to the JCR to seek further arguments and evidence for both sides before petitioning the principal and other college officials”.

He stressed the need for a “strong and well-evidenced case” to be put to college authorities, who have already responded to the crisis in Myanmar.

In a previously released official statement, the college stated that it “shares the grave international concern about the persistent ethnic violence towards, and treatment of, the Rohingya community,” and they “earnestly hope that Aung San Suu Kyi will do everything within her power to stop the violence and address the underlying issues as a matter of urgency”.

The JCR Committee will now work to have the College add a letter of condemnation to this statement.

‘Oslo’ Review – “a gripping political thriller straight off broadway”

0

On paper, J.T. Rogers’ Oslo sounds like the most bizarre of plays for the commercial stage. Centring on the Israeli-Arab conflict and the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, I thought it would be slow, and political in the worst of senses.

I was wrong. Bartlett Sher has directed the most fantastically attention-grabbing production I have seen at the National Theatre in a long while.

Those seeking a detailed exposition of the intricacies of the Peace Process and the contents of the Accords will be sourly disappointed. Rogers’ presents a deeply personal story set against the backdrop of the tale of two peoples – but it is only a backdrop.

The two protagonists are the relatively unknown sociologists from deepest Norway, who thought they had a new way to broker peace between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. From a castle in Oslo, Terje Rod-Larsen and Mona Juul – both played exquisitely by Toby Stephens and Lydia Leonard – set about trying to bring together representatives from the Israeli government and the PLO, to sit face-to-face and negotiate.

At the time, it was the first time that any Israeli official had negotiated with members of the PLO. Negotiating with the terrorist organisation was illegal. This element of the historical fabric of the play adds an extra layer of excitement and drama to Oslo. The intimate set, designed by Michael Yeargan, really makes the audience feel involved in the secret talks.

Even though the script is somewhat confused by some lines directed straight to the audience, I still felt as if I was both watching and participating in the Oslo discussions.

Despite the high diplomacy and the political intrigue, Oslo offers a number of moments of great comedy. Sitting somewhere between Yes, Prime Minister and House of Cards, Geraldine Alexander, as the housekeeper and cook at the Oslo residence, offers great comic relief. The unique approach of Larsen and Juul forced the parties to approach each other as equals and friends when they were not at the negotiating table.

These scenes are full of jokes and gags, allowing us multidimensional views of Philips Arditti’s Uri Savir (Director-General of the Israeli foreign ministry) and Peter Polycarpou’s Ahmed Qurie (PLO Finance Minister).

The multi-faceted set – an almost palatial room with plain walls – features stunning projections from 59 Productions. When Lydia Leonard’s character brings the audience up to date with current events in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, she is surrounded by images of the incidences as they unfold. The effect is a theatrical experience
which is truly immersive.

The play begins with the Jerusalem skyline projected across the stage; Oslo does not just transport us from London’s South Bank to a castle outside Oslo, but also to Israel, and eventually the White House. As can be expected from a play of such complexity, and one which tries to err on the side of political caution, I found myself leaving the theatre with more questions than answers.

I can’t help but question Rogers’ motives in writing Larsen and Juul’s story. The end of the play sees the characters tell us where they are now, in 2017: Larsen seems to be defending his actions as the only effective way to beginning the peace process, while Juul appears to criticise this.

Everyone in the audience knew of the terrorist attack in July on Israeli border guards on the Temple Mount and the ensuing crisis; in light of this development, it felt uneasy for Stephens’ character to be so gushing in his self-praise. Oslo chronicles a process started in 1992. Peace is not forthcoming.

Oslo is at the Harold Pinter Theatre from 2 October until 30 December.

Life Divided: JCR meetings

For JCR meetings

By Julia Routledge

The barons of 1215 cleaved to Magna Carta. The Convention Parliament presented a Bill of Rights to James II in 1689. The Victorians were propelled towards widespread suffrage by successive reform acts. And here in Oxford, we too have our own laudable democratic marker – the JCR meeting. “But it’s a pointless forum for pointless debate which belabours pointless issues!” I hear you clamour. “The one good thing about it is the free food.”

Not so – although, admittedly, the promise of Domino’s pizza and lukewarm beer does possess an astonishing power to lure even the most anti-democratic of students to convene on a Sunday evening.

But the JCR meeting is so much more than a beacon of light for an impoverished undergraduate deprived of sustenance for a full three hours since welfare tea.

For a start, where else would you be able to pore over such a diverse array of motions? Into the cauldron of the JCR meeting are sprinkled liberally all the different spices of college life. Motions range from the more serious questions about access and welfare to controversial disputes about the state of the JCR coffee machine, and one particularly memorably occasion at Merton, during which the purchase of an expensive brand of organic, ethically-sourced and vegan detergent elicited ferocious debate on both sides of the argument.

Such awe-inspiring moments are sure to go down in the annals of democracy. The JCR meeting is a humble creature. It does not aspire to greatness and never seeks to be anything it is not, but it is always reliable and there to offer refuge – and on a bleak winter’s evening, that might be exactly what you want.

Against JCR meetings

By Abby Ridsdill-Smith

It’s the Facebook posts which reel you in: repeated demands for quorum on the college noticeboard, desperate offers of increasingly extravagant free snacks and the latest hundred motions for the night to come.

Filled with a mysterious combination of fatigue, hunger and intrigue, you hit the JCR – and immediately realise the enormity of your mistake. It’s the smell which hits you first. There’s something unique about it: an unusual pairing of hot pizza, the occasionally cheeky beverage and that almost imperceptible undertone, the hidden fragrance of despair.

Emanating from the hollow-eyed committee members responsible for half these motions, it is only added to by the anguish which various thesps bring, as they continue to try to bolster drama funding.

If this experience could be worsened any further, you’re crammed in the JCR with every other person who’s decided that tonight is the night for a wild one (at the JCR meeting) while stuck to a slightly old and peeling chair. Most likely, your phone’s out of charge and you’re metres from the nearest available exit – that’s just how it works.

As for the motions themselves, do I need to tell you how boring they are?

By the time we’ve discussed the pros, cons, intricacies, constitutional amendments, images and best way to present the motion in the minutes (should colour be used? Comic Sans or Times New Roman?) then we’re already two hours into the meeting, with another 15 motions left.

It’s times like this when I really wish I hadn’t checked my Facebook: democracy is all well and good, but evenings of stale chat and pedantry don’t present it in its best form.

Confessions of a Drama Queen 3: the shame continues

0

By some divine miracle, I appear to be still alive and writing this column, having not died of shame after the OUDS Freshers Welcome Drinks, an event that I had feared was altogether too possible.

I have to say, when I was imagining what life would be like at Oxford, this is not quite what I had envisaged. I pictured wholesome intellectual discussions in front of the Rad Cam, romantic punts down the river Cherwell, perhaps a scandalous love affair with the future Prime Minister. I did not picture myself throwing up a bottle and a half of Chardonnay on to the deer park at Magdalen, or being told by the head of OUDS that “yes, we’ve thought of having gender blind auditions for Macbeth, and the reason you didn’t get the part had more to do with your abysmal stage presence than your genitalia”.

I have therefore decided to infiltrate the drama scene another way, by involving myself with theatre reviewing. I can think of no better outlet for my bitterness and jealousy than by writing a 500-word summary of a play that will air briefly online and be read by no-one.

I am thinking of applying to The Oxford Student, widely considered to be the university’s superior paper, because apparently Cherwell hasn’t published a negative theatre review in over six months, and the theatre editors seem to be completely useless. I have noticed that The Oxford Student seems to be begging people to write for it, and that its front page isn’t quite symmetrical, so I am hopeful that this endeavour will succeed. Plus, I have loads of experience in writing – I actually used to write Twilight fanfiction on the internet, so I don’t think the OxStu will be much of a step up in terms of intellectual challenge. Wish me luck with this new venture! Adieu, fair readers.

Five Minutes With: Charlotte Vickers, University Drama Officer

0

How did you get involved with drama at Oxford?

I came to Oxford knowing that I wanted to go into theatre professionally after I left, so I already knew that I wanted to get involved. I was at Pembroke, so I was lucky enough that there was a college musical every year – I added the director on Facebook had (what was then a very intimidating!) coffee with him, and joined as Assistant Director. I messaged as many people as Facebook would let me find, and then roped in all my friends to help me on the first play I directed: April Di Angelis’ Playhouse Creatures at the BT Studio. It all kind of snowballed from there.

How did you get into your current job?

The week before my finals this May, I was freaking out about the future and the UDO application deadline was looming. One night I got back home from the library after a long day of revision, and just decided to send off an application so I’d feel like I’d achieved something that day! After my finals were done, I was considering my options, and it seemed like a great way to make a difference to the system that had helped me so much. And now here we are.

What’s your happiest memory of drama at Oxford?

That’s a tough one. There was a really special moment on The Last Five Years (which I directed at the Pilch), in rehearsals, and we had one rehearsal in which we finally had a break-through with the central scene. Everything around it fell into place, it was pretty magical!

What’s your favourite play?

My absolute favourite play is Tony Kushner’s Angels In America.

How would you want to stage it if you had to put it on at Oxford?

Actually, I wouldn’t. It’s too huge and would be too expensive. I think someone put on Millennium Approaches a few years ago, and it lost a ridiculous amount of money. If I had another chance to put something on as a student at Oxford, I’d do The Winter’s Tale at the Keble O’Reilly, with something of a Star Wars twist. Perhaps it’s best that I won’t get that chance.

Who’s your inspiration?

So many people! I love Emma Rice, I think her attitude and unflinching optimism are incredible, particularly given how difficult a time she’s had recently. My favourite director is Marianne Elliott, whose shows all push boundaries and make me think about how weird it is to be human. Closer to home, friends who inspire me are Lucy Hayes (current OUDS president), Ellie Keele (ex-University drama officer), and Helena Jackson (ex-OUDS president). They push me to be a better artist and a better person.

Do you have any advice for freshers who might want to get involved in the Oxford drama scene?

Go watch things! And follow the cast and crew to the pub afterwards.

‘Hair’ at The Vaults review – as raunchy and relevant as ever

0

When Hair was first released off-Broadway in 1967, the self-proclaimed “American Tribal Love-Rock Musical” was instantly a cult classic, revered for its Bohemian presentation of hippie counterculture and progressive attitude to race, gender and sexuality. Despite the significant legislative change that has occurred over the past half-century, the opening allusions to Trumpian rhetoric over a crackling radio declaring the Vietnam War highlight that, on the 50th anniversary of this landmark musical, the points made are as poignant and relevant as ever.

The premise of Hair is fairly simple; a tribe of young hippies living in outer-city New York immerse themselves in a lifestyle of sex and drugs in a bid to forget about the conservative society that awaits them in the real world. The ultimate story arch, which comes slightly out of nowhere but nonetheless makes a poignant focal point for the second half, concerns Claude, one of the tribe, who must decide whether to stick to his pacifist principles and resist the draft calling him up to serve in the Vietnam War, or assuage the social pressure from his conservative parents and broader society, demanding him to fight.

The plot may not be complex, but then again, you don’t watch Hair for its storyline. You watch Hair because this joyous celebration of an infamous counterculture sings of progress, change, and ultimately hope, and it is impossible to leave the theatre without feeling inspired.

While some of the raunchier content – such as the infamous nude scene at the end of the first act – might seem slightly less shocking to us today, director Jonathan O’Boyle doesn’t shy away from making some bold decisions to emphasise the sexuality that pulsates throughout the play. From Berger giving a member of the audience a lap dance at the beginning of the first half, to the imaginative use of props, and the fact that a performance has been scheduled in which the audience, as well as the cast, are naked – these decisions, that could come off as gratuitous shock factor, really feed into the general sense we get of a primal celebration of human interaction and the human body.

It is the cast who really bring to life this joyous celebration, adding vivacity to the drug-induced mayhem in a way that makes the escapism seem welcoming, rather than inaccessible. Particularly strong is Andy Coxon, recently very good in Yank!, who struts the stage like a quasi-Jesus on acid, giving a voice to the tribe that confidently articulates the fluidity of sexuality and gender that came to be one of Hair’s most defining characteristics. While the actors seem, at times, too old to really be high-school age drop-outs, their blind optimism and naivety certainly seems convincing.

The moment when Berger tries to convince Claude to rip up his conscription papers, imploring him that they have an alternative –  “let’s just stay high forever” – is a poignant representation of the paradox they inhabit, in a world that is defined by both hope and a tragic self-deception. We, the audience, know that this microcosmic bubble is one that could burst at any minute, but the cast manage to combine this knowledge of reality with an endearing, if blind, optimism.

Ultimately though, what elevates a medium script and a strong cast to an outstanding piece of art is the intricacy of the production. Set designer Maeve Black’s ability to transform a shabby venue in the heart of Waterloo into a shrine to the summer of love, adorned with posters, hanging ribbons and surprising immersive features, has produced the finest set I have ever witnessed, wholeheartedly contributing to the communal feel of the piece, as well as celebrating the LGBTQ movement through an inventive rainbow colour scheme. As the embargo on photographs perhaps intimates, the magic of the production lies in the living experience – it truly has to be seen to be believed.

This is not to say that Hair is without its flaws – any show that was intended for a particular socio-political climate is going to have a few teething errors for an audience whose worldview is fifty years down the line. While the progressive message may have resurfaced adeptly, some of the humour feels a little dated – such as when we laugh at Jeanie over the confused paternity of her baby, in a moment that really should just be sad.

At times, as well, the message of Hair seems slightly confused. The paradoxical combination of the tribe’s hope for change, but also naïve hopelessness, is best manifested in the division between the green world of the tribe, and the real world of the audience and the adult figures in the play. This is implicitly emphasised from the off – as the audience take their seats, the tribe are already on stage, their backs symbolically turned away from us to create their own circle.

The interactions with characters from urban civilisation are also jarring; instead of offering a defiant voice of resistance, the tribe just seem slightly deluded as to their own position and propensity to continue resisting authority. Instead of viewing the tribe as rebellious leaders of a powerful movement, we are reminded that ultimately, they are just teenagers, who have simply sneaked off to the woods to smoke pot.

Overall, however, the presentation of the green world, in all its Dionysian primordiality, is an achievement that supersedes the few flaws in how the production has aged. While we might not believe in the longevity of this counterculture, we can still appreciate the voice of hope that it offers. One is reminded slightly of Mark Rylance’s defiant, but ultimately hopeless, concluding monologue at the end of Jez Butterworth’s Jerusalem.

Perhaps the final five minutes of the play are the most representative of exactly why Hair is still so powerful. The penultimate scene, in which Claude’s decision becomes apparent to the audience, is so discordantly real in contrast to the previous ethereality of the drug-induced choreography that the audience is aghast at how such a tonal shift can be achieved with merely a change of outfit.

The response from the tribe – who invite the audience on to the stage, bringing people together in song and shattering the restraints of convention – really constitutes a three-minute testament to the unbridled power of community. This optimistic final image is a representative hallmark of a play that is in equal parts hopeful, inspiring and pioneering.

Hair is playing at The Vaults, London, until Sunday 3rd December.

The Oxford Revue: The Best of the Fringe review – it left me in stitches

0

The Oxford Revue: The Best of the Fringe promised to leave me in stitches and, while my abdominal muscles are not in pain from excessive laughter this morning, I must commend each and every act for their flair, wit and ability to deliver fast-paced, fully-charged performances with so little onstage time to make the most of. Fresh from their run at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, this cast of comedians, sketch-show enthusiasts, magicians and almost everything in-between provided the spice of life which is variety; the audience, kept on their toes for around one hour, appeared engrossed in each new snippet of the show and several performers were able to avoid the all-too-typical awkwardness of audience interaction by pre-arranging fortune cookies taped under certain seats and incorporating the audience into sketches rather than simply using them as a gap-filler.

Elaine Robertson might be described as the anchor of the show, an anchor who also provided much of the show’s comedy. In fact, I often found myself looking forward to her reappearance as her witty, low-key stand-up comedy felt natural, effortless and off-the-cuff.

First to take to the stage was comedian John Rayner, whose initial awkwardness soon evolved into endearing charm and eased the audience into their first taste of what was to come: a very understated stand-up act which was unapologetically personal. Although Rayner opened with a ‘ready-made’ gag about porn and the Chanel adverts, most of the laugh-out-loud moments were down to his impersonations which were, again, neither too rehearsed or too try-hard, but casual and thus unexpectedly poignant.

Verity Babbs’ sketch show followed and, while I enjoyed and admired her vigour, energy and quirkiness, I feel less could have been more in this particular part of the show. It seemed to delight in the absence of punchlines but in reality, left the audience slightly in the lurch, awkwardly left somewhere between wanting to laugh and not quite knowing why.

Magician extraordinaire Will Bearcroft really stole the show for me and not simply because of his ‘tricks’. At its core, his performance was sharp and the witty repartee between him and audience members proved his improvisation skills as he balanced the roles of comedian and magician.

Last to take to the stage was Olley Matthews who certainly appeared to be an audience favourite. His gentler, guitar-wielding approach to stand-up was original, charming and skilful even if it did tickle the audience’s funny bone rather than providing a laugh-a-minute.

Overall, The Oxford Revue: The Best of the Fringe was an entertaining evening that promised, and provided, ‘something for everyone’.

The Ripieno Players Beethoven Piano Concerto review – a particularly impressive performance

0

On Saturday of 1st week, I travelled to the unfamiliar setting of St. Mary’s Church. Having been used to classical performances in the more intimate location of college chapels, I was surprised by the warm architecture, larger auditorium and more importantly, the packed-out audience. The program boasted two particularly impressive pieces of music totalling nearly two hours in length – all the more impressive as they are both technically difficult pieces to play.

What was clear from the beginning of the Beethoven was the strength of the string section. Led by Emma Lisney, the first violins convincingly carried the melody and in rare instances, the entire orchestra. When there were mistakes, the conductor, Joe Davies, was so effective at bringing the orchestra back together that unless one actually knew the Beethoven well- would struggle to identify any actual errors.

George Needham, the soloist for the Beethoven truly shone out as the star of the show. Beethoven’s Third is known for its difficulty, yet Needham managed to excite the audience with his controlled style of play. What’s more, he overcame the common issue that usually plagues University level soloists: that of staying in time with both the Conductor and by extension, the orchestra. It is particularly commendable that Needham was so attuned to an orchestra that I can only imagine had a limited number of full rehearsals due to the early Michaelmas date.

Joe Davies, who I know primarily as a singer, also managed to put on an impressive performance. He is no fresher to conducting and has in fact conducted various successful events in Oxford over the last academic year, including being in charge of the Oxford University Chorus. With this performance, perhaps his most ambitious, I was particularly astonished by his ability to maintain a steady and strong performance through two complex pieces with a larger than usual orchestra and his conducting of the entire Mahler symphony from memory.

Contrasting to the Beethoven, the Mahler was a far more lyrical piece of music in which the story of a child’s view of heaven is depicted. The orchestra fortuitously projected the image of excitement and naivety which is often associated with young children. Despite its difficult polyphonic melody, the orchestra were able to work together, forming a pleasurable performance to listen to.

What makes Mahler’s 4th Symphony special is the inclusion of a Soprano soloist in the fourth movement. Sofia’s beautiful voice over the top of a well warmed up orchestra carried an air of extravagance – much needed to bring the symphony to a close. Her timing was impeccable and her rich vocal tone blended perfectly with the orchestra. At points I felt her voice didn’t carry enough – probably to do with my badly positioned seat and the large concert hall – but there were certainly moments where I felt that she was unfairly overpowered by the Orchestra.

Overall, a strong performance- especially considering the limited time the Orchestra would have had together to practise. I look forward to whatever Davies, and the rest of the performers, will bring us next!

How traditional craftsmanship meets modern aesthetics on Pakistani trucks

0

Set amongst the luscious Sarban hills of Northern Pakistan, Abbottabad attracts virtually no foreign travellers. Ever since 2011, when Osama Bin Laden was shot and killed here, the town’s name has become synonymous with terrorism.

However, just a few minutes from Bin Laden’s old abode lies an unexpected dusty courtyard, teeming with artisans. Sitting cross-legged on a stool in its center, a moustachioed miniature painter applies the final touches to his painting of Pakistani cricketer and politician, Imran Khan. Beside him lies an engine fastened onto a colossal wooden skeleton, like some Mad Max monstrosity. To the left, a scruffy carpenter chips away at a sheet of scented deodar wood, humming along to a scratchy radio pop song. This is the hotbed of a new art form sweeping Pakistan: the Abbottabad Truck Depot.

It is common for trucks across South Asia to be decorated in elaborate ways – but in Pakistan, the art has undergone a true renaissance. Almost every truck in the country is embellished with a dazzling array of paintings, calligraphy, stickers, and delicately carved wooden panels. As Richard Covington writes: “All across Pakistan, this rolling folk art has turned village lanes, city streets and long-distance highways into a national gallery without walls, a free-form, kaleidoscopic exhibition in perpetual motion”.

Artisans have been decorating tonga carts for aristocracy since the height of the British Raj, yet truck art as it exists today began during the violence following the British departure from India.

After the partition of a Muslim majority Pakistan from a Hindu majority India, over ten million people were displaced, and three million more brutally killed. It was against this bloody backdrop that Haji Hussain – a court painter from Gujarat – fled to Pakistan to start his life over as a refugee. Given the lack of work for someone of his disposition, Haji was forced into the trucking business in Karachi – where he began decorating vehicles for a small fee. Business grew rapidly and this emerging art form begun a rejuvenation.

Today, Karachi remains the epicentre of the industry, but an estimated 50,000 independent artisans populate three specifi cally devoted districts. Many former court artists followed in Haji’s wake to innovate the trucking industry, after courtly and folk traditions fell prey to modernisation in the early years of the 20th century and truck decoration offered a form of salvation.

As a result, truck design is often regional and varies drastically from state to state. Whereas the red trucks from Sindh sport floral patterns of camel-bone inlay, trucks from Peshawar and the North-West Frontier are known for their intricately carved wooden panelling and calligraphy. Hence truckers can usually identify where another is from, simply from the design of his vehicle.

Despite this regional variation, the designing process is more or less the same across the country. Given the lack of safety restrictions in Pakistan, artisans have free range in what the truck should look like.

Having consulted a patron about which design their vehicle will follow, an imported truck is stripped down to its machinery, and craftsmen set loose in building, sticking and tinkering with the exterior. Finally, images of home and poems about travel, spiritual longing, and unrequited love are painted around the frame of the vehicle.

Owners spend fortunes on decoration. As Richard Covington revealed in a recent essay on the phenomena “a decent paint job costs $500 to $1,000 – perhaps more… Body decoration and repair can easily run an extra $2,000. All told, a basic painting and body job adds up to a minimum of $2,500, equivalent to two years of the average truck driver’s salary”.

By the time the whole process is completed, costs can run as high as $13,000: a colossal amount in a country such as Pakistan. Indeed whilst talking to the truck drivers in Abbottabad, one revealed that on average he would spend 80% of his income on decorating his ride and only 20% on his family.

“Truckers don’t even spend so much money on their own houses,” marvelled Durriya Kazi, head of the Department of Visual Studies at the University of Karachi. “We [Pakistanis] have an irresistible tendency to decorate everything  from lowly tape cassette players to brides to trucks. It’s all part of our need to intensify experience.” However, such is the absurdity of the industry that the expense is almost always worth it. The more lavish a truck’s decoration, the more jobs it is likely to run and an undecorated truck is likely to receive little to no business.

More recently, truck art has been at the centre of many Pakistani diplomatic efforts. In September 2013, truck art was featured prominently in the Hindu Durga Puja festival in neighbouring India as a gesture of peace. This year also saw Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, become the first western leader to be portrayed in truck art.

An article from Outlook Pakistan proudly writes: “There is no doubt that Pakistanis have a special place in their heart towards the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who is a lively person with a friendly attitude towards cultural diversity.

“He has always been doing something that makes Pakistanis feel him as their very own… [be it his] love for Biryani or his expertise in Bhangra dancing.”

Pakistan is not a place that is known for art, yet the country’s raging obsession with truck décor has led to an absurd and brilliant fusion of modern aesthetic tastes and traditional workmanship. Even in the most dangerous corners of the country, trucks have become unlikely bastions of the arts helping to employ many thousands of artisans from any and all backgrounds.

It is an industry that continues to evolve, and the spiritual figures that dominated imagery in the ‘50s have been joined by Lollywood film stars and hippie-era psychedelia. With a stable future affirmed by its absurd economic necessity, truck art is rolling on.

Despite a media storm, Balliol JCR remains united

The passing of a motion that prohibited the banning of official Balliol religious societies from attending the freshers’ fair received an enormous amount of media attention, making headlines in national newspapers, and even getting picked up by Breitbart. It was disappointing to see the way in which the issue had been presented: as a malicious and authoritarian JCR committee attacking a religious society on the grounds that they were a harmful presence. We were particularly saddened to see respected and good-willed committee members—friends to many in Balliol—vilified by certain outlets. We would like to take this opportunity to stand with those friends, to give a more accurate account of what happened, and to better understand the outcome of that meeting.

As proponents of the motion, we were keen to acknowledge that committee members have an incredibly difficult job to do—often having to make decisions within a limited period of time, that need to take into account the interests of a diverse student body. In this particular case, those difficulties were exacerbated by the raising of this issue outside of term time. While the committee might have reached a decision which we disagreed with, we acknowledge that all committee members were acting with goodwill, and with the wellbeing of fellow students at the forefront of their minds.

As such, we did not bring the motion in order to point fingers or lay blame. We stand by those JCR committee officials as fellow members of our community, who selflessly sacrifice time and energy to making Balliol the most inclusive and welcoming place it can be.

In this instance, however, we believe that the wrong decision was taken. We did not think that the decision to ban the Balliol Christian Union from the freshers’ fair reflected the JCR’s commitment to non-discrimination of students based on religious belief, and saw that unintended harm had been inflicted on members of our community.

Representing the best interests of students whom one has been elected to serve can be a challenging task, especially if those students are a marginalised or under-represented group, whose very existence as such makes their welfare a matter of particular importance and sensitivity. It is clear that committee members were trying to do just that, but in this instance got that judgement wrong, and by doing so risked setting a dangerous precedent and causing harm to students.

The ensuing discussion that took place at the General Meeting on Sunday was not only civil and respectful, but positive, constructive, and full of hope. Great efforts were made to ensure that the conversation remained policy-focussed, revolving around what precedent we wanted to set for the future—in this case one that values the religious identity of Balliol students, and respects their freedom to express that identity. There was no animosity towards those who were responsible for the decision. An important element of respect for an individual is the acceptance that they make mistakes, and that those mistakes should be forgiven.

Perhaps the principle reason for that lack of animosity is because the meeting was not used as a venue in which students made personal attacks on one another. It was understood by all present that the way to resolve the issue and make positive progress was not to conduct a trial and dredge up individual actions as evidence against the guilty, but rather to engage in dialogue, make genuine efforts to understand the point of view of others, and find the expansive common ground that we share as members of one community. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that the issue was handled in the media in almost exactly the opposite way. Journalists will be journalists, and we must forgive that of them, but it was striking for us to see the schism between the nature of the discussion we had here at Balliol, and the nature of the discussion that it provoked in the columns and comments of some online newspapers.

We would like to thank all of those who took part in the discussion, listening with patience and speaking with compassion. We were particularly pleased to accept an amendment that aims to promote further religious diversity and tolerance in the future. Active steps will be taken to encourage the widest possible range of different religious groups and societies at freshers’ fairs in years to come, each one being treated with equality and respect.

Of course Balliol isn’t always a complete paradise, and this certainly won’t be the last controversial issue that we deal with. But in our minds the discussion that was undertaken at last Sunday’s general meeting typifies the tolerant and understanding environment that Balliol students create and sustain for one another, and we are all proud to be part of that community.

We hope that people beyond Balliol can understand this not just as a controversy, but also as an example of the importance of open and respectful dialogue in the face of difficult issues. While we were unhappy with the original decision of the committee, we have been nothing but impressed with the way they were willing to engage afterwards, with a genuine desire to make Balliol a better place.