Tehelka – a magazine I admire – so much so that it’s the only magazine I bother to read. The rest seem so shallow. But last week I came across their cover story on the phantom reader. (link)
It starts with “Our survey finds that Indians read books not for pleasure but for self-advancement. Given our writers, can we blame them, asks GAURAV JAIN” (link)
What’s wrong with that? I see nothing wrong. It is not for us to question why someone is reading. I might even propose that most of us do not even know why are reading. I am purely happy to note that we are. Some where in his essay I got lost in the maze of his words. I am sure what he wrote was amazing, it’s only that I got a bit lost. I might not be the representative of the top of the pyramid, but I am surely not at the bottom. It took some immense concentration for me to catch a few of his words.
Sample this “But reading contemporary Indian writers in English leaves you with a feeling that there remain stubborn layers of butter paper between their prose and the actual life they’re trying to describe. It is really a problem of foggy realism. They remain too mannered and fey to excite their verbal life with an original voice, to drive language hard, to mint indigenous metaphors, and provide little catharsis or pleasure to the reader. Aiming for vividness, they stop short at vivaciousness. Worse, the weaker ones sink into preciousness, petulance, grogginess”
Sometimes I wonder if some of us sit on top of the elite pyramid and pass too many moralistic judgements. If the guy is reading, just let him be. In my classes I have always held the view that people must read… anything is ok. Find your genre and read. I typically don’t like fiction, but that doesn’t make me wonder why my wife wants reads Chetan Bhagat. She reads her magazines, does that mean she reads as a lesser mortal. Just read. It’s ok.
Read this para – again I think the writer is on a plane, a hot air balloon perhaps.
“there are consequences for a culture where writers keep vomiting out family and wedding sagas. TEHELKA’s English book readership survey found that what Indian readers seek most in books is a kind of newspaper – their top reasons for reading are self-education, improving their English and gaining knowledge and data. The Indian reader is, above all else, functional in his approach. For him, a book is just another lifestyle accessory — a mobile phone for the mind (emphasis mine) — and he likewise decides how it might be paisa vasool. The likes of Paulo Coelhos and Robin Sharmas provide him mental balm for a life of material tensions. There is no problem with reading for inspiration, aspiration or improving skills – it’s with having such a pedestrian threshold for exaltation and language. The cost of these simplistic books’ popularity is a thinning of imagination and public debate”
I am happy that peopel read. thats it. Nothing more nothing less.
But Tehelka being Tehelka will get other writers in and have a wide variety of views.
Turning the page I got some pearls of wisdom – here is from Amitava Kumar (link) –
“I HAVE little taste for those readers, or writers for that matter, who want to be pundits. When you meet a person like that you realise that he nurses a secret ambition to be described as someone who has read everything. This kind of reader will always try to sound knowledgeable, moral, balanced, and always, very reasonable. Such a reader will never parade his or her prejudices.
Can you imagine a mind like that? That mind would appear to me like a clean, well-scrubbed pot, very large in size, of course, but also quite empty of anything real. I’d rather sit down for hours with a dented spoon.
I’m not celebrating simple-mindedness or ignorance here. I’m talking about honesty. Of course, one runs a grave risk in calling for a degree of comfort with a lack of knowledge or expertise. Have you looked at the readers’ reviews — though review is exactly the wrong word here — posted on Amazon? You quickly realise from looking at them that the parading of prejudice is an ugly act. The display of any kind of stupidity usually is.”
And the best one - from Arun Mani (link) – “If there is one thing that is cause for some celebration it is Chetan Bhagat having topped the readership surveys …….. This outbreak of maturity is not to be sneezed at. Those who eventually tire of Bhagat will stay and look for narratives that allow them to ask more searching questions of the wisdom that they receive. If that happens, the day may yet be won for reading.”
I agree with both of them. Completely.
For the record as a marketing person I have some huge problems with the survey and the quantification etc etc (link here). The last para should give you a clue - METHODOLOGY: A survey conducted by Ipsos Indica for TEHELKA in nine cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Chandigarh, Shillong, Kolkata, Thiruvananthapuram and Ahmedabad). Sample size: 1,152 people. The respondents were interviewed outside leading bookstores. Apart from this, in-depth discussions were conducted with readers, book reviewers and bookstore owners.
Did you get the clue? If not, forget it – it does not matter. The survey is only good enough to give you a smallish insight in the mind of a yuppie reader. Don’t look for deep searing insights into reading habits of India
Here is an interesting Q&A with Ram Advani (read it here) – “My job is to interact with them and a small bookseller can do that which is a big advantage. You come across a man who is so shabbily dressed you wonder what he is doing in the shop but the way he looks at a book, the way he browses tells me that the man is serious. If a man is waiting to meet his girlfriend he looks at a book differently and sometimes the most unlikely character will show an interest in a subject like gender studies say. These are the joys.”
And also the last word by R Sriram who quotes from Chris Anderson – “Many of our assumptions of popular taste are actually artefacts of poor supply and demand matching – a market response to inefficient distribution.”
Just for kicks I close from the last line from Gaurav's essay "Meanwhile, someone explain to our utilitarian compatriots that if they don’t learn to risk and empathise, how will they be sly?" - I did not understand line this at all.
Showing posts with label tehelka. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tehelka. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Friday, March 13, 2009
Moderate
We don’t appreciate the plurality allowed in our lives. I am tired of listening to Gandhi Nehru bashing over these many years. People argue without a clear understanding of either history or politics and without a remote inkling of the situation prevalent at the time. A complete waste of breath and brain time. I prefer silence in these situations.
Here is an extract from a Tehelka interview with Mani Shankar Aiyar. Of course it’s only a view point but it’s a view point that is informed and cannot be brushed aside. We give too little credit for the freedom we have. I hear of many ideas asking for a totalitarian regime in India. As I heard Nandan Nilekani say – ‘while totalitarian regimes could give you a miracle like China it could also give you a Zimbabwe.’ Democracy might be slower to rapid change but it also protects you from really horrific consequences. The question to be asked internally is the actually how much risk you are willing to take for the promised land. Another brilliant example of this can be experienced in the amazing Guy Delisle graphic novel ‘Pyongyang’ which vividly brings alive the life in North Korea.
Well here’s the extract of the interview.
Q. Why are our neighbours — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — prone to such convulsions? Why are they more precarious democracies than India?
A. The answer to this lies in the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru — who was Prime Minister for the first 17 crucial years of our upbringing as a modern nation — was dedicated to five very important principles of nation-building that our neighbours have not been equally committed to. The first of these is the idea of plurality and secularism. Under Nehru’s stewardship, India has, almost uniquely in the world, not only expressed its nationhood as a belief in diversity, but a celebration of it. Unity in diversity is the great subcontinental truth we all have to live with, if we want to survive as a democracy. It is not merely an ideal; it is pragmatic. All our neighbours who are in trouble are nations that have deviated from this to express nationhood in dangerously exclusivist ways.
The second thing is, Nehru was not only committed to the concept of democracy, but also to building the institutions of democracy. That bulwark has almost never been changed in our existence as a nation in 62 years. In Pakistan — under Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan — there was the same dedication to democracy, but their stewardship did not last as long, and their institutions were far less robust. So, despite an aching yearning for democracy among Pakistanis, they missed the bus by not having a Nehru among their midst in their formative years. The same thing happened in Bang - ladesh. At the beginning, there wasn’t the same commitment to building democratic institutions; soon after, with the brutal coup in 1975 when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were killed, whatever had been built up was brushed aside.
Sri Lanka’s record of democratic institutions was far superior to India. So why did they fail? With Solomon Bandar - anaike’s victory in 1956, Sri Lanka jettisoned the secular ethos with which it had fought its freedom movement and opted for sectarianism and an exclusivist Sinhala identity. Over the last 30 years, Sri Lanka has suffered such a setback because of this, it is almost impossible to remember that Sri Lanka was once poised to be the Singapore of this region.
Finally, the other Nehruvian principle that has kept our democracy robust is Nehru’s commitment to a ‘socialistic pattern of society’. He accepted the Gandhian ethic that the purpose of the state‘s economic policy was welfare of the poor. In Pakistan, on the other hand, there was a blatant and blanket adoption of the capitalist model. In 1965, it was the secondmost industrialised country in Asia, after Japan. But this was concentrated in the hands of 22 feudal families and the notorious ‘303’ — the civil servants in collusion with these families. All of this came crashing down when Ayub Khan undertook his coup. The other factor in the instability Pakistan faces today is the fact that they also happily allied themselves to the Americans. Pakistan was also founded on the principle that religion constitutes nationality. This is an almost untenable premise. If being a Muslim makes you belong to Pakistan, then why is there a border between Muslim Afghanistan and Muslim Iran? And why would some of its most bitter disputes have been with its Muslim neighbours? Religion is a very poor basis for organising a nation. For all these reasons, these nation states did not become as strong in absorbing the buffeting that all nation-building involves. But while we may be stronger and more stable than our neighbours today, we have to remember that the same potential for stability and democracy exists in our neighbours. And if we move away from these ideals of plurality and secularism, we have the same potential for being torn apart.
--------------------------------------------
It is true there are many lessons to learn form this but yet we choose to forget them and take the radical way out. Today’s newspapers had a headline that certain community leaders (kutchi wagad) decided to ensure that marriage happens only within the community. I cannot for one understand why they do this. Jasmine is a Kutchi (different sub catse from one above) and I am a Gujarati. Our family is enriched by the cross culture pollination (albeit small, as we are quite culturally close). And not just immediate families, even the distant families are enriched; may it be in simple stuff like new recipes to try out. Jispa is definitely better off exposed to more culture than less. Close minded radicals are ruining their own race. Modern day Nazis!
When the attack on crickets in Pakistan happened it was easy to blame a community as a breeding ground for radicals. But there are radicals all around us, in all communities. In times like this I fight forces in my head from being a conservative. It is tough being a moderate in face of immediate flare ups but moderate I must be.
Definition: In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between two viewpoints, neither to be extreme or radical by those applying the term. The word "moderate" can also be used as an adjective describing such a position. Read on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate
While reading Mani Shankar, I was also reminded about another thing I once read. This was in relation to Pakistan’s tryst with capitalism. Disclaimer: do not use this in isolation to be an anti capitalist, but just as a case for more balance. It will also give you idea on why the world financial system finds it where it is.
In the 1930s and '40s, General Motors, the Firestone Tire Company, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Standard Oil of California--all operating through a front company called National City Lines (NCL)--bought up dozens of local mass-transit systems that were operating the popular electric streetcars. Their plan was to control virtually all the leading mass-transit systems in America, and replace electric trolleys with smoky, gas-guzzling buses. In many cases, these trolley transit companies had previously been financially looted by their financier owners and fallen into disrepair, which only made them easier targets for acquisition. Once NCL purchased the trolley lines with "borrowed" money from GM and others, the tracks were torn up and the trolleys sold or destroyed, replaced by petroleum-powered GM buses running on tires and oil supplied by the NCL companies. Source - http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/archive/RJFall2006.html
Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do. Source - http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/speeches/antitrust.html
This is a study of the social consequences of monopoly. It shows that excessive economic concentration can restructure society for corporate ends. As an illustration, it focuses on three powerful automobile companies which eliminated competition among themselves, secured control over rival bus and rail industries, and then maximized profits by substituting cars and trucks for trains, streetcars, subways and buses. In short, it describes how General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reshaped American ground transportation to serve corporate wants instead of social needs. Source http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/American.htm
On another note I was surprised to know that when I typed promised land in word, it puts up a grammar correction, recommending to capitalize the initial alphabets.
Here is an extract from a Tehelka interview with Mani Shankar Aiyar. Of course it’s only a view point but it’s a view point that is informed and cannot be brushed aside. We give too little credit for the freedom we have. I hear of many ideas asking for a totalitarian regime in India. As I heard Nandan Nilekani say – ‘while totalitarian regimes could give you a miracle like China it could also give you a Zimbabwe.’ Democracy might be slower to rapid change but it also protects you from really horrific consequences. The question to be asked internally is the actually how much risk you are willing to take for the promised land. Another brilliant example of this can be experienced in the amazing Guy Delisle graphic novel ‘Pyongyang’ which vividly brings alive the life in North Korea.
Well here’s the extract of the interview.
Q. Why are our neighbours — Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — prone to such convulsions? Why are they more precarious democracies than India?
A. The answer to this lies in the fact that Jawaharlal Nehru — who was Prime Minister for the first 17 crucial years of our upbringing as a modern nation — was dedicated to five very important principles of nation-building that our neighbours have not been equally committed to. The first of these is the idea of plurality and secularism. Under Nehru’s stewardship, India has, almost uniquely in the world, not only expressed its nationhood as a belief in diversity, but a celebration of it. Unity in diversity is the great subcontinental truth we all have to live with, if we want to survive as a democracy. It is not merely an ideal; it is pragmatic. All our neighbours who are in trouble are nations that have deviated from this to express nationhood in dangerously exclusivist ways.
The second thing is, Nehru was not only committed to the concept of democracy, but also to building the institutions of democracy. That bulwark has almost never been changed in our existence as a nation in 62 years. In Pakistan — under Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan — there was the same dedication to democracy, but their stewardship did not last as long, and their institutions were far less robust. So, despite an aching yearning for democracy among Pakistanis, they missed the bus by not having a Nehru among their midst in their formative years. The same thing happened in Bang - ladesh. At the beginning, there wasn’t the same commitment to building democratic institutions; soon after, with the brutal coup in 1975 when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family were killed, whatever had been built up was brushed aside.
Sri Lanka’s record of democratic institutions was far superior to India. So why did they fail? With Solomon Bandar - anaike’s victory in 1956, Sri Lanka jettisoned the secular ethos with which it had fought its freedom movement and opted for sectarianism and an exclusivist Sinhala identity. Over the last 30 years, Sri Lanka has suffered such a setback because of this, it is almost impossible to remember that Sri Lanka was once poised to be the Singapore of this region.
Finally, the other Nehruvian principle that has kept our democracy robust is Nehru’s commitment to a ‘socialistic pattern of society’. He accepted the Gandhian ethic that the purpose of the state‘s economic policy was welfare of the poor. In Pakistan, on the other hand, there was a blatant and blanket adoption of the capitalist model. In 1965, it was the secondmost industrialised country in Asia, after Japan. But this was concentrated in the hands of 22 feudal families and the notorious ‘303’ — the civil servants in collusion with these families. All of this came crashing down when Ayub Khan undertook his coup. The other factor in the instability Pakistan faces today is the fact that they also happily allied themselves to the Americans. Pakistan was also founded on the principle that religion constitutes nationality. This is an almost untenable premise. If being a Muslim makes you belong to Pakistan, then why is there a border between Muslim Afghanistan and Muslim Iran? And why would some of its most bitter disputes have been with its Muslim neighbours? Religion is a very poor basis for organising a nation. For all these reasons, these nation states did not become as strong in absorbing the buffeting that all nation-building involves. But while we may be stronger and more stable than our neighbours today, we have to remember that the same potential for stability and democracy exists in our neighbours. And if we move away from these ideals of plurality and secularism, we have the same potential for being torn apart.
--------------------------------------------
It is true there are many lessons to learn form this but yet we choose to forget them and take the radical way out. Today’s newspapers had a headline that certain community leaders (kutchi wagad) decided to ensure that marriage happens only within the community. I cannot for one understand why they do this. Jasmine is a Kutchi (different sub catse from one above) and I am a Gujarati. Our family is enriched by the cross culture pollination (albeit small, as we are quite culturally close). And not just immediate families, even the distant families are enriched; may it be in simple stuff like new recipes to try out. Jispa is definitely better off exposed to more culture than less. Close minded radicals are ruining their own race. Modern day Nazis!
When the attack on crickets in Pakistan happened it was easy to blame a community as a breeding ground for radicals. But there are radicals all around us, in all communities. In times like this I fight forces in my head from being a conservative. It is tough being a moderate in face of immediate flare ups but moderate I must be.
Definition: In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between two viewpoints, neither to be extreme or radical by those applying the term. The word "moderate" can also be used as an adjective describing such a position. Read on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate
While reading Mani Shankar, I was also reminded about another thing I once read. This was in relation to Pakistan’s tryst with capitalism. Disclaimer: do not use this in isolation to be an anti capitalist, but just as a case for more balance. It will also give you idea on why the world financial system finds it where it is.
In the 1930s and '40s, General Motors, the Firestone Tire Company, Mack Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Standard Oil of California--all operating through a front company called National City Lines (NCL)--bought up dozens of local mass-transit systems that were operating the popular electric streetcars. Their plan was to control virtually all the leading mass-transit systems in America, and replace electric trolleys with smoky, gas-guzzling buses. In many cases, these trolley transit companies had previously been financially looted by their financier owners and fallen into disrepair, which only made them easier targets for acquisition. Once NCL purchased the trolley lines with "borrowed" money from GM and others, the tracks were torn up and the trolleys sold or destroyed, replaced by petroleum-powered GM buses running on tires and oil supplied by the NCL companies. Source - http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/archive/RJFall2006.html
Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do. Source - http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/speeches/antitrust.html
This is a study of the social consequences of monopoly. It shows that excessive economic concentration can restructure society for corporate ends. As an illustration, it focuses on three powerful automobile companies which eliminated competition among themselves, secured control over rival bus and rail industries, and then maximized profits by substituting cars and trucks for trains, streetcars, subways and buses. In short, it describes how General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reshaped American ground transportation to serve corporate wants instead of social needs. Source http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/American.htm
On another note I was surprised to know that when I typed promised land in word, it puts up a grammar correction, recommending to capitalize the initial alphabets.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
open your mind
Subscribing to the Tehelka magazine was one of the smart things that I might have done. They seem to be the only magazine of some substance and class left in India. It’s the only magazine I read. They seem to be the only ones willing to write what they believe in. I might not agree with some guys but I will always give credit to people with opinion that is researched and well thought. Tehelka is such a magazine. Many time I feel that they are irritatingly biased and wanting to raise huge movements against everyone. Its almost like the leftist student party that believes that everyone who is on the average richer or smarter has a skeleton in their cupboard which they desperately want to unearth. Possibly at all costs. Also they seem to be slowly selling their soul – I thought the cover on Aamir Khan was highly biased. They also started accepting advertorials in the name of Tehlka avenues. This is so irritating and crap. They must have ads for sure, but to cloak them in a way that looks like journalism is something that’s best reserved for the Bombay times, not Tehelka. And ya- I wish they change their name!
This time they had an issue dedicated to the government crackdown on SIMI. Good piece of reporting in the sense that they got their perspective right. Simply laying down the facts and case studies and letting the reader decide what is actually going on. It does help clarify through the mess of reporting that the mainstream is carrying mindlessly. Its almost in the genre of – confessions of an economic hit man. At the end you don’t know the real truth but know for sure that you must not trust everything thrown at you. It does help you see the opposite side as well. Balance…
Some outstanding stuff / quotes from a recent issue:-
Hermann Wilhelm Göring –Nazi party Leader -In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
My take - this is so similar in corporate life as well. The new guys will some and tell you that if this does not happen the consequences are bad / will be detrimental. X is the only way to do it. It’s an old scare the guy into believing approach. I have liked my company because of their practical approach. The new guy comes in and then wants to scare the old order. I hope I resist this movement. It’s difficult when the pacifist is called unpatriotic and accused of exposing the company to danger, but I hope to still call the spade a spade as I see it. Also I will hope to continue to build trust and happiness as opposed to building scare and danger.
In the times of Universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act – George Orwell
My take – Reminds me of boardrooms and large meetings where everyone is either lying or hiding the truth. I hope to say what I think is the truth. I really hope.
William Faulkner – prejudice is shown to be most destructive when it’s internalized
My take – life’s big lesson. It’s correct. I fight every day every moment not to internalize prejudice. It is truly most destructive when internalized.
This time they had an issue dedicated to the government crackdown on SIMI. Good piece of reporting in the sense that they got their perspective right. Simply laying down the facts and case studies and letting the reader decide what is actually going on. It does help clarify through the mess of reporting that the mainstream is carrying mindlessly. Its almost in the genre of – confessions of an economic hit man. At the end you don’t know the real truth but know for sure that you must not trust everything thrown at you. It does help you see the opposite side as well. Balance…
Some outstanding stuff / quotes from a recent issue:-
Hermann Wilhelm Göring –Nazi party Leader -In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
My take - this is so similar in corporate life as well. The new guys will some and tell you that if this does not happen the consequences are bad / will be detrimental. X is the only way to do it. It’s an old scare the guy into believing approach. I have liked my company because of their practical approach. The new guy comes in and then wants to scare the old order. I hope I resist this movement. It’s difficult when the pacifist is called unpatriotic and accused of exposing the company to danger, but I hope to still call the spade a spade as I see it. Also I will hope to continue to build trust and happiness as opposed to building scare and danger.
In the times of Universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act – George Orwell
My take – Reminds me of boardrooms and large meetings where everyone is either lying or hiding the truth. I hope to say what I think is the truth. I really hope.
William Faulkner – prejudice is shown to be most destructive when it’s internalized
My take – life’s big lesson. It’s correct. I fight every day every moment not to internalize prejudice. It is truly most destructive when internalized.
Friday, November 02, 2007
we the holocaust
Reading two distinctly separate mediums , talking about two separate incidents but having a common line can be quite disconcerting. Whatever. basically I was reading the fantastically crafted book (in a comic format) ‘Maus’ about the Jewish holocaust and at the same time was reading the expose by the magazine Tehelka on the Gujarat Riots. I am not here making judgments. I am sure whatever the consequence the cause is always strong in the persons mind, but some how it is unnerving that man can foster so much hatred. Tejpal is right in comparing both of them. Reading both is so weird. We have not learnt, we will continue to kill, we will continue to live selfishly, we will continue to believe in powers of above, we will continue to forget love. We will hate in the name of love. Wow.
But Jispa, read them together. Read them.
tehelka link - http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107Tarunspiece.asp
Maus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus
But Jispa, read them together. Read them.
tehelka link - http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107Tarunspiece.asp
Maus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)