The Algebra of Arundhati’s Injudiciousness

#117, Jang,
Dilip Kumar aka Joseph Kahn, received the Paki awards for movies that he made prior to 1965 - when the ban went in effect. :)

I feel an article denouncing Dilip Kumar AKA Yusuf Khan accepting a paki award is in order. Dilip Kumar should have not accepted an award form a sarkar on the grouds that the same sarkar bans films which are made by the industry he represented, wink-wink piracy notwithstanding.

okay - but why ``algebra``?
thanks for your response.

#114 by

---

...

---

Operation ``Infinite Justice`` was the original name of pperation ``Enduring Freedom``, the war against terrorism in afghanistan...that is, before dubya gave in to muslim whining about ``allah being the only entity capable of dispensing infinite justice`` or something like that..

Can someone please explain the meaning of the title of the book

``algebra of infinite justice``

I have read the book and essays as columns in magazines and papers. But somehow, I am unable to decipher the message the title of the book wants to convey. And I am yet to find anyone who can explain the title to me (this includes eng.lit, languages/linguistic, sociology, political.sc. types). I wonder if Roy herself can explain this without recourse to hyperbole and shrilloutpourings.

And this is the book for which she got the award.....

Can someone please explain the meaning of the title of the book

``algebra of infinite justice``

I have read the book and essays as columns in magazines and papers. But somehow, I am unable to decipher the message the title of the book wants to convey. And I am yet to find anyone who can explain the title to me (this includes eng.lit, languages/linguistic, sociology, political.sc. types). I wonder if Roy herself can explain this without recourse to hyperbole and shrilloutpourings.

And this is the book for which she got the award.....

URL doesn`t open in firefox if you have noscript..

Goddess of very small things

By H.Y. Sharada Prasad



Rejecting honours is becoming a kind of fashion statement. Arundhati Roy has just declined the Sahitya Akademi’s award and sent off an open letter to the Akademi’s chairman explaining why she is saying ``no, thanks.`` In recent years a musician and an author returned the Republic Day honours that the President had conferred upon them. Before such honours are announced, it is the practice to inform the intended person and secure his or her consent. Evidently, all these persons had indicated their acceptance but later changed their minds. The reason must be that they realised that refusal would get them more publicity and fan-following than acceptance would.

In her short career as a celebrity, Arundhati Roy has built up an enviable reputation as a champion of human rights. She has been alert and eloquent in her criticism of misuse of governmental power both within the country and on the international scene. Villagers who are ousted from their homes to make way for river valley projects, urban slum dwellers, and victims of communalists’ brutality and policemen’s ire, can be sure that she will speak up for them. For their part governments treat her as an unwanted meddler.

There certainly is great need in our country for a Girl Zola who will speak up forcefully for those who are wronged. But quite a few people will regret that the young author who showed such promise in her first novel has not come up with another book worthy of her talents. It is sad indeed that The God of Small Things has not been followed by bigger things. The literary gift demands much cultivation. Merely by writing a lot one does not learn to write well. A writer can be an agitator. But agitation does not necessarily teach you the craft. Slogan shouting might strengthen the lungs and the voice but it will not make you a singer.

Perhaps the Booker Prize itself is responsible for Arundhati Roy’s plight. All those photographs, interviews, and feature articles in newspapers and on television, all that lionisation, must have been a little too much, and made the young woman believe she was a prophetess and seer.

A writer need not emulate the silkworm which retreats into its own cocoon, but he must find time for contemplation. He must learn how to separate the private and the public. The trouble with Arundhati Roy has been that she has allowed the private voice of the author to be drowned in the loud accents of the public agitator.

A literary prize is given generally to a work of fiction, poetry, or drama. Occasionally critical and philosophical works are also chosen for the award. The essay, which is a well-recognised genre, is also a candidate. It is for their essays and philosophical reflections that Bertrand Russell and Henri Bergson got the Nobel Prize. It is a delusion to think that Arundhati Roy’s writings on public controversies can be ranked as literary essays worthy of honour. They are no more than pamphleteering. It was wrong of the Sahitya Akademi to have chosen them for the Award in the first place. As if it is not enough to have erred, the Akademi has been slapped in the face by the very person they wanted to honour.

Arundhati Roy declares that she will not accept an honour which has been financed by a government whose hands are dipped in the blood of innocent Maoists and the rebels of Manipur. Has she ever paused to find out where the money for the Booker Prize, which made her a celebrity overnight, came from? It is well known that Booker was a Guyanese adventurer who made his money partly through exploiting sugarcane workers and partly through smuggling. Is it more ethical to accept such a prize and less ethical to accept a prize instituted from the taxes paid by the people of one’s own country?

The Indian government’s record on human rights and its support to the policies followed by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are the ostensible grounds for Arundhati Roy’s rebuff, have nothing to do with the grant to the Sahitya Akademi. As she herself concedes in her communication to the chairman of the Akademi, she has high regard for its officials, as well as for the committees which choose the awardees. In doing so, she seems to admit that the Akademi is autonomous in its decisions.

H.Y. Sharada Prasad was adviser to Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi

Frankly THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS was a very hyped book .Its was a media frenzy that started when the book was released ,with AR interviewed on every channel.

I was disappointed when I actually read the book.Its think it was very much overvalued and so is AR.


Rejection is another of her publicity stunt...it would have been better to accept the award from an institution like the SAHITYA AKADEMI which through goverment sponsered is ferociously autonomous .

An Algebra of infinite justice is just leftist bashing of all capitalist values and what america stands for.However the BOOKER is very much a British award( a strong U.S ally) so by the same logic accepting the award was endorsing that government`s policy.

I remember that OCTAVIO PAZ was uncertain in accepting the NOBEL PRIZE ,he met anandamayi devi who told him that rejecting the award was `` giving importance to himself as well as the award`` .she advised him to accept the award in indifference.Ultimately OP accepted the award.

AR accepting the award would have done the same

Question: does anybody know why Arundhati Roy is upset at Indian Nuclear Sarkar?

...... may be she is mad because her Indian Sarkari Damsel furiously gyrating her hips to attaract Uncle Sam`s attention finally succeeded with her hips -- in landing a 10 year nuclear concubinage contract -- with the new lothario on the block Uncle Bush...

........but I am sure for no fault of the Indian Sahitya Sarkar....

now this is called in vernacular -- Khet khai Gudhaa maar khai Jolaha......(with profound apologies to the weaver families please).....

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060130&fname=Booksc&sid=1
Bibiofile
``It`s not the first time that a writer has turned down a Sahitya Akademi award (it`s the sixth time, in fact) but Arundhati Roy`s rejection is rankling the Akademi for other reasons. Having struggled for years to maintain their independence from the government even while surviving on funds provided by it, Arundhati`s bracketing of the institution with the government`s policies is raising hackles. The five others who spurned the award did it for a variety of reasons: Gujarati novelist Suresh Joshi claimed he`d been awarded for the wrong book; Jayant Kothari said he`d got it too late in his life. A letter has gone forth therefore to ask Arundhati to reconsider her decision on the grounds that the Akademi and the government are two different animals, and reminding her of the two or three occasions when it had roused itself from its usual languor to protest against a government decision.

It`s odd how a process of selecting literary awards that has been in place for over half a century, and which takes almost a year to decide the prize-winners, is so... sarkari. The list (you can`t possibly call it a shortlist) is drawn up at least a year ahead of the announcement, only getting longer as it goes from selection panel to advisory panel to jury. Among the nine or ten names that figured in this year`s list included Ram Guha (An Anthropologist Among the Marxists and Other Essays), Githa Hariharan (In Times of Siege), Shashi Tharoor (Riot), Ruchir Joshi (The Last Jet Engine Laugh), Makarand Paranjape (Used Book), Tanika Sarkar (Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation: Community, Religion and Cultural Nationalism) and Imtiaz Dharker (I Speak for the Devil). It was Imtiaz who won until someone realised too late that she wasn`t an Indian citizen.

When Khushwant Singh described his relationship with publisher Oxford University Press as ``marrying a grand duchess—the honour is more than the pleasure``, the audience at the launch of his Illustrated History of Sikhs was naturally very amused. Is that how Arundhati felt about getting the Sahitya Akademi award?``

#84 Farzana Versey
On side note:-
And, grey zone is just hazy and fogy. Ultimately, grey zone dissolves, and we are compelled to see, what is wrong or right. So, grey zone is just a delusion, nothing else.

#84 Farzana Vesey
That is exactly the validation of FV`s writting skills that even though I was never aware of who Arundhati Roy was? FV gave me a clear picture of the whole scenerio through this very well wirtten article. Only, through this article , i was able to analyse this interesting situation. Thank you, Miss Versey.


Farzana Versey
Well said, but, remember there is right or wrong, most of the time. Either you are right , or, you`re wrong or you are in grey zone, not, to be labelled any. Though your article proves Arundhati Roy`s decision totally wrong with validation based on morality, principles and vanity. But, your personal admiration for the writer doesn`t let you label her wrong or right. When you are inspired by someone, you have hard time to see the very same person doing or deciding something, which is apparently wrong. You are not ready to accept it. Even though you clearly stated in your article, your mind is accepting it,but, your heart is rejecting it. That is where we grey zone starts when your heart(emotions) do not match with your mind.
Thank you for your point of view.

#103 - do you have any original comments? Only cut and paste.

It is totally up to Ms. Arundhati Roy to accept or decline awards that come her way for whatever reason or reasons she might have. IMHO it is irrelevant to discuss whether she SHOULD have done what she did or whether she was right or wrong. We can agree to disagree with her and debate issues that she brings up by her refusal, but that`s about it. We shouldn`t imply reasons on her behalf which she hasn`t explicitly stated. And we definitely should not psycho-analyze and point to motives that she may or may not have for refusing the award.

Most people vehemently disagree with her politics. Hence they tend to take her decision personally and then inevitably launch personal attacks on her. It is quite ironical. She is reviled by so many, when most of her work revolves around fighting on behalf of the disenfranchised (even if there is a foreign/NGO sponsored agenda behind it as so many people here are quick to imply).

I think there are two kinds of people in this world. Those like Ms. Roy who actually DO something to right the wrongs, and then those like me and others, who are just content in INTERACTING about it here on chowk.

Didn`t the Akademy notify Ms. Roy apriori of their decision to bestow an award upon her? I wonder why she hadn`t said no then.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/olds

---

Open Letter to Laura Bush
by SHARON OLDS

[from the October 10, 2005 issue]

For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at New York University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival`s White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War (``Mr. Feiffer Regrets,`` November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year`s event consider following their example.--The Editors

Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House

Dear Mrs. Bush,

I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.

In one way, it`s a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.

And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women`s prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.

When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person`s unique story and song.

So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country--with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made ``at the top`` and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.

I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war.

But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.

What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting ``extraordinary rendition``: flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.

So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.

Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS