Midnight's Knights?

Will someone ask these two mutkas to stop wiggling their cut and pastes so a real discussion can take place? Enough! You`ve already spammed the board for two pages; either write something new or get the hell off.

Sac,
Actually I agree, Padma is quite lovely and trailblazer in her own right.

AAmir: #32 & # 33

Thanks for the posts.

What an illiterate and crooked fellow is he--this Naipal. No wonder the english-knowing illiterates fawn over him. They see their own image. I am amazed how much these Saint-this and Taint-that school byproducts consider their skimmimg as `education`. What do the gecko & the iguana know. They are illiterates..they know only english.

The CHACHNAAMA example you gave is certainly hilarious and sad at the same time. I truly believe that the time has come to give the guys from the missionary and/or english-medium `classy` schools the exposure they deserve and create an atmosphere, at least in pakistan, that that they get the humiliation and contempt they so desperately need.
(Can anyone name a SINGLE learned person these schools have produced over the last 150 years both in India and Pakistan? Holding well-paid jobs & positions is no achievement & not learning. THat is Brahmanism)

THis part from your post deserve an encore:


The story is more unbelievable than even a devilish fairytale. It`s the story of Chach -- a brahmin ascetic, and his rapid climb to the pinnacle. From scribe to secretary to chamberlain to Prime Minister in the King`s court. The later Chach -- the usurper of the queen`s attention, then her love and lastly kingship. Cunning Chach kills the king`s brother, heir to the throne. Now, over to the second generation. Dahar, the son of Chach, who enjoys an incestuous marriage with his younger sister. And in between these ancient saucy `n spicy brahmin romances comes the story of islamic invasions. At least in Naipaul`s version. And he is worried that these stories have not come in the school syllabus of the children. What does he wish? To teach children about illicit love and incest. To teach them about debauchery and hypocrisy. Worse, he has plainly not mentioned the woes of the oppressed caste majorities during these periods of brahmin tyranny. Or the glaring truth that the buddhist majority and oppressed castes converted willingly to islam to escape their sufferings. Or that Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sind to release the muslim women who were held hostage in a captured ship. Even this has been chronicled in the Chachnama. Naipaul indulges in the same selective history for which he decries Pakistani school textbooks. Why these double standards? His book on islam reflects more about Naipaul than about islam: his rampant hatred. His inherent bias. An intolerant hindu`s vain crusade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So bigots should not be allowed to right? What about artists and sportsmen who are racist? Remember brouhaha caused by john rocker’s comment on the no 7 train. What about barenboim playing wagner in israel? What about Nietzsche and jews?

Why fear light-weight intellectuals like rushdie and naipul? People who take these guys seriously are simpletons who should be pitied rather than feared. In fact messers rushdie, naipul et al deserve a word of gratitude for forcing a much needed debate in muslim societies on how to confront dissent. Clearly methods adapted such as blasphemy laws only empower local versions of hate mongers like falwell and advani. Besides, we now have to get used to living in a world where public opinion will be influenced by the likes of fox, al jazeerah and zee tv

19:hamidm2

Oh so that is the reason I see them in a stampede to become the hookers of the Booker?

And is that any justification for the most wretched & vile slaves-by-choice
in Desilands acting farangi-like and Bollywoodish.

O baighairto ubb kaissay upnee jeans ko paak aur pavittar karogay?

Abdul is doing fine. He gives jobs and charity to the fuquraas from Starvistaan and Baighairatistaan. Where else the MAs, PhDs, Doctors, Lawyers , Lit-Lechers work as security guards, parking lots attendants, waiters, and ESl teachers?--in FarangiLands, where else. No one produces literature about such experiences because back-home evryone is content that the progeny will at least get the accent and will then be able to lookdown upon the local dhoteevalla (who happens to be much more wealthy but has none of farangi stealth) and appear somewhat intelligent & knowledgeable. It is these kinds, the Gecko & the Iguana kind, who must be bulldozed. And I have good news! They ARE being bulldozed. Do you not hear the crackling of their bloated skins? The right-wingers ( because they are always right), everywhere, are making inroads in every sphere of life. Hell, they are putting even some leftie-commie atheists to a good use. This is called intelligence & cleverness. This is not funny, it is no joke, this not a laughing matter---you who, will soon be history, heed it and govern yourself accordingly.

Hell I personally know Brahmins cleaning toiletes so that their ofspring when visiting India be presented to have mastered the accent and not utter a single word in hindi.

The greatest `honour` for an Indi/Paki parent is , when someone remarks : `` You do not look like you are from India`` or even better: ``You child looks like that of an englishman---bilkul angraiz kaa buchha lagtaa hai``.

Do not delude yourself. Chinese are respected and Indi-Pakis are despised by non-slaves---and there are good reasons to do so.

One of them is that they despise themselves: their looks, their language, their food , their traditions, their families. They despise and look-upon themselves so much that even the farangi, with a masters` outlook, finds it difficult to reach such height (or depth).

Only if the poor fellow knew.

Saminashah #23: I`ll have to agree with you and others who noticed clear indignation by the author towards Naipaul and Rushdie. Obviously it is more of a critique of everything except their forte - literature. Unfortunately among desis disagreeing, disliking and detesting have become overlapped or inseparable due to black and white rights and wrongs.
It is not easy to generalize expectations from South Asian diaspora. However, one thing least affordable for diaspora is the vicious and vendictive attitude with respect to outsides of narrowly confined nationalism and religion. The F_K and gulab jamans of this world are fiercely against adopting either local culture or pride in regional mother cultures. In fact, diaspora is increasingly adopting local culture as well as aligning with cultural heritage. India, Pakistan, Islam, Hinduism for diaspora is declining and Gujrati, Tamil, Bengali, Panjabi etc is rising. The adoptioin of this trend is due to the benign nature of these cultures from political, religious and international point of view as well as rightly identifying with particular cultures. There is no Indian or Pakistani culture without bringing religions and politics in between.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ms. Versey,
You are even angrier than Naipaul and whatshisface. Why all people angry! angry! angry! Not good. So, no get angry at Nepal and Rushie. At least these two make money getting angry at muslim, indian, everybody. You just get angry on chowk and not get paid. So not get angry. Pliz!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Stuka #11: ``So I ask you again. If this is one of the analysis that you have read, please enlighten me...exactly what is being analyzed here? ``

OK. I will enlighten you. Assuming, I am not reading too much into the analysis presented by Farzana.

No one can doubt the writing skills of Rushdie. He is no doubt a genius. A bad book by Rushdie is better than a good book by most writers. I have read his work thoroughly. Shame was the first book I read by a South Asian writer, and have since been hooked on South Asian writers like Roy, Shamsie, Hamid, Lahari, Mistry etc. etc.

I read Satanic Verses immediately after it was published. Then I read the analyses of all the writers critiquing it. I couldn`t find a single critic who, at least in my opinion, got the gist of the book.

Most of the people making noise in the, ``East`` had never read the book. They were just angry because someone had told them what was in the book. Ironically, I felt no one in the West could understand it either, even though they had read it. Rushdie mixes East and West so much, that very few Westerners can get the nuances of his work. For example, how many goras reading the Satanic Verses can understand the name Saladin Chamcha (chamcha being a slang South Asian term)? And how many goras can know what the terms four-twenty or sisterf//ker translate into. etc?

I read the book again. And eventually came to the conclusion that the few chapters in which Rushdie had created controversy were factless. He didn`t use any history to make a claim. It would be like someone disorienting Hinduism, with completely factless writings. Why would a knowledgeable person like Rushdie write something like this?

Once the controversy had caught on and Rushdie had become a household name (i.e. mission accomplished - the common non-literature reading person knows of him because of the Satanic Verses controversy, not because of Shame, M Children, G B Her Feet etc.), he started to explain his point of view. I started following his views closely. This was before he went into hiding. His logic was that there was an internal struggle within him - a fight between his religion of birth and what he may have wanted to be, i.e. athiesm vs Islam. And he portrayed that by deforming Islamic history, i.e. what could have been, what may have been, but without any facts to prove it. And without worrying about the sensitivities of one billion people. Ironically, saying Tom Cruise is gay can result in a lawsuit. So can stating that a shampoo will get rid of dandruff when it can`t. but making factless statements about Muhammad, Jesus, etc. is, ``freedom of speech.``

The Western press jumped on it and he became a symbol for the, ``freedom of press`` crowd. And now everyone, even outside the literary circles, knows who he is. He is not only a writer, he is considered an Islamic reformer, an activist, a symbol for freedom of press etc. When the only thing he is is someone who can write beautiful English - nothing more, nothing less.

This is why I liked this article. I don`t think the authors` aim was to say that Rushdie is a bad writer. Her aim was to get at the motivations of Rushdie and point out the inconsistencies in them (unless I am reading too much into it). This is something very few people see when they critique Rushdie. I see it, and anyone else who sees it, at least in my opinion, is carrying out a very good analyses.

The author concentrates on Rushdie using his Indian heritage to sell books. I think Rushdie has used his religion (in one big shot) to sell books (I am not sure how much he has used his ethnic heritage - he is a fellow Kashmiri by the way and does speak out about Kashmiri human rights).

This is what I have a huge issue with. People who create factless controversy (factfull is fine), and that too around anyone`s religion, to gain popularity and sell books should not be considered reformers. Rushdie is in no way an Islamic refomer (the controversies he has created have lead to nothing more than deaths). And just like Larry Flint`s Hustler magazine`s, ``freedom of speech`` stance is nothing more than selling dirty pictures, similarly Rushdie`s controversies are nothing more than selling books. At least in my opinion.

Naipul, I haven`t read much. So I cannot comment. He is probably also brilliant. Will have to start reading him.

Anyways, writers of Rushdies` calibre should not need to rely on factless controversies to become more famous than Mistry, Roy, Lahari etc. They should leave such controversies to people like Taslima Nasrin.

Can`t add anything to what t and hamidm have said already. Nadira is not a *trophy* wife. A lovely woman(with even a lovelier daughter from a previous marriage), she used to write fairly regularly in newspapers with a wit and charm that was both refreshing and insightful.

Padma has also accomplished far and beyond what most cookie-cutter Indian bimbos have in recent years. Women being women have a hard time with the unconventional amongst them........

later
-sac

gz

``Ever wonder why they do not mete out this treatment to the Chinese? Because the Chinese do not giveup their language and culture! ``

......... i hate to point this out but the chinese living in the us are as westernized as their anglo neighbours - half of them name their kids larry and the other half peter ............ of course there is michael chang, michele kwan and connie chung, to name a few exceptions .........the only think chinese about them is that they can use chopsticks better than most white americans ......... and if you go to shanghai or guangzhou you might be disappointed to see that all chinese dress like the farangis and even think like farangis ........ the only person who still insists on running around in a nightshirt with a towel on his head is abdul .............abdul loves his camel and his culture ..............

Romair #1

It is hilarious to watch Romair proclaim this piece a work of `analysis`.

{`Controversy, that cannot be backed by facts, should be discouraged, never encouraged.`}

If you don`t like Rushdie, you have plenty of options as someone living in an open society. You can refuse to publish him, if publishing is your line. You can write and publish a critique of his work - or not publish it if you think that will give him undue publicity. You can refuse to read or buy his books, and urge others to do likewise. In short, you can use all legal means to make his future works sink without trace.

{`I haven`t read much of Naipaul`}

Naipaul`s first two books on India produced a storm of criticism and adverse comment in that country, precisely because he spoke some uincomfortable truths. Even today they still make depressing reading. Had Naipaul only written `An Area of Darkness` and `India: a Wounded Civilization`, he would be right up there in Romair`s pantheon along with such dubious characters as Eric Margolis and William Baker, lauded for his brilliant observations and penetrating insights on India. But the man had the gall, the bad taste, the infernal chutzpah to turn his pitiless gaze on Pakistan among other countries in `Among the Believers` and `Beyond Belief` while producing a more optimistic if still critical assessment of India in `India: A Million Mutinies Now`. That is why he has to be cast out into the outer darkness

{Highlighting and respecting and even protecting (a la Roy) one`s heritage is a great quality.}

Another entirely predictable move: trying to shift the spotlight from Naipaul and Rushdie onto Arundhati Roy - an unabashed publicity-seeker if ever there was one, whose parade of `facts` turns out to be quite dubious on closer inspection. Let Roy say something really critical of the Pakistani establishment and watch Romair pirouette on a dime.