Midnight's Knights?

Very nice.

One of the best analysis I have ever read on Chowk.

I will take people like Arundhati Roy over people like Rushdie anyday (I haven`t read much of Naipul).

Rushdie, no doubt a brilliant writer, has tried to cash in too much on factually incorrect, self-serving controversy. He is like the mullah who gains political recoginition by making threatening statements about the West. He is the Fazl-ur-Rahman of the English literary circle.

Controversy, that cannot be backed by facts, should be discouraged, never encouraged. Yet the press and media thrive on controversy. Two middle of the road individuals trying to factually discuss history will never gain the advertisers` attention that a Rushdie and a Fazl will get by launching controversial missiles at each other.

Highlighting and respecting and even protecting (a la Roy) one`s heritage is a great quality. Using one`s heritage to sell books (rather than using one`s own writing ability and facts) is terrible. It is a sell-out.

But it works.

After all how many people, outside the those who follow English literature, know who Yann Mantel is? How many know much about Rohinton Mistry? Yet everyone knows Salman Rushdie - a writer who has done nothing more than the above two gentlemen, i.e. been nominated for or won a Booker. Why do so many more everyday people know him?

Because he marketed himself better......

Farzana Versey:

How many of the children, of Indi-Pak parents, born outside India & Pakistan give a hoot about the the Gecko & the Iguana. One can almost date the writers who do not let go of the two stupids of the Saint-this & Taint-that crummy `educational` system.

What else do you expect from these Mcaulays` bastards. Please ignore the low-class broomhandlers. Leave their dirty work to the wretched progressives.

Muslims children born & bred in US, Europe and Canada have not been tainted by the colonial curse. They do not consider english-language `faarin-language` and attach not undue glamour to it.

Snap out of it----you bright muslim woman.

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

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

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

FV,
Your entire article operates under the assumption that Naipaul and Rushdie are dying to be ``accepted`` as Indian while the truth is neither of them gives a sh*t
What the hell are you so angry about always?
Chill girl!

Romair:

``One of the best analysis I have ever read on Chowk.

I will take people like Arundhati Roy over people like Rushdie anyday (I haven`t read much of Naipul). ``

Analysis of what??? The authors` personalities? I have read through the whole article twice, and there is no mention of either person`s works. Please read A House for Mr Biswas to discover the depth of Naipaul`s story telling skills.

I have not read Satanic Verses, but I have read Shame and Midnight`s Children. Rushdie has an incessant capability of fusing fact and fiction, random occurences of real life in his plot to weave a wonderful story. My personal favourite is how he weaved the real life Nanavati murder case into the plot of Midnight`s Children.

When Farzana says these two authors belong to the streets, what exactly is she alluding to? Why exactly are they knaves? Because they are bad writers? Or because they choose not to be resident in a country that they comment about? If it is the former, then Farzana presents no examples of literal degradation. If it is the latter, then is just a case of geographical parochialism to assume that if a person does not live in a country, he or she cannot or should not have the right to pass comment on it.

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?

GhalibZaman a.k.a King Canute

Which country are you sitting in? What language are you writing in? Whose technology are you typing on? Whose free society are you ranting against in?

Just wondering

-h-

GhalibZaman a.k.a King Canute

Which country are you sitting in? What language are you writing in? Whose technology are you typing on? Whose free society are you ranting against in?

Just wondering

-h-

Romair

You really make me laugh.

If Arundhati Roy was a Pakistani you would be grinding your teeth over her credentials and motivations.

One of the funniest things I saw in the last year was a photograph of Arundhati Roy being fawned over by your Pimp-Daddy, Hamid ``the Ghoul`` Gul, at one of her readings in Pakistan. Now I like Arundhati Roy, but the idea of this pacifist liberal being coopted by this ultra right wing Islamic extremist and Taliban midwife was hilarious. He was literally doing pooja at her feet.

Does anybody else see the irony and humour in this?

Chomsky, Roy and all these secular liberal writers being fawned over by right wing illiberal illiterates whose estimation of the writer rises in proportion to their fair minded criticism of their own hate targets? When it validates their own prejudices?

You cannot blame them for it. When the Mullahs of Bradford decided to hunt down Rushdie I was in Wales once when a racist skinhead decided to bait me by mentioning how great a writer Rushdie was (thinking I was Muslim, remember, all dark skinned people = Muslims in westerners minds these days)...thats right, Rushdie the anti-racist liberal became temporarily a poster boy for the far right in Britain.

You cannot blame them.

Plus Arundhati has written only one (albeit good) novel so why is everybody saying she is a great writer? Build a body of work first.

Notice how Roy sends some Indians apoplectic and Rushdie has the same effect on some Pakistanis (have a quick laugh at Romairs post below).

I think its very funny.

Naipaul is a different matter. He is a man who succumbed to the heart of darkness. Will write more on him later. I think he does deserve close inspection.

Bye Bye

-h-

Hi Farzana.

I agree with some of your contentions, and think that others are extraordinarily facile.

I will get back to you later on this!

take care

-h-

Farzana.

Really enjoyed reading this; can`t help agree with what you`re saying. I`ve read a few of Naipaul`s essays (India: A Wounded Civilisation) and while he`s an impressive writer, it`s all too clear that he has very little respect for the people he`s writing about.

re: Naipaul and Rushdie
Naipaul is arrogant. But the guy is a brilliant writer. People who are in the literature business tolerate him because of his brilliance. He has used India to explore and exploit. Explore his roots and exploit the conditions of misery to write some good books. An Area of Darkness comes easily to mind. Few in India have heard about him. Few care to read his books.
I hold Rushdie in greater esteem. He seems to be more balanced and is not such a reculse as Naipaul is. I have not read even one of Rushdie`s books so i do not know how he writes vis-a-vis Naipaul. I am told his books are a difficult read.
India seems to beckon them both. They visit the country when they have run out of ideas. India is a kaleidoscope of imagery. A keen observant like Naipaul can write dozens of books on India alone. Rushdies also seems to have some political connections and a property tucked in somewhere in the North. Their knowledge of India,however, is pathetic.
Sridhar

Ferz:

interesting comparisons though not fair…

…not fair because one knight is a spent force while the other is far from it…

…not fair because while old war horse is over-rated and the younger stallion has yet to produce his best work…

…in these days of instaliving we are erroneously groomed in the expectations of instant gratification…;)…along with instant coffee, fast food, slow g/b friends, instant gratification is the altar by default…

...and what is common between naipaul and rush(ingto)die is they are both very adept at selling the sizzle…(the first kalima of ad-business: sell the sizzle, not the steak!)


digression:

…karachi and later bombay’s v g desani lacked in marketing himself…or he would be leading the pack of writers…the other one trick pony arundathi roy seems to have learned from desani…but as a writer we have difficulty reading her tea leaves…

digression:

…found this very focused and driven…lean…no fat…some very good observations and lines…

bspnd,

…t

10:Harpreet

Looks like you have imbibed their `education` well. Congratulations! Now your slaves back home(India) can really claim freedom. If for you back-home is England then pat yourself well. You are one Indian-Sikh who has become an Englishman. One must give up the turban, food, and language , and mannerism to morph into `them`. But `they` still do not consider you an englishman. Remember, you will always be a blackie, brownie, wheatie or Indi to them . Why? Because they ENSLAVED you ,gave you their language. Ever wonder why they do not mete out this treatment to the Chinese? Because the Chinese do not giveup their language and culture! Even during the HongKong `slave`-days. Those who do not resolutely stick to their roots and degrade their ancestral ways & kick themselves to look-like Indian/Hindu should never expect any respect even from racists.

.........................................................................................................

Who the hell was King Canute? No muslim is enamoured by magnafarta either.

Please get over this language-technology rant-----it still doesn`t make you ``them``. Further proof of an enslaved mind.

(Would you make this technology-language slavegrunt to a Francophone in France or Quebec writing against the miserable-anglophones and in english ? What about Chinese, Germans or ANY of language-proud countries. None of them let the colonisers` bastards run their affairs. )

This englo-struck (language & cultural) enemy among us has to be removed and by his enemy`s arsenal as well. How can you talk to the ignoramuses otherwise.

Worry not I,m not english to be so stupid as to try to stop the waves. I and Others make waves..and tides and Tidal Waves. Time to take cover.

Could you have guessed the collapse of the leftie-progressive Soviet Union so soon?

Do you see practising muslims near any beach counting the waves ? You should find out where they are and what are they doing so that even you, a non-muslim, can recover some of your lost pride and dignity.

...haha...here we go again...poor little farceanna throwing a hissy fit and ranting in a poorly written piece laden with little more than emotion and anger...

.... as far as i am concerned both rushdie and naipaul are darn good writers and that is all i expect from them ....... i don`t give a flip about their opinions on india or the ozone layer .........i have read both ``a bend in the river`` and ``shame`` twice - so i got my money`s worth and that`s all that matters ..........

............ like most brilliant people these two are probably very sick individuals who would make lousy neighbors and friends .......... but who cares as long as they don`t move in next door? ............. and why should we worry about what kind of relationship they have with the women they hang out with - what does that have to do with buying a book ............woody alan is brilliant as was truman capote ........ who cares if they dress up in pantyhose and go whale hunting in their spare time ............ as for ms. roy with her silly shorn hair, she needs to write at least one more book before she can claim to be a writer ............ and as much as i hate the horrible hindoos her incessant whining makes me sick ..............

FV,

I do disagree with some of your contentions:

1. ``the classicalisation of pop`` begs a definition that I look forward to reading

2. that this piece focuses on the inconsistancies of these writers` lives and not on their work. Both Hamid and Harp rightly pointed out that both Rushdie and Naipaul are prodigiously talented; if I dislike a great deal of Naipaul`s work, I cannot deny that the Enigma of Arrival is brilliant; neither can I deny Shame, Midnight`s Children, East/West. If this is a discussion of the South Asian diasporic writer`s life, perhaps there should be a criteria established, but I suspect that its not possible to satisfy everyone`s ideal diasporic writer.

3. What are our expectations of the South Asian diasporic writer as a writer and a human being? What as readers are we asking them to render? Do our expectations and references as Indian/Pakistani/Kashmiri/Nepali/Bhutani/Bangla and hypen South Asians overlap? How and where? Can we agree on where and how?

4. Are desi diasporic writers different than African/Latin American?Asian/Arab/Native American/Russian diasporic writers?

5. What are the dialogues that need to happen between writers in the motherlands and writers of exile? My contention is that there are profound issues that need to be discussed on an ongoing basis.

rgds

FV,

I do disagree with some of your contentions:

1. ``the classicalisation of pop`` begs a definition that I look forward to reading

2. that this piece focuses on the inconsistancies of these writers` lives and not on their work. Both Hamid and Harp rightly pointed out that both Rushdie and Naipaul are prodigiously talented; if I dislike a great deal of Naipaul`s work, I cannot deny that the Enigma of Arrival is brilliant; neither can I deny Shame, Midnight`s Children, East/West. If this is a discussion of the South Asian diasporic writer`s life, perhaps there should be a criteria established, but I suspect that its not possible to satisfy everyone`s ideal diasporic writer.

3. What are our expectations of the South Asian diasporic writer as a writer and a human being? What as readers are we asking them to render? Do our expectations and references as Indian/Pakistani/Kashmiri/Nepali/Bhutani/Bangla and hypen South Asians overlap? How and where? Can we agree on where and how?

4. Are desi diasporic writers different than African/Latin American?Asian/Arab/Native American/Russian diasporic writers?

5. What are the dialogues that need to happen between writers in the motherlands and writers of exile? My contention is that there are profound issues that need to be discussed on an ongoing basis.

rgds

Naipaul`s India A Million Mutinies Now is his only book which I have so far attempted to read. It contains a lot of detail about India in the mid 90s which I am grateful for, because such detail is hard to come by in one place, esp by a writer who IMO, got to the heart of the matter in his descriptions, despite not being a resident Indian.

Additionally, I think it was Naipaul who made the remark that expats of Indian origin have an uneasy feeling of estrangement from India which they(like himself) find hard to throw off even generations later and that this sense of estrangement was due to the Indian tendency to `sanctify` their connection with the soil/land. I was grateful for that astute observation, which explained a bit of myself to me(and my involuntary urge to seek out visible signs of the American Indian past in modern/industrialized US which has lost a similar sacred sense of connection since the Indians disappeared) and why there is now a Trinidadeshwar temple in Trinidad, for instance.

Rushdie won a court case about an ancestoral house in Simla, I think which he now owns. I hope he appreciates, inspite of thinking of himself as an outsider that was Britain and the Western world that stood up for him in the difficult years, not India or Pakistan.

A few years ago he made an illconsidered remark about how there was no significant Indian writing in any language but English. This remark raised a storm in India, as well as at home which led me to subscribe to the Sahitya Akademi literary periodical(which publishes translations of writers in many Indian languages) for 2-3 years just to prove how wrong he was. Kabhi hum Rushdie ko, kabhi un back issues ko dekthe hain.

Writers can be brilliant and insightful at times and not at all, at other times. I don`t think writers are meant to be digested whole, either in their writings or in their personalities.

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.

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 ..............

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

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.

=== 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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Sameer,

You bring up an extremely important aspect to these issues; the role of political/social/ethnic/religious identities and his/herstories. How does one decide if one voice is valid? Arent all of them?

Also, How many voices exist in a text? Do we assume that the writer`s voice dominates the discourse? In truly satisfying and unnerving work, there is a decentralization of the writer`s voice; all the implicit voices exist within that text. When I read Rushdie for example, or even some of Naipaul`s earlier work, there is always dissonance, cacophonies, the narrator being upstaged by events, people, histories around him. It has not been my impression that Rushdie has ever considered his rendering of an event the final word in the manner that lesser writers mercurial in their control of their characters, plot, themes have.

Sameer,

You bring up an extremely important aspect to these issues; the role of political/social/ethnic/religious identities and his/herstories. How does one decide if one voice is valid? Arent all of them?

Also, How many voices exist in a text? Do we assume that the writer`s voice dominates the discourse? In truly satisfying and unnerving work, there is a decentralization of the writer`s voice; all the implicit voices exist within that text. When I read Rushdie for example, or even some of Naipaul`s earlier work, there is always dissonance, cacophonies, the narrator being upstaged by events, people, histories around him. It has not been my impression that Rushdie has ever considered his rendering of an event the final word in the manner that lesser writers mercurial in their control of their characters, plot, themes have.

re:#29 by GhalibZaman
Since you are a Pakistani, you may speak for your community. Do not drag Indians into this. May be Pakis in US have a bad self-image. With INS squeezing their balls recently, this is not surprising. But India celebrates its culture, language, food etc at every possible avenue. Indians in US are highly respected. Spare me you nonsense.
Sridhar

re: #27 by Shah

``The world was shocked when the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished by a group of hardline hindu fanatics who claimed that it was the birthplace of the mythic hindu god Ram, an epic character in the Ramayana.``
Now, let us not exaggerate. The world does not give a damn about a mosque in a remote place in India. The world is coming to the view now that ``lesser the number of mosques, the better``.
Secular elements in India were shocked. Pakistanis were elated to point out India`s deficiencies in this matter. You fail to mention that more than 100 temples in Pakistan were vandalised after the Ayodhya incidence.
The other thing is: it is not the hindu fanatics who claim Ayodhya to be a birth place of Sri Ram. What kind of a frikking moron are you? Every hindu belives Ayodhya to be a birth place of SriRam. For milliions (including educated people like me), this is all that matters: faith. I do not care if it is factually correct or not. Can you prove if Prophet Md (PBUH) really had the revelation from Angel Gabriel? So, stick to what you know.
The debate is not whether to build a temple in Ayodhya. Majority agree that a temple needs to be built. It is inconceivable that a holy site like Ayodhya (regarded as a Mecca of hindu pilgrimage by many) does not have a single big temple dedicated to SriRam. There must have been one and it fell to the same fate that befell other temples under muslim rule.
The big debate really is: if a temple needs to be built at the exact same site as the babri masjid. This is where secular people like me differ from the saffron crowd. The latter want to rouse the emotions, making this into a Hindutva agenda, thereby garnering votes. There is no way of saying that SriRam was born at that exact site. So, a temple can easily be built somewhere else in Ayodhya and the present controversial site can be spared or converted to a memorial or given back to muslims to be turned into a mosque. I hope you get the picture now.

Sridhar

Farzana,

Ought this piece have been titled ‘Why N&R’s amours have chicks’…
For, to me too much is being made out of their respective current women. I do not know why you chose to be kinder to Padma Lakshmi than Nadira. By all accounts, she too is not exactly a woman of no substance…until she was caught in the crossfire of politico-literary criticism for her faith, rather than her nationality, after ‘Beyond Belief.’
And, while this piece is a remarkably well written piece, consistently crackling, its thrust has long known to be the main weakness of the biographical approach of literary criticism. Authors cannot attain even one percent of the completeness of the best created characters of imagination.
“Both are clinging to roots they have no claims over. And they don’t give a damn about the soil.”
Isn’t this a case of intentional fallacy? R&V chose whatever they chose because that was what held their concerns. Satyajit Ray has often been criticized for ignoring the leftist underground, the emergency, even the number of Bengali youth killed during the course of his working life. That he did not chose to film them merely means they did not hold his creative attention. Even if he chose to be safe rather than sorry, it was still a choice that Ray the citizen made. Ray the artist also made the same choice. But did he compromise on his creative freedom by NOT making political reality films? I should think, even if it were true, to be insignificant.
Sitting in grey England, V.S.Naipaul has the audacity to comment on the burning flames of Gujarat so insensitively: “The original thing that started it was a terrorist act and must be considered so. It was meant to create a reaction.” He goes on to say that “every liberal person should extend a hand to that kind of movement from the bottom.”
I agree with what you say here. And yet, once you are a celebrity, people thrust the mike at you for everything. I have thought, in a Thurber mode, that if ever an Everest climber is asked what was his message for the youth of his country he should simply say “Leprosy is curable.”
Besides, like Shaw said, most men after sixty are scoundrels. I think we need to revise that age downwards…

I would dearly like to see this man come and live here and then give us his two-bit nonsense. And who is he to teach us about India when he does not have the basic decency to acknowledge the place he was born and brought up in? Trinidad is: “A billion people and a little island, which has done almost nothing for me.”
Like the argument against television, shut him out. He is not going to come to India. And Indians need not listen to him. And about his decency, you are merely universalizing your idea of decency, projecting it onto another man, and then judging him from your vantage point. There are many who would think that is an honest confession.
Naipaul wants everyone to do things for him. And no one is quite up to his supposedly high standards.
He has the right, as long as he does not violate others’ right to ignore him. And, I think the media has played a big part in generating articles on issues of non-importance that he makes foolish, or off-the-cuff comments about too.
Why does one get the feeling that for him that hole is a circle rather than a deep well?
Brilliant sentence. As a standalone one, though.

The last time he visited with his son, he wrote in a London paper, “Exile…is a dream of glorious return. But the dream fades, the imagined return stops feeling glorious. The dreamer awakes. I almost gave up on India, almost believed the love affair was over for good. But as it turns out, not so.” What is this about exile? Who banished him?
Well the Indian government refused him a visa for long after Satanic Verses. And, besides, exile can be of so many shades. There are political exiles, like Solzenitsyn or Kundera, and then there are exiles like Naipaul within Trinidad.
If Rushdie had any self-respect he shouldn`t have bothered coming to India under the patronage of a government that was blissfully using him.
And
How can you debunk extremist forces of which you have been the victim and accept such behaviour in others? There can be no doubt that Khomeini`s fatwa against him was most unfair and uncivilised, but surely he must find it ironical that while his ‘interpretation’ made him a victim, that of the fundamentalists in his ‘motherland’ make them the victimisers?

Again like “decency” “self respect” too can be merely one particular version, that cannot be universally applied. But, the bigger question, a far more valid question IMO you did not elaborate on was about the “patronage of a govt that was blissfully using him.” It was Narasimha Rao…or was it Rajiv Gandhi….who banned him from coming to India…but interestingly…it was LK Advani who issued him the visa.
Interestingly, Rushdie attacked Naipaul for his views about the Babri demolition being the sign of a resurgent Hinduism that was finally churning, asserting after years of suppression by all the world civilizations that could travel this far to adorn the already resplendent Indian chest with a few more cuts of sword and humiliation. Rushdie’s argument was that Naipaul was giving intellectual legitimacy to plain militant Hindutva.

See the role reversal…Naipaul always asks what any country has done for him….Rushdie says what can your interior minister do for me?
Though, that last line about attacking fundamentalist interpreters for misinterpreting his own interpretations…interestingly and flippantly called “a form of extreme literary criticism” by Naipaul…the man does separate from the author doesn’t he, here. Unlike Roy putting her money into NBA?
There was another Rushdie failing during the fatwa time. His then wife Marianne Higgins separated from him, and said about the fight against the fatwa, and the separation “I wish the man was as great as the event.” Men, and dare I say women, will never measure upto historical events. Like you say, it would be converting a well into a circle rather than a deep hole.

Interestingly, Naipaul’s rediscovery of his roots resulted in an alliance with a Pakistani, a knighthood from the British Empire and a Nobel Prize – some would say that the latter two are rather late in their appearance. But the other trophy, in the form of Nadira, has been a master stroke.
Aren’t we claiming that anybody with a head as big as Naipaul should have a proportionate heart? And, if memory serves me right, Nadira was his before he was the target of criticism for his views on Islam. Besides, matters of the heart and matrimonial/sexual alliances an individual forms, rarely reflect his mental conviction, though the latter can possibly raise the probability of bringing two persons of same proclivities meeting…and perhaps even mating.
But does he really belong? Does he even want to? Isn’t all this longing a lame excuse for riding on a convenient bandwagon? He is known to throw away people as much as ideas. How many Trinidadians identify with him? How many Westerners? How many Indians?

A rolling stone gathers no moss. But a rolling stone does not care. Momentum is what it wants to gather. Same way, does he care to belong? Maybe he does. Maybe he does not. Either ways, its not too important, IMO. Does he speak to me, does he reverberate in me, is what matters between a author and his/her reader. If the work of art does, I read. If it doesn’t I present the book to a non-reader on his birthday. And, about identification, well not all readers are really interested in identification with the author. Ideas that interest, challenge, connect. All are good enough material to read. Agreement is not part of a reader writer relationship at all. If it is, it is still a very insignificant thing.


I call his ideas ‘Naipaul’s Malgudi – an imagined town’. There are real people in it, but he places them where he wants to. It is his conformist plan, and conformist he is. Any educated man who can say that “Islam destroyed India” has got to be sucking up to someone big time.
I loved the Malgudi reference. I agree with it totally, and have myself felt the selfsame thing. But conformist, I am sure he must be. Even if he is not, he will be by another 10/15 years. But the sucking up to somebody…is too facetious a grandiosity on Naipaul. He is a clear, present and combustible danger to any party. Even when he is on his knees.
Just as when Naipaul says he hates banality (while discussing gender oppression at that) he reveals just how banal he is. His treatment of women is never discussed because everyone is onto this huge thing about how the poor man slogged over words and was rewarded after 30 years.
True. But, if I remember correctly it was his outburst at over post-colonialism fuelled angst among Indian writers at that literary jamboree to Shashi Despande. Anyways, that is a matter most significant. About his treatment of women. But again, only if his real life is connected to his literary works. The reason you give, I suspect, maybe too tame, and more diatribe.

His wife reads aloud to him -- and guess what happens? “He`s amazed by what he`s written. And sometimes he`s so moved, he cries.”
I have not been surprised by childish behavior from seventy year olds. Besides, a private emotional/sentimental response can become easy fodder for pamphleteers. If your point is that his self-love far outweighs his love for his Pakistani wife, then from all sparse accounts, his English wife had already discovered it long ago. He never mentioned her, and never shared stage with her. And, nobody seriously can disagree with his lack of emotions, and disdain for others.
His conceit and nonchalance are frightening. His reminiscing about his first wife of 40 years wanting a kid is dismissed off with “the thought was very disagreeable to me.” And current wife, Lady Nadira, laughs. She laughs when he talks about going to whores, she laughs when she says, “He`s not worried about big things like anthrax and plane crashes. He`s worried about little things. A cold neck.” Sure. She should probably tell him that our ancient civilisation is not a stiff shoulder he has to worry his clouded head over.

Who is to be blamed. Nadira, or him? And, as for our civilization, it has always been anybody’s for the licking. Naipaul has himself written and garnered reams for this precise point.

As for Rushdie, does he really consider India his motherland? As he wrote in ‘The Guardian’, “I am conscious of shifts in my writing. There was always a tug-of-war in me between ‘there’ and ‘here’, the pull of roots and the dream of leaving. In that struggle of insiders and outsiders, I used to feel simultaneously on both sides. Now I`ve come down firmly on the side of those who by preference, nature or circumstance simply do not belong.”

For argument sake, let us say Rushdie does not consider India his motherland. Remember, he even briefly relinquished Islam to see if it he was out of range of the fatwa. But, I think what he says is legitimate. There are many who feel similarly. And not all are drinking deep from foreign soil. Remember Arundhati Roy once declared her independence from India and called herself a “mobile republic.” This disconnect, you too have written about feeling. Muslim/Woman/India. If you also added geography to that confusion, is Rushdie’s dilemma so difficult to fathom? Pico Iyer, many many expatriates, Kundera has even started to write in French, abandoning his native Czech. So if an individual does not feel rooted, or belonging, or still further belongs to his belongings and not to the place he stays, does that make him worthless in any sense? Does that take away his right to comment,interpret, voice his idea of nationalisms, Japanese army, or Indian intolerance? I think, he has the right to say, and readers will decide whether what he says is worth listening to.
“India is the prize” for him. And if he stopped fooling himself, he’d probably admit that had the Brits been kinder and made him into a hero rather than a protected species, he would not have felt this tug of roots. It wouldn’t strike him that, unlike the little people who, despite having set up corner stores and motels which grew into big businesses, have to ‘pretend to be rehabilitated’ in their new environs, he has been co-opted by the colonialists. So he can call Britain a bitchy society as one would someone who knows too much about the dark recesses of one’s mind.
Coopted by colonialists. Wasn’t Nirad C Chowdhury a far easy target for this charge than Rushdie?
He did not contribute to their technology, health care, education, but had become a showpiece.
Like the Kohinoor?

He is repeating this feat in the United States with an ace up his sleeve in the form of a woman who legitimises his need for, and keeps him moored to, his ancestral exotica.
Again, I think the women on whose shoulders you lean too hard are being given a short shrift by you. Neither are bimbos. And, you assume too much of male manic energy in R&N to make them seem cavemen who dragged these screaming women from their Italian television studio, or Pakistani drawing room. And, also you seem to refuse to entertain a thought that it could have been a love interest, at least in one among each couple. The other had only to take a call. I do not think they were part of a strategy to wash guilt, or repair their rootlessness that these two men have these two women by their side.


Harish

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

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

Thanks for some extremely incisive comments. Harish, temp, Samina...look forward to responding, but will take some time. Therefore, this short note. And thanks to romair (right!) and everyone else for reading.

Just btw, this was not about their literary efforts, which is why I have not mentioned a single book (except in the intro para).

tahmed32 (#25):
(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!!)

You asking so naislee, I have no hart to reffiuse. So I have deal. I no getting angry for 24 hours...you pay me then? I haav to tell secret but. Maybe I getting paid secretly to get mickey out of mouse. Pliz at list u be kaind...why so much dhuaan everywhere when aag is inside my intestine, i not understanding...

whyfor someone saying women can`t accept unconventional women(typical macho man talk)...Padma and Nadira unconventional???? Playboy bunnies also unconventional -- not everyone can be like them, na? So....

I only getting more angry, so I going now.

Aleph-Null

{{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}}

- Good point.

What Naipaul says about India, and more acutely, about Hinduism in these books, would send Romair into paroxysms of delight, would not look out of place in a Urstruly post, and would excite GhalibZaman so much it would cure his erectile dysfunction.

Unfortunately though, Naipaul is beastly/honest (take your pick) not only to the Hindoos but the Muslims, Sikhs, Africans, Argentinians, Carribeans, Irish, Mauritians, and Americans from the southern states too.

-h-

Ghalib Zaman

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah dont bother with the pompous flatulent rantings with me it doesnt wash.

You are excellent comedy although I do feel guilty for laughing at an impotent old man made incontinent by the tidal wave thats going to sweep him away.

take care

-h-

Samina#38

{{In truly satisfying and unnerving work, there is a decentralization of the writer`s voice}}

- I agree

-h-

Sadna#21

Great post.

Naipauls early novels are possibly my favourite books ever, and I think that ``A Million Mutinies Now`` is a work of great insight and compassion. I do think he is misunderstood, but I also believe that his tacit endorsement of Hindu nationalism in its current form is a massive blindspot and suggests a succumbing to the areas of darkness and the unleashing of furies that he so acutely analyzes and decries in others. As an example of the fragility of the rational mind in the face of calls to ancestral and religious/ethnic ties, the revival of atavistic communal memories acting on the modern individual, and the way that the past can shape our present, how history can be exploited for political ends, it is instructive.

re; Rushdies remark on literature in Indian languages, I believe he has partially recanted. If you get the chance buy a copy of ``The Vintage Book of Modern Indian Literature`` edited by Amit Chaudhuri. It is an excellent anthology and worth buying for Chaudhri`s introductory essay alone, in which he challenges Rushdies assertions and promotes a large corpus of work from Indians not writing in English. It is very impressive and Chaudhri is an excellent guide (But he is a truly sublime writer, one of the best Indian writers alive)

It is the best anthology and introduction to modern Indian literature available today, although with some notable exemptions, like Anita Desai.

-h-

re: rsridhar

{Do not drag Indians into this. May be Pakis in US have a bad self-image. With INS squeezing their balls recently, this is not surprising.}

...hahahaha....

..........why do we care what naipaul and rushdie have to say about us? ......... why don`t we go out and write our own books and put all the good stuff about us in them? ........ and if, as gz suggests, this stuff is out there why don`t we just ignore the english language press and go back to reading masterpieces in punjabi and pushto? ..........

......... the fact of the matter is that mr simon and mr schuster publish more books than the entire arab/muslim world put together and there are more writers living in the village than in all of araby .......... and i am not holding my breath for a great punjabi genius to put the record straight for us ......... in two generation most families, like mine, have given up punjabi and pushto and adopted spoken urdu and written english ........and who gives a flip if my nieces and nephews have never heard of heer and ranjha as long as they know chris rock and pamela anderson ..............

.............you cannot separate the language from its sociopolitical and cutural baggage; you cannot separate westernism from modernity; you cannot have your cake and eat it too ..........if you think in english, you will think like an englishman ......... defeated and disgraced cultures have to accept the facts, make the necessary adjustments and move on .............let`s not continue to make fools of ourselves by whining and complaining ................go write a comic book like the japanese and work your way up from there .........

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

hamidm: Much of what you say is fine. There is however a fine line between between (a) simply aping the west, and (b) understanding the key ingredients that have made western culture such a remarkable success. In your post what you suggest (music, language) keeps one on the (a) side of the line. To cross to the (b) side, one needs to understand why the west broke free from the rest of humanity around the 16th century and left it coughing in its dust. I am not sure if the current massive wave of immigrants to the west, along with the declining population of the westerners, is not going to convert, a few decades from now, the west itself into (a) while losing (b). Or maybe it is just the first generation immigrants who are at (a), and the next generation will grow up understanding (b) as well. One hopes.

#52: Hamidm

`` gur mujhhay iss kaa yaqueen ho, miray humdum miray doast``

You write:
[....defeated and disgraced cultures have to accept the facts, make the necessary adjustments and move on .............]

Sure. This is what the defeated and disgraced cultures ARE doing..REPEATEDLY..like recurring desimals.One province in Indi-Pak excels in this artform and has metaphorised the whole process. The West Indians, Gyuanese, and the Trinidadians have been going with this flow and have elevated their status from field-niggers to house-niggers to nation-niggers. ``Fcuk us not MeLord until and unless it is in english. WE mind not being thus fcukked meLord but please swear at us in english so that we could pass-on the knowledge & `ducation as a heritage ....who knows what color-coding has the Saviour in store for us. Look at Michael Jackson! Aint`t that lad a doll, who nobody ne`er now call a nigger. See `im rumbaa with the whitefolks now``

Mr. Hamidm2, the Pilipinos are another good living & thriving model of your theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You further meditate aloud:

[....the fact of the matter is that mr simon and mr schuster publish more books than the entire arab/muslim world put together and there are more writers living in the village than in all of araby .......... ]

When a critique-type mentioned to Picasso that he cannot understand his art. Picasso asked him:
Do you understand the chinese language?

No

Remember over 1/4 of the world understands it.

``Tumm naa aayay tO kyaa sahar naa huee``?

It would blow your mind if you find out where the largest number of books are published & read, but then I`m not a very good educator either.
____________________________________________________________
Ferzaana Versey:

In 1947 at midnight there was no partitioning of any geographical mass. I am aware that the Nile was parted by Musaa (pbuh) but only to drown the Firaun. Etchings on survey maps can never be called a Partition .

The Partition is of the pods from the Saint-this & Taint-that system of education which have come to fruition in the form of Macaulay`s `writers` like the Gecko and the Iguana.

The two in reality are the Midnights` Ghouls.
___________________________________________________________
Harpareet:
It is always youngfarts who become oldfarts. You are welcome to the club. Are you thinking of becoming a Lit-lecher yourself? If you intend to do it in english, please attain some mastery in the art of alternate-orificing.

I detest Lit-lechers.
____________________________________________________________
rsridhar:
I think you are right. You have certainly arrived. The respect accorded to your kind is awesome.

My apologies Sir Apu and Sri Hurundi Bakhshee.

Please urge your calculated-types to release a movie to portray Amreekans, Goraas, Westerners in similar flattering & respectable role-models. IITs and bunyaagiri is a curse upon Starvistaan and Leperistaan ( now Aids-istaan?)

I know it is a dilemma to stay a hindu these trying times. Eternal compromise with every sitting-power is your destiny....until & unless you break this cycle and convert. Only then you become a new person. Like millions of your kind have already done through the ages and continue to do so today.

Enjoy!

FarzanaVersey #46 you write ``So I have deal. I no getting angry for 24 hours...you pay me then? ``
We have a deal if you agree to add to the clause ``I no getting angry for 24 hours`` the following addendum ``AND write article on chowk when in happy mood``. Then I am sure I will be happy to pay you in the form of compliments.

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

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

Romair:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

Since you admit you have not read Naipaul, we can agree that you were agreeing with only half of this ``analysis``. Fine. Let us go on to Rushdie.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe (aling with Farzana I guess) that Rushdie manufactured the Satanic Verses controversy to gain popularity?

That opinion would be disregarding the facts of history. First, Rushdie was already popular whn Satanic Verses came out. He didn`t have to resort to controversy. Secondly, I doubt that Rushdie had an arrangment with the Government of Iran to raise controversy for his benefit.

As far as ``factless`` versus factual controversy is concerned, Rushdie`s work is fiction. He abundantly makes that clear. I have not read the book, therefore will not comment on its merit. But both you and Farzana (in her follow up comment) make it clear that you are not criticizing the works of the author, but his controversy. This is a classic example of blaming the victim. Rushdie did not call for the death sentence on an Ayatollah. The reverse was the case.

As fas as hurting the sensitivities of a Billion adherents of a religion is concerned, it speaks volumes that in the aftermath of Sept 11 a Christian leader can go on TV and call Prophet Mohhamed a terrorist and yet elicits very muted reaction from Islamic governments. But a writer with a limited audience finds himself the target of violence by a government of a country. Why did that change occur?

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

Harpreet #49
I hadn`t been following Naipaul`s remarks on recent events, but the darkness as you call it seems to have engulfed many many people. I wonder what possessed the Nobel committee to award him the Prize at such a time.

Thanks very much for the reference, I would certainly like to look up such an anthology.

tahmed

......... bernard lewis in ``what went wrong`` very clearly states the difference between a) and b) ..... it has been a while since i read the book, but the three main reasons why the ummah finds itself in such dire straits is a) their horrible treatment of women b) their ignorance of ``science`` and c) their total lack of appreciation for music ..........and that pretty much sums it ..............

............ here is the real scary part: some of the observations of the muslim diplomats and learned men about the west 4-500 yars ago are almost exactly what ghalib and urstruly are saying today - verbatim !.......... you could not tell the difference .......... nothing has changed - as a matter of fact we are regressing ..........

............ on the other hand, the rest of the world - horrible hindoos included - have understood the true essence of modernity and are on the right path while we seek siratul mustaqeem................

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

re:#53 by AAmir
The article you posted is written probably by a secularist who sees everything wrong with BJP. Facts are facts. AIT is bunkum and has been proved so. Saraswati river existed and has been proved so. BJP, as i said stands to gain on both scores politically. That is why all this noise.
Sridhar

re: Saraswati river

``On sale were books that show humankind originated in the upper reaches of that mythical Indian river, the Saraswati, and pamphlets that explain the mysterious Indus Valley seals, with their indecipherable Harrapan script: they are of Vedic origin. ``
Well, Saraswati was mythical until its riverbed was photographed by an American satellite. It is not mythical anymore. It existed until 1800 BC or thereabout and vanished into earth due to earthquake or other plectonic changes. There are interesting theories about this. It is inconceivable that people who sang Rig Veda would mention Saraswati river so many times if it had not really existed (in later Vedas, Ganges is mentioned; we know it exists to this day). This is another myth that has been proved to be not a myth anymore.
Sridhar

re: Aryan Invasion Theory
AIT has been discounted by leading Indologists. It does not stand to scientific scrutiny.

http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/1096/0082.html

Go to the following url to read about this in great detail:

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm

Some useful quotes from the above site:
``...the British along with the Christian missionaries also used the Aryan theory to pit the lower castes and South Indians, supposedly the progeny of the victimized non-Aryan natives, against their ``Aryan fellow-countrymen. Contrary to the freedom movement, the anti-Brahmin and Dravidian movements were the fruits of British patronage. ``

Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859) was one of the first dissenters. He was aware of the kinship in language between Sanskrit and European tongues, but found the theory of their ``spread from a central point...a gratuitous assumption.`` In his History of India, 1841, he observed, ``Neither in the Vedas, nor in any book...is there any allusion to a prior residence ....out of India...There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their present one.``

British scholar F. E. Pargiter in his Ancient Indian Historical Tradition yet his inquiry into historical data from the Puranas led him, in 1972, to conclusions opposite to the accepted theories. With a rare commonsense, he first noted that ``there is a strong presumption in favor of (Indian) tradition; if anyone contests tradition, the burden lies on him to show that it is wrong.``
He also observed, with dry humor: `` Indian tradition knows nothing whatever of the Aryans` invasion of India through the north-west....All this copious tradition was falsely fabricated, and the truth has been absolutely lost, if the current theory is right; is that probable? If all this tradition is false, why, how, and in whose interests was it all fabricated.?``

Pargiter went even further, for he was convinced that Indian tradition clearly recorded ``an outflow of people from India before the fifteenth century BC.`` and thought that the Iranians may have been an offshoot from India.`` He pertinently observed that in the famous nadi sukta, the Rig Veda lists rivers of the subcontinent from east to west, and remarked: ``If the Aryans had entered India from the north-west, and had advanced eastward through the Punjab only as far as the Saraswati or Jumna when the Rigvedic hymns were composed, it is very surprising that the hymn arranges the rivers, not according to their progress, but reversaly from the Ganges which they had hardly reached.



The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representation of the original Aryan race. The theory is perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. `

Dr. Ambedkar`s views on AIT:
``The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India.
There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in color from the Dasas and Dasyus.....``


Koenraad Elst, Belgian scholar, has said that:

``Until the mid-19th century, no Indian had ever heard of the notion that his ancestors could be Aryan invaders from Central Asia who had destroyed the native civilization and enslaved the native population. Neither had South-Indians ever dreamt that they were the rightful owners of the whole subcontinent, dispossessed by the Aryan invaders who had chased them from North India, turning it into Aryavarata, the land of the Aryans. Nor had the low-caste people heard that they were the original inhabitants of India, subdued by the Aryans and forced into the prison house of caste which the conquerors imposed upon them as an early form of Apartheid.

All these ideas had to be imported by European scholars and missionaries, who thought through the implications of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), the theory that the Indo-European (IE) language family had spread out from a given homeland, probably in Eastern Europe, and found a place in Western and Southern Europe and in India as a cultural luggage of horse-borne invaders who subjugated the natives.``

Anyone who is interested in this may read the fascinating website. BJP is only trying to correct a historical error. But, the irony is, in trying to do so, it has embroiled itself into a controversy. BJP benefits if this theroy were to be accepted. BJP would be able to unite the hindus into one unit. There will be no Aryans, no dravidians. Psychologically, this would be a great unifying factor. Unfortunately, it excludes muslims and says these were invaders and came much later from outside (despite the fact that most were original inhabitants and converts). This is where the secularists are alarmed and are protesting.

Sridhar

re:#44 by Shah
Most people who are politically savvy understand that this Babri Masjid issue is a political one that came about as a reaction to Mandalisation of politics by V.P.Singh. Latter was dividing hindu votes while, thr` Rath yatra and arousing people`s emotions, L.K.Advani was trying to unite hindus into a single voting block. Both attempts have lead to disastrous results. As i have said already, BJP has milked this issue to the last drop and there is nothing in it for that party. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will give a good verdict and both parties will accept the verdict and there the matter should rest.
Sridhar

re:#58 by GhalibZaman
``I know it is a dilemma to stay a hindu these trying times``
Not true. Now-a-days, i see many Indians (hindus) wear their hinduism on their sleeves in US. One guy comes to work with a Tilak on his forehead. There is no shame. We are not the targets. I work with white Americans (all my practice partners are whites) and educate them as to what is going on in South Asia. They understand.
Sridhar

Stuka #54: ``Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.``

No problem. It is always a pleasure interacting with you.

``Since you admit you have not read Naipaul, we can agree that you were agreeing with only half of this ``analysis``. ``

Yes, I was only talking about Rushdie. Don`t know much about Naipaul, other than he has a pretty cool name, a nice gottee, a Pakistani wife (I think) and that he doesn`t like Pakistan much. And is apparently has great control over the English language.

I have nothing against people creating controversy, provided it is based on fact. I think I create enough of it here on Chowk. But I try to be factful. Controversy is good. It challenges the mind and challenges the status quo social order. It forces people to think etc. This is what writers are supposed to do.

However, first and foremost, controversy has to have some factual basis. If I want to prove that Ram never existed, I have to present fact. Otherwise, I shouldn`t make such a statement. If you want to state that Muhammad never existed. You need to do the same. But, I don`t think anyone should have the right to just state the above, without fact. Creating controversy, by factlessly ridiculing someone`s feelings is terrible. It is not the work of reformers. It is the work of a self-serving businessmen. It is the worst form of freedom of speech.

Rushdie was only well-known in the literary circles before Satanic Verses. There are many many writers who have that level of recognition. After SV, he became internationally recognizable to the common man on the street. Not only that he became a symbol - for freedom of speech, for religious reform and God knows what else. Why?

If all it takes to become a symbol is to make factless statements about other religions, than anyone can do so. Would I become a reformer of Hinduism if I were to make fun of the Vedas or to distort them completely, and then state that I am only expressing an internal struggle between my Hindu ancestors and Muslim self?

I don`t think Rushdie expected nearly the controversy he caused. Had he known that there would be a death warrant out on him, maybe he would have though twice. I think the reaction to SV was equally terrible and equally self-serving. Just like Rushdie was out to make a buck, so was the maulvi brigade. This is why I dislike the self-serving mullah brigade and the self-serving secularatic brigade. The former hoodwinks the naive uneducated ill-informed about Islam Muslim folks through religion, the later hoodwinks the, educated but equally ill-informed about Islam ``Western`` freedom of speech folks through religion, as well.

Even if a single person had not died and a single word had not been said against Rushdie, I still would have the same opinion about people who exploit their own or others` religion through factless comments.

This is exactly what people like Fallwell try to do by calling Muhammad a terrorist. They want publicity by creating controversy. Even Muhammad`s biggest critics would not consider him a terrorist. What does Fallwell gain by doing so? I have heard many of his interviews. He once called a small children`s cartoon character (Tinky Winky of the Tellytubbies) gay and accused the presenters of the cartoon of promoting homosexuality. His logic behind his allegation was that the cartoon character had a triangle as a part of his character and carried a bag.

If we apply the Rushdie`s forumla on Fallwell, then Fallwell becomes an Islamic reformer also - not to mention a reformer of cartoons for babies and a reformer of homesexuality.

I am glad no one in the Muslim world reacted to Fallwell violently. That would be the stupidest thing to do. Why kill each other due to remarks made by opportunists who use religion to gain popularity? In any case, I am always amazed when Rushdie is interviewed by people who look to him for Islamic reforms etc. Westernized writers and Easternized mullahs who use religion are both part of the same mindset, if you ask me.

People should live and let live when it comes to others` religion. It is too sensitive a subject. Just like I have a lot of views on India, Indian policies etc., similarly I have some views on Hinduism also. While you will see me commenting on India (without being an expert), you will never see me commenting on Hinduism (since I am not an expert) - distorting someone`s religion without full knowledge should be out of bounds. And if someone legitimately wants to reform religion, they should be damn sure they have their facts correct - and do it for the right reasons - not just to let out their own frustrations or to gain popularity.

As one of my favorite poets said:

``Learn no more knowledge, O friend!
This knowledge will be of no avail to you
You need to read only Alif
You read and read and pile your books into a heap
The Quran and other books are lying all around you
By reading and reading you become Mullah (my note: Fazl ur Rahman )and Qazi (my note: Salman Rusdie)
But God is pleased without their knowledge
Your avarice is whetted every day
you always aim at personal gain.`` (translated from Bulleh Shah)

rsridhar

``Until the mid-19th century, no Indian had ever heard of the notion that his ancestors could be Aryan invaders from Central Asia who had destroyed the native civilization and enslaved the native population``

...... it is also true that until the mid-19th century, no indian had heard of indoor plumbing or thought about climbing mount everest ..........and if you are trying to tell us that fair and beautiful kashmiris are from the same gene pool as the sideways head wagging golliwogs from kerala with six syllabuls in their names ,you must think we are a bunch of idiots ......... the bjp needs to come up wth something else to convince us that dravidians and aryans are from the same stock ............ jesus christ!