Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The title of this blog is my homage to a writer and a journalist, a man considered by many to be the conscience of his generation, Eric Blair aka George Orwell - his crystal clear prose, his felicity of language, his incisive grasp of contemporary issues. It strives as language as a clear pane of glass and this blog is an attempt, perhaps deeply inadequate, in that direction.
Followers
the brights
Take a Stand - Join the Brights
About this Blog
- Rahul Basu
- I work in theoretical physics but this blog is only rarely about physics. The title of the blog As I Please, as some of you may guess, is my homage to a writer and a journalist, a man considered by many to be the conscience of his generation, Eric Blair aka George Orwell. I cannot claim to have Orwell's crystal clear prose or his felicity of language, or for that matter, his incisive grasp of contemporary issues. But I strive to emulate him -- language should be, in his memorable words, like a clear pane of glass and this blog is an attempt, perhaps deeply inadequate, in that direction. The other blog I run Rahul's Recipes is self explanatory.
11 comments:
OLO:
It is unbecoming or someone as learned as yourself to merely link to the views of others. Why not tell us what you think?
Secondly, when there are a million scumbags, ruffians, thugs and genocide artists running around, why pick on a harmless (albeit shrill and loud) do-gooder, no matter how laughable (in one's estimation) her world view may be?
Yhs.
Anant: I fail to understand your comment. She is not only not a do-gooder, she frequently defends what you call scumbags, ruffians and thugs, as long as they can be used to do some America/democracy/Indian Government/Supreme Court bashing. I don't recall that she has done any good for anyone except herself. Your comment clearly implies that you haven't even read the article in my link.
OLO:
you are indeed mistaken. I did read the article this morning. I agree that the anti-Americanism she advocates is not something that I would do myself. It is also clear that Isaac Chotiner does not know what it means to live in a country where you can have Chief Ministers like certain unmentionables. He also does not, atleast in this article engage himself with the reality of the Iraq war. In fact, elsewhere this is what he has to say about the Iraq way: ``...A war, then, that was at least partially about creating a modern society in the Middle East (and that would, it was hoped, spark broader, positive advances in the region).'' If this is bubble in which he is living, why should we take his views seriously on anything?
Lest you get me wrong, I am no fan of AR, but I would not waste my energy going after her. BTW, I do not know who you refer to when you say that she defends scumbag, ruffians and the like.
Yhs.
Anant what kind of do gooder she is? She is just a thug going around raising flags of terrorists, who have no shame in killing innocent people.
She is just a shameless attention grabber and nothing more. Rahul thanks for posting such a wonderful article.
I think that it is a good article and I would keep in mind some such thing while reading Arundhati Roy. As the author says, there are some half truths in her writings but sometimes, that seems to bring the issue to the attention of several people. I assume that a discussion can go on from there. As an example Ramachandra Guha published a very reasonable article in 2007 about adivasis, naxalites... but not many paid attention to it. But when Arundhati Roy's article came out a few months ago in the Outlook (Walking with the comrades), there was much discussion. I do not think that many agreed with her but a lot of discussion did take place. May be, this itself can be cosidered a contribution.
Anant: She may get some facts about the Iraq war right, but that is about all. Regarding the scumbags she defends, isn't it obvious -- those who go around shooting innocent people at train stations and hotels (oops, I forgot, the ones in the hotel don't count because they were rich people but do remember CST), 9/11 (maybe they don't count because they are not Indians in India). Then there are other types -- those who blow up buses and derail trains (oops, again that's ok, apparently because that is the only way adivasis and tribals will get justice). Do you want me to go on?
Interestingly, just because you (and perhaps even I) disagree with one small bit about Iraq in the Chotiner article, you decide none of it can be taken seriously. And yet, when Madam Roy is wrong in about 99% of the cases, you want to push that 1% which is correct. And gaddeswarup has a very interesting point to which I have no answer - Ram Guha's article gets a minuscule readership (maybe because its balanced and not shrill) whereas Madam Roy's hysterical fulminations get wide publicity. Curious, isn't it?
Dear all,
I must bow to superior knowledge. Clearly it is not just the blog owner but the other commentators who too have earned the sobriquet of `Learned One(s)'.
Regards, Anant
Glad to see you continue not to blog on non-issues.
Huh?
hi rahul... for those of you who find Roy's arguments and "America/democracy/Indian Government/Supreme Court -bashing" not holding enough logic... here's a book you might want to read to get your hands on some "global" connections to the threats to forest life and forests themselves in India...
"Out of the Earth" (Felix Padel and co' Publ. Orient Blackswan. 2010 )
and do you all really identify the adivasis with the guys who blew up the trains?
Shubasree: I am not sure where you read that we identify the adivasis with the people responsible for blowing up trains and buses (and innocents in the process -- or are they also class enemies). I was referring to Naxalites, and while it is true that the general belief is that they are doing it all for the benefit of the adivasis or tribal population, I for one have no illusions on that score.
Post a Comment