Discussions on Andrew Robinson's Rabindranath Tagore
Soumitra Bose
I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we start
a discussion on this much-debated book\???????
Naeem Mohaiemen
>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
>start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
Soumitro,
Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
book we can discuss.
1) Tagore & fascism
The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn Mussolini,
in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
patrons.
2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
"Cult of the Charka" and other bits of this chapter demonstrate
that by 1927 Tagore had fallen out publicly with Gandhi over the
latter's adulation of "spinning one's own clothes", etc. Central to
the conflict was:
-Gandhi's stated revulsion towards western education, and the
westernized Indian elite [calling Ram Mohon Ray a "pygmy"]
-Tagore's desire for a synthesis of positive elements of East &
West [clearly identifying English education & literature as a
positive-- foreshadowing recent Japanese lauerate Kenzaguro Obe].
-Tagore's rejection of the nationalist movement's extremities,
such as the drive to make one's own clothes.
The book gives evidence of Gandhi sinking to personal attacks in
letters on this topic to Tagore.
3) Tagore's western boosters' varying adulation
The evidence in private correspondence is that, following the 1912
nobel prize, his latter works, when translated, actually disappointed
his major supporters in the west. The same individual who earlier had
called GEETANJALI a work of transcendental genius, later wished Tagore
would stop translating his pieces.
The authors seem to cast more blame on the problem of translating
Bangla.
4) Shantinikethan in disarray
Shanthinikethan, a noble experiment, was clearly let down by the
people who were managing it on a a day-to-day basis. Tagore's famed
unwillingness to get embroiled in earthly "petty" details contributed
to this.
--
--------------------------------
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mercer Management Consulting
1166 Ave of Americas, NY 10036
na...@ix.netcom.com
nmoha...@aol.com
naeem_m...@mercermc.com
---------------------------------
Soumitra Bose
Mohaiemen ) writes:
>
>>soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>
>>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
>>start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
>
>Soumitro,
>Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
>book we can discuss.
>
>1) Tagore & fascism
> The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn
Mussolini,
>in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
>patrons.
This is not new , this is highly documented that only in case of
Mussolini ,led by his search for a "powerful man" Rabindranath did that
, but however after quite a while the discussions with Roman Rolland he
understood , though never criticised Mussolini point-blank at any
stage.I guess when he realised his fault it was Hitler who was at the
focus of attentions.
>
>2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
> "Cult of the Charka" and other bits of this chapter demonstrate
>that by 1927 Tagore had fallen out publicly with Gandhi over the
>latter's adulation of "spinning one's own clothes", etc. Central to
>the conflict was:
> -Gandhi's stated revulsion towards western education, and the
>westernized Indian elite [calling Ram Mohon Ray a "pygmy"]
> -Tagore's desire for a synthesis of positive elements of East
&
>West [clearly identifying English education & literature as a
>positive-- foreshadowing recent Japanese lauerate Kenzaguro Obe].
> -Tagore's rejection of the nationalist movement's extremities,
>such as the drive to make one's own clothes.
> The book gives evidence of Gandhi sinking to personal attacks in
>letters on this topic to Tagore.
This is the most controversial point in the book. It is very clear that
Krishna Duta in a bid to placate the western customers and her job in
England did want to show Rabindranath as a moderate and level-headed
person and Gandhi an extremist. The allusion is ludicrous . Whenever
Rabindranath opposed Gandhi (and he did it so many times) he did it
from a more stern and anti-imperialist point of view. The poet always
favoured the so-called hard-liners from Bipin Pal,Ullaskar Gupta,Bhagat
Singh,Subhas Bose,Jinnah and others ,at one point he only communicated
to Congress through Jinnah only .Gandhi was never an extremist , he
actually was a centrist and thus could never gain popularity in Bengal
let me cite a story.Probably in Lahore Congress The Bengal leaders
were trying to push a resolution in support of Rabindranath's refusal
of the title "Sir". Amal Hom a bengali journalist of Lahore took a
resolution and gave it to Motilal , who simply sat on it and after so
many reminders never moved at all .Now after the session is over and
nothing was moved Jinnah came and asked what happened , when Amol Hom
told him that then Jinnah said he knew this would happen and chided
Amol why he was not told about it ? After that incident The poet used
to communicate solely with Jinnah in Congress matters.
Krishna Dutta is a blind sycophant of the greatest boot-licker and
traitor India had ever produced Nirad C Chaudhury .When the whole of
Indian intellectuals starting from Sushobhan Sarkar down to almost all
the academecians have rejected Nirad , then only Krishna Dutta and her
previous employer Ananda Bazar hass come out with a novel way to hold
high the fallen banner of Nirad , what a shame . I only were releived
by the inclusion of Andrew Robinson , though his contribution centered
around Satyajit Roy but still that was the only reprieve.
>
>3) Tagore's western boosters' varying adulation
> The evidence in private correspondence is that, following the 1912
>nobel prize, his latter works, when translated, actually disappointed
>his major supporters in the west. The same individual who earlier had
>called GEETANJALI a work of transcendental genius, later wished Tagore
>would stop translating his pieces.
> The authors seem to cast more blame on the problem of translating
>Bangla.
When the same supporters were not actually clean off bigotry too...
Russel for one was too snooty at times , he considered himself to be
the only authentic window of rationalism.
>
>4) Shantinikethan in disarray
> Shanthinikethan, a noble experiment, was clearly let down by the
>people who were managing it on a a day-to-day basis. Tagore's famed
>unwillingness to get embroiled in earthly "petty" details contributed
>to this.
>
>
Shantineketan has its share of ups and downs. Yes it is no more an
institution of non-formal non-institutional education , yet it is doing
pretty good as an university.
S. Bari
>
>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we start
I must admit to being what my mother (an M.A. in Bengali lit) would call
an "ashikkhito" when it comes to Bengali literary criticism, but I would
like to ask those of you who have read Robinson's book a few questions.
Does he address in any way the adulation of Rabindranath and the effect
of this on contemporary and later writers?
Do you think the pedestal we have placed Rabindranath on has somehow
clotted the healthy flow of literary talent in Bengali (both East and
West), in the same way that Ben Jonson and Marlowe were overshadowed by
Shakespeare, often undeservedly? Old William's shadow was so long that
poor Bernard Shaw, centuries later, often made a fool of himself trying
to get out from under it. Is anything like that tainting Bengali
literature?
Still waiting to get my hands on the book. Out here in Austin, TX,
civilization takes its time arriving!
S. Bari
Naeem Mohaiemen
>>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>This is the most controversial portion of the book..
>Gandhi was never an extremist..
>Krishna Dutta is a blind sycophant of the greatest boot-licker and
>traitor India had ever produced Nirad C Chaudhury .When the whole of
>Indian intellectuals starting from Sushobhan Sarkar down to almost all
>the academecians have rejected Nirad , then only Krishna Dutta and her
>previous employer Ananda Bazar hass come out with a novel way to hold
>high the fallen banner of Nirad
I agree that Nirad Chaudhuri is a very problematic character. His
writing reveals:
-uncritical admiration for colonial rule [the dedication in
"Autobiography of an Unknown Indian", etc.]
-anti-Muslim prejudice evidenced in
--mean-spirited comments about the Muslim visitors to Bose's house
--he clearly considered Nazrul to be afloat simply on the appeal of
Muslim nationalism
However, I am not convinced that his statements on Tagore in "Thy Hand,
Great Anarch" are all incorrect [this is the chapter Dutta pays homage
to in the inro].
In particular, I felt the portrait of Calcutta intelligentsia as
see-sawing between witch-hunt tactics against Tagore in his late years
and wild adulation after his death held at least a grain of truth.
Interested to hear comments on this.
[Caveat: The information that Dutta worked for ANANDABAZAR is useful
and may provide some motive for certain elements in the book. Does
anyone have any more information on this author?]
--
----------------------------
Naeem Mohaiemen
na...@ix.netcom.com
----------------------------
saugata basu
: >soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
:
: >RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
: >I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
: >start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
:
: Soumitro,
: Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
: book we can discuss.
:
: 1) Tagore & fascism
: The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn Mussolini,
: in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
: patrons.
i have always thought that the poem titled "africa" was written by him
after mussolini's invasion of ethiopia. is this wrong ? of course, the
poem isn't a condemnation of fascism -- but it hardly indicates that he
adored mussolini.
saugata.
Shahed Aziz
>>soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>
>>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
>>start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
>
>Soumitro,
>Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
>book we can discuss.
>
>1) Tagore & fascism
> The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn Mussolini,
>in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
>patrons.
Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Indranil DasGupta
: I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we start
: a discussion on this much-debated book\???????
Why don't you mail the book to me now?
I promise to discuss it after I have read it.
Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
: Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
Ami-o tabe ektu poRte pari. Amra jaowa asha'r postage'ta diye debo ...
: Indranil.
Apratim.
Gauri Pavate
>>soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
>>start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
>Soumitro,
>Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
>book we can discuss.
>1) Tagore & fascism
> The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn Mussolini,
>in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
>patrons.
>2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Cult of the Charka" and other bits of this chapter demonstrate
>that by 1927 Tagore had fallen out publicly with Gandhi over the
>latter's adulation of "spinning one's own clothes", etc. Central to
>the conflict was:
> -Gandhi's stated revulsion towards western education, and the
>westernized Indian elite [calling Ram Mohon Ray a "pygmy"]
> -Tagore's desire for a synthesis of positive elements of East &
>West [clearly identifying English education & literature as a
>positive-- foreshadowing recent Japanese lauerate Kenzaguro Obe].
> -Tagore's rejection of the nationalist movement's extremities,
>such as the drive to make one's own clothes.
> The book gives evidence of Gandhi sinking to personal attacks in
>letters on this topic to Tagore.
Just want to mention that it is Tagore who is said to have
given Gandhi the title of "Mahatma" (or, great soul).
Gauri.
p.s. New year greetings to everyone!
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <4cp6di$6...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
SB> Gandhi on the other hand was ruthless and austere, pragmatic,
SB> perhaps almost a philistine in his disregard for beauty.
A few interesting paragraphs in this context ...
Excerpts from "Gandhi: Patron Saint of the Industrialist" by Leah
Renold.
Available from http://www.utexas.edu/ftp/pub/das/.html/south.asia/sagar/spring.1994.issue/leah.renold.art.html.
While Gandhi appeared to share the living standards of the typical
Indian villager in his ashram, the annual expenditure of his ashram
was 100,000 rupees,[50] a considerable sum in pre-Independence
rupees. In a similar vein, Gandhi was known for his humility in
insisting on travelling by third-class trains. To get a seat in a
crowded third-class car was difficult, so when Gandhi and his
entourage travelled, the entire third-class car, cars, and sometimes
even the whole train was paid for to ensure Gandhi's comfort.[51] When
Gandhi attempted to make a symbolic action by temporarily moving into
an untouchable colony in Delhi, half the residents were moved out
before his visit and the shacks of the residents torn down and neat
little huts constructed in their place. The entrances and windows of
the huts were screened with matting, and during the length of Gandhi's
visit, were kept sprinkled with water to provide a cooling effect. The
local temple was white-washed and new brick paths were laid. In an
interview with Margaret Bourke-White, a photo-journalist for Life
magazine, one of the men in charge of Gandhi's visit, Dinanath Tiang
of the Birla Company, explained the improvements in the untouchable
colony, "We have cared for Gandhiji's comfort for the last twenty
years."[52]
Gandhi put forward the illusory image of poverty and simplicity while
he was actually living very comfortably. We can only speculate whether
this image-making was political posturing on Gandhi's part or whether
the amenities were forced on him by the practicalities of operating a
massive movement. When Gandhi was questioned by the journalist Louis
Fischer about the percentage of his budget which was funded by the
rich, Gandhi told him practically all of it was, adding, "In this
ashram, for instance, we could live much more poorly than we do and
spend less money. But we do not and the money comes from our rich
friends."[53] Gandhi was not oblivious to the expense laid out for
him.
References:
[50]Judith M. Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope, (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989), 318.
[51]Bourke-White, 88-89
[52]Ibid., 11f.
[53]Gandhi to Louis Fischer, 6 June 1942, Louis Fischer, A Week With
Mr. Gandhi, (London: Allen and Unwin, 1943) cited by B. R. Ambedkar,
Gandhi and Gandhiism (Jullandar: Bheem Patrika Publications, 1970),
10.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubu Mukherjee Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences
sh...@cs.wisc.edu http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu
Atul Narkhede
Gauri Pavate <ga...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>na...@ix.netcom.com(Naeem Mohaiemen ) writes:
>>2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> "Cult of the Charka" and other bits of this chapter demonstrate
>>that by 1927 Tagore had fallen out publicly with Gandhi over the
>>latter's adulation of "spinning one's own clothes", etc. Central to
>>the conflict was:
>
>given Gandhi the title of "Mahatma" (or, great soul).
>
interesting article about the similarities/differences in the opinions
of these stalwarts, read an interesting article
http://www.webcom.com/~prakash/FEATURE/TAGTIGER.HTML
It is an article from TOI and makes interesting reading.
- Atul
Sambit Basu
>Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
>ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
>inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Is it just a conjecture? Or, can you substantiate your claim
by something other than the typical "he-was-an-intellectual-
elite-so-he-must-have-subscribed-to-that-view" kind of argument?
Regards,
Sambit
sayan bhattacharyya
Raghu Seshadri <sesh...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
>Shubu Mukherjee (sh...@cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
>
>: When Gandhi was questioned by the journalist Louis
>: Fischer about the percentage of his budget which was funded by the
>: rich, Gandhi told him practically all of it was, adding, "In this
>: ashram, for instance, we could live much more poorly than we do and
>: spend less money. But we do not and the money comes from our rich
>: friends."[53] Gandhi was not oblivious to the expense laid out for
>: him.
>
I agree that this shows that Gandhi was at least not a hypocrite. However,
the question remains to me : if he knew that the ashram could be run on
less money, then why was he not doing so? After all, the money could then
be diverted to other uses (setting up more ashrams for example)?
Note that I am not accusing Gandhi of anything. I am just trying to
understand the rationale behind his action.
-Sayan.
--
Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in
Artificial Intelligence Lab | the mind of the beholder.
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science|
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | - Ray Jackendoff
sayan bhattacharyya
Naeem Mohaiemen <na...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
> -Tagore's rejection of the nationalist movement's extremities,
>such as the drive to make one's own clothes.
A turning point in Tagore's relations with Gandhi came when the latter first
visited Shantiniketan at the poet's request. Before this incident, Tagore and
Gandhi had corresponded through letters but Gandhi had never visited him.
Tagore had a room specially prepared for Gandhi, and personally supervised
the decor, which he wanted to be simple yet elegant, in keeping with what
he thought would be to Gandhi's liking. Blessed as Tagore was with an artistic
temperament, there was no doubt that the room was a masterpiece of beauty and
taste.
However, when Gandhi arrived, he did not even look at the room's decor, far
less compliment the poet for his pains. Instead, in keeping with his
stated goal of practising austerity, he ordered the decor taken down. This
apparently hurt Tagore very much.
Thus, Gandhi's and Tagore's differences were at least as much temperamental
as they were political. Tagore was an artist who delighted in the beautiful
things in life, an aesthete. Gandhi on the other hand was ruthless and
austere, pragmatic, perhaps almost a philistine in his disregard for beauty.
Also, as Soumitra pointed out, Tagore was always sympathetic to the self
sacrifice of the revolutionary movement (although he did not always approve
of its methods : see "Char Odhyay") and always condemned British brutality
against the revolutionaries (perhaps the most famous example is his searing
poem "Bhogoban tumi juge juge doot" which he wrote in response to the
massacre of political prisoners by the government at Hijli Jail). Gandhi
on the other hand never acknowledged the self-sacrifice of the revolutionaries.
In spite of repeated requests he refused to ask the government to repeal the
execution of Bhagat Singh.
Apratim Sarkar
>Shubu Mukherjee (sh...@cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
>
>: massive movement. When Gandhi was questioned by the journalist Louis
>: Fischer about the percentage of his budget which was funded by the
>: rich, Gandhi told him practically all of it was, adding, "In this
>: ashram, for instance, we could live much more poorly than we do and
>: spend less money. But we do not and the money comes from our rich
>: friends."[53] Gandhi was not oblivious to the expense laid out for
>: him.
>
>This statement shows why Gandhi is justly celebrated.
Change "is" to "should be", Raghu, and I will start to hear you
loud and clear. However, AFAIK, Gandhi "is" celebrated for quite
different reasons, almost orthogonal to the ones in your claim.
>RS
Apratim.
--
Bhai kare tai aaj shoriye dite Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
Kauke| Oke chaine du:kho dite| are my own and shouldn't be construed in
- Amiyo Chakrabarty. any way to represent that of my employer.
sayan bhattacharyya
Shahed Aziz <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Tagore's social background, as a member of the
>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Although Tagore did belong to an elite family by birth and was certainly
one of the greatest intellects of his age, it must be remembered that he
was by no means an elitist. If he had been, then he would not have drawn
so heavily from the layer of subaltern culture (e.g. __baul__ music ) as
he did for his art. Indeed, for the early part of his career,
namely the pre-Nobel prize period, the intellectual elite of Calcutta
was rather hostile to him and the literary-intellectual establishment
led by Sureshchandra Samajpati among others, mounted some rather vicious
attacks on him. In fact he was something of an anti-establishment figure
in his early career. So charges of elitism against Tagore seem unfair.
-Sayan.
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
>Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
>ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
>inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Recommended reading for the poster: Ghora by Tagore R.
Raghu Seshadri
: massive movement. When Gandhi was questioned by the journalist Louis
: Fischer about the percentage of his budget which was funded by the
: rich, Gandhi told him practically all of it was, adding, "In this
: ashram, for instance, we could live much more poorly than we do and
: spend less money. But we do not and the money comes from our rich
: friends."[53] Gandhi was not oblivious to the expense laid out for
: him.
This statement shows why Gandhi is justly celebrated.
RS
Apratim Sarkar
>Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
>ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
>inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Which further highlights the acumen of Tagore, IMO, that in the
long run he seems to have subscribed to a completely different
set of beliefs (as a thorough reading of all of Tagore's works
clearly shows).
Good point, Shahed!
Indranil DasGupta
: Shahed Aziz <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
: >Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
: >ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
: >inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
: >intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
: Is it just a conjecture? Or, can you substantiate your claim
: by something other than the typical "he-was-an-intellectual-
: elite-so-he-must-have-subscribed-to-that-view" kind of argument?
: Regards,
: Sambit
makes more likely != must have.
However , jews formed a substantial part of the intellectual elite of the
world. It's a silly line of reasoning.
Indranil.
Naeem Mohaiemen
>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>Excerpts from "Gandhi: Patron Saint of the Industrialist" by Leah
>Renold.
>one of the men in charge of Gandhi's visit, Dinanath Tiang
>of the Birla Company, explained the improvements in the untouchable
>colony, "We have cared for Gandhiji's comfort for the last twenty
>years."[52]
>Gandhi put forward the illusory image of poverty and simplicity while
>he was actually living very comfortably.
When Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" came out, Salman Rushdie became
involved in a very racuous, back-and-forth debate with him in the UK
papers. Bone of contention, the "Mahattenborough"/"Mahatma Dickie" was
painting a very sanitized picture of Gandhi. One of the contradictions
that Rushdie pointed out was that Gandhi, the creator of the Charka
cult, died in the house of one of India's biggest industrialists.
Naeem Mohaiemen
>Shahed Aziz <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>Tagore's social background, as a member of the
>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these
>beliefs.
But bear in mind, that Tagore's family also originated the first
attempt at a reform/protest movement within Hindusim-- Brahmo Shomaj
[parallels to Sufism in Islam?].
Naeem Mohaiemen
>Naeem Mohaiemen <na...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>2) Tagore vs. Gandhi
>>A turning point in Tagore's relations with Gandhi came when the
>>latter first visited Shantiniketan at the poet's request
>>he ordered the decor taken down..apparently hurt Tagore very much.
>>Gandhi's and Tagore's differences were at least as much temperamental
>>as they were political.
The book indicates that a key issue of difference was Gandhi's attack
on Ram-mohon Ray as a "pygmy", specifically focusing on his western
education-- something about which Tagore was very defensive.
[There are parallels between Ram-mohon and Tagore's grandfather]
Also, Tagore felt that the newly revived, more jingoistic nationalist
movement was too quick to condemn everything of the west [antithetical
to Tagore]. The movement also paid scant tribute to Tagore's early
role as a nationalist.
Raghu Seshadri
: I agree that this shows that Gandhi was at least not a hypocrite. However,
: the question remains to me : if he knew that the ashram could be run on
: less money, then why was he not doing so? After all, the money could then
: be diverted to other uses (setting up more ashrams for example)?
: Note that I am not accusing Gandhi of anything. I am just trying to
: understand the rationale behind his action.
This is a good question; the answer is that he did,
or rather tried to on many occasions. Remember,
however, that what he called wasteful would
be extreme hardship for most of us, so it is
not as if they were revelling in luxury. I remember
an incident where an ashram worker had fixed
a broken window with a piece of wood, and
Gandhi remarked that a cheaper plywood would
have done just as well ! You must also read
Fischer's descriptions of the physical hardships
everyone had to endure in Wardha to appreciate
it.
Ultimately, Gandhi was no dictator, and he did
not rule by fiat, the life in the ashram was
dominated by his agenda, but all the day to day
workings necessarily had to be done by several
others. Mira Ben gives a good description of the
austere living that Gandhi underwent personally.
RS
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <4crh73$6...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
RS> however, that what he (Gandhi) called wasteful would
RS> be extreme hardship for most of us, so it is
RS> not as if they were revelling in luxury.
This is in contradiction with the observations made by Leah Renold
(check my previous post). Here they are again:
"... Gandhi was known for his humility in insisting on travelling by
third-class trains. To get a seat in a crowded third-class car was
difficult, so when Gandhi and his entourage travelled, the entire
third-class car, cars, and sometimes even the whole train was paid for
to ensure Gandhi's comfort."
"When Gandhi attempted to make a symbolic action by temporarily moving
into an untouchable colony in Delhi, half the residents were moved out
before his visit and the shacks of the residents torn down and neat
little huts constructed in their place. The entrances and windows of
the huts were screened with matting, and during the length of Gandhi's
visit, were kept sprinkled with water to provide a cooling effect. The
local temple was white-washed and new brick paths were laid. In an
interview with Margaret Bourke-White, a photo-journalist for Life
magazine, one of the men in charge of Gandhi's visit, Dinanath Tiang
of the Birla Company, explained the improvements in the untouchable
colony, "We have cared for Gandhiji's comfort for the last twenty
years.""
-Shubu
sayan bhattacharyya
S. Bari <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I am not "claiming" that being a member of an intellectual elite makes
>one more susceptible to eugenics theories. I am simply trying to find
>out if the parallels between Shaw and Tagore can be taken to that extent.
I am not sure what parallels exist between Shaw and Tagore other than the
trivial one that both were writers.
Shaw was a Fabian Socialist and a social critic. Tagore was not overtly
political and was much more of a private person than Shaw was.
I would be curious to know what parallels you see between Tagore and Shaw.
Incidentally, Shaw never quite liked Tagore's writings. Around the time
that __Gitanjali__ bowled over the British literary intelligentsia and
people like Yeats were almost drooling over Tagore (strictly metaphorically
of course, forgive the expression), Shaw remained decidedly cold to Tagore.
> Certainly many believers in Fascism came from non-elite sections of
>society, but one can assume that upholding the status quo is pretty
>standard elitist behavior.
Again, Shaw goes against both these stereotypes. Shaw's father was a
ne'er-do-well who went bankrupt and Shaw can hardly be said to hail from
an elite origin (see his autobiographical writings). Second, Shaw certainly
did not uphold the status quo : instead he lashed out against what he
perceived as hypocrisy and oppressive social norms (see, for example,
"Mrs. Warren's Profession").
S. Bari
one more susceptible to eugenics theories. I am simply trying to find
out if the parallels between Shaw and Tagore can be taken to that extent.
society, but one can assume that upholding the status quo is pretty
ubermenschen, as Shaw did, then I am almost certainly already a member of
that overclass (if not out of self-assurance, then at least out of the
instinct for self-preservation). Once again, I am not stating that Tagore
believed in this - I would like to find out.
S. Bari
(sorry for the misidentification - this is not my own address. Shahed
Aziz did not write the mail you refer to)
Sambit Basu
>I am not "claiming" that being a member of an intellectual elite makes
>one more susceptible to eugenics theories. I am simply trying to find
>out if the parallels between Shaw and Tagore can be taken to that extent.
The question put forward by Sayan regarding the parallelism
between Shaw and Thakur is very well applied. I'd like to
ask the same.
> Certainly many believers in Fascism came from non-elite sections of
>society, but one can assume that upholding the status quo is pretty
>standard elitist behavior.
And I thought that upholding the status quo is an universal
human behaviour.
>And if I believe in intellectual
>ubermenschen, as Shaw did, then I am almost certainly already a member of
>that overclass (if not out of self-assurance, then at least out of the
>instinct for self-preservation). Once again, I am not stating that Tagore
>believed in this - I would like to find out.
>S. Bari
>(sorry for the misidentification - this is not my own address. Shahed
>Aziz did not write the mail you refer to)
Regards,
Sambit
Raghu Seshadri
: RS> however, that what he (Gandhi) called wasteful would
: RS> be extreme hardship for most of us, so it is
: RS> not as if they were revelling in luxury.
: This is in contradiction with the observations made by Leah Renold
: (check my previous post). Here they are again:
-(quotes deleted)
Thanks for the repeat, but obviously our definition
of luxury differs so much we are unlikely to reach
a consensus. Travelling 3rd class and visiting
slums are not in my top ten luxurious activities.
In fact, with the money that Gandhi made as a
lawyer in South Africa, I can think of 20 other
more luxurious things. But you disagree, and
that is where matters will have to rest.
RS
Mahesh Yadav
great personalities. When you read Rabindranath's Poems or see Gandhi's
actions -- That alone is sufficient for convincing any one about their
greatness. I usually do not read such controversial books when I judge
myself from their works. Afterall the author of the book may not have
noble intentions to begin with. So what if they are not perfect in every way!
I would not mind if you guys discuss the differences seriously, but
it looks that you guys had doubts about Gandhi and Tagore to begin with and
find solace when some author point out the negativism.
Neither Gandhi or Tagore is God, they are known for their greatness
in some aspects and they all probably had short commings. Yet they provide
wonderful role models. Let us strive to become half as much.
Regards Mahesh Yadav
S. Bari
>In article <4cmk8m$q...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Shahed Aziz <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
>
>
>one of the greatest intellects of his age, it must be remembered that he
>was by no means an elitist. If he had been, then he would not have drawn
>so heavily from the layer of subaltern culture (e.g. __baul__ music ) as
>he did for his art. Indeed, for the early part of his career,
>namely the pre-Nobel prize period, the intellectual elite of Calcutta
>was rather hostile to him and the literary-intellectual establishment
>led by Sureshchandra Samajpati among others, mounted some rather vicious
>attacks on him. In fact he was something of an anti-establishment figure
>in his early career. So charges of elitism against Tagore seem unfair.
>
>-Sayan.
>
>
privilege. I would be the first to acknowledge the place Tagore gave to
folk culture (which was considered low-brow in his time). However, the
remark (not a "charge of elitism") was made in the context of his
(possibly misguided) support of fascism, not with regard to the content
of his works.
S. Bari
(sorry for the misidentification - I am writing from Shahed Aziz's
address. He is not the author of the post you refer to)
Soumitra Bose
(sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>In article <4cptp8$e...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>S. Bari <shahe...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
makes
>>one more susceptible to eugenics theories. I am simply trying to
find
>>out if the parallels between Shaw and Tagore can be taken to that
extent.
>
>
the
>trivial one that both were writers.
>
>Shaw was a Fabian Socialist and a social critic. Tagore was not
overtly
>political and was much more of a private person than Shaw was.
>
>I would be curious to know what parallels you see between Tagore and
Shaw.
>
>Incidentally, Shaw never quite liked Tagore's writings. Around the
time
>that __Gitanjali__ bowled over the British literary intelligentsia and
>people like Yeats were almost drooling over Tagore (strictly
metaphorically
>of course, forgive the expression), Shaw remained decidedly cold to
Tagore.
>
>>society, but one can assume that upholding the status quo is pretty
>>standard elitist behavior.
>
>ne'er-do-well who went bankrupt and Shaw can hardly be said to hail
from
>an elite origin (see his autobiographical writings). Second, Shaw
certainly
>did not uphold the status quo : instead he lashed out against what he
>perceived as hypocrisy and oppressive social norms (see, for example,
>"Mrs. Warren's Profession").
>
>-Sayan.
>
>
>--
>Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in
>Artificial Intelligence Lab | the mind of the beholder.
>Electrical Engineering & Computer Science|
>The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | - Ray Jackendoff
>
>
A literature or a creative person in the literary world is measured by
the degree and depth of his/her sensitivity. Here Tagore excelled .
Nazrul had a personal experience in many walks of life , Tagore did not
and that exactly is where he triumphs.His observation was so powerful
and the sensitivity was so strong that even with the limited experience
he could fathom the psyche of the different section of the people.
I guess the use of money and the identity of patrons is a non-issue
both for Tagore or Gandhi or for that matter Vivekanada. In the social
perspective of colonial oppression the money has to come from the
national bourgeoisie or from the native feudal lords , there is no
other way. To gather money from the people , when all of Indians are
disempowered is quite an utopia especially when the activity is not
directly political .
The question of debate in the book and what is stirring the grape-vine
is was Tagore really a poles-apart person from Gandhi in ideology or
was it Subhas Bose's family attitude in Krishna Dutta which prevailed
when she commented all these ?
Indranil DasGupta
: In article <4cpg3p$b...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>,
: Raghu Seshadri <sesh...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
: >Shubu Mukherjee (sh...@cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: >
: I agree that this shows that Gandhi was at least not a hypocrite. However,
: the question remains to me : if he knew that the ashram could be run on
: less money, then why was he not doing so? After all, the money could then
: be diverted to other uses (setting up more ashrams for example)?
: Note that I am not accusing Gandhi of anything. I am just trying to
: understand the rationale behind his action.
It's futile and ridiculous to look for rationale behind the actions of
a man who generally claimed to make decisions on Parmatma's guidance.
Indranil.
Raghu Seshadri
: I guess the use of money and the identity of patrons is a non-issue
: both for Tagore or Gandhi or for that matter Vivekanada. In the social
: perspective of colonial oppression the money has to come from the
: national bourgeoisie or from the native feudal lords , there is no
: other way. To gather money from the people , when all of Indians are
: disempowered is quite an utopia especially when the activity is not
: directly political .
Exactly. It is amazing how many people take up this
non-issue and trumpet it as if they have made a
great point.
RS
Soumitra Bose
) writes:
>
>>sh...@cs.wisc.edu (Shubu Mukherjee) writes:
>
>>>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
>
>>Excerpts from "Gandhi: Patron Saint of the Industrialist" by Leah
>>Renold.
>
>>of the Birla Company, explained the improvements in the untouchable
>>colony, "We have cared for Gandhiji's comfort for the last twenty
>
>>Gandhi put forward the illusory image of poverty and simplicity while
>>he was actually living very comfortably.
>
>When Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" came out, Salman Rushdie became
>involved in a very racuous, back-and-forth debate with him in the UK
>papers. Bone of contention, the "Mahattenborough"/"Mahatma Dickie"
was
>painting a very sanitized picture of Gandhi. One of the
contradictions
>that Rushdie pointed out was that Gandhi, the creator of the Charka
>cult, died in the house of one of India's biggest industrialists.
fact was not anything to beat Gandhi. During those days of colonial
oppression Birla was (though not a national bourgeois) less of an enemy
than BRitish , and mind you Gandhi did never claim to be a friend of
the proletariat.
Raghu Seshadri
: S> I guess it is not very outlandish to suggest that every Indian should
: S> read Gandhi in his own works and also something about Gandhi's life. HE
: S> definitely was not going through a royal treatment or a lavish
: S> life-style .
: Margaret Bourke-White claims otherwise. Quote from Leah Renold's
: article:
: "Margaret Bourke-White, having read Gandhi's seemingly revolutionary
: writings, was very puzzled to learn that for a quarter of a century
: Gandhi had spent much of his time living in G. D. Birla's palatial
: mansion in Delhi, where he was later assassinated."
When there are a million eyewitnesses who swear
that Gandhi led an austere life, and a handful
who say he didn't, I can be sure it is the
latter who are telling the truth :-), especially
if they cater to my peevish prejudices and preconceived
notions.
I am sure those 21 day fasts were fake too. Birla
must have smuggled in pizzas. His little hut in
Wardha has been discovered by Margaret Bourke-White
to have secret airconditioning ducts. His dhoti ?
Under the khadi, Birla's textile factory
had arranged for silk padding. He didn't spend
20 years in jail; Birla had arranged for a double,
while Gandhi was vacationing in Delhi slums,
having luxuriously travelled there by 3rd class.
RS
Shubu Mukherjee
S> I guess it is not very outlandish to suggest that every Indian should
S> read Gandhi in his own works and also something about Gandhi's life. HE
S> definitely was not going through a royal treatment or a lavish
S> life-style .
Margaret Bourke-White claims otherwise. Quote from Leah Renold's
article:
"Margaret Bourke-White, having read Gandhi's seemingly revolutionary
writings, was very puzzled to learn that for a quarter of a century
Gandhi had spent much of his time living in G. D. Birla's palatial
mansion in Delhi, where he was later assassinated."
S> To be very frank very few Congressi leaders did really go
S> through the self-imposed hardship or simplicity . Not at least Jinnah
S> or for that matter even C.R.Das.
Then again none of them was the "Father of the Nation!"
Soumitra Bose
internationalistic? Is it so simple or both these guys had
contradictory activities up their hats ?
Atique Ullah
>
> >
> >When Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" came out, Salman Rushdie became
> >involved in a very racuous, back-and-forth debate with him in the UK
> >papers. Bone of contention, the "Mahattenborough"/"Mahatma Dickie"
> was
> >painting a very sanitized picture of Gandhi. One of the
> contradictions
> >that Rushdie pointed out was that Gandhi, the creator of the Charka
> >cult, died in the house of one of India's biggest industrialists.
> >--
> >----------------------------
> >Naeem Mohaiemen
> >
> >na...@ix.netcom.com
> >----------------------------
> PEople of the left always used this to catigate him , but I think this
> fact was not anything to beat Gandhi. During those days of colonial
> oppression Birla was (though not a national bourgeois) less of an enemy
> than BRitish , and mind you Gandhi did never claim to be a friend of
> the proletariat.
I don't understand what the big deal is that Gandhi stayed at Birla's
house. Gandhi stayed there at the insistence of Nehru and Patel.
Birla was one of Gandhi's earliest supporters despite the fact
that Gandhi led one of his earliest strikes against one of Birla's
mills.
Atique
dipen bhattacharya
How much do we read into the chapter called "Italy, Mussolini
and After?" Dutta & Robinson have written an interesting
account, but they don't claim it to be definite and we shouldn't
either. In June, 1926 after his 22 day Italian visit Rabindranath
went to Switzerland. There he met Romain Rolland. Here is an
account by Edward Thompson in his book called
"Rabindranath Tagore" Poet and Dramatist".
"Tagore was shaken and distressed. 'Being ignorant of Italian
the only precaution I could take was to repeat emphatically to
all my listeners that I had no opportunity yet to study the
history and character of fascism...I have said over and over
again that the aggressive spirit of Nationalism and Imperialism
- religions cultivated by most nations of the West - is a menace
to the whole world.' He now obtained first hand information of
what fascism is doing, from distinguished Italian exiles. With
characteristic candour and courage he immediately made his
judgement clear, in a letter to Manchester Guardian. As a result,
the Government-controlled press of Italy broke into a storm of
denunciation."
Dutta and Robinson gloss over this letter in Manchester
Guardian, instead they prefer to assign too much meaning
in the encounter between Rolland and others with Tagore in
Switzerland. However, they gave an account of the Italian press
reaction:
"Whatever Tagore's waverings, the Fascist press was in no doubt
about Tagore....An editorial appeared in Popolo d'italia, edited
by Mussolini's brother. Without even mentioning what Tagore had
said outside Italy, it abused him as the 'Poet of Flowers, Stars
and Pound Sterling', 'this dishonest Tartuffe' who had 'profited
by Italy's traditional and lordly hospitality towards her
guests, Italy saw in him the symbol of the great Indian people
and its terrifying dilemmas.' The writer concluded:'Who cares?
Italy laughs at Tagore and those who brought this unctuous and
insupportable fellow in our midst."
Remember this was 1926, and already the fascist press was
vicious about Rabindranath when a big chunk of the western elite
was going ga-ga over Mussolini. I don't think Tagore failed to
identify Mussolini's position in the ultra-nationalistic Italy,
if anything he did it earlier than many European statesmen,
including Winston Churchill.
Dipen
p.s Overall, I thought the book was pretty engrossing. It
was great reading how Mussolini could not prevent Rabindranath
from meeting the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce.
Indranil DasGupta
: Please note that I have greatest respects for Gandhi's acumen as a
: politician. He dwarfed his contemporaries in that front by a wide
: margin. Also, I do understand the need for political stunts.
: Apratim.
Well said!
Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
: th Life in Sabarmati Ashram was ...
: ... pretty hardworking and tough and disciplined . One of
: the very few great and emulating actions he did is to start the Ashram.
How? Surely in not providing an example as to how life may be
made "hardworking and tough"?
: To be very frank very few Congressi leaders did really go
: through the self-imposed hardship or simplicity . Not at least Jinnah
: or for that matter even C.R.Das.
Shows that they were smart, right? Or are you saying that "self-
imposed hardship" is praiseworthy, and if yes, why?
Anyway, I think that what other nettors were trying to point out
is that Gandhi's "hardships" sometimes cost more to the Congress
Party than (perhaps) what a (so-called) lavish lifestyle would have
cost. The example of reserving the entire train so that Gandhi
may travel in third class is particularly applicable in this
context IMO.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>
>: I agree that this shows that Gandhi was at least not a hypocrite.
However,
>: the question remains to me : if he knew that the ashram could be run
on
>: less money, then why was he not doing so? After all, the money could
then
>: be diverted to other uses (setting up more ashrams for example)?
>
>: Note that I am not accusing Gandhi of anything. I am just trying to
>: understand the rationale behind his action.
>
>or rather tried to on many occasions. Remember,
>however, that what he called wasteful would
>an incident where an ashram worker had fixed
>a broken window with a piece of wood, and
>Gandhi remarked that a cheaper plywood would
>have done just as well ! You must also read
>Fischer's descriptions of the physical hardships
>everyone had to endure in Wardha to appreciate
>it.
>
>Ultimately, Gandhi was no dictator, and he did
>not rule by fiat, the life in the ashram was
>dominated by his agenda, but all the day to day
>workings necessarily had to be done by several
>others. Mira Ben gives a good description of the
>austere living that Gandhi underwent personally.
>
>RS
goes . But this is too much of an affront to see that some are trying
to prove that th Life in Sabarmati Ashram was like a OSho's Ashram
affair. Life was pretty hardworking and tough and disciplined . One of
the very few great and emulating actions he did is to start the Ashram.
sambit_basu
> >
> > And I thought that upholding the status quo is an universal
> > human behaviour.
>
> Where does Sambit get these Biblical revelations?
Surely not from any book written by some "Marxist-theoretician", famous for
being knowledgable in anything from Economics to Ergonomics.
> What is Universal
> beheaviour any way , other than of course rushing to the toilet when
> the belly gets heavy?
Here comes a revelation for me. Thanks to the hard-core revolutionary
Soumitrababu.
I guess eating when one is hungry is pretty much an universal behaviour. Any
behavioural psychologist on net? Or better still, Soumitrababu,is there any
reference to this in any one of your "Marxist"'s writing? That will settle the
matter beyond any doubt. At least for you.
Regards,
Sambit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Employer is not responsible for what I say, and vice versa.
Soumitra Bose
Mukherjee) writes:
>
>
>>>>>> In article <4ct46m$8...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
should
>S> read Gandhi in his own works and also something about Gandhi's
life. HE
>S> definitely was not going through a royal treatment or a lavish
>S> life-style .
>
>Margaret Bourke-White claims otherwise. Quote from Leah Renold's
>article:
>
>"Margaret Bourke-White, having read Gandhi's seemingly revolutionary
>writings, was very puzzled to learn that for a quarter of a century
>Gandhi had spent much of his time living in G. D. Birla's palatial
>mansion in Delhi, where he was later assassinated."
>
>S> through the self-imposed hardship or simplicity . Not at least
Jinnah
>S> or for that matter even C.R.Das.
>
>Then again none of them was the "Father of the Nation!"
>
>-Shubu
>
>--
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sciences
>sh...@cs.wisc.edu http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu
>
as a matter of fact he was on the other side .But just staying in
Birla's house for a while does not mean his lifestyle was royal and
lavish . He stayed in a dingy house in BEleghata when he came to
Calcutta, he lived mostly always in simple households when he travelled
and his Sabarmati ashram was never luxurious.TRy to attack his
philosophy if you are so against , not where he rested his ass for a
while ? This is how all the socia-political debates go astray...HAve
you heard about the THAKUR/KUKUR syndrome of Bengalees ? To us nothing
stays in-between.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
start
>: a discussion on this much-debated book\???????
>
>Why don't you mail the book to me now?
>I promise to discuss it after I have read it.
>
>Indranil.
The best way to get copies are from SAyed Shahid at 718 359 8866 . HE
is having all these books from Calcutta.
Soumitra Bose
>Indranil DasGupta (dgu...@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:
>: Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: : I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
start
>: : a discussion on this much-debated book\???????
>
>: Why don't you mail the book to me now?
>: I promise to discuss it after I have read it.
>
debo ...
>
>: Indranil.
>
> Apratim.
MAma ektu kosto kore Shahid er theke chailei to hoi. Tumi to uponyash
porte agrohi . ektu nahoi Kolkatar boi er byaparidero sahajyo hoi.
Soumitra Bose
>
>
>
>
simply because you may not have the food or money . How many days have
you gone hungry in your life Sambit?
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <4cu8cq$r...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
RS> When there are a million eyewitnesses who swear
RS> that Gandhi led an austere life,
Are there?
Gandhi no doubt was a very shrewd politician. And he had a
significant contribution in Indian's freedom fight for which I respect
him.
But Gandhi wasn't God. Neither was he oblivious to the comforts of
life. There are plenty of documented evidence to support these.
Personally, I don't like hero worship. I would rather call a spade a
spade.
-Shubu
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naeem Mohaiemen
>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN- Dutta/Robinson [St
Martin's]
>The best way to get copies are from SAyed Shahid at 718 359 8866 . HE
>is having all these books from Calcutta.
May I suggest that people in larger cities go to Barnes & Nobles,
Borders, or other such book stores. If they do not have copy on hand,
usually takes a week to order it.
When I went to B & N in SF, I was the first person to purchase a copy,
6 more copies languished.
Unless we use our economic clout in visible ways, the number of s asia
related books published by US publishers will remain miniscule.
--
----------------------------------------------
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mercer Management Consulting
*My views do not represent that of my employer*
na...@ix.netcom.com
nmoha...@aol.com
na...@sfbayguardian.com
naeem_m...@mercermc.com
http://www.oberlin.edu/~nmohaiem
-----------------------------------------------
"Bengali, Bengali
Shelve your Western Plans"
['Bengali in Platforms'- Morrissey]
Naeem Mohaiemen
>
> Some more rambling on the issue :
> How much do we read into the chapter called "Italy, Mussolini
> and After?" Dutta & Robinson have written an interesting
> account, but they don't claim it to be definite and we shouldn't
> either.
My feeling was Dutta/Robinson emphasized certain episodes based on how
much, "never published" source material they had uncovered.
Raghu Seshadri
: >>>>> In article <4cu8cq$r...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
: RS> When there are a million eyewitnesses who swear
: RS> that Gandhi led an austere life,
: Are there?
No, I was mistaken. Actually there were tens of
millions.
: Gandhi no doubt was a very shrewd politician. And he had a
: significant contribution in Indian's freedom fight for which I respect
: him.
Gee, that is noble of you.
: But Gandhi wasn't God.
Exactly whose claim are you refuting here ? :-)
: Neither was he oblivious to the comforts of
: life. There are plenty of documented evidence to support these.
Lets have it.
: Personally, I don't like hero worship. I would rather call a spade a
: spade.
Me too, but I don't see the relevance of this
sentiment here. Who is hero-worshipping ?
Besides, I am sure you know that the only
alternative to hero-worshipping is NOT
petty mudslinging, and narrowminded carping.
This sort of thing reveals more about
the critic than about the object of
criticism.
RS
Apratim Sarkar
sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
>
>there are a million eyewitnesses who swear that Gandhi led an austere life,
No doubt there is, Raghu. Gandhi did live an austere life. But the
point is not that - the point is did it actually _cost more_ than
what it would have, if he had agreed to compromise a little and lead
a more affluent life?
Of course you may say that the money came from the Birlas so why
bother - and I would agree with you. Besides, the myth of Gandhi's
austerity had a great role to play in firing the imagination of the
millions of impoverished Indians - hence personally I consider it
money well spent.
But think about the alternative, suppose Gandhi travelled by the first
class instead of reserving the entire third class train, those poor
guys who really needed to travel by the third class train (including
perhaps some ailing) wouldn't have suffered. A few slum dwellers would
also retain their homes if Gandhi decided to settle down in Birla's
mansion (which he didn't) and not try to live in a slum. (Examples
from Shubu's posts on the net.) All for a good cause, I agree. All
political stunts are for good causes.
Please note here that I am _not_ picking on Gandhi. He employed what
was the most practical political stunt to use considering the times,
and his stunts worked. I have highest respects for Gandhi in that
regard (and I am not being sarcastic at all) that I was born a free
Indian which my parents were not. I am picking on blind sycophants
like you.
Apratim.
--
Bhai kare tai aaj shoriye dite Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
Kauke| Oke chaine du:kho dite| are my own and shouldn't be construed in
- Amiyo Chakrabarty. any way to represent that of my employer.
Raghu Seshadri
: No doubt there is, Raghu. Gandhi did live an austere life. But the
: point is not that - the point is did it actually _cost more_ than
: what it would have, if he had agreed to compromise a little and lead
: a more affluent life?
In the whole scheme of things, these matters are
too petty to bother about, only someone overeager
to find fault will even think of these trifles.
: But think about the alternative, suppose Gandhi travelled by the first
: class instead of reserving the entire third class train, those poor
: guys who really needed to travel by the third class train (including
: perhaps some ailing) wouldn't have suffered. A few slum dwellers would
: also retain their homes if Gandhi decided to settle down in Birla's
: mansion (which he didn't) and not try to live in a slum. (Examples
: from Shubu's posts on the net.) All for a good cause, I agree. All
And if Gandhi had committed suicide, poor slum dwellers
could have had his goatmilk or worn his slippers.
Very true. I am sorry he didn't kill himself
in order to please you and Shubu. Have you
written your checks to the Godse Foundation ?
: political stunts are for good causes.
If it is for a good cause, why is it a stunt ?
What is your definition of stunt anyway ?
Anything that you didn't have the imagination
to think of ? :-)
: Please note here that I am _not_ picking on Gandhi. He employed what
: was the most practical political stunt to use considering the times,
: and his stunts worked. I have highest respects for Gandhi in that
: regard (and I am not being sarcastic at all) that I was born a free
: Indian which my parents were not. I am picking on blind sycophants
: like you.
Quite apart from the fact that you cannot be
a sycophant of a dead person, is the only
alternative to being a pettyminded carping
mudslinger a "blind sycophant" ? Does one
have to agree with your judgment on everything
in order not to be "blind" ?
RS
Shubu Mukherjee
>>>>> In article <4cvdah$s...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
SB> I guess it is not very outlandish to suggest that every Indian
SB> should read Gandhi in his own works and also something about
SB> Gandhi's life. HE definitely was not going through a royal
SB> treatment or a lavish life-style .
>> Margaret Bourke-White claims otherwise. Quote from Leah Renold's
>> article:
>>
>> "Margaret Bourke-White, having read Gandhi's seemingly revolutionary
>> writings, was very puzzled to learn that for a quarter of a century
>> Gandhi had spent much of his time living in G. D. Birla's palatial
>> mansion in Delhi, where he was later assassinated."
SB> Listen I never said that Gandhi was a spokesperson of the proletariat,
SB> as a matter of fact he was on the other side .But just staying in
SB> Birla's house for a while does not mean his lifestyle was royal and
SB> lavish .
Are we talking about an air-conditioned "kur-e ghor" at Birla's
mansion? :-)
SB> He stayed in a dingy house in BEleghata when he came to
SB> Calcutta, he lived mostly always in simple households when he travelled
SB> and his Sabarmati ashram was never luxurious.
I quote:
"In a similar vein, Gandhi was known for his humility in insisting on
travelling by third-class trains. To get a seat in a crowded
third-class car was difficult, so when Gandhi and his entourage
travelled, the entire third-class car, cars, and sometimes even the
whole train was paid for to ensure Gandhi's comfort.[51] When Gandhi
attempted to make a symbolic action by temporarily moving into an
untouchable colony in Delhi, half the residents were moved out before
his visit and the shacks of the residents torn down and neat little
huts constructed in their place. The entrances and windows of the huts
were screened with matting, and during the length of Gandhi's visit,
were kept sprinkled with water to provide a cooling effect. The local
temple was white-washed and new brick paths were laid."
SB> TRy to attack his
SB> philosophy if you are so against , not where he rested his ass for a
SB> while ?
Some would say 25 years is _quite_ a while! :-) Maybe you don't
agree.
The point is: did Gandhi do all this to show off? Did he do all these
for his personal political gains? Did he practise what he preached?
Was he a hypocrite? I don't know all the answers, but documented
evidence suggests that he was no saint (as is popularly believed).
Hypothetically, if Gandhi was indeed a hypocrite, would you like to
call him the "Father of the Nation?"
Farzana S. Islam
> call him the "Father of the Nation?"
>
> -Shubu
Absolutely. To become "father of the nation" is a socio-political issue
and is independent of one's personality. Gandhi's is called that way
because it is largely due to his efforts that India gained independence
when it did.
But for those of you who think that fathers should be beyond reproach and
in all senses perfect (something the American public seems to expect),
what do you think of Gandhi? Of Mujib?
This could make for some interesting dialogue.
Farzana
sayan bhattacharyya
>> soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
>> >
>> > And I thought that upholding the status quo is an universal
>> > human behaviour.
>>
>> Where does Sambit get these Biblical revelations?
>
> Surely not from any book written by some "Marxist-theoretician", famous for
> being knowledgable in anything from Economics to Ergonomics.
>
I almost cannot believe that the above silly posting came from the
keyboard of Sambit Basu.
Sambit, I expected better from you. Seriously. What you have done is
simply jerk your knee (on second thoughts, not unusual, given your
partiality for behavioral psychology :-) ) in response to Soumitra's
question, which was a serious question which deserved a serious answer.
Normally you are quite fair and honest, so it is a little sad to see you
avoiding direct answers by resorting to stereotyping and name-calling.
This kind of debating style is better left to the Hindu fundamentalist
nincompoops on the net who label everything they disagree with, marxist
propaganda. Rational and sensible people like you should avoid falling into
this trap.
> I guess eating when one is hungry is pretty much an universal behaviour. Any
> behavioural psychologist on net? Or better still, Soumitrababu,is there any
> reference to this in any one of your "Marxist"'s writing? That will settle the
> matter beyond any doubt. At least for you.
>
Sambit, if you reflected, you would have realized that no dyed-in-the-wool
marxist will ever say that _change_ is universal human behavior. Consider :
that would suggest that, even in the classical marxist workers' paradise
where class inequalities do not exist, people would still want to change
society! Then the workers' paradise would itself change and cease to exist, a
state of affairs anathema to doctrinaire classical marxists. So as you can
see, a little reflection shows that, aar jai hok, Soumitra was not being
a marxist propagandist here.
I have a feeling that where Soumitra was coming from when he made this
remark, was the postmodernist Soumitra rather than the marxist Soumitra.
The postmodernists believe that no text can have a unique canonical value,
and by extension of the same idea, the existence of absolutes is repugnant
to a postmodernist. This leads to the realization that there are no cultural
and behavioral absolutes for the human animal (if only for the simple reason
that the human is a thinking animal, and thought _ipso facto_ is so fluid
that it rarely if ever admits of absolutes). So neither desire for change,
nor the desire for status quo, is a human behavioral absolute. Indeed,
behavioral absolutes do not exist.
My own view is that human nature operates on a complex dialectic consisting
of the desire for change and the desire for stability. A great example of this
is language, in which we clearly see these competing forces. Robert Axelrod's
very interesting work on computer simulations of cultural evolution also
seems to point in the same direction.
-Sayan.
sayan bhattacharyya
>
> Sayan, let me ask you a simpler question. A few days ago you told us
> that "biplob" is a natural process. But even then why do you think it is
> so difficult to mobilize the mass, the non-"intellectual-elites"?
>
In this question you are ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold,
and then you are asking me "Why do you hold this belief X ?".
I am not sure in what way this question is relevant to the charter of
soc.culture.bengali. Anyway, I will try to answer the question, but I will not
answer any follow-ups.
I assume that you mean by "biplob" any sudden and dramatic large change.
Thus, the vaishnav movement started by Chaitanya, or the industrial revolution
in England, or the French revolution, all are examples of "revolution". I
am assuming that here you are referring specifically to political or social
revolutions.
To answer your question, I do not think it is either easy or difficult to
mobilize the "mass" (sic). Rather, my view is that there is never any
external force or agency "mobilizing" people during a revolution -- so the
question of ease or difficulty does not arise at all. Due to the force of
events, people mobilize themselves and again due to the force of events
certain people who happen to be at a particular place at a particular point
come to be known to posterity as "leaders". But during a revolution there
is hardly ever any overt mobilization going on.
-Sayan.
Taranga Ghosh
>
> people like Yeats were almost drooling over Tagore (strictly metaphorically
> of course, forgive the expression), Shaw remained decidedly cold to Tagore.
I think Shaw lampooned Tagore in one of his plays (I forget which);
the character representing Tagore was called Sir Stupendranath Begorr.
--
regards,
Taranga Ghosh
Probal Sengupta
want to say something.
In article <4culsi$i...@alterdial.UU.NET>, Sambit Basu writes:
| > soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
|
| > >
| > > And I thought that upholding the status quo is an universal
| > > human behaviour.
| >
| > Where does Sambit get these Biblical revelations?
|
[deleted]
|
| I guess eating when one is hungry is pretty much an universal behaviour. Any
| behavioural psychologist on net?
[deleted]
|
| Regards,
| Sambit
I am an expert behavioural psychologist specializing on a very important
subset of the species homo sapiens sapiens, namely the BODDIES. That the
BODDIES display behaviours that are quite orthogonal to the complement
set is best revealed by this well researched article by the greatest
BODDY behavioural psychologist ever to have walked on this earth.
\begin{quote}
Shunchho Dada oi je hothaay Boddi Buro thaake,
She naaki roj khaawoaar shomoy haat diye bhaat maakhe?!!!!?
Shunchhi naaki khide-o paay, shaaraa din naa khele?!!!!?
Chokkhu naaki aapni boje, ghum-ti temon pele?!!!!?
Cholte giye thyang naaki taar bhu(N)yer pore thyake?!!!!?
Kaan diye shob shone naaki, chokh diye shob dekhe?!!!!?
Shoy naaki she mundu-take shiyor paane diye?!!!!?
Hoy ki naa hoy sotyo mithya, chol naa dekhi giye!!!!!!!!
\end{quote}
In a separate and equally researched article, the doyen wrote:
\begin{quote}
Kaho bhaai kaho re
Ya(N)kachora shahore,
Boddi-ra keno keu aalu-bhaate khaay naa???
Lekha aachhe kagoje, [comments: referring to his own papers]
Aalu khele magoje,
Ghilu jaay bhestiye, buddhi gojaay naa.
\end{quote}
With the above quotes, I hope that I have proved beyond doubt that
unless further research proves that BODDIES are a separate species
than homo sapiens sapiens (heretofore referred to as "humans"), any
conjecture on universality of human behaviour is bound to be
falsifiable. And let me warn anybody who might wish to post any such
conjecture on the set [humans - BODDIES]. Any such article would be
considered racist, sectarian and divisive and would be promptly
referred to respective system manager. The matter may even be referred
to the United Nations whose present higher office bearers are known
to have soft corners for BOODIES.
For those who are still missing the point, :-) ;-), etc.
Probal
Quiz: Name the doyen quoted above.
sambit_basu
> Well you cannot rush or run or try to eat always when you are hungry
> simply because you may not have the food or money . How many days have
> you gone hungry in your life Sambit?
Am I missing any point here? I think we were talking about whether urge to
eat when hungry is an universal behaviour or not. I was not talking about
the logistics of eating. And I don't understand why _I_ have to experience
something before it can be considered as universal. My ego is not that
big.
Regards,
Sambit
Soumitra Bose
(sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960110...@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
>Farzana S. Islam <fs...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
>>But for those of you who think that fathers should be beyond reproach
and
>>in all senses perfect (something the American public seems to
expect),
>>what do you think of Gandhi? Of Mujib?
>>
>
>during the Great Calcutta killings of 1946. Please note that I have
very
>little knowledge of the facts from this period and I don't know if the
>story is true. Does anyone know if this story is true?
>
>-Sayan.
>
>
>
A complete description is to be found in the Swadhinata and Amrita
Bazar PAtrika then which carried day to day anecdotes around the
Islamia College and BAker Hostel (Now Maulan Azad College)HE was the
leader of the goons around that area .Even intelligence report in the
police archives mentions that .PRoblem is He was a henchmen of
Suhrawardy , but the inceident raised the eyebrows that Suhrawardy had
to come down to the now Rafi Ahmed Kidwai road area (most probably in
the Wellesly park area) to placate the local people.
Naeem Mohaiemen
>>did it actually _cost more
>
>In the whole scheme of things, these matters are
>too petty to bother about, only someone overeager
>to find fault will even think of these trifles.
The issue here is not the actual cost, but whether Gandhi was a
hypocrite.
--
----------------------------------------------
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mercer Management Consulting
*My views do not represent that of my employer*
na...@ix.netcom.com
nmoha...@aol.com
naeem_m...@sfbayguardian.com
Kaberi Chakrabarty
You know, I have been following this discussion with interest, thinking to
myself, "How about that? These guys are (1) discussing something that clearly
has a Bengali connection (2) discussing it in a way that I can actually follow
along and learn something (3) not using offensive language and (4) not calling
each other names, and all at the same time too! This is great!"
And now I find this stuff about "sycophants" and "pettiness" and "no imagina-
tion" and a variety of other things.:-(
Is it really too much to expect that you would be able to have this kind of
conversation without attacking each other personally? It's bad enough that
it's almost impossible to start and maintain a thread if you don't say some-
thing obviously provocative or controversial. Anything that people generally
agree with gets swallowed into the black hole of cyberspace and is never heard
from again. You are all apparently intelligent people; must you lower yourself
this way?
--
________________ _/-\________
/|\ | / /| /| |
\| | \ \| \| |
*
Naeem Mohaiemen
>You know, I have been following this discussion with interest, thinking to
>myself, "How about that? These guys are (1) discussing something that clearly
>has a Bengali connection (2) discussing it in a way that I can
actually follow
>along and learn something (3) not using offensive language and (4) not
calling
>each other names, and all at the same time too! This is great!"
>it's almost impossible to start and maintain a thread if you don't say
some-
>thing obviously provocative or controversial. Anything that people
generally
>agree with gets swallowed into the black hole of cyberspace and is
never heard
>from again.
Pleasant articles that people agree with disappear. Not a big
surprise. "apni amar pith chulke den, ami apnar tao kore di" type stuff
doesn't make netters tune in regularly.
Ektu argument na hole ki ar jome.. :-)
But yes, the name-calling aspect turns a lot of people off.
Sudeshna Das
: : Sudeshna Das (sude...@bu.edu) wrote:
: : : Please note that I have greatest respects for Gandhi's acumen as a
: : : politician. He dwarfed his contemporaries in that front by a wide
: : : margin. Also, I do understand the need for political stunts.
: : : Apratim.
: You may understand the need for stunts, but you
: sure don't understand Gandhi.
Why do you say so?
: RS
Apratim.
Apratim Sarkar
>>>sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
>>>did it actually _cost more
>>
>>In the whole scheme of things, these matters are
>>too petty to bother about, only someone overeager
>>to find fault will even think of these trifles.
>
>The issue here is not the actual cost, but whether Gandhi was a
>hypocrite.
In my opinion, he most definitely was not.
>--
>----------------------------------------------
>Naeem Mohaiemen
Apratim Sarkar
>Apratim Sarkar (asa...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>
>: No doubt there is, Raghu. Gandhi did live an austere life. But the
>: point is not that - the point is did it actually _cost more_ than
>: what it would have, if he had agreed to compromise a little and lead
>: a more affluent life?
>
>too petty to bother about, only someone overeager
>to find fault will even think of these trifles.
Yes, that I completely agree with. Taking into context the
contemporary political situation whatever Gandhi did was
indeed the best thing I imagine he could have done.
But that doesn't mean that the "trifles" are baseless allegations.
Are they, Raghu?
>: But think about the alternative, suppose Gandhi travelled by the first
>: class instead of reserving the entire third class train, those poor
>: guys who really needed to travel by the third class train (including
>: perhaps some ailing) wouldn't have suffered. A few slum dwellers would
>: also retain their homes if Gandhi decided to settle down in Birla's
>: mansion (which he didn't) and not try to live in a slum. (Examples
>: from Shubu's posts on the net.) All for a good cause, I agree. All
>
>And if Gandhi had committed suicide, poor slum dwellers
>could have had his goatmilk or worn his slippers.
>Very true. I am sorry he didn't kill himself
>in order to please you and Shubu. Have you
>written your checks to the Godse Foundation ?
Expected better from you, Raghu. Take another shot.
>: political stunts are for good causes.
>
>If it is for a good cause, why is it a stunt ?
>What is your definition of stunt anyway ?
Something that is done solely to capture the imagination of the people
and doesn't have much practical benefits (and may and sometimes do
cause substantial practical harm) if examined closely (other
that influencing the people). If the influence is used for worthwhile
purposes, the stunt is worthwhile in my opinion. Otherwise not.
>Anything that you didn't have the imagination
>to think of ? :-)
>
>: Please note here that I am _not_ picking on Gandhi. He employed what
>: was the most practical political stunt to use considering the times,
>: and his stunts worked. I have highest respects for Gandhi in that
>: regard (and I am not being sarcastic at all) that I was born a free
>: Indian which my parents were not. I am picking on blind sycophants
>: like you.
>
>Quite apart from the fact that you cannot be
>a sycophant of a dead person, is the only
>alternative to being a pettyminded carping
>mudslinger a "blind sycophant" ? Does one
>have to agree with your judgment on everything
>in order not to be "blind" ?
I understand that you have been hurt at my calling you a blind
sycophant. My sincere apologies. Well, let me revise my statement.
I was picking on people who would rather not discuss the vacuous
and oft harmful consequences on Gandhiji's self-imposed austerity
outside the context of a popular mass movement as their respect
for Gandhiji leads them to idol worshipping.
>RS
Soumitra Bose
>>too petty to bother about, only someone overeager
>>to find fault will even think of these trifles.
>
>hypocrite.
>----------------------------------------------
>Naeem Mohaiemen
>Mercer Management Consulting
>
>*My views do not represent that of my employer*
>
>na...@ix.netcom.com
>nmoha...@aol.com
>naeem_m...@sfbayguardian.com
>naeem_m...@mercermc.com
>http://www.oberlin.edu/~nmohaiem
>-----------------------------------------------
>"Bengali, Bengali
> Shelve your Western Plans"
> ['Bengali in Platforms'- Morrissey]
Any leader who represented the then bourgeois was a hypocrite . But To
find Ganhdis Hypocricy one should not have to start through what he did
in which train ? Can you swear how many people joined that journey ,
why the whole train was booked , who paid for it . I know Congress
party did not ,[ no party documents mentions that , that sort of an
expenditure would surely have raised questions within the Party (The
flamboyant extravaganza at the Park Circus Congress -when Subhas Bose
was the GOC - raised so many questions)] .If you want to expose
Gandhi's "hypocricy" why not start perusing his political and social
philosophy?
Apratim Sarkar
"Biplob karo hat dhore ase na. Biplob ekta prakritik ghotonar moto,
jemon bhumikompo ba kalboishakhi. Se sworaT ebong swoyombhu."
I grilled him a lot after that on the swayambhu issue. :-) Jai hok, biplob
swayambhu ki swayambhu noi she byapare Sayan ar mukh khulte chaini.
Ekhon Sayan Sambit'r uttor'e bolechhe:
Sambit:
"Sayan, let me ask you a simpler question. A few days ago you told us
that "biplob" is a natural process. But even then why do you think it is
so difficult to mobilize the mass, the non-"intellectual-elites"?"
Sayan:
"In this question you are ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold,
and then you are asking me "Why do you hold this belief X ?".
I am not sure in what way this question is relevant to the charter of
soc.culture.bengali."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha...ha...ha!!! Sambit, hat's off!
Raghu Seshadri
: > sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
: > : Sudeshna Das (sude...@bu.edu) wrote:
: > I do understand the need for political stunts.
: >
: > : : Apratim.
: >
: > You may understand the need for stunts, but you
: > sure don't understand Gandhi.
: >
: > RS
:
: Why?
:
: Because that contradicts your understanding?
Of course.
:-)
RS
sambit_basu
> I do understand the need for political stunts.
>
> : : Apratim.
>
> You may understand the need for stunts, but you
> sure don't understand Gandhi.
>
> RS
Why?
Because that contradicts your understanding? Or for that matter X's
understanding?
Regards,
Sambit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My employer is not responsible for what I say, and vice-versa.
Naeem Mohaiemen
>I recall reading somewhere that Mujib participated in communal riots
>during the Great Calcutta killings of 1946. Does anyone know if this
>story is true?
Allegations were made that Sk Mujib and also Shuhrawardy were involved.
Have not seen any evidence of Sk Mujib's involvement.
Raghu Seshadri
: Okay.
: Socially, he preached tolerance and went to great lengths to practice it,
: ex with the then untouchables. But he was pretty demanding, in an
: intolerant sort of way, when it came to his wife and sons.
: Arguments anyone?
No arguments there. It is a truism that great
people, while substantially improving the life
on this planet in general, are often impossible
to live with. They are driven by a force far
beyond the little domestic dynamics that
ordinary people have, and very often they neglect
the domestic side.
Let me illustrate one paradox that he faced.
His wife, according to the way she had been
brought up, refused to clean the lavatory
after use by Gandhi's low caste visitors.
Gandhi found this intolerable, and this argument
caused their first great domestic rift.
Here is a no-win situation for him, if he had
kept quiet, Shubu Mukherji will point out
that Gandhi tolerated discrimination in his
own household while preaching against it
in public, and if he didn't, Shubu will be happy
to point out that he was harsh on his wife.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
: >
: >: No doubt there is, Raghu. Gandhi did live an austere life. But the
: >: point is not that - the point is did it actually _cost more_ than
: >: what it would have, if he had agreed to compromise a little and lead
: >: a more affluent life?
: >In the whole scheme of things, these matters are
: >to find fault will even think of these trifles.
: Yes, that I completely agree with. Taking into context the
: contemporary political situation whatever Gandhi did was
: indeed the best thing I imagine he could have done.
: But that doesn't mean that the "trifles" are baseless allegations.
: Are they, Raghu?
Depends on the context. General Patton won great
victories which saved the West, and the lives of
millions of Jews. If someone were to point out that
in one of the parades, his shoes were not as
well polished as army regulations dictate, he
is technically right, but he is revealing for
all the world a silly, nitpicking, basically
useless way of thinking.
Slinging mud also happens to be easy, you only
need to allege and enjoy seeing the other
side take great efforts to refute, and the
odor never quite goes away. So unless the
matter is really substantial, it is best
not to bother with it.
: >And if Gandhi had committed suicide, poor slum dwellers
: >could have had his goatmilk or worn his slippers.
: >Very true. I am sorry he didn't kill himself
: >in order to please you and Shubu. Have you
: >written your checks to the Godse Foundation ?
: Expected better from you, Raghu. Take another shot.
Sorry, but this is only a logical extension of
what you were saying. I agree with you, however,
that I need to rephrase it.
: >: political stunts are for good causes.
: >
: >If it is for a good cause, why is it a stunt ?
: >What is your definition of stunt anyway ?
: Something that is done solely to capture the imagination of the people
: and doesn't have much practical benefits (and may and sometimes do
: cause substantial practical harm) if examined closely (other
: that influencing the people). If the influence is used for worthwhile
: purposes, the stunt is worthwhile in my opinion. Otherwise not.
This is altogether too elevated a thing
to be called a stunt then. I like your
definition, and I don't think "stunt"
fits.
If someone were to organize mass killings,
you wouldn't call it a stunt, would you,
even if it caused great harm ? You only
call it a stunt because Gandhi didn't
organize mass killings. Would you call
the Pak Army's killing of 3 million Bengalis a stunt ?
Of course not.
In other words, you trivialize a non-violent
movement in a way you'd never think of
trivializing mass murder. This mentality
explains all the violence in the world
today. Peacefulness is sneered at, murder
is glorified.
: I understand that you have been hurt at my calling you a blind
: sycophant. My sincere apologies. Well, let me revise my statement.
Apology accepted. Thanks.
: I was picking on people who would rather not discuss the vacuous
: and oft harmful consequences on Gandhiji's self-imposed austerity
: outside the context of a popular mass movement as their respect
: for Gandhiji leads them to idol worshipping.
Why is this such an important matter ? So some
naive people are into hero worshipping. As long
as they don't force you to drink goatmilk
and live in a hut, what is your problem ?
On the other hand, Gandhiji had a lot of
wonderful contributions to make, which we
can all learn from, and make the world
a better place. Petty carping of inconsequential
stuff detracts from this, gives silly people
some self-induced feeling of grandeur that
they have pulled down a great figure who
towers over them in many ways. Why not focus
on what we can learn from Gandhi, instead of
spending mental energy on what we cannot
learn from ?
RS
sambit_basu
> One of the cardinal rules of good debate is that you should refute the specific
> argument presented or answer the specific question raised. To dwell on the
> perceived ideological slant of the correspondent based on his _previous_
> postings in response to his _current_ posting is nothing but a classical
> example of an _ad hominem_ attack. Such a debating style, although admittedly
> a time-honored tradition in soc.culture.bengali, was not expected from you.
> I am disappointed.
Then please let me know why did you kill file some of the netters on SCB, if
_not_ based on their previous posting?
(Sayan, in gist, you are claiming that a debate to be a point function and not
a path function. Are you serious?)
> -Sayan.
In this thread on a separate post you've said that you'll not answer any follow-up.
So, there the debate ends. And let us make a new rule of debating in SCB.
It's always_ you_ who will decide when to stop a debate. And of course that
should be only after you have posted your article. Sounds fair?
Regards,
Sambit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raghu Seshadri
: : : : margin. Also, I do understand the need for political stunts.
: : You may understand the need for stunts, but you
: : sure don't understand Gandhi.
: Why do you say so?
Because a stunt has the whiff of insincerity
about it, along with a willingness to waste
other people's lives for your own personal
advancement. Anyone who knew Gandhi knew
that that doesn't describe him at all. That
is why.
RS
sambit_basu
> > Then please let me know why did you kill file some of the netters on SCB, if
> > _not_ based on their previous posting?
> That is a completely different issue. I have a finite time at my disposal,
> and so I can afford to read only a finite amount of material that gets
> posted. A kill filter is one way of doing so. It is one way of disengaging
> myself from what I perceive as unproductive debate.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
So you are using some kind of induction: X, by time t, has posted unproductive
articles. So, he will continue to post unproductive article,
Now, tell me how this line of logic is different from mine? Just because I was
"attacking" someone's "supposed ideological slant"? Mairi!
> But if one chooses to
> remain in the debate (as you did by posting a rejoinder to Soumitra), then
> it is seemly that one should follow the rules of the game.
Is it clearly defined? If yes, please provide me with a copy. Thanks.
> > (Sayan, in gist, you are claiming that a debate to be a point function and not
> > a path function. Are you serious?)
>
> I don't know enough mathematics to know what exactly what you meant here. I
> do believe that in an ongoing debate you should answer the specific question
> raised instead of attacking (your perception of) the general ideological slant
> of the poster. Otherwise you lose credibility, because it makes you look like
> you did not have a good answer to the question and were fudging as a result.
Oh yeah? Sayan I didn't expect this from you. It's you, who told us, the
SCBites, not once but several times, that you have finite time and hence
you _choose_ the questions you answer. Apratim may remember this better.
Can you Apra?
> Soumitra asked you __why__ you feel that the desire for maintaining the
> status quo is a universal human trait. You still have not answered his
> question.
I haven't answered because he never asked that question.
Sayan, if you can find that word "why" in Soumitrababu's posting
in discussion, I'll right away answer that question (othoba lyaj
gutiye paliye jaabo - na dekhate paarle tumi).
And it's funny to see that, of all persons, Sayan Bhattacharya is
making the non-answering an issue. Or should I disregard whatever
you have been doing and saying in SCB for last one year and
concentrate on your current posting?
> -Sayan.
Regards,
Sambit
ps. I don't think we have anything to achieve by arguing on this. If you
choose to follow-up on this, you are welcome and then if I find
something to say I'll reply. Otherwise, my apologies to Soumitrababu
if I've hurt his feeling.
___________________________________________________________
Sudeshna Das
: Being a staunch Anti-Gandhiite , I guess he was far beyond any
: compliments from accoladuers like you and me.
Completely agreed.
: Congress did not pay for
: his Ashram . For detail notes about the Ashram please go through the
: Bombay Provincial Gazetteer were the accounts of the Ashram had been
: archived and are collected by the British intelligence. I am
: deliberatedly ommitting the references of Gandhi watchers.
Soumitra, how can I explain this to you? I am not picking on Sabarmati
Ashram, I am picking on people who find the concept of self-imposed
hardship praiseworthy, like you for example (so it seemed from your
last post).
: About who is smart and who is not , I do not want to comment knowing by
: your bent-of mind ."
:-) I hope that Sayan will now come to my defence, as he did in
your case when Sambit made a reference to your supposed bent of
mind. Sayan?
: Smartness" is a word which could be interprated in
: various ways , and well there is nothing "right" in whatever you say.
: And if leading extravagant life is a measure of "Smartness" then you
: knowledge of English connotations is WRONG.
To me, leading a life of self-imposed austerity which serves no
practical purpose, when one can live "extravagantly" at a _lower
cost_ (not only to one's patrons, but to the people at large) is
being smart. Why put words in my mouth?
: Gandhi was not a fool to take upon himself the concept of hardship
: simply for political stunts and acrobatics.
Gandhi was most definitely not a fool.
: He was probably the only
: Congress leader who never accepted the Division dinners in a jail . To
: understand the meaning , please ask some one who had been in British
: jails , someone of your previous generation.
That will take a while. Why don't you explain it to me? Thanks.
Apratim.
sayan bhattacharyya
>> bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>
>> One of the cardinal rules of good debate is that you should refute the specific
>> argument presented or answer the specific question raised. To dwell on the
>> perceived ideological slant of the correspondent based on his _previous_
>> postings in response to his _current_ posting is nothing but a classical
>> example of an _ad hominem_ attack. Such a debating style, although admittedly
>> a time-honored tradition in soc.culture.bengali, was not expected from you.
>> I am disappointed.
>
> _not_ based on their previous posting?
That is a completely different issue. I have a finite time at my disposal,
and so I can afford to read only a finite amount of material that gets
posted. A kill filter is one way of doing so. It is one way of disengaging
myself from what I perceive as unproductive debate. But if one chooses to
remain in the debate (as you did by posting a rejoinder to Soumitra), then
it is seemly that one should follow the rules of the game.
> (Sayan, in gist, you are claiming that a debate to be a point function and not
> a path function. Are you serious?)
I don't know enough mathematics to know what exactly what you meant here. I
do believe that in an ongoing debate you should answer the specific question
raised instead of attacking (your perception of) the general ideological slant
of the poster. Otherwise you lose credibility, because it makes you look like
you did not have a good answer to the question and were fudging as a result.
Soumitra asked you __why__ you feel that the desire for maintaining the
status quo is a universal human trait. You still have not answered his
question.
-Sayan.
Anindya Ghoshal
: Perhaps Apratim's sudden spasm of laughter made him overlook the fact that
: by "X" in the above quote I meant "it is so difficult ... elites", not the
: "biplob ... process".
__________________________________________________________________________
Another round of elites bashing to be enshued on net I guess..whoops i
remember last time it was done on SCB everybody ran to claim their ancestry
lied with the downtrodden and the underprivileged..
___________________________________________________________________________
: Apratim, will you take umbrage if I again venture forth the suggestion that
: you are stricken yet again by one of your apparently periodic attacks of
: acute dyslexia? Sambit's statement, quoted above, had two parts. In the
: first part he said that I claimed that "biplob is a natural process". Quite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
______________________________________________________________________________
Sayan ..I haven't seen your original post..and I apologise in advance
for butting into your dialogue with Apratim and Sambit like this which I
guess may seem pretty much awkward. However this repeated assertion of
'biplob is a natural process'...got me really confused..could you
please clarify what you are trying to signify by stating 'biplob'..is it
same as our layman's understanding of a communist revolution ??? Or are
you like Tagore seeking the independence of individual mind after gaining
political independence ..are you talking about this 'biplob'?? Or is it
an extension of our so-called leftist dadas back home slogans, like
'amaar naam, tomar naam vietnam ' (incidently when our dadas chanted this,
Vietnam was bending backwards to normalize its relations with the western
capitalist powers..;-)) Now in a separate thread somewhere I read you
writing something like and I paraphrase from memory (sorry lost the actual
posting).." democracy however defective it is is still the best form of
governance"..which i appreciate and agree with you totally..but now
all this biplob talk is kind of getting me confused of actually what is
the form of governance you're supportive of..
Anyway once again sorry for posing my queries in such an awkward manner..
regards,
Anindya.
_____________________________________________________________________________
: true, I did claim this. In the second part, he said that I claimed that
: "it is so difficult to mobilize the mass". I never said any such thing
: (I made it clear in a previous post why this statement makes no sense).
: As for the question of relevance to s.c.b. : please recall that I did not
: raise the question of "biplob kaar haat dhore asbe" etc. You did, when you
: (quite irrelevantly) said "biplob sayan ba sougatar hat dhore asbe na".
: I never claimed that it will "amader hat dhore asbe" , nor do I think
: Saugata ever did.
: This rather stupid and certainly irrelevant discussion was not started by me,
: but by you. True, I was guilty of replying to your posting, but I think I
: tried to keep the topic somewhat relevant to s.c.b. by quoting a bengali
: poem by Bishnu Dey which seemed to throw an interesting light on the subject.
: As for your postings on this topic, however, I fail to see any relevance
: to soc.culture.bengali. If you want to discuss revolution, why don't you
: post your queries to alt.society.revolution? I am sure you or Sambit will
: find many correspondents there with much more time, energy and erudition than
: me, who will be happy to answer these questions that are apparently keeping
: you and Sambit from sleeping at night! But please spare s.c.b. from the bilious
: efflux that is the result of your insomnia-induced indigestion.
: Sayan
--
Apratim Sarkar
>MAma ektu kosto kore Shahid er theke chailei to hoi. Tumi to uponyash
>porte agrohi . ektu nahoi Kolkatar boi er byaparidero sahajyo hoi.
Shahid ke? Nibas kothai? (BTW, tomar email bounce korchhe.)
Apratim.
--
No doubt the world is entirely an Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
imaginary world, but it is only once are my own and shouldn't be construed in
removed from the true world. any way to represent that of my employer.
- Issac Bashevis Singer.
Apratim Sarkar
>Well you cannot rush or run or try to eat always when you are hungry
>simply because you may not have the food or money .
Mairi! Khabar'r availability'r shange khide pele khete _chaowa_, e-i
particular human trait-ti'r existence'r ki sammondho?
>How many days have
>you gone hungry in your life Sambit?
Hoi tomar theke beshi noi tomar theke kam. Tar shange universal human
behavior'r ki sammondho?
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>
>Oh yeah? Sayan I didn't expect this from you. It's you, who told us, the
>SCBites, not once but several times, that you have finite time and hence
>you _choose_ the questions you answer. Apratim may remember this better.
>Can you Apra?
Of course I did. If you had simply not followed up to Soumitra, then
I wouldn't have said anything at all. But you did follow up to his
posting (which showed that you __did__ have adequate time to read
and respond to his post), BUT instead of replying to his question
you fudged the question by attacking his so-called "ideological slant".
This is dishonest.
If you honestly didn't have time to answer, then the logical thing for you
would have been not to post a response at all. But apparently you couldn't
resist the temptation of taking a cheap shot.
>
>> Soumitra asked you __why__ you feel that the desire for maintaining the
>> status quo is a universal human trait. You still have not answered his
>> question.
>
> I haven't answered because he never asked that question.
> Sayan, if you can find that word "why" in Soumitrababu's posting
> in discussion, I'll right away answer that question
You said "desire for status quo is a universal human trait". Soumitra
asked you "where do you get such a Biblical revelation from?" In other
words he was asking you for your sources for this belief, which is another
way of asking why you had this belief.
You still haven't answered this question. I suspect that you cannot,
because you were dishonestly passing off your personal subjective
belief as some kind of universally accepted objective fact.
>
> And it's funny to see that, of all persons, Sayan Bhattacharya is
> making the non-answering an issue.
I am not making an issue out of your mere "non-answering". "Non-answering"
because of lack of time and/or interest is understandable. What I am
dismayed by is your intellectual dishonesty in fudging a question you
did not have an answer to, by diverting attention to Soumitra's ideological
stance (irrelevant to the discussion). This is a textbook example of an
__ad hominem__ ("against the man") argument as opposed to __ad rem__ ("to
the matter at hand") argument that one expects from an honest debater.
-Sayan.
sambit_basu
> >Oh yeah? Sayan I didn't expect this from you. It's you, who told us, the
> >SCBites, not once but several times, that you have finite time and hence
> >you _choose_ the questions you answer. Apratim may remember this better.
> >Can you Apra?
>
> Of course I did. If you had simply not followed up to Soumitra, then
> I wouldn't have said anything at all. But you did follow up to his
> posting (which showed that you __did__ have adequate time to read
> and respond to his post),
Agreed. Now since you have this replied this one means that you have
"adequate time to read and respond to" my earlier post. BUT there
was a question that you haven't answered. May I call you dishonest then?
As a reminder here is that portion of the post which you didn't address to:
----------------------------
So you are using some kind of induction: X, by time t, has posted unproductive
articles. So, he will continue to post unproductive article,
Now, tell me how this line of logic is different from mine? Just because I was
"attacking" someone's "supposed ideological slant"? Mairi!
------------------------------
> BUT instead of replying to his question
> you fudged the question by attacking his so-called "ideological slant".
> This is dishonest.
And what about you?
And for your information I do not claim to be 100% honest. Because I am
not.
> You said "desire for status quo is a universal human trait". Soumitra
> asked you "where do you get such a Biblical revelation from?" In other
> words he was asking you for your sources for this belief, which is another
> way of asking why you had this belief.
Oh, was he? I sincerely thought he was refuting that (I said, "I thaught...")
just by being sarcastic. Next time onwards, I'll ask you to rephrase
Soumitrababu's questions for us.
> You still haven't answered this question. I suspect that you cannot,
> because you were dishonestly passing off your personal subjective
> belief as some kind of universally accepted objective fact.
If I say that it's personal belief that "maintaining status quo" is
universal human trait, will that be sufficient? If I say that I read
it somewhere but now I don't remember the source, will that
be sufficient?
Look Sayan, as I have already told you more than once that I
will treat people the way they had treated me. In answering
question I'll be candid to people who are candid to me. For
example, I'm following your posts just because you are generally
honest in answering with a few exceptions. But with some other
netters I wouldn't be that way.
> > And it's funny to see that, of all persons, Sayan Bhattacharya is
> > making the non-answering an issue.
>
> I am not making an issue out of your mere "non-answering". "Non-answering"
> because of lack of time and/or interest is understandable. What I am
> dismayed by is your intellectual dishonesty in fudging a question you
> did not have an answer to, by diverting attention to Soumitra's ideological
> stance (irrelevant to the discussion).
I have no problem with anybody's ideological stance as long as he/she
doesn't go on rambling about that in every thread he/she treads on.
And honestly speaking, I find you being "intellectually dishonest" by
saying that Soumitrababu honestly asked a question by saying
"where does Sambit get such a Biblical revelation."
> This is a textbook example of an
> __ad hominem__ ("against the man") argument as opposed to __ad rem__ ("to
> the matter at hand") argument that one expects from an honest debater.
I told you once, I am telling you again, if you have a question ask me
straight so that I can understand that as a question and do your sarcasm
somewhere else and I'll answer the question if I can. Because I know
to tackle a sarcasm by something else, but not by an honest answer to
_the_ question perceived by some other netter.
> -Sayan.
Regards,
Sambit
Soumitra Bose
(Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>
>soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
>>Well you cannot rush or run or try to eat always when you are hungry
>>simply because you may not have the food or money .
>
> Mairi! Khabar'r availability'r shange khide pele khete _chaowa_,
e-i
> particular human trait-ti'r existence'r ki sammondho?
Prochur somporko ache boiki . Khide pelei khaowa jai na karon
poristhitir opor dariye nirbhor kore emon ki khete chaowa jai kina ?
Sudeshna Das
: In article <4d3vt6$t...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>,
: Apratim Sarkar <asa...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
: >
: >Ekhon Sayan Sambit'r uttor'e bolechhe:
: >
: >Sambit:
: >
: >"Sayan, let me ask you a simpler question. A few days ago you told us
: >so difficult to mobilize the mass, the non-"intellectual-elites"?"
: >
: >Sayan:
: >
: >"In this question you are ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold,
: >and then you are asking me "Why do you hold this belief X ?".
: >Ha...ha...ha!!! Sambit, hat's off!
: >
: Perhaps Apratim's sudden spasm of laughter made him overlook the fact that
: by "X" in the above quote I meant "it is so difficult ... elites", not the
: "biplob ... process".
Who says I was laughing at whatever you think I was laughing at,
Sayan!? You deleted one line from my post, which was what I was
laughing at, here is my original post:
=======================================================================
Earlier Sayan wrote:
"Biplob karo hat dhore ase na. Biplob ekta prakritik ghotonar moto,
jemon bhumikompo ba kalboishakhi. Se sworaT ebong swoyombhu."
I grilled him a lot after that on the swayambhu issue. :-) Jai hok, biplob
swayambhu ki swayambhu noi she byapare Sayan ar mukh khulte chaini.
Ekhon Sayan Sambit'r uttor'e bolechhe:
Sambit:
"Sayan, let me ask you a simpler question. A few days ago you told us
that "biplob" is a natural process. But even then why do you think it is
so difficult to mobilize the mass, the non-"intellectual-elites"?"
Sayan:
"In this question you are ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold,
and then you are asking me "Why do you hold this belief X ?".
I am not sure in what way this question is relevant to the charter of
soc.culture.bengali."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha...ha...ha!!! Sambit, hat's off!
Apratim.
====================================================================
I was laughing at the fact that only few days back the same Sayan
was proclaiming such profound statements regarding biplob, with
such enthusiasm, using such gomvir gomvir words, is on the defence
now and is finding these issues irrelevant to the charter of SCB.
"Tight"'r ki apar mohima! Sambit, mairi, tomake tight'tao kichhu
diyechhilo Sayan. Ar biplob swyambhu kina she byapare amar ekhono
proshno theke gechhe.
Ja hok, kadin argument fudge (tomar theke shekha katha) kore, tarpare
tumi ekdin bolle "Khelbo na!", je tumi SCB theke temporary leave
nichchho. Kintu lobh'e lobh'e abar pardin-i fire ele (:-)), ashtei
Sambit abar tomake shei eki line'e chepe dhorlo. Ebare tumi seshe
charter'r dohai dichchho.
Ete ami bhari maja pelam. Ar Sambit-o mairi, bolihari, tomar pichhu
ar chhaRe na. Harami achhe. :-)
: Apratim, will you take umbrage if I again venture forth the suggestion that
: you are stricken yet again by one of your apparently periodic attacks of
: acute dyslexia? Sambit's statement, quoted above, had two parts. In the
: first part he said that I claimed that "biplob is a natural process". Quite
: true, I did claim this. In the second part, he said that I claimed that
: "it is so difficult to mobilize the mass". I never said any such thing
: (I made it clear in a previous post why this statement makes no sense).
Ami ki ekbaro bolechhi tumi tai bolechho. Tomake defensive hoye katha
bolte dekhe hashi pelo, ektu hashte parbo na?
: As for the question of relevance to s.c.b. : please recall that I did not
: raise the question of "biplob kaar haat dhore asbe" etc. You did, when you
: (quite irrelevantly) said "biplob sayan ba sougatar hat dhore asbe na".
I didn't, Sayan. Sambit did. Tomar memory-ta gechhe. Brahmishaak
khao. Jai hok, shudhu short term khellei habe? Long term-ta dhorbe
na? SCB prothom biplob anlo ke, ta SCB'r purono papee-der nishchoi
mone achhe?
: I never claimed that it will "amader hat dhore asbe" , nor do I think
: Saugata ever did.
: This rather stupid and certainly irrelevant discussion was not started by me,
: but by you. True, I was guilty of replying to your posting,
Eki mairi, ota amar post chhilo na. Mithye katha bolchho keno?
: but I think I
: tried to keep the topic somewhat relevant to s.c.b. by quoting a bengali
: poem by Bishnu Dey which seemed to throw an interesting light on the subject.
Kobita-ti'r janyo dhanyabad. Achchha Sayan, tumi kobita post korle
paro to?
: As for your postings on this topic, however, I fail to see any relevance
: to soc.culture.bengali. If you want to discuss revolution, why don't you
: post your queries to alt.society.revolution? I am sure you or Sambit will
: find many correspondents there with much more time, energy and erudition than
: me, who will be happy to answer these questions that are apparently keeping
: you and Sambit from sleeping at night!
I do not want to discuss biplob, Sayan. Ami shudhu ektu tomar pechhone
lagte chai. Ar SCB'r itihas jodi konodin lekha hoi, tomar sammondhe
ekta chapter must. Okhanei relevance. Ekhon asr'e ami tomake ki pabo?
SCBte jemon apon kore pai, temni kore?
: But please spare s.c.b. from the bilious
: efflux that is the result of your insomnia-induced indigestion.
KNapiye diyechho! Keno?
: -Sayan.
Apratim.
Soumitra Bose
(Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>
>In article <4cvdfv$1...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>>MAma ektu kosto kore Shahid er theke chailei to hoi. Tumi to uponyash
>>porte agrohi . ektu nahoi Kolkatar boi er byaparidero sahajyo hoi.
>
> Shahid ke? Nibas kothai? (BTW, tomar email bounce korchhe.)
>
>
>
>--
>No doubt the world is entirely an Disclaimer: The opinions
expressed are
>imaginary world, but it is only once are my own and shouldn't be
construed in
>removed from the true world. any way to represent that of my
employer.
> - Issac Bashevis Singer.
Sayed Shahid New York e thake , o(n)r kache Anil aCharya onek boi rekhe
gechen , o(n)r nombor hochye 718 359 8866.Je keu o(n)r kache order
dite pare , othoba Kolkatae Anil Acharya r kache , amake janaleo ami
janiye dite pari .
Syed Mehdi
of Pakistan rather thantalking rubbish.
Thanks
Sudeshna Das
: (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
: >
: >soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
: >
: >>Well you cannot rush or run or try to eat always when you are hungry
: >>simply because you may not have the food or money .
: >
: > Mairi! Khabar'r availability'r shange khide pele khete _chaowa_,
: e-i
: > particular human trait-ti'r existence'r ki sammondho?
: Prochur somporko ache boiki . Khide pelei khaowa jai na karon
Achchha Soumitra, tumi ki shotti the behavior, khete chaowa,
and the fulfillment of that behavior, khaowa, e duto'r modhye
differenciate korte parchho na, na just gNo dhore boshe achho?
: poristhitir opor dariye nirbhor kore emon ki khete chaowa jai kina ?
Amar dharona tumi ekhane "khete chaowa jai kina" bolte expression
of that behavior'r katha bolchho, not the behavior itself. Khete
chaowa ekti involuntary behavior, sheti express kara na kara
voluntary. Ebang ta niye keu kono kathao bolchhilo na. Arthat,
ki niye katha hochchhilo, the core behavior itself, sheta tomar
abar guliye gechhe.
Apratim.
Karthik Venkataraman
>
> na...@ix.netcom.com(Naeem Mohaiemen ) wrote:
> >>soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
> >
> >>RABINDRANATH TAGORE: THE MYRIAD MINDED MAN-Dutta/Robinson
> >
> >>I have just finished the book . Those who are interested ..can we
> >>start a discussion on this much-debated book\?
> >
> >Soumitro,
> >Responding to your request, here are some interesting topics from the
> >book we can discuss.
> >
> >1) Tagore & fascism
> > The book makes it clear that Tagore's refusal to condemn Mussolini,
> >in spite of evidence of repression, deeply disappointed his western
> >patrons.
> >[material deleted]
>
> Roughly a contemporary of Tagore's, Bernard Shaw was a believer in the
> ubermenschen theories of fascism, and thought eugenics would weed out the
> inferior races. Tagore's social background, as a member of the
> intellectual elite, makes him more likely to subscribe to these beliefs.
Hi,
Your view of Tagore is utterly false. In fact Tagore says in his book
("Universal man" or "Towards universal man") that any claims of racial
superiority is nothing short of barbarism.
Cheers
Karthik
Sambit Basu
>sayan bhattacharyya (bhat...@krusty.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
Amar server biplob-er, bisheshoto Sayan-er, post dekhlei
bemalim haowa kore dichchhe. Tai Apra-r post-er thuru
diye kichhu bollum:
--------------------------
> Ja hok, kadin argument fudge (tomar theke shekha katha) kore, tarpare
> tumi ekdin bolle "Khelbo na!", je tumi SCB theke temporary leave
> nichchho. Kintu lobh'e lobh'e abar pardin-i fire ele (:-)), ashtei
> Sambit abar tomake shei eki line'e chepe dhorlo. Ebare tumi seshe
> charter'r dohai dichchho.
Eshob to bhai Sayan-er purono strategy. begotik dekhle-i
"pet byatha korchhe". Addin charter-ke je maya kore, Sayan,
"anarchist socialism"-er balti balti shaar dhalle, tokhon
ektibaar-er tor-eo ki tomar charter-er kotha mone poDlo na?
>: As for the question of relevance to s.c.b. : please recall that I did not
>: raise the question of "biplob kaar haat dhore asbe" etc. You did, when you
>: (quite irrelevantly) said "biplob sayan ba sougatar hat dhore asbe na".
> I didn't, Sayan. Sambit did.
Ami to Sayan-er naam korechhi bole mone korte parchhi na.
Ami Saugatababu-ke bolechhilum je "biplob _apnader_ haat
dhore ashbe na". Tar maane oi _apnader_-ta-te Sayan tumi
nijeke include kore nichchho. Taate aami ki korte paari bolo?
> Tomar memory-ta gechhe. Brahmishaak
> khao. Jai hok, shudhu short term khellei habe? Long term-ta dhorbe
> na? SCB prothom biplob anlo ke, ta SCB'r purono papee-der nishchoi
> mone achhe?
O gaan aar gaashne...
>: I never claimed that it will "amader hat dhore asbe" , nor do I think
>: Saugata ever did.
Not explicitly.
>: As for your postings on this topic, however, I fail to see any relevance
>: to soc.culture.bengali. If you want to discuss revolution, why don't you
>: post your queries to alt.society.revolution? I am sure you or Sambit will
>: find many correspondents there with much more time, energy and erudition than
>: me, who will be happy to answer these questions that are apparently keeping
>: you and Sambit from sleeping at night!
I never claimed that "these questions are keeping me from
sleeping at night", nor do I think Apratim ever did.
Naki eta tumi amader ager posting dekhe dhore nile?
>: But please spare s.c.b. from the bilious
>: efflux that is the result of your insomnia-induced indigestion.
Eta akebaare ponchu-r pNach nombor peto. Ta'le
Sayan tomar boktobyo-ti eirokom: "bondhugon, SCB-te "biplob"
niye kotha bolbo shudhu _amra_. Apnader she sommondhe kono
proshno thakle alt.society.revolution-e giye korun." Bravo.
Kon shala biplob atkay!
>: -Sayan.
> Apratim.
Regards,
Sambit
Soumitra Bose
>
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: (Apratim Sarkar) writes:
>: >
>: >soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>: >
>: >>Well you cannot rush or run or try to eat always when you are
hungry
>: >>simply because you may not have the food or money .
>: >
>: > Mairi! Khabar'r availability'r shange khide pele khete _chaowa_,
>: e-i
>: > particular human trait-ti'r existence'r ki sammondho?
>
>: Prochur somporko ache boiki . Khide pelei khaowa jai na karon
>
> Achchha Soumitra, tumi ki shotti the behavior, khete chaowa,
> and the fulfillment of that behavior, khaowa, e duto'r modhye
> differenciate korte parchho na, na just gNo dhore boshe achho?
Khowa ar khete chaowa , eduto kintu swambhu nao hote pare . Onek
somoier Khowar ichhe ar tar jonne prochestata pariparshik poristhiti
dwara nirdharito hoi.Hai(n) manchi ei context ta bad dile , khide pele
,khete ichhe kore .abar poristhiti khide pele o khowar icche ke nosto
kore dei.
>
>: poristhitir opor dariye nirbhor kore emon ki khete chaowa jai kina ?
>
> Amar dharona tumi ekhane "khete chaowa jai kina" bolte expression
> of that behavior'r katha bolchho, not the behavior itself. Khete
> chaowa ekti involuntary behavior, sheti express kara na kara
> voluntary. Ebang ta niye keu kono kathao bolchhilo na. Arthat,
> ki niye katha hochchhilo, the core behavior itself, sheta tomar
> abar guliye gechhe.
>
Expressioner ageo nijer thekei sei icche ta , sei involuntary byapar ta
onno proyojone onno dike chalito hote pare ba hoieo . Sei consciousness
khide ke sotti mere dei. ota ekta internal atmotyag, bola jete pare
atmosomahito atmotyag (eta kintu boudhomanash , Charu Mazumdario noi,
laler bhut dekho na ekhane).
> Apratim.
>
Sudeshna Das
: Khowa ar khete chaowa , eduto kintu swambhu nao hote pare . Onek
: somoier Khowar ichhe ar tar jonne prochestata pariparshik poristhiti
: dwara nirdharito hoi.Hai(n) manchi ei context ta bad dile , khide pele
: ,khete ichhe kore .abar poristhiti khide pele o khowar icche ke nosto
: kore dei.
Pariparshik je kono behavior'r oporei probhab felte pare. Ami core
behavior-ti'r katha hochchhe e-i bhebe katha bolechhilam. Tar opore
pariparshik'r probhab niye alochana karai jai, kintu tar shange mul
alochana'r shuto-ti bichchhinno bolei amar dharona.
: Expressioner ageo nijer thekei sei icche ta , sei involuntary byapar ta
: onno proyojone onno dike chalito hote pare ba hoieo . Sei consciousness
: khide ke sotti mere dei. ota ekta internal atmotyag, bola jete pare
: atmosomahito atmotyag (eta kintu boudhomanash , Charu Mazumdario noi,
: laler bhut dekho na ekhane).
Bhasha bhasha je kono katha-tei ami bhut dekhi. Bhut, arthat, ja
bigata. Bastab, bartaman noi.
Apratim.
Apratim Sarkar
Well, not according to my definition of stunt (which I posted in SCB).
Please don't force your definition on me. Thank you, Raghu.
>RS
Soumitra Bose
>
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Khowa ar khete chaowa , eduto kintu swambhu nao hote pare . Onek
>: somoier Khowar ichhe ar tar jonne prochestata pariparshik poristhiti
>: dwara nirdharito hoi.Hai(n) manchi ei context ta bad dile , khide
pele
>: ,khete ichhe kore .abar poristhiti khide pele o khowar icche ke
nosto
>: kore dei.
>
> Pariparshik je kono behavior'r oporei probhab felte pare. Ami
core
> behavior-ti'r katha hochchhe e-i bhebe katha bolechhilam. Tar
opore
> pariparshik'r probhab niye alochana karai jai, kintu tar shange
mul
> alochana'r shuto-ti bichchhinno bolei amar dharona.
>
Tomar dharona , ki ar bola jabe bolo...
>: Expressioner ageo nijer thekei sei icche ta , sei involuntary byapar
ta
>: onno proyojone onno dike chalito hote pare ba hoieo . Sei
consciousness
>: khide ke sotti mere dei. ota ekta internal atmotyag, bola jete pare
>: atmosomahito atmotyag (eta kintu boudhomanash , Charu Mazumdario
noi,
>: laler bhut dekho na ekhane).
>
> Bhasha bhasha je kono katha-tei ami bhut dekhi. Bhut, arthat, ja
> bigata. Bastab, bartaman noi.
>
> Apratim.
>
Bhasha bhasha , ei byapartao to tomar kache protiponno , ar ki bola
jabe?
>
sayan bhattacharyya
Anindya Ghoshal <agho...@newsserver.uconn.edu> wrote:
>Sayan ..I haven't seen your original post..and I apologise in advance
>for butting into your dialogue with Apratim and Sambit like this which I
>guess may seem pretty much awkward. However this repeated assertion of
>'biplob is a natural process'...got me really confused..could you
>please clarify what you are trying to signify by stating 'biplob'..is it
>same as our layman's understanding of a communist revolution ??? Or are
>you like Tagore seeking the independence of individual mind after gaining
>political independence ..are you talking about this 'biplob'??
I meant any sudden change in the social and/or political sphere that
happens quickly within a short span of time. From this point of view,
Chaitanyadev's Bhakti movement, the French revolution, and the Industrial
Revolution in England, are all examples of what I meant.
>Now in a separate thread somewhere I read you
>writing something like and I paraphrase from memory (sorry lost the actual
>posting).." democracy however defective it is is still the best form of
>governance"..which i appreciate and agree with you totally..but now
>all this biplob talk is kind of getting me confused of actually what is
>the form of governance you're supportive of..
I believe in participatory, active democracy. Specifically, I favor an
anarcho-syndicalist democracy. This is not a proper forum for this
discussion, and so I can do no better than to point you to the writings
of Noam Chomsky, Edward Harman and Michael Parenti if you wish to pursue
further on the topic of whatis lacking from democracy as it supposedly
exists now and how it can be improved. My own views are largely in
agreement with that of these writers.
In deference to the charter of this newsgroup, I will not post any
follow-up to any response to this article.
-Sayan.
P.S. What gave you the strange notion that revolution is always
inconsistent with democracy? England is a democracy today
__because__ there was the Puritan Revolution in 1658. Similarly
France is a democracy __because__ the French revolution happened.
Apratim Sarkar
>In <4di3od$1...@news.bu.edu> sude...@bu.edu (Sudeshna Das) writes:
>>
>>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Khowa ar khete chaowa , eduto kintu swambhu nao hote pare . Onek
>>: somoier Khowar ichhe ar tar jonne prochestata pariparshik poristhiti
>>: dwara nirdharito hoi.Hai(n) manchi ei context ta bad dile , khide
>pele
>>: ,khete ichhe kore .abar poristhiti khide pele o khowar icche ke
>nosto
>>: kore dei.
>>
>> Pariparshik je kono behavior'r oporei probhab felte pare. Ami
>core
>> behavior-ti'r katha hochchhe e-i bhebe katha bolechhilam. Tar
>opore
>> pariparshik'r probhab niye alochana karai jai, kintu tar shange
>mul
>> alochana'r shuto-ti bichchhinno bolei amar dharona.
>>
>
>Tomar dharona , ki ar bola jabe bolo...
Dirghoswash fela jai ...
>
>>: Expressioner ageo nijer thekei sei icche ta , sei involuntary byapar
>ta
>>: onno proyojone onno dike chalito hote pare ba hoieo . Sei
>consciousness
>>: khide ke sotti mere dei. ota ekta internal atmotyag, bola jete pare
>>: atmosomahito atmotyag (eta kintu boudhomanash , Charu Mazumdario
>noi,
>>: laler bhut dekho na ekhane).
>>
>> Bhasha bhasha je kono katha-tei ami bhut dekhi. Bhut, arthat, ja
>> bigata. Bastab, bartaman noi.
>>
>> Apratim.
>>
>Bhasha bhasha , ei byapartao to tomar kache protiponno , ar ki bola
>jabe?
Amake bojhano'r ichche thakle bhasha bhasha kore na bole ekta sincere
attempt deowa jai amar POV ebang bhasha'ti bojha'r chesta kore,
bojhano'r ichchhe na thakle kete paRa jai, ar hate jukti na thakle
bojhano'r bhan kore aro kichhu bhasha bhasha katha bala jai. Tumi je
Sayan'r anukaran'e tritiyoti na kore dwitiyoti korechho, er jonye
tomake amar shroddha janai. _This is not a bidrup, this is serious._
Tabe kina tabe ar nijer POV onno'ke konodin janano jai na, onn'r
angle theke jinish-ti na dekhle. E karonei, amar dharona, janagon'r
janye tola cinema janogan dekhe na. Emon byapar elitist-der hole
ek katha, non-elitist'der hole arek.
Apratim.
--
No doubt the world is entirely an Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are
imaginary world, but it is only once are my own and shouldn't be construed in
removed from the true world. any way to represent that of my employer.
- Isaac Bashevis Singer.