|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | DEVIL'S ADVOCATE | |||
|
July 9, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
Pritish Nandy
How Readers responded to Pritish Nandy's previous columnsDate sent: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:47:10 +1000
First there was Pritish Nandy the "commie" and "pinku" journalist (thank you Varsha Bhosle for introducing those words to us). Then came Pritish Nandy the Shiv Sena nominated Rajya Sabha member with a "capitalistic" and "videshi (read anti-swadeshi) mind. And what do we have now ? Pritish Nandy a "foreign relations" expert professing how India should go about repairing it's image in the world. And how, Mr Nandy, do you propose India improves its relations with Pakistan as regards to Kashmir ? Give it away because it is "uneconomical" to maintain it? Well, Mr Global Vision. Let's hear some practical ideas on Kashmir! Madhu Gurnani Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Pritish Nandy says, "... Jingoism is an easy, convenient political ploy to whip up passion among the illiterates". But unfortunately, it seems to be an easy, convenient way of whipping up passion among the literates too, judging by the overwhelming support that the present ruling party in India enjoys among NRIs, almost all of whom must be obviously literate. While I fully agree with Mr. Nandy that this is the time to start talking with our neighbours, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen, certainly not with the BJP at the helm of affairs. Mr Nandy says, and rightly so: "After all, we cannot wish (our neighbours) away. Neither is it possible, in today's world, to erase them off the atlas. Except in our jejune political fantasies". Alas! These are the EXACT fantasies that are entertained by the groups that have affiliations with the ruling party in India today. It is indeed scary to see them drawing parallels between India's nuclear arsenal and the asthras carried by Hindu devi-devtas, and making statements like, "When Ram carries bow and arrows or when Lord Krishna holds the sudarshan chakra, it is used only for the welfare of humanity." Clearly, it shows that either they have no idea about the implications of a nuclear war, or in their rabid hatred towards the "enemy", they just don't care. Yes, we need global vision, pragmatism and good old-fashioned wisdom. I for one, don't know where it will come from, but I am pretty sure that it won't come from the present ruling party and the various groups that are associated with it. Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:31:59 -0400
Excellent article. If Indian leadership kept their focus on projecting a positive India to the world by setting the example of calm, practical stewardship of India and South Asia, the world would take the region more seriously. I, for one, would gladly welcome more maturity and less jingoism. Niraj Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:11:50 +0000
In essence I am in agreement with Pritish Nandy. But I would like to add something to this well-written and thoughtful article. It is not going to be popular in India but I'll take my chances anyway. India needs to be serious about its bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. It is in the INTEREST of India and its people to resolve the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan especially after Pokhran II and Chagai. No matter how hard you try, neither is Kashmir going away and nor is Pakistan. Now I know that this will boil much blood in India but it would be of immense benefit to all if India were to start talking territory, and I don't mean the northern territories or what you term as PoK. If India has global ambitions, this Pakistani American has no problem with it. India is a big country with a very talented scientific community. But if you are not serious about resolving Kashmir then sparring with Pakistan is going to be your destiny into the next century. You will not get to the big league to which you are aspiring. Mr Palkhivala recently had some interesting suggestions, it might not hurt to listen. Now for the Hindu fascists, of which thankfully there are a limited number of in India ( but the numbers grow), I have this message: India won decisively in 1971 and helped give birth to Bangladesh. India has had its day in the sun in South Asia. Pakistan was humiliated and lost its honour in Bengal. Would it kill the Indian nation if it showed flexibility in Kashmir now? There is no honour to be lost, but world recognition to gain. You are already ahead in this deadly game in South Asia. Could you please have mercy on the poor in both countries and start talking about Kashmir now? Thanks to your stubborn stand, the fascists in Pakistan gain more power day by day. Those same "Muslim" fascists encourage their "Hindu" fascist counterparts next door. And in the meantime, the reasonable element in both countries suffers. Do you want a Pakistani Taliban to rule your western neighbour? I certainly don't, and I am of Pakistani origin. Excuse my windy digression, but the real re-engineering of Pokhran II should include a resolution to Kashmir. The alternative is that India is destined to play the minor leagues for a long time to come. And I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing humanity suffering (Muslim or Hindu) and our common blood being spilled in South Asia. It is time for the victors of 1971 to show some generosity. Ras H Siddiqui Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:03:44 -0400
Mr Nandy, The weak-minded leaders (and, in this case, the media), have contributed much to the lack of self-confidence in decision-making circles. The fact is that all this posturing originates from fear, the fear of being kicked by colonial MASTERS. The line between spreading fear during a national crisis and treason is thin. Mr Nandy, stand up like a man and don't crawl like a worm. India is a great country! Its prosperity and its place in the world will always depend on the thoughts and ACTIONS of Indians and not some hypocritical external power. Aid and help is always welcome but we should never place ourselves in a position where we are so dependent on foreign aid that we are forced to crawl. That is really what freedom is all about. No prosperity (or even peace) is worth it! You can have both in slavery. We got to be strong and self-respecting! What if it takes a few extra years to reach the same level of prosperity without external aid? But to barter our self-respect and our position to accelerate the process by a few years is not a bargain! Mr Nandy, you have power (of the pen) and an audience, but you have a responsibility as well. Go tell Indians that they have to be proud and self-respecting. To stand by their country when under attack. You may have a million assurances and treaties signed by the enemy but their bombs and bullets will not respect them. Yes, avoid war but not at all costs! The only way out of this is to become strong. And when you are strong you don't give a damn about what your adversaries (and some times your friends) may advise you. You make your own decision! Tell your readers, 'If China can do it, we can do it better!' BHUSHAN Date sent: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 17:52:20 PDT
What you say makes sense, Pritish. But let's try to see why the US is so desperate to please the Chinese. It is the economy that is pushing American foreign policy to bend over the back to be friendly with China. The supermarkets in the US are filled with goods with the label "Made in China". It is almost next to impossible to find anything from electronics to bicycles to clothes, coming without that label. The pricing of these goods is so aggressive that American companies have given up the "Made in USA with pride" line, shifting their manufacturing base to China. The consumer is forced to buy these goods (though some goods are substandard). The American press is another force trying to change China's image as an oppressor to that of a pragmatic nation. Time had an entire issue devoted to Clinton's China visit and they seemed to be trying to desperately divert the public eye from the 1989 Tianenman Square massacre to what modern China is. It is economics that is making all these things happen. It is indeed true that a strong economy that will win, not nuclear bombs. This is a case where there are lessons to be learnt from China. It is better than cribbing against mistreatment (at the hands of the US and China). It would be a wiser idea to compete economically with our neighbours than in politics or weaponry. Our largest democracy status will certainly appeal to the Americans. But all this can happen only if we behave properly and not get bandied as an international pariah. Hope our leaders realise this. Vishwas Date sent: Tue, 5 May 1998 06:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sensible article. I have a point to make although it may not be pertinent to this article. I guess, a sensible journalist has a big role to play in the making or breaking of a nation. It is the onus of journalists like Mr Nandy to educate the masses about the plundering of our nation by our third-rate politicians. I feel our country's number one enemy is the politician. Non-biased reporting by the media will go a long way to better our nation. The whole of Asia is booming with development (sans a few economic disasters). The irony is our nation does not come into the "economic" picture. The reason is our obsession with politics and politicians. It's time we ignored these useless, meaningless politicians from our daily life and concentrate on addressing and solving issues that concern our nation. Since independence our politicians have given us nothing but false promises and they continue to do so with authority. As citizens, we have been deprived of all privileges. It is a pity that we have to live at the mercy of our politicians and their middlemen. I feel our media can do a lot in improving the situation and the onus lies on seasoned journalists like Mr Nandy and his friends. Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:32:46 +0530
Funny. A champion of free expression now endorses state suppression of cultural activity. I find it a little difficult to understand how Mr Nandy can, on one hand, condemn the censorship of rock song lyrics but support the supposedly 'spontaneous protests' against cultural exchange with Pakistan on the other. In both cases, the final question is the same: can the state decide, on moral or political grounds, the exact content of what constitutes mass entertainment ? In other words, Mr Nandy, is it morally okay for me to listen to heavy metal (which can be politically incorrect) but not attend a concert by a Pakistani artiste because what Pakistan is openly supporting in India is also politically incorrect? Or are you, in effect, only attempting to further refine what the state government is propounding as its 'moral obligation' to the nation? I am sure a few of us would like a clearly-written explanation from you, sans the rhetoric. Jayant S Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:38:53 -0700
I applaud the courage of Mr Nandy to convey his views regarding visits of Pak artistes while their mercenaries brutally murder and hack innocent Kashmiris to death. He has raised the important question: is art more important than human life (even if it belongs to the poor or Hindus)? Sameer Bhure Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:46:31 -0400
Dear Mr.Pritish Nandy, I read your article regarding the question of banning or not banning Pakistani artists. Regarding the Salman Rushdie issue I feel that there is no justification for Khomeini to have issued a fatwa. I mean, just because someone somewhere in the world writes something that supposedly hurts Muslim sentiments doesn't mean that Khomeini can do whatever he wants. Does he have any divine right from Allah to order the death of Rushdie? So I feel your statement, "We were unfair to Khomeini in the name of secularism" is not justified. He was unfair by taking the law into his own hands and destroying Rushdie's life. I agree with you on the M F Husain issue. I think he has crossed the limits of his freedom by painting Hindu goddesses naked. Regarding the Thackeray issue, though I agree with him on most issues, I again tend to disagree with you on this particular issue because I don't who is Thackeray to decide for the country whether they should listen to Ghulam Ali or not. I, for one, admire Ghulam Ali for his ghazal singing prowess. The problem is that even cultural and sports issues have been politicised too much. Is it "politically fashionable" in this case to take a view that is opposite of the prevailing view? Muralikrishna Gandluru Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:23:19 -0500
Nandysaab, You made me to cry. Your column is very touching. I hope this will reach to every Indian. I wish this column of yours turns every Indian's mind to think in right way. I remember, long time ago, my friend called me mama because I born in Sitamarhi (next to Janakpur). After that I still think Sita is my sister. Only you could understand the feeling of a helpless brother whose sister's name is.... No I do not want to write anymore. Thank you, Nandy. Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
I'm sorry but I'm still outraged by this shoddy piece of work posing as journalism. Hence this second mail. Contrary to what Pritish Nandy seems to think, 24 pc of the Indian population did not vote to kick out Ghulam Ali or Jansher Khan or ransack Husain's exhibitions. In fact, these are the very sort of things which prompted the rest from voting for the BJP and to go with the highly esteemed United Front and the ancient Congress. And I'm astonished to hear that Manjit Bawa and Jatin Das are supporting Husain to "grab front page headlines" after they "built their careers badmouthing Husain." Are you kidding? Nandy goes to extremes to explain how one should do the "right" thing whether it benefits the majority or minority. What an insight! And pray, what is the definition of "right"? For the fundamentalist Muslim, it may be killing infidels; for the fundamentalist Hindu it may be banning all forms of "western" culture and renaming all places with "Hindu" names; for the minority it may be getting more reservations/quotas; for the majority it may be reducing all quotas... What is the "right" thing? Yours is just really shallow thinking. Nandy says Khomeini "was simply standing up for what he thought was unjust to his faith". So was Hitler (standing up for his "race"). So were the Spanish inquisition (for their religion). So were the Muslim jihad armies. And the Mongols. And the Ghauris. And the Ghaznis. And the British. So was Nathuram Godse. So was.... What is Nandy's point? That anything is okay if one believes that it is just (through whatever crooked logic)? When the media criticises the negative aspects of the saffron front so that they may nip such policies from their agenda (and BJP thankfully is doing just that!), here comes a Nandy to support these very aspects and sob, "What is this compared to the terrorist killings of Hindus in Kashmir..." And. by the way, ransacking Husain's exhibition in no way benefits the surviving Hindu families. Or does Nandy's brain come up with some ingenious benefit? Of course art and life are in separate compartments Have you seen any recent Bollywood film which is anywhere near life as we know it? Do we lead our lives based on fiction books & comics? Do you? And, of course culture has nothing to do with politics or politicians. Please read the readers' replies to the Nandgaonkar story "Morals Havaldar" by Mr Prem Panicker. Would you, please? Pakistan is definitely subverting life in India. The answer to that is not targetting Pakistani citizens who are visiting India legally. If Iraqis were hunted down in USA during the Gulf War, what would one say of that? If Thackeray does not want Pakistanis to visit India for whatever reason, let him put a public interest petition for the same. Let the Supreme Court decide if their entry has to be banned. Or if Thackeray has public support, let his government issue a ban on Pakistanis entering India just like the Pak government has done for the Indian artistes. There are more such thoughtless statements abounding in his piece. Read your article once again, Nandy. That, my dear sir, smacks of the fascism that you are talking about. Das Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:57:39 -0700
Dear Mr Pritish Nandy, I agree with you when you say that the Rushdies and the Husains do not have any right to hurt the sentiments of millions of people with their so-called artistic endeavours. But in the same vein, I totally disagree with your opinion that Khomeini's and Thackeray's actions ought not be condemned. I feel that there is certainly a more dignified way to express one's outrage, anger at things that hurt one's sentiments. Just because someone hurt your sentiment it doesn't give you the right to go and finish him off. An eye for an eye is only going to make the whole world blind. Mr Nandy, people tend to take sides without thinking. What they fail to do in the process is, to take the stand that is "morally right". It is true that Salman Rushdie had to be condemned for wounding the sentiments of millions, but it is also true that Khomeini had to criticised for acting is such a barbaric manner. I feel both Khomeini and Rushdie were wrong in what they did. Vijayasimha A Date sent: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:06:44 -0700
Pritish, Your article supporting Shiv Sena's disruption of Ghulam Ali's concert, and the Bajrang Dal's attack on Husain's flat was very interesting. You are perfectly right in questioning Husain's (for that matter, anybody's) right to hurt others. I don't see how can anyone imagine doing such a thing. Art! Bullshit. I see no other purpose which the doer hoped to serve than unnecessarily hurt others. It is criminal. It is a pity that the Bajrang Dal has to take actions. But that is a different issue. It is good to see some tolerance among secular people like yourself. What is secularism in India? It is just a term introduced to gain political ground. The mere fact that a party attains power or loses power based on whether it considers itself "secular" or not, says that secularism is purely political in India. I am sure the pleasant change in your secular attitude is just the beginning, and it won't be long before you discontinue mentioning it. Sharad Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:27:38 +0530
Hi, I am sure that your column would have appealed to the masses, or at least some of them. I personally felt that you blew a small incident out of proportions so that you could fill your weekly column with some kind of crap. I, the common man on the street, prefer to look at this incident from this perspective. I have not lost any dear one to the terrorists from over the border, and neither do I hold a grudge against an unknown face over the border just because we all have been told that they are killing our kind in Kashmir. It was so easy in the epics, where we could easily segregate between the good and the bad and draw line between them. We just can't do it any more. The line that separates good and evil runs through our heart. To wipe out one, would mean to lose half of your heart. How can we expect a community that has both been persecuted and vandalised not to safeguard their interests. When would we start realising that the enemy is not over the border, that he is in each of us. He does not carry a AK-47 and wear a mask; instead he go around in a state car in a white khadi suit. Why don't we understand that whenever a major scandal arises, a communal riot is sure to follow? Why are we so damn patriotic when we also talk about a global village? Why don't we learn tolerance? Why can't we co-exist? Why do we always have to end up buying more and more arms to blast each other when millions still die every year of hunger. Why can't we channelise our efforts to do something creative rather than being destructive? Why are we not able to feed the millions and provide the basic amenities to them and still be able to move billions to the defence fund? Why do we have to be so damn paranoid? Why can't we open our eyes and realise that we are not morally or economically equipped to have an arms race? How will we ever explain this to a hungry child? Maybe once in a while we can stop worrying about our neighbours and turn back and look at ourselves and see where we stand? As a human being I do hope so. India cannot exist without Muslims. That unknown face over the border is as precious in the eyes of god as we all are. |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|