|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | DEVIL'S ADVOCATE | |||
|
September 10, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
Pritish Nandy
How Readers responded to Pritish Nandy's recent columns
Date sent: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 07:49:56 PDT
Pritish Nandy is always very thought provoking.
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:33:18 +0530 (IST)
Mr Nandy has written with great energy, but has preferred to avoid depth of thought. He feels Khomeini was given a raw deal in the Rushdie episode -- that his hurt feelings were ignored. One must ask here if hurt feelings are sufficient excuse for instigation to murder? Whoever was offended by Rushdie's book had the freedom to write on his own a counter-book, to tell the world of how off the mark Rushdie was, if he was. The invocation of teeming millions who were offended but did not know how to express their dismay, besides its condescension, also rings false. Such millions are rather unlikely to have read the book in the first place. Therefore, their hurt feelings could only have been due to second or third hand causes, and cannot directly be blamed on the author. An expression of opinion or art, however offensive to our emotional sensibilities, ought not to become an excuse for us to indulge in crime. Such crime is a *crime* and must be punished. Clearly, terrorism is not the same as writing an offensive book, or painting something one does not want to see. And perhaps violence is necessary to suppress terrorism, though perhaps it is also more counter-productive than effective. But, in *any* case, how can it be acceptable that our anger at a terrible crime be assuaged by an assault on those not responsible for it? It is therefore not obvious that the goons actions against Ghulam Ali were justified because some of his countrymen, elsewhere, are busy trying to accumulate enough sins to spend an eternity in hell. This is, in a way, not different from massacring Muslims in Bombay, because some Hindus were killed earlier. Of course it is different, terribly different, in the magnitude of its ghastliness -- but the pattern is the same. Curiously, in a more recent article, Mr Nandy writes eloquently of the cruelty perpetrated on "stray" dogs in Bombay. Does he not realise his attitude there is completely at odds with the philosophy he propounds here? After all, stray dogs bite people, cause rabies, doubtless cause much agony to many people. If some of these people should show their anger by proposing to exterminate all the dogs in a blood-bath, well, why should we get so upset? These are only "protests born out of anguish and despair", in the author's own words. Mr Nandy has seen fit to sermonise against those he accuses of setting apart art and life. What then of his own convenient separation of good and evil according to what fits the interests of his new political career? Can he see the beam in his own eye? Amber
Date sent: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:45:14 PDT
Mr Nandy makes good points in the beginning. But towards the end he gets carried away. Let me make it clear. I agree that the Indian government must have encouraged more Indian enterpreneurs, at the same time preventing foreign companies from flooding the market. The government must have retained only the capital intensive industries that no private sector can afford at that time like railways etc. I also agree that the Godse and Abhimanyu plays must not be censored. But I do not agree when he says, "Let us kiss in the public; say the f word; take off our clothes etc." I think the above mentioned independence is just mere "Western copy cat" It is not real independence. In Indian culture these things do not have a place. If Pritish feels that it should, he is in a minority and I suggest he can move to a western country. I think the censors are right in stopping such behaviour. Karthik
Date sent: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:28:17 +0200
While I appreciate the article as it is against stray dogs, I would be more appreciative if Mr Nandy writes the same about aborted babies in Bombay and other cities. When you feel the pain when the neck of a dog is broken, why don't we feel the same pain when the skull of an innocent, cute little baby is crushed inside its only refuge -- the mother's womb?
Date sent: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:03:16 EDT
The Maneka effect. Municipal workers, do all you can to get rid of dogs, rats, mosquitos, insects etcetra. I would suggest Pritish open his home for all creatures like rats, bees, wasps, snakes... why kill anything, right? The Shiv Sena is having some impact on you!
Date sent: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
Surely you must be joking Mr Nandy! You focus on "natural born killers" in the BMC while effectively side-stepping ("The Bombay riots are now history. The cruelty has already happened. It is time to apply the healing touch, not to open old wounds.") the indictment of (the Indian version of) the SS for their wonderful activities during the Bombay riots. Oops... I forgot! Was one P Nandy not nominated by the SS to the Rajya Sabha recently? Guess it's payback time now.
Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:27:20 -0400
Absolute tripe. It's about time that somebody got the stray dogs off our streets. The mongrels are a menace that can cause everything from rabies to eczema. To suggest that the society is somehow losing its morals because these flea ridden agents of rabies are being killed is ridiculous in the extreme. Let me extend his argument: we should build a sanatorium for mosquitoes, poor wee things! And please no rat poisons, let us practice Ahimsa with rodents, else our decline will be complete... Looks like Mr Nandy's had one too many before writing this piece!
Ravi Aron
Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:57:39 +0800
This article was really wonderful. Here is our esteemed MP taking cudgels on behalf of street dogs, conveniently brushing aside the 400 page Srikrishna report under the carpet! He even claims that the Bombay riots is history. Or is it, for the hundreds, both Hindus and Muslims, who were butchered by thugs and gangsters? Our MP says that old wounds should not be reopened! A very noble suggestion indeed. Then why do we require police and courts? We need not arrest any culprits who commit heinous crimes like rape and murders because they would only open old wounds! Nandy asks us to slap the lowly paid municipal worker just because he is doing his duty of keeping the city safe for its inhabitants from stray dogs!! Tell this to the mother of a 10-month-old baby who was mauled by a stray dog, recently in Hyderabad! And I thought educated MPs like Mr Nandy would make a difference in Parliament! Sir, I have no grouse if you have to toe the line of your boss in Bombay. But please do not insult those innocent people who were murdered in the riots, by comparing them with stray dogs!!! Ramesh
Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:17:03 +0800
I am an Australian female, married to an Indian. I have lived in Bombay and Madras and I am definitely NOT a 'rich Westerner'. I read the Natural Born Killer article on the 'Net. I just want to say that the writer has gone to the extreme with his/her suggestions about the cleaning up of stray dogs ending into the killing of children. But what I found very strange is that the writer is implying that the Indian society will be desensitised to 'killing'. Indian society IS ALREADY desensitised to death by ignoring all the slums and all the dying in the slums, women, children, elders. Middle-class India IGNORES that the slum people exist. When they drive past a slum they turn their faces away, they never talk about the problem and they certainly never do anything about it. There are so many middle-class married women who sit at home, becoming bored housewives -- they could do so much for the slum people. Once a week for a couple of hours, they could go and teach the slum women about hygiene, about diseases and how to avoid them, they could teach the kids basic Hindi, and other subjects. Since it is on a volunteer basis, the women wouldn't need to be health professionals or teachers. Even if only one bored housewife in a hundred went for a couple of hours a week, it would make a big difference. But people would rather stay at home, bored and getting fat through inaction rather than lend a helping hand to the less fortunate. India will never get rid of its slum people unless they become educated enough to work. Another thing that I cannot understand is how the Indian government can give aid to other countries that are in fact better off -- eg: Maldives. And then India asks for aid from other countries to save its own poor! Someone please explain to me where is the logic in that?? I love Indian history, culture (food, music, art) but I really hate the people's attitude. Everyone seems so materialistic, only doing something if they get money out of it. They would rather do nothing then do something for free. I realise I am generalising. I know there are many groups and people who are not like that and who are working towards bettering the Indian society, but sadly the majority of men and women are DESENSITISED and PURPOSELY IGNORANT of the slum people. Andreia Pillai
Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:52:39 PDT
Pritish Nandy has no idea what it feels being helpless and not cared for. Why it is legal in some countries for ailing patients to have a right to death? Does he have an alternate plan and money to feed and take care of the thousands of streets dogs and control their population? These stupid arguments have always forced us to take a middle ground. And that leads us nowhere. Making analogies to kill old people -- what can I say? I feel that I do not know how old he is but he definitely has immense sense of insecurity. May be he needs to be told that there are laws and he is protected.
Date sent: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:54:57 -0700
Given the fact that the BMC is full of lies and crap, how do we deal with the stray dog menace? I am in no favour of killing helpless animals, but what do we do with all these animals roaming freely? Well, you can't shoot BMC officials; so might as well shoot the dogs!
Venkat
Date sent: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
I think it is a nice article and I totally agree with Pritish Nandy when he says the killing of stray dogs should not be allowed. However, I think his remarks that this could lead to other evils like killing old people etc is farfetched and it seems like an attempt to give his article more body and sustain interest. It is really surprising that he has to compare the killings of dogs to that of humans and it leaves a doubt in my mind as to whether he has convinced himself that the killing of dogs is an issue in itself and does not need to be linked with a bigger issue (that we humans can identify with)!
Sunil Mirpuri
|
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH
SHOPPING & RESERVATIONS | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|