|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
ASSEMBLY POLL '98
|
|
|
|
'Homosexuality might be a part of society, but it's not sane'
E-mail from readers the world over
Date sent: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:28:14 +0300 This article 'In Jodhpur the die is cast' was an excellent piece, very informative and scholarly. I am born in Rajasthan, but educated and brought up in Bombay. Today I know whatever little I know of my own soil. Well done Prem Panicker. Toqueer
Date sent: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:24:40 -0500 Here is what a Muslim brother wrote about Urdu in a discussion forum known as Indology:
To answer this question, one must first define 'Urdu'. The family tree of
Urdu is given below: Urdu is a contraction of 'Zaban-e-Urdu' ('Language of the Camp') which arose in the camps of Mahmud of Ghazni in the10th century as a common language of the Turkic, Afghan, Arab and Persian ghazi liberators. At this stage, it only contained Islamicate words (Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Pashto) and was only written in Arabic. When these persons established the Hindustani Califate of Delhi (which lasted for almost 1000 years and is one of the greatest empires the world has seen), this language became the de facto national language of the Islamic Empire of Hindustan (Hindustan = 'Land of the Indus' in Persian; later erroneously rendered 'Land of Hindus' by the British), ie. India north of the Narmada. Thus Urdu absorbed a number of words from the Prakrit languages (Vangi/Bengali, Braj, Kanauji, Ayodhyi etc.), Vedic languages (Rigvedic, Samavedic, Yajurvedic, etc.), Pali, Sanskrit, Dravidian languages etc. Thus this simplified Urdu (still more than 80 % Perso-Arabic) became the national language of North India (Hindustan), and thus came to be known as Hindustani or Hindi in short. It replaced the Prakrits in Hindustan (Braj, Kannauji etc.) and became in fact the mother tongue of most Hindustanis (something English has not done). It is the most liberal language as far as vocabulary is concerned, and only English has a source as wide. In the 19th century the British encouraged Brahman fundamentalists who enforced the Prakrit Nagari script for the use of Hindustani (which till then had been always written in the Perso-Arabic script). This Nagari Hindustani which arose out of Mughal Hindustani is called Khari Boli or Nagari Hindi. The introduction of the Devanagari script naturally led to many problems which still persist (eg. more than 500 characters required etc.: Madan Gopal in his book This Hindi and Dev Nagari has fully documented the grave defects of the Nagari script), as did the introduction of more Sanskrit words which the common man did not understand. Although it is the official language of the Indian Republic, it is only spoken by a very small percentage of the population, who prefer Hindustani. This Hindustani is still predominantly written in the Arabic script, but smaller fractions use Devanagari (Khari Boli dialect), Roman (Christians and Britishers), Bengali etc. Sometimes the simplified Urdu called Hindustani is also referred to as Urdu, but technically Urdu is the pure Islamicate language without the pre-Islamic influence. So the number of speakers of Urdu is practically the entire emigrant Indian population, who know some Urdu or Hindustani. The use is by no means dead, thus Hindustani films are spreading the usage of Urdu. So asking about the number of Urdu speakers is like asking about the number of speakers of Anglo-Saxon: Practically every Englishman would understand some old Anglo-Saxon since it is the precursor of English, so similarly practically every North Indian (and most South Indians at that) understands some Zaban-e-Urdu since it is the precursor of his/her mother tongue, Hindustani. Thus there is only a linguistic definition of Urdu, no such thing as an 'official definition'. Official definitions have very little meaning especially in South Asia; thus the official national language of India is Khari Boli, a Sanskritised version of Hindustani, but it is to all effects and purposes a dead language (despite official support and the money wasted in propagating it). I am surprised that someone Indian calls the Turks and the Afghans and the Persians as "liberators." How dare this man do that? Anyway, the article hits the spot, If I may say so. Ashish
Date sent: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 09:21:35 PST Your interview was one sided. How does Rediff and the so-called "modern headed" Indians expect India to accept homosexuality as part of our society all of a sudden?. I didn't know what this men loving men and women having sex with women was until I came to Canada, and when I saw Canadian society, I fell sick. Homosexuality is what started the deadly disease of AIDS. Homosexuals are humans and I personally believe that they need not be beaten like they are in the Middle East, but at the same time, homosexuality is not the alternative as shown in Fire. Just because some famous people like Oscar Wilde and singer George Michael are gays and so was Alexander the great, it does not mean it is right. God has made man and woman for each other, homosexuality might be a part of society, but it's not sane.
Date sent: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 13:49:50 -0500 This is a really good interview, in an investigating style, no improper or irrelevant questions. Good job.
Date sent: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 22:39:42 PST After going through the columns of Rediff, I rented the video of Fire. When I asked for the movie, the owner of an Indian grocery shop near my place replied, "I don't know about that, but I have a pirated tape whose label says Fire A." Well, why should the movie have an "A" written on the label? There was no tag like that for movies like Utsav and Aastha. Hmmm! Even here in the USA where Indians are exposed to many behaviours which are frowned and considered abnormal in Indian society, they rated the movie with "A" right on the label. Do we think alike irrespective of the environment we are in? Does the environment where we are brought up matter? I will let the shrinks take care of such issues. I am more concerned with what such films mean to India. Even though Shabana Azmi and others did a fantastic job, I feel the film was an immature and an anxious attempt to show the "double standards" of Indian society. The film-maker probably because of her Canadian origin and upbringing probably missed a point when she was trying to contrast few situations in the movie with the epic Ramayana. The Ramayana was written many a centuries ago. Its main characters are so ideal that Hindus revere them as Gods. So do men these days expect their wives to be and behave like the Goddess Sita? I don't think so because they aren't like Lord Rama anyways. Then why was such contrast required to be shown when the time frames are way different. Moreover, it has become a "cool" thing to express oneself as a "broad minded" person by making movies on controversial subjects and reviewing such movies as "bold attempts." What are they trying to convey? I would like to ask such movie makers and journalists how "cooly" they could handle situations they portray in their movies like lesbian wives or lesbian daughters in their real lives? Or are they assuming themselves to be the harbingers to dump the Westernised view of "freedom" and "liberation" of thoughts and mind on the Indian society. I see in such people a strong desire for recognition and publicity than the real "broad mind" itself. For those bunch of politicians who are going around inciting people and giving wild statements, who the heck are they to act as guardians of the Indian and Hindu culture. They are the worst offenders who abuse the culture by taking opportunistic paths. In fact I fail to understand their logic. They are unnecessarily giving publicity to the movie when they do not want the people to see it. I feel the issue and film does not deserve any more publicity. We Indians don't have to get distracted with issues like gay and lesbianism which are more prevalent in the Western world. We have more serious issues like poverty, casteism, women and children's welfare on our table which need thinking and actions. Rediff, please stop covering this issue henceforth. Thanks. Akashvani
Date sent: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:37:30 -0600 A R Rahman is not a Muslim, though his name sounds like it.... Raj
Date sent: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 11:27:20 -0500 I generally go through Rediff's Home page, Sports and Movies section, and mainly read articles on cricket regularly. But this interview, I couldn't stop after I started reading it (even when I was doing this at work). I have always liked and thoroughly enjoyed all of his movies. I must have seen them so many times, yet I like them more each time I watch them. I am looking forward to watching Jhoot Bole Kauva Kaate and give my best wishes to Hrishikesh Mukherjee. I think there is very little I can add to a great personality like his. I would also like to thank Rediff for providing us with this interview. Surendra Surve
Date sent: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:11:01 +0800 Firstly, I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to get an insight into Shri Hrishida. I may be belonging to his grand children's generation, but thanks to my father, am familiar with the stalwarts of cinema of yesteryears and to some extent little details of their styles and passions. I now live in Singapore. When I saw the songs of Jhoot Bole... and got to know that Shri Hrishida was directing it, I was excited. I go and watch a movie in the theatre after seeing the trailers and the songs. And my judgement is never wrong. I always get what I expected. The serene face of Juhi and the hilarious yet simple lyrics of the songs -- I knew what I can expect. Going out to the theatre is not easy for me with a one-and-half-year old son. But I am determined to go to this one and I will. I would like you to convey one simple fact to Shri Hrishida. I am 28 years old and perhaps very much belong to this fast-paced generation. But I can never get down to appreciating the indiscriminate violence, sex and vulgarity in the movies widely prevalent today. I will continue to look forward to more such entertaining films from Shri Hrishida. In fact, I have been looking for the video cassette of Khubsoorat for some time and never found it. I saw it only as a school kid, when it was telecast on Doordarshan and hopefully someday will get to watch it again on television. I still remember and cherish all his movies. Aruna
Date sent: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:28:24 -0500 This feature by Shobha Warrier has some strong remarks against noted film maker Mani Ratnam. Her opinion is far from rational. She says: Ever since I saw Roja, I saw Mani Ratnam as a director who commercialised sensitive issues for his personal glory. Mani Ratnam had attained personal glory much before the making of Roja. You must remember that Roja won the best film for national integration. I could sense no sincerity in any of his films. For him, India's problems were just themes to strike gold. Do you honestly feel this kind of caustic remarks which are baseless and part of yellow journalism should be allowed at all? What is the basis for this comment at all? I am glad that Dil Se/Uyire has been rejected by the public. I am even more happy that the Indian Panorama jury rejected Dil Se/Uyire and selected The Terrorist for the Hyderabad film festival. We as readers are not bothered about what makes Shobha glad or happy. She would be better off commenting on the merits of the issues rather than her personal likings. (Also let her watch the English grammar in writing. There is no more happy in proper English). I am not sure if Shobha is an experienced reporter. I have read her interviews with T N Seshan, cinematographer-director Rajeev Menon. She used to intersperse her report with remarks on how the persons talked. For example, in Rajeev Menon's interview she reported -- "shouting without hearing me..." or something like that. In Seshan's interview, she reported about Seshan's stressing on winding up the interview "you have two minutes" etc. Both forms of reporting seemed very rude to me. She must understand that she is talking or writing about people who have brought significant contributions in their field and not jokers. So it would be much better if her interviews and features are more polite. She must also make her observations solely on the merits and demerits of someone's work without personal bias. Ganesh R
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:49 PM Another story of a fast bowler fibbing injury to get selected and somebody undeserving gets the nod. The same thing happened probably on an earlier NZ tour. Ravi Shastri got into the team by default inspite of not being on the reserves. The selection think tank rather acts on impulses/diktats of the powers at the helm of BCCI. Why was not the case of Dodda Ganesh considered? He also had a good showing against the WI A team in the concluded Test. Further he also bowled exceedingly well against Hyderabad in the recently concluded Ranji league tie. I think Shivlal Yadav who represents the South Zone probably was not aware of his showing, or did not like it on his home team. Another sad story of somebody else superceding another. It would have been apt for Ganesh to tour NZ for the simple reason he has always blossomed under Javagal Srinath and, unfortunately so in his first international tour he didn't have his guru by his side because he pulled out due to injury. Any way better luck next time Ganesh. It's probably correct to wish that saner sense prevails on the selectors next time.
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
||