Monday, September 1, 2014

Jeyamohan and Women Writers - 2 : Sexist S.Ra, Jagir Raja's Jinnah, Shaji on music and Insulting Ambai

Jeyamohan gained widespread fame (or notoriety) when a Tamil weekly published excerpts of his parodies of MGR and Sivaji Ganesan, two revered actors of Tamil filmdom. I immensely enjoyed the parodies though I remain a fan of Sivaji Ganesan whom I consider an untutored genius. Thanks to his prestige Jeyamohan drummed up support from many authors, almost all incidentally male, to send a protest letter claiming that Vikatan, in the interest of free speech, should stop inciting violence against Jeyamohan. The protest letter, signed by all and sundry male high priests of literature with a fair share of unknowns, was facetious in claiming that the article incited violence. Yet, today, it is the same Jeyamohan who mocks the ill thought out protest letter by female authors.

Deriding, en masse, all Tamil women writers, as not having written anything of worth on par with him or any of the other male writers, Jeyamohan kicked off a furore. He showed less finesse than Larry Summers who, as President of Harvard university, wondered about the lack of women in science and mathematics fields. Summers, for not showing sensitivity and nuance in a blunt observation, lost his presidentship of Harvard. Stating facts is no big deal. Any kindergartner can do that. To situate facts in a wider context needs a finer mind and Jeyamohan showed absolute recklessness in his charge.

Not too long ago women from even educated upper class households remained not just uneducated but actively prohibited by a stern patriarchal society from any attempt to indulge in finer arts. In the oppressively feudal society that India was, even unto the middle of the last century, it was left to women of disrepute to sing and dance. Devaki Nilayamgode, born into a high caste Keralite family, recounts the stratification of society and deep running male chauvinism of the Namboodiri families in her memoir 'Antharjanam'. Nilayamgode had to depend on her brothers to smuggle books to read. 

The novel is itself a new form for Indian literature that made its advent, in a prevalent manner, only in the latter half of the recently ended last century. If one took the early attempts at writing a novel it would look puerile and less than juvenile. Those early writers were, unsurprisingly, male. It took decades for male writers to learn how to write a novel. Harriet Beecher Stowe famously started a war with her 'Uncle Tom's cabin' published in 1852. Margaret Mitchell took America by storm in 1936 with her 'Gone with the wind'. Tamil novel writing did not come of age until 1950s dominated, naturally, by men. How many a Nilayamgode, without brothers to smuggle books, would have died trying to become a Margaret Mitchell? 

Jeyamohan conducts a literary retreat every year for his readers. Women attendance is very sparse at best. The issue of accommodation apart, it is not easy for even motivated women readers to attend such a meeting. Jeyamohan, writing to P.A.Krishnan in an exchange of emails, said of his wife "she has written literary criticisms. Two articles appeared in Thinnai. She even wrote her impressions of a novel by Su.Ra. Now she is pressured with too much work at office. Coming home she has to take of cooking and other chores. Little time to read or write". The liberty with which men pursue their intellectual interests is not available to the Tamil women whether it is Jeyamohan's home or mine or anybody else's. Many readers concurred with Jeyamohan on his observation regarding women writing but little dialogue happened about how to encourage women or a nuanced discussion of why it is so. If England can establish a prize to encourage women writers I see no reason as to why Jeyamohan, with his considerable influence, not think of ways to change what he calls a lamentable mediocrity. 

Until the recent liberalization of Indian economy most parents goaded their children into becoming either doctors or engineers. If boys lacked a freedom in choosing their future girls had absolutely no choice. Economic differences, as always, accentuates the iniquities. While it is not uncommon to see girls of affluent families attend premium colleges in cities and graduating in literature studies, that too only in English, girls taking up Tamil literature, especially in smaller towns, do so as a last resort for lack of academic qualification to enter any better course. 

Shobha De wrote sheer pornography and yet she is feted as a socialite whereas Kutty Revathi writing an anthology of poems titled 'Breasts' invites scorn and ridicule including snide remarks about her physique. The difference was that Shobha De wrote in English and Revathy wrote in Tamil.

It is time to measure some of the male authors with the Jeyamohan standard.

The word charlatan was invented to describe the likes of S.Ramakrishnan. Addressing an exclusive audience of girls S.Ramakrishnan suggested that the first step to becoming a historian is as simple as standing in a kitchen and wondering about the many spices that abound in an Indian kitchen. Would S.Ra advise a male audience to step into a kitchen as the first step to becoming a historian? And that is exactly where the problem lies in India. In a country where Romila Thapar still lives girls are told that sitting and wondering about spices in a kitchen is the way to become a historian. A kitchen can only give questions but the answers lie outside the kitchen. But then expecting S.Ra to know that is foolhardiness.

S. Ramakrishnan made a fool of himself speaking about his impressions of America after a visit to US in 2012. Ramakrishnan's series on Indian history in a popular weekly smacked of jingoism and could not by any stretch called history writing. Once he had published a Tamil version of a Hans Christian Andersen. Impressed by the story I checked out the original. The Tamil version diverged from the original past the halfway mark. I wrote to S.Ra pointing out the difference and, with respect, asked how such an error creeped in. He replied that the fault lay in the translation. No big deal. But he not only did not publish a correction but later repeated the same mistaken translation at a function that was attended by Rajinikanth. These egotistic writers never like to correct themselves. I cannot remember the number of times S.Ra was held to the standards that Jeyamohan eagerly applies to women.

Since Jeyamohan often speaks of Jagir Raja out of curiosity I checked in on him. Jagir Raja, who reads very little or nothing in English, had blogged what he had learned of Jinnah from a Tamil book. The blog was plain nonsense. Raja waxed eloquent on the secular credentials of Jinnah without even once mentioning Direct Action day. He showed appalling ignorance of the complex personality of Jinnah. With that kind of an understanding Raja had written a fiction based on Jinnah.

A reader wrote to Nanjil Nadan asking about the portrayal of a Christian doctor as a religious bigot in a movie that he wrote the dialogues for. Nanjil reiterated that he was portraying historical truth. Ironically the doctor, in true history, was anything but a bigot. Daniel, the original doctor in history, was a humanist who toiled for the sake of the indentured laborers in tea estates. Tom Clancy had more fealty to realistic depiction than Nanjil ever had. In the west it is an abomination to recycle talking points, especially, in a speech delivered as recipient of an award. Nanjil's acceptance speech after receiving the Iyal award in Canada was basically a rehash of his favorite talking points. I am yet to see any Tamil writer capable of delivering a lecture that can match a Charles Eliot Norton lecture or the highly prestigious Jefferson lectures.

Most Tamil writers lack a coherent world view and an appalling ignorance of history or politics beyond the shores of India. Jeyakanthan who earned respect for his opposition to Dravidian style lumpen politics later meandered and offered silly ideas like making Priyanka Gandhi the head of Congress. Bent by age, poverty and pressed by the need to get a job for his son Jeyakanthan, to the shock and disgust of many, groveled before Karunanidhi, the man he had railed against for decades, for providing a golden era of governance. That, at a time when even DMK sympathizers had conceded that it was the most corrupt governance of all the times that Karunanidhi had governed. Jeyakanthan never understood or learned of the grotesqueness of the communist regimes which he continued to portray favorably in his novels, including one he wrote in the early 80s.

Jeyamohan pulls no punches when it comes to criticisms. It takes a certain gumption and stringent ideas of literary value to call Kalki a historian for children. He spares none, man or woman. One could easily call him an equal opportunity offender. However, he does have his biases and favorites. Jeyamohan, as critic, is not without a fair share of faults.

Most often my friends chide me for carping about Tamil writers. Invariably I am told "you should remember that unlike western authors these people have meager means and their books, even the best, sell at meager numbers compared to the west".  Tolstoy's research for writing 'War and Peace' is legendary. Gore Vidal's books can be considered history textbooks.Who in Tamil, male or female, can write a book that can be placed beside Marguerite Yourcenar's 'Hadrian'? Who in Tamil can even do a fraction of the prodigious research that Yourcenar did on Hadrian in the library at Yale university. And to my friends my answer is "Yourcenar was not rich to undertake such a research". It's not just Yourcenar even Tom Clancy and Ken Follett do research for their fictions at a level that almost no Tamil author can easily match. I almost forgot Hilary Mantel.

Ask any Tamil reader for a book with music as theme and he/she would parrot Janakiraman's 'Moga Mull'. Janakaraman's fiction is eons behind Thomas Mann's 'Faust'. Mann wrote the book after lot of discussions with musicologist and philosopher Theodor Adorno. Of course, in a country where there is no Adorno there can be no Mann either.

Tamil Nadu's Theodor Adorno is Shaji, another friend of Jeyamohan. Only in a state like Tamil Nadu can somebody like Shaji prance around as music critic. The same goes for Subbudu too. Shaji recently wrote a blog that claimed Michael Jackson is proof that music is not 'learned' but 'felt'. Jackson was patiently trained by his talented father, a fact that Shaji himself points out in his blog. Malcolm Gladwell had better understanding of Mozart's genius than Shaji understood Jackson's talent. The only time Jeyamohan would chide Shaji is when the latter runs down his new found guru Ilayaraja.

If one looks at non-fiction books the writers in Tamil cut a pathetic figure. Thomas Kuhn, Allan Bloom and Samuel Huntington took America by storm with their books on Science, Sociology and foreign policy. Today Thomas Piketty is sweeping across the publishing world like a Tsunami. Nobody can speak of distributive justice without mentioning John Rawls or Robert Nozick.Sujatha till he breathed his last could not write a single chapter on quantum physics with the clarity of John Gribbin.  If one has to understand the rise of Al Qaeda one has to read Lawrence Wright's 'Looming Tower'. A Tamil author who prances around as an authority on foreign policy freely excerpted the 9/11 commission report to write on 9/11. His other columns on foreign affairs, written amidst his work for inane and dumb TV serials, shows the aboriginal state of tamil writing, irrespective of gender, with regard to non-fiction. To be fair, Jeyamohan has always pointed out that Sujatha is no science fiction writer but one who uses the veneer of science to dress up pulp fiction detective stories. Tamil still does not have a credible science fiction writer let alone anyone that can stand up to Isaac Asimov or Ray Bradbury. With great curiosity I bought a collection of essays by Pudumai Pithan. The essays were, to put it charitably, pedestrian. Who will be Tamil's Francis Bacon or Jonathan Swift? Let's not go that far. Just check out Mario Vargas Llosa's collection of essays.

It is common to find western authors well informed on history and more importantly cultivate a vision of history. Nanjil, S.Ra, Jeyakanthan and many others have little or no idea of history let alone a sweeping vision of history. Jeyamohan, however flawed, to be fair, at least tries to have a vision. Sundara Ramasamy and P.A. Krishnan are stunning when it comes to their adulation of Stalin. Krishnan, a very erudite person, in an email exchange with Jeyamohan mentioning the latter's 'பின் தொடரும் நிழலின் குரல்', demurs that Stalin is unfairly called a monster. In his 'சுந்தர காண்டம்' Jeyakanthan has a character from Soviet Russia through whom he would pay encomiums to USSR such as that there are no orphans in USSR since the state takes care of them. Stalin created orphanages for the children, many were toddlers, of those parents who were condemned as families to either die or go to gulags. I doubt if Jeyakanthan had ever read anything of the vast anti-communist literature. I shall return to 'பின் தொடரும் நிழலின் குரல்' and the Stalin topic in a separate blog.

I've enjoyed many of Jeyamohan's blogs where he patiently deconstructs icons like Sujatha, EVR and others. He is a patient educator on the need to refrain from whitewashing truth to preserve a deified image of a persona. There are times when he steps out of his boundaries to write brilliant articles like the one he wrote on Abraham Pandithar's contribution to carnatic music or the history of literary squabbles in Tamil literature or on grammar Nazis and many others. In a state where the memory of Gandhi has been made to be a distasteful one it is Jeyamohan who has written some of the finest articles on Gandhi. And then there are other sides to Jeyamohan as critic and opinion maker.

Mark Van Doren's book on Shakespeare's poetry opens with the lines that Shakespeare was not a good poet. Bernard Shaw famously wrote a preface titled "better than Shakespeare?" for his play 'Antony and Cleopatra'. Asking if Bharathi was a great poet is not sacrilege. When Jeyamohan waxes eloquent on movie lyricist Kannadasan I wince. Though Jeyakanthan was friends with Kannadasan he refused to call the latter a poet saying that a movie lyricist is different from a poet. Awarding the 'Kannadasan prize' to Jeyamohan the organizers gleefully reprinted on the invitation his words that 'after Bharathi Kannadasan was a great poet'. To speak of Bharathi and Kannadasan in the same breath is puerile.

In another blog Jeyamohan cites Nataraja Guru as throwing out S.Radhakrishnan's 'Bhagavad Gita' simply because Radhakrishnan in his preface had stated that the Gita is a Hindu religious text. The umbrage was that he failed to call it a book of Indian philosophy. I wonder how come Kannadasan escapes justifiable castigation for the sexist and nonsensical drivel that
அர்த்தமுள்ள இந்து மதம்" was? Kannadasan's attempt at a long verse poem on Christ was a juvenile attempt by a movie lyricist trying to be a poet.

Bharathi re-invented a language, had dreams, dreams only a poetic soul could have, far beyond his time and age. To speak of a lyricist in relation to such a poet is a travesty. Incidentally, Jeyamohan's blogs on Indian philosophy, while being erudite by current Tamil writing standards, are not of the academic quality that Radhakrishnan showed in his magisterial two volume 'Indian Philosophy'. Unlike Will Durant, who could write dispassionately and even mockingly of the leading lights of western philosophy, Jeyamohan does not critique a philosophy. It is fair to ask who will be, again, irrespective of gender, Tamil's Karl Popper or Will Durant?

Nobody who had read Nehru's 'Discovery of India' or his many writings would doubt, even for a minute, how much he cherished India's hoary civilization and heritage. Yet, only Jeyamohan could dream of saying that a benami landholding zamindar like G.K. Moopanar is better than Nehru who spent 9 years of his life in British jail and spent every minute of his life trying to make India better for the poorest of the poor citizen.

The worst of Jeyamohan as critic is often reserved for western authors that he disagrees with. Will Durant and Richard Dawkins were labeled, maliciously, as racists. Celebrated Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Adichie was maligned as not even having Nigerian roots. Ayn Rand would be derogatorily referred to as 'run-away from USSR'. Chinua Achebe was insinuated as selling stereotypical Africa to the Western reader. To judge a writer is Jeyamohan's liberty but it is not his liberty to impute motives and worse still to misinform about a writer's heritage.

As many times as he does a signal service with his unsparing criticisms Jeyamohan equally despairs a reader when he steps into areas of which he knows little.

Whether it is holocaust or the history of Israel or allopathy or Kashmir Jeyamohan will gleefully step into the topic with little hesitation of his relative ignorance. When Tamil writers, not just Jeyamohan, step out of their comfort zone of Tamil literature more often than not they make a spectacle of themselves. Once when I derided Jeyamohan's attempt to explain Indian heritage and nationalism he wrote to me that he delivered that speech well aware of his limitations on political science as a discipline. It may be true. Unfortunately his readers do not share his ideas on his limitations. Many readers waxed enthusiastically that he was Socrates reborn.

As an individual Jeyamohan is perfectly free to hold opinions on any topic he wishes and he is well within his rights to even share it with friends over a cup of tea. When he ascends a stage and seeks to address an audience with the aura of an intellectual and an opinion maker I wish he held himself to higher standards. Recently at MCC he meandered on role of literature in a society and gave an address that makes even a moderately informed reader wince at the brazenness of not having checked out facts or for parading contentious theories with little basis in facts. And, thats not the first time. Sadly, it may not be the last either.

The perils of feeling obliged to post at least a couple of blogs everyday all through the year is that contradictions abound easily. For someone who made a big deal of a list I was amused to find an old blog of Jeyamohan where he patiently tells a reader, who had asked if in a listing of great writers Jeyakanthan would figure and weren't La.Sa.Ra, Sura and Asokamithran better, "don't look at literature list a competitive sport". He adds that 'literature is a discourse where many voices echo on a vast plain'.

Having ridiculed Ayn Rand's idea of 'destiny makers' Jeyamohan then spent many blogs arguing exactly that. With his heart brimming with paternal pride he recently wrote that his teenage daughter brushed aside Maxim Gorky's 'Mother' as 'simplistic story telling'. Such 'arrogance' (தெனாவெட்டு), he said, is the hallmark of an intellectual. Its easy to imagine his indignation if an unknown reader had said the same. He would've easily waxed eloquent about how Gorky midwifed a revolution. He'd have sternly lectured on placing a literature in the social milieu against which it should be judged and more such external parameters. Above all he'd have chided the arrogance. Echoing his guru Nitya Jeyamohan too scolds the commoner "go till your fields, go write a software code that is all you are capable of. Leave remaking the world to intellectuals". What was left unsaid was "intellectuals like us". This is the same Jeyamohan who is surprised that his mentor Sundara Ramasamy fantasized being a Stalin in order to reshape society. Expressing surprise at how Ayn Rand's 'Fountainhead' is studied by technocrats in their college days Jeyamohan was aghast that the graduates had no respect for the common Indian farmer who, in Jeyamohan's opinion, was a repository of a long intellectual tradition and possibly knew more about the soil by experience unlike the textbook graduates. Incidentally I don't see any reason why writing a piece of computer code is any less than writing poetry. Maxwell's equations are no less artistic than Beethoven's 9th symphony or Picasso's painting. I'd urge Jeyamohan to read nobel laureate S.Chandrasekhar's 'Truth and Beauty'.

I'd still say that Jeyamohan is not a quintessential sexist or chauvinist. He is, as we say in America, an equal opportunity offender. He chides all and sundry presenting himself as a stern voice of reason who is dispassionate in criticism. There are many times he does just justice to that and many other times when he falls far short of it.

Whether in doing a Freudian analysis of Kamala Das's erotica or even in carping about the quality of writing by women or being peeved that women writers get a pass for quality for merely being women Jeyamohan is well within his rights. The joint protest letter by women writers was childishly written. Ambai had, in the mean time, written an oped in Tamil edition of The Hindu about instances of chauvinism and sheer sexism by male Tamil writers. The newspaper in its eagerness to stir the hornet's nest had published Jeyamohan's photograph though Ambai had not written anything of him at all. Let me reiterate here that in my Facebook postings until this had been supportive of Jeyamohan's liberty and in fact even disagreeing with the protest letter and the imputation of incidents to him thanks to an ill placed photo.

The breaking point for me was when he published a letter that alleged women writers get published by trading 'favors' and that Ambai, a much respected writer, writes and speaks horribly. The innuendo was plain. The letter (could not find it now) alleged that women writers traded sexual favors. In his reply Jeyamohan ignored that part and eagerly agreed that Ambai had never spoken coherently whenever he had the chance to hear her. This was in direct contradiction to his own blog a few days back extolling Ambai's contributions to Tamil writing. I had the pleasure of listening to a talk by Ambai and can say that whatever one might think of her fiction she is no fool. In an unseemly gesture Jeyamohan published several letters that supported him, almost all were by males. Once he even gave a link to another blog only because the blogger uncharitably trashed Ambai.

Whether it is Shaji alleging on Facebook that women get published because publishers, most of whom are male, condescend out of their natural kindness towards women or that reader alleging 'favors' it is unsurprising that nobody asks how male authors get published. Recently a guy published a book based entirely out of his Facebook posts that were mere toilet humor kind. Grape vine had it that he was actually self-publishing. Another guy liberally rips an anti-communist book and presents it as his research without due disclaimers. By the way, why is it that no woman writer is asked to write screen play or dialogues for movies? I am sure it needs no genius to churn out dialogues like S.Ramakrishnan did for the Rajini starrer 'Baba'. In a few decades I can state with certainty that the dialogues of Vadivelu, written by comedy track writers, will be more quoted and used in public discourse than the forgettable lines cranked out by Sahitya Akademi winners. A recent blog of Jeyamohan had made it appear that what is oft repeated in public discourse by having seeped into public consciousness is literature.

Manushyaputhiran had recently ridiculed Salma being invited abroad for film festivals since Salma is not a professional film maker. Of course the implication was that she got those opportunities owing to her gender. Tamil writer Ka.Na.Su, who, as Jeyamohan points out in a blog, never watches movies, was on the jury for National awards when the controversial movie 'அக்ரஹாரத்தில் கழுதை' was awarded a prize. Jeyamohan alleges that Ka.Na.Su probably never watched the movie but not only voted for it he made another juror vote for it based only on reading the screenplay. It is probably true. The point though is that Salma's gender becomes a question but Ka.Na.Su's gender is no issue. 

Shaji's allegation is patently sexist especially in the light of the shenanigans by established authors themselves to get their books published. Inviting cine stars is now de-rigeur for book releases. Fawning over director Gowtham Menon Charu once referred to one of Gowtham Menon's movie as a good one. That movie was blatantly ripped off from 'Derailed'. Of all such functions the most frown worthy was Jeyamohan's own function on behalf of his Vishnupuram foundation to award poet Devadevan with Vishnupuram award. In the pretext of seeking greater attention to Devadevan film musician Ilayaraja was invited to confer the award. Needless to say that the function became about Ilayaraja to the extent that Jeyamohan himself wrote that Devadevan, amused by the spectacle, was wondering if the function was for somebody else.

Amidst all that hullabaloo Nanjil Nadan, while welcoming Ilayaraja, prostrated in at Raja's feet hailing him as goddess Saraswathi. Jeyamohan records with pride that Raja embraced Nanjil, after Nanjil had gotten up, saying "you too are one". As Mark Antony says in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar 'and then you and I fell my dear countrymen'. Recently Jeyamohan followed suit and prostrated at Raja's feet seeking the his blessing for the upcoming publication of his first book in a long planned series on Mahabharatha. All of this is cringeworthy. My skin crawls with disgust. Raja, a talented musician no doubt, has earned his place in the pantheon of Tamil film musicians but nothing beyond. This is a man whose only talent is to churn out commercial music and to put his foot in the mouth whenever he goes on stage. Whenever Jeyamohan writes of Nitya Chaitanya Yathi as his guru I can understand and respect that. When the same Jeyamohan calls Raja his new found guru I puke. Now, Charu with some indignation asked how come no film maker or film technician ever fall at the feet of any writer. The only Tamil writer who went to movies and did not get sullied remains Jeyakanthan.

A feminist reading of Jeyakanthan's much lauded 'சில நேரங்களில் சில மனிதர்கள்' will be disappointing in that the protagonist has it as her raison-de-etre in life to search for the lout who had sexually abused her and establish a relationship with him since, as her uncle often reminds her, she can 'only be a concubine, never a wife'. On the other hand the freedom loving protagonist in 'ஒரு நடிகை நாடகம் பார்க்கிறாள்' is no intellectual or does not even know that she loves liberty outside of a narcissistic mode that is blatantly simpleton like. Jeyamohan's  much discussed '.பின் தொடரும் நிழலின் குரல்' also falls into the category of what Sudhir Kakar aptly described as the Indian way of looking at women, the mother-whore dichotomy. A woman, Manu states, should be a prostitute in bed (sayanesu vesya). Of course thats after being a mother all day long. Two prominent women characters in that novel exhibit the mother-whore dichotomy. Jeyamohan either sanitizes and idolizes woman by placing her on a pedestal or presents her like a wanton wench. In either of the states the woman is devoid of independent intellectual achievements or intellectual abilities. Is it any wonder that women writers tend to focus on women's issues and women as protagonists since the men seem to do only a half assed job of portraying women. Only women writers could create a Scarlet O'hara or a Dagny Taggart.

A disappointing side to this mess was that no male writer stepped up to condemn the shrill rhetoric and blatant insult dished out to a much respected woman writer. Nanjl Nadan, who's list was the agent provocateur, published a scathing rebuttal written, not by him but by another person, on his blog site. The whole episode was illustrative of how sexism is alive and kicking in Tamil Nadu. My earlier blog had pointed out how the West is assiduously trying to stem centuries old sexism in literature. The question is will Tamil Nadu learn?

In conclusion I'd say that Jeyamohan could have been more charitable towards his women colleagues,  showed better understanding of historical processes in the evolution of literature, showed a nuance in voicing his criticism. The chorus of ridicule by male writers only showed what a feudal patriarchal society Tamil Nadu still is. It was disgusting to see one after another pile on the women writers with little regard to what their own fellow male writers were doing.

In case anyone thinks I'd stop reading Jeyamohan please be rest assured I'd read him everyday. As one who loves Israel I still listen to Wagner. As one who hated communism I never felt I need to shun Jeyakanthan.


1. Jeyamohan on Nanjil Nadan's list
2. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to women writers's protest letter (with link to the protest letter)
3.Ambai's column in 'Tamil Hindu' about sexism by Tamil writersபெண்-வெறுப்பு-என்றொரு-நீண்ட-படலம்/article6136159.ece
4. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to Ambai
5. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to an article in Dinamalar on the controversy
6. Jeyamohan on women writers he admires
7. Jeyamohan's link to a blog ridiculing Ambai
8. Jeyamohan's blog listing his blogs on Kamala Das
9. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to Hindu
10. On Ambai's contribution
11. On Jeyakanthan and lists
12. On Nehru and Indian science (சுதந்திரத்துக்குப்பின்னர் இந்தியமறுமலர்ச்சிக்கால மனநிலைகள் தேங்கின. ஐரோப்பிய வழிபாட்டாளரும், அடிப்படையில் இந்தியமரபுமேல் மதிப்பில்லாதவருமான நேருவின் யுகம் ஆரம்பமாகியது.....நேருமேல் எனக்கு எப்போதும் மதிப்பு உண்டு. ஆனாலும் அவரை நல்லெண்ணம் கொண்ட அசடர் என்றே என் மனம் மதிப்பிடுகிறது. சமகாலச் சிந்தனையோட்டங்களில் அடித்துச்செல்லப்படும் எளிமையான மனம் கொண்டவர் அவர்.).
13.On Nehru, Moopanar and Smriti Irani
14. Shaji's blog on Michael Jackson
15. Shaji's FB post dated June 21st on why male publishers publish women authors:
16. Keeranur Jagir Raja on Jinnah
17. Jeyamohan and P.A. Krishnan email exchange where Jeyamohan talks about his wife and Krishnan talks of Stalin
18. Rebuttal to Jeyamohan published by Nanjil Nadanஎதையும்ஆராயாமல்/
19. Authors in support of Jeyamohan protesting to Vikatan, alleging incitement of violence,
20. Vikatan's article on Jeyamohan's parody of Sivaji Ganesan and MGR (subscription only content)
21. Jeyamohan on Sujatha as science fiction writer
22. Devadevan Vishnupuram function
23. A reader's letter to Jeyamohan fawning over Raja and how he'd wail and prostrate at Raja's feet
24. Jeyamohan on his daughter's opinion of Maxim Gorky "17 வயதான என் மகள் மக்ஸீம் கார்க்கியை இலகுவான எழுத்தாளர் என்று நிராகரிக்கிறாள். அந்த தெனாவெட்டுதான் அறிவுத்திறனின் இலக்கணம்.....‘போ போய் வயல் உழு. தறி ஓட்டு. கம்ப்யூட்டர் தட்டு. உனக்கு இது இல்லை. இதற்கானவர்கள் வேறு பலர் உள்ளனர். அவர்கள் இவ்வுலகை அமைப்பார்கள்’ என்பதுதான் பதில்".
25. Ka.Na.Su on film jury "இதற்கு தேசியவிருது கிடைத்தது ஒரு வேடிக்கை. க.நா.சு அப்போது நடுவர் குழுவில் இருந்தார். அவர் சினிமாவே பார்ப்பதில்லை. மொத்தமே பத்து படம் பார்த்திருந்தால் ஆச்சரியம். இந்தப்படத்தையும் அவர் பார்க்கவில்லை. ஆனால் இதன் திரைக்கதையை அவர் வாசித்திருந்தார். அது அவருக்குப் பிடித்திருந்தது. ஆகவே அவர் படத்துக்கு வாக்களித்தார். இன்னொருவரையும் வாக்களிக்க வைத்தார்.".

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

// He spares none, man or woman. One could easily call him an equal opportunity offender. However, he does have his biases and favorites. Jeyamohan, as critic, is not without a fair share of faults.// LOL .. Jeyamohan is a complex personality.Tamil writers' source for research ends with Wiki and if there is no information available they write their own Wiki page to support their writing.. Pathetic.. that said out of all living Tamil writers Jeyamohan has clearly established himself as a cut above the rest.