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.

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.

References:

1. Jeyamohan on Nanjil Nadan's list http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56339
2. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to women writers's protest letter (with link to the protest letter) http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56732
3.Ambai's column in 'Tamil Hindu' about sexism by Tamil writers http://tamil.thehindu.com/general/literature/பெண்-வெறுப்பு-என்றொரு-நீண்ட-படலம்/article6136159.ece
4. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to Ambai http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56832
5. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to an article in Dinamalar on the controversy http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56554
6. Jeyamohan on women writers he admires http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56437
7. Jeyamohan's link to a blog ridiculing Ambai http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=57503
8. Jeyamohan's blog listing his blogs on Kamala Das http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56739
9. Jeyamohan's rebuttal to Hindu http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56830
10. On Ambai's contribution http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56885
11. On Jeyakanthan and lists http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=1404
12. On Nehru and Indian science http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=19636 (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 http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=56606
14. Shaji's blog on Michael Jackson http://musicshaji.blogspot.in/2012/06/blog-post.html
15. Shaji's FB post dated June 21st on why male publishers publish women authors: https://www.facebook.com/shaji.tom.1/posts/773046236059954
16. Keeranur Jagir Raja on Jinnah http://jakirraja.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-post_4896.html?m=0
17. Jeyamohan and P.A. Krishnan email exchange where Jeyamohan talks about his wife and Krishnan talks of Stalin http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=19
18. Rebuttal to Jeyamohan published by Nanjil Nadan http://nanjilnadan.com/2014/07/15/எதையும்ஆராயாமல்/
19. Authors in support of Jeyamohan protesting to Vikatan, alleging incitement of violence, http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=456
20. Vikatan's article on Jeyamohan's parody of Sivaji Ganesan and MGR (subscription only content) http://www.vikatan.com/new/article.php?module=magazine&aid=45595
21. Jeyamohan on Sujatha as science fiction writer http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=7587
22. Devadevan Vishnupuram function http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=33332
23. A reader's letter to Jeyamohan fawning over Raja and how he'd wail and prostrate at Raja's feet http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=33409
24. Jeyamohan on his daughter's opinion of Maxim Gorky http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=60888. "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 http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=6456 "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.".

Attenborough's and S.Ramakrishnan's Gandhi: An Exercise In Mediocrity And Deification

In my last blog I had referred to Attenborough's movie 'Gandhi' as 'third rated'. A friend asked me why I said so about a movie that's considered an epic and one which the Oscars, in 1983, rewarded with 8 awards including Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture.

Attenborough's Gandhi took India and the world by storm. In a then rare move the Indian government waived entertainment tax thus making the tickets more affordable. Indians watched it by the millions, schools arranged movie trips. I too watched it as 10 year old. I don't remember much of what I felt or understood as a 10 year old. My only memories were that any Indian who watched it was awestruck by the grand scale and by the fact that a British actor, albeit of Indian heritage, essayed the role of a most loved Indian with such aplomb and justice.

Nearly 15 years later I happened to read Salman Rushdie's collection of essays titled 'Imaginary Homelands'. The passage that remains stuck in my mind was:

"Deification is an Indian disease....I was asked more than once in India recently, 'why should an Englishman want to deify Gandhi?' And why, one might add, should the American Academy wish to help him, by presenting, like votive offerings in a temple eight glittering statuettes to a film that is inadequate as biography, appalling as history, and often laughably crude as a film?"

Then I watched 'Gandhi' again. By now my sensibilities and ideas on aesthetics had evolved from a 10 year old (hopefully). I've watched the movie many times after reading Rushdie and I am firmly convinced that it remains a mediocre movie that presents a cardboard version of the most complex leader in modern times.

Mulling over wanting to write a reply for my friend I binge watched Attenborough's 'Gandhi', Shyam Benegal's 'The Making of the Mahatma' and a movie about Hitler's last days in his bunker 'Downfall'. I was driving to the local library to get a copy of Rushdie's book to refresh my memory and a thought struck me "the movie centers around Gandhi obsessively with Nehru, Patel and Jinnah as just very peripheral characters. No mention of Bose or Ambedkar who famously crossed swords with Gandhi ideologically. No mention of Tagore. No mention of Gandhi as a reformer". With that thought I re-read Rushdie's essay 'Attenborough's Gandhi'. There it was. Maybe I remembered those points unconsciously.

Rushdie specifically takes issue with the portrayal of Nehru as some starry eyed blind 'acolyte'. Referring to Nehru's well publicized ideological differences with him Gandhi, memorably, said "you will speak my language when I am gone". Nehru, never spoke Gandhi's language, particularly, on economic ideas for development. Nehru even records his displeasure of how Gandhi engineers his election as President of Congress in 1930.

Attenborough presents, not just, a simplified version of Gandhi's protests but grotesquely dumbs down pivotal events to compressed scenes. The worst offense was in portraying the Dandi March. There is no sensitive portrayal of how Gandhi arrived at that decision, his periods of torment while searching for his 'inner voice', the letter to Irwin announcing before hand the details of the protest as is required of a Satyagrahi in his opinion, the planning and the drama of the march itself. Rather we just see two scenes of Gandhi marching and lifting a handful of salt.

The movie keeps a relentless focus on just events connected with Independence struggle completely ignoring Gandhi's role as a reformer of Hinduism. Gandhi's fast unto death protesting the Communal Award and the Poona Pact with Ambedkar sounded the death knell for a centuries old ignominy of Hinduism, untouchability.

The viewer never gets a glimpse of the many levels on which Gandhi tried to make a difference. Disgusted with prevalent unhygienic aspects of Indian life Gandhi would teach villagers how to construct a clean toilet with simple steps. He would write incessantly on those topics.

The Gandhi-Bose feud brought out the best and worst of Gandhi. Gandhi won the ideological war and for that we can thank his sagacity. Yet, when Bose defeated, Gandhi's nominee for Congress President, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Gandhi was petulant. He said "Pattabhi's defeat is my defeat" and proceeded to make life difficult for Bose in Congress. Bose later left and forged his own ill-advised path to securing India's independence with Hitler's help. Tagore, who gave Gandhi the title of 'Mahatma', often sparred with Gandhi's strident nationalism. Adding in the Bose and Tagore characters would have given color to the many hues in India's Independence struggle.

Attenborough is no Martin Scorsese and therefore one cannot expect scenes of Gandhi carrying out his Brahmacharya experiments. Given his funding problems over decades and the fact that the movie was part funded by Indian government one can easily guess that Attenborough, even if he wanted, could not have portrayed those like Martin Scorsese does in his screen adaptation of Kazantzakis's 'The Last Temptation of Christ'.

One of the laughable parts of the movie is where Gandhi per-functionarily adds, in a speech, "Hindus and Muslims must stay united. We must weed out untouchability". That's it. No scenes to flesh out those key battles of what he thought was more important than even overthrow of the Colonial master.

A controversy that erupted about the movie was the fact that a British actor was chosen to play the greatest Indian. I've read elsewhere that Attenborough took Indian actor Naseeruddin Shah around and finally dumped him much to the latter's chagrin. I've watched Naseeruddin Shah perform a sensitive portrayal of Gandhi in a stage play, 'Gandhi vs Mahatma', about Gandhi's troubled relationship with his eldest son Harilal. Rushdie consider's Ben Kingsley's Oscar as the only one that was deserving.

Shyam Benegal who was assistant director to Attenborough later produced a more focused biopic 'The Making of the Mahatma' centered around Gandhi's 21 years in South Africa between 1893-1914. Benegal gives a relatively nuanced version of Gandhi. Here we see Gandhi's son accusing, justifiably, that Gandhi was a bad parent. We see Kasturba fighting over Gandhi's newfound fads like living in poverty inspired by John Ruskin's 'Unto the last'. This movie only shines by contrast. Even here we see Gandhi being portrayed in a muscular and as a very powerful speaker who uses strong gestures. Here too we do not Gandhi himself groping towards Civil Disobedience. Gandhi was an avid reader and communicator. It is pathetic that his intellectual development, not shown in the movie, but is known only on the surface, by people, about how he borrows ideas from Thoreau and Tolstoy.

Compared to these movies the movie on Hitler was far more nuanced. We see Hitler descending into manic depressiveness as the end nears. We see him delusional and still retaining his evil side asking Albert Speer to destroy all of Germany in a scorched earth policy so that the invaders get nothing. Never mind the human cost. It is probably easy to portray sheer unalloyed evil with no iota of any redeeming feature than portraying a man like Gandhi who, to borrow Shakespeare's words, had the 'elements of nature mixed' in him.

Life, as the cliche goes, is stranger than fiction. Gandhi's life is a treasure house of contradictions, humanism, dictatorial, obsessive, drama, etc for a sensitive and cerebral fiction writer. Yet, this is where S.Ramakrishnan, noted contemporary writer and screen play writer, disappointed me most. His recent story about Gandhi narrates how women see Gandhi through the character of a woman, in an orthodox family, running off to meet Gandhi and being punished by her husband for that. The story is littered with another deified version of Gandhi with a cardboard like characterization. (http://www.sramakrishnan.com/?p=3437).

Gandhi's relationship with women is the most complex one, even beyond the by now oft mentioned experiments. In the morning as he walks for exercise when he comes across fellow women ashramites he would ask "sisters, did you have good bowel movements". Women would compete with each other to be seen as his confidant and being called to be his 'walking sticks'. Gandhi thought of himself as half woman. He once dreamt of himself being a mother to the world with breasts overflowing with milk. His relationship with Madeleine Slade, named Mirabehn by him, needs no embellishment for drama. He advised newly Jayaprakash Narayan to be celibate until India achieves freedom. He maintained that for those who conquer lust truly even the sexual organs will look different. Gandhi was also not averse to being naked in the ashram in the course of getting a mudpack treatment or just plainly having a bath.

With all that material what we get from S.Ra is a very benign saintly Gandhi. A cliche served up as literature. I don't remember who wrote the play 'Mahatma versus Gandhi'. It is a good attempt to portray a complex individual.

Gandhi has been ill served by the likes of Attenborough and S.Ramakrishnan. I admire Gandhi not because he was a re-incarnation or a saint. Far from it. Gandhi remains an admirable person to be studied because he was a human being who tried, everyday, to be a better human being than anybody else. 

S.Ramakrishnan and Eddie Murphy Come To America

Eddie Murphy plays an African prince in ‘Coming to America’ who is on the lookout for a queen. Saying 'what better place to find a queen than in Queens' Murphy lands in NY and goes through Murphy-like experiences that showcase America in Hollywood slapstick comedy fashion. Contemporary Tamil writer S.Ra, as S.Ramakrishnan is popularly known, also came to America and has shared his opinions of Yankee land.

 

S.Ra's recent interview to a magazine had two interesting observations. First, he laments how Tamils in USA who have been emigrating since the 50's, lack any creative literary output, unlike Sri Lankan Tamils in Toronto. He says Tamils in USA lack any social awareness for what happens in Tamil Nadu and show not a 'single' good trait found in Canadian Tamils.

Second, he dishes out freely his ideas of what US is. USA is a country where cities are dispersed like islands amidst forests. Dwellings are situated within forests. Americans create cities by the side of forests resulting in an imbalance. Americans lack a distinctive culture and live a life of intellectual emptiness. The capitalist system compels everyone not to look beyond one’s own self or borders. Thousands of Tamils have emigrated to US but unlike Chinese, Japanese and Jewish immigrants there are no literary creations by Tamils.

S.Ra was invited to Canada and USA for his creative acumen and literature. A Canadian Tamil Sangam honored him with an award and that was how all this journey happened. It is disappointing that S.Ra did not bring to bear his literary sensibilities to what he saw. His interview makes it appear that he has little understanding of US history and intellectual traditions and that is what surprises me most given that he is a voracious reader.

When I met S.Ra at FeTNA I asked him about his impressions of the country until then (did not ask what he read of America). S.Ra said he was interested in seeing art galleries. He wrote a nice article about Diego Rivera museum but offered this drivel now. S.Ra added that he would read about US when he returns to India. He said it would be meaningful to read about a country after the visit because he can place what he reads. Fair enough. On the other hand, in his acceptance speech in Canada he expressed great admiration for Canada and how he was desirous of visiting Canada since childhood and mentioned his reading of books on Canada. 

Canada, due to its liberal asylum policies, is a magnet for Sri Lankan Tamils fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Tamils are by nature reputed to be more literary minded than Tamils in Tamil Nadu. Sri Lankan Tamils had to flee their homeland under tragic circumstances and did not emigrate, like Tamils from Tamil Nadu, in search of greener pastures. As exiles Sri Lankan Tamils have a deeper yearning for their mother tongue and homeland that none of the other Tamils can experience. 

Asians emigrated to US in a big way only after Ted Kennedy sponsored immigration reform in 1965, not 50's as S.Ra thinks. Tamils emigrated by the thousands only recently thanks to H1B program. That our education system produces clerks with no knowledge of fine arts is a much lamented fact. The high concentration of engineers, IT professionals, amongst immigrants in US is a prime reason for lack of literary output. US immigration policies also define what kind of Tamils can immigrate to US. Amidst job concerns, green card anxieties, layoffs, taking care of families in two continents, raising kids in a different culture, by and large the Tamil society, like Indians in general, is still trying to find its feet. Creation of literature by a people results from many factors and almost none of which exists in US for Tamils and, again, for Indians in general. Jewish Diaspora, not just those who came to USA, have a high concentration of not only literary creativity but creativity in every sphere of activity and the reasons for that are varied. But the Chinese and Japanese have not produced any great 'body of work' that makes the Tamils in US look sorry.  Anybody can state a fact but to see the reasons behind what happens and what does not happen is supposed to be the preserve of the intellectual. S.Ra failed to show that nuance in understanding.

About his pathetic understanding of US geography and culture I am speechless. He just traveled by road from Toronto via New York to Baltimore and visited few other pockets. America is a vast country with widely varying topography. Such elementary awareness has escaped this screenplay writer. I'd forgive that too but not his statements on US culture. S.Ra was an English literature student and should have known better about US 'culture'.

How can he talk so lightly of a country where Mark Twain, Saul Bellow, William Faulkner, Robert Frost, Margaret Mitchell, Philip Roth, Joan Didion, Gore Vidal, Henry David Thoreau, Emerson, Santayana, Dewey and an endless list lived. Time Magazine runs a special issue every July 4^th picking out one American to talk about how that person helped shape America. The first person, who was not in the pantheon of founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin, to be on that cover was Mark Twain. A literature that reflects American issues and shapes American thinking was created to give expression to the needs of this country. Americans have always prided themselves in creating American institutions distinct from their cousins across the Atlantic. This desire for distinctness was so ingrained that Americans even created their own dictionary, by Noah Webster, spelling ‘centre’ as ‘center’, ‘colour’ as ‘color’. 

American Philosophical Society, founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1743 at Philadelphia functions even today. Franklin founded the society so that Americans might 'cultivate the finer arts, and improve the common stock of knowledge'. I asked S.Ra if he planned to visit the Library of Congress, Jefferson's creation. He said he did not have time. OK, understood but does he know the hoary history of that library. Does he know how Jefferson created the University of Virginia and designed its rotunda? Jefferson desired that University of Virginia provide an ‘American education’ to Americans. S.Ra's guides are also to blame. They did not take him to Monticello, home of Jefferson. Why do Indians not visit places like Monticello or Mount Vernon or Mark Twain’s home? Or the library of congress? (I am talking about most not all).

The comment about America’s 'intellectual emptiness' is the worst absurdity. This to a country that stages plays by Eugene O Neill, Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller. This to a country that has the world’s most lavishly equipped prestigious Symphony halls. This to a country of Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Soul music, country songs. S.Ra might know of some books influencing America, like Harriet Beecher Stowe's 'Uncle Tom’s Cabin'. I am not sure if he knows how Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' is still revered in the study of science or how Allan Bloom's 'Closing of the American mind' came to be written and its influence decades later. Fleeing Nazi Germany Thomas Mann came here and wrote his immortal 'Faust'. Alexander Solzhenitsyn fleeing USSR found a home in New England. The largest number of Shakespeare’s much revered First Folio copies are in the Folger library in Washington DC. Not in England.

Not many immigrants know much about the deep intellectual currents that form the bedrock of America. Louis Menand's 2002 Pulitzer winner 'Metaphysical club' details of a philosophy club founded by famous jurist Wendell Holmes, philosophers James and Pierce. Jefferson is revered for not just his intellect but his desire to create other Jeffersons. The ratification of US constitution by the colonies is itself a story worth reading. The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay, marshaled support in unprecedented polemical manner to pass the constitution. Those opposed to the Federalist papers articulated their opinions as, what else but, ‘Cato’.
Bernard Bailyn's Pulitzer winning 'Ideological origins of American Revolution' is a detective story that traces the origins of the ideas of a magnificent constitution. Bailyn threads the story of how Magna Carta, Montesquieu, Roman history and more flowed into creating an intellectual achievement that stands in a class of its own. Gordon Wood in his Pulitzer winning 'Radicalism of American Revolution' makes the case of how American revolution was 'radical' in creating a new paradigm of nation state. Wood painstakingly explains how a monarchical society transforms itself into a republican society.

 

America is the country of think tanks. Brookings institution and ‘American Enterprise Institute’, ‘Rand corporation’ amongst others ensure a vigorous intellectual stirring about and create a pipeline of intellectuals to inform those who govern. 

Harvard,Princeton, Johns-Hopkins, MIT, Stanford are all not mere accidents. Many countries have tried to replicate them and failed miserably. A compelling read on American universities is, "Great American Universities" by former President of Columbia University, Jonathan Cole. Cole was part of a team that China formed to create a Chinese Harvard. The attempt floundered and Cole wrote this book to tell the world why America's universities are unique and how to protect them.

The capitalist system that he decries is what drew thousands of India to seek their fortunes here and see more of the world. Does he know how MBA courses are being altered to include a stint in Asia to know the emerging economies. S.Ra should try to understand what leaps of creativity and ingenuity are involved in building the Empire State Building or the Brooklyn Bridge. He could explore and learn why Frank Lloyd Wright is revered as the creator of American Architecture? Capitalism is involved in all that.

Silicon Valley can only come from America's womb. No other country can give the space for Steve Jobs. Microsoft, Apple and HP were all born in garages. That Silicon Valley would be created in West coast and not in the equally prosperous East coast is an interesting study of how America has different cultures in its two coasts. Not to mention how the Midwest is re-inventing itself today. Is it an accident that Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stanford etc lived and flourished here? The US transcontinental railroad was not only an engineering marvel but a financial marvel too. Gordon Wood narrates how Americans made 'commerce' as the connective tissue of a country that lacked any other historical glue. The miracles brought about in industrial manufacturing and productivity were possible only in America. Calvin Coolidge, US's 30th President, stated 'the business of American people is business'.

 

A vague silly chatter of the California gold rush insults the westward expansion of America and the taming of the West.The Jefferson commissioned Lewis-Clark expeditions are stories of not just adventurism but of a unique human spirit that is amorphously labeled 'American'. Jefferson told them not just to travel and map out but they were charged with studying flora and fauna in each area and to see how economic expansion can be carried out. Forgotten for long today that expedition is canonical. 

S.Ra thinks that America does not have its own cuisine. That his guides, fellow Tamils who did not know better, took him to pedestrian restaurants they are used to going is not America's fault. Crab cakes in Maryland,  lobsters in Maine, Soul food in New Orleans and so on were not even tasted by him. Yes America is a land of immigrants and it is home to so many cuisines but they all have taken a distinctive American flavor too, sometimes losing their originality but mostly a new character.

Many Indian immigrants lack a curiosity to know and understand how a motley group of colonies in 1776 evolved into a super power. The 'super power' is not because America is unrivaled in arms and military but its deep intellectual nature. S.Ra maligns that US has not created its own culture but is a hodge podge of immigrant cultures. Nothing is further from truth. In every art forms streams of immigrant cultures have commingled and they have been transmuted into what is called 'American'. This is true of every civilization and every country. It is puzzling that this anthropological truth escaped S.Ra.

Not just S.Ra but every immigrant who has made America his/her home should spend some efforts to understand this country that we all have come to call homeland.