Jeyamohan and his opponents: A tale of mutual hatred and contempt

Love him or hate him but one cannot ignore Jeyamohan today. Not even Jeyakanthan was so divisive. Jeyamohan has supporters (not just readers) and opponents (not critics). The two camps are at their vociferous worst. The reader and critic are usually marginalized. When Jeyamohan delivers a speech his supporters will flood him with letters calling the speech the greatest political tract since Plato's Republic. His opponents will take to social media and ridicule the speech as if it is a Santhanam comedy. Invariably the latter will get a verbal lashing by Jeyamohan himself on his website. The democratization of information by way of blogging has liberated both Jeyamohan and his opponents. Both use the independence of a non-academic atmosphere liberally to further their own agenda. (Of course as a blogger I too use that independence).

Jeyamohan often laments lack of institutional structures to create intellectuals. To give him due credit he is doing what he can to address that lacuna. What I've to lament is the lack of an institutional structure, not just academic, for a critic to opine freely and be taken seriously. What Tamil Nadu lacks is the professional critic. The absence of an institution like New York Times Book Review or NYRB or TLS facilitates people like Jeyamohan and others to speak freely and unafraid of being held accountable. The freedom is laudable but it is not always used responsibly. I am not talking about censorship. I abhor it. When a blogger or FB commentator disagrees, however validly, Jeyamohan can dismiss it without as much as a second thought asking "what is your qualification". The implication is "I am a writer, you are not. You lack the credentials to criticize me". If Salman Rushdie asked Michiko Kakutani "how many books you wrote" it would be laughed out. To be fair to Jeyamohan who knows maybe he would welcome a Kakutani in Tamil Nadu. Or, maybe not.

Jeyamohan's recent column in 'Tamil The Hindu' proposing an idea, to write Tamil textbooks in English transliteration, to entice Tamil readers who love reading in English than any Tamil book, kicked up a fire storm. Until that column his last big fire storm was scolding the entire Tamil society just because an audience walked out, due to rain, during a speech by him. He literally hauled, an entire society, over coals just because his speech flopped in one venue. Miffed by that attitude I had meant to write a series of blogs holding him up to his own standards. Unfortunately then too, I had figured, inadvertently, in that blog of his. Jeyamohan, gentlemanly, published a regret. My thanks for that gesture.

Bernard Shaw, an Irishman, wanted to reform the English language and even left behind a large part of his fortune for that. The British did not react with indignation or heap scorn or have political leaders issue a shameless condemnation asking "how dare you, an Irishman, say this". Yet that is exactly what happened in Tamil Nadu. Jeyamohan is lucky in his enemies. He had deftly pre-empted his attackers with a prebuttal that anticipated such attacks and he had swatted the attacks with scornful prose.

Lost in the din was the question of what was Jeyamohan's qualification to pose such a question. The British ignored Shaw, thankfully. They know what parts of Shaw are to be ignored including his penchant for Stalin and socialism. Only in Tamil Nadu could Jeyamohan write an article like that and get away with it. One has to only read Steven Pinker to realize that how we learn languages, how we verbalize, how we learn grammar etc are the domain of a cognitive psychologist or a linguist. When I read Steven Pinker's 'Words and Rules' I told a cousin, ruefully, how I wish some native cognitive psychologist would rise in Tamil Nadu to write such a book.

The following criticisms are offered without any malice owing to recent squabbles. These criticisms were supposed to be woven into a cogent article and published, in Tamil, with help from a friend, as response to the tirade post-Thiruppur. Yet that did not happen but the necessity is here to voice them. Also, these mistakes have been pointed out to Jeyamohan in letters that were exchanged with respect and cordiality. I've not seen any retraction or correction. The intention is not to insult or shame into oblivion a noted writer and public intellectual. In fact many times I wonder if Jeyamohan's readers are aware of his limitations as he himself does.

While rubbishing my criticisms the worst part was when Jeyamohan flung the racist charge. In doing so he behaved exactly like his detractors of today who called him 'Nair'. Jeyamohan has used the racist charge about Western authors and intellectuals who happen to be white. Some reader sent him a youtube clip of a discussion between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus. Kraus and Dawkins were discussing Kraus's theory of how the universe came from nothing. Kraus and Dawkins are atheists and revel in mocking religion. Jeyamohan's reader is peeved at that mocking of religion. Jeyamohan's reply exercises his individual liberty of disagreeing with Dawkins but descends into, what Americans call, using the race card (see Reference below). In a shocking line he further adds "The Durant couple who wrote 'story of civlization' thought that the importance of vedanta and Buddhist nihilism is less, by half, of western philosophy. Their nonchalance will infuriate any Easterner" (see exact Tamil quote in References).

I wrote to Jeyamohan asking, very politely, 'why did you say so'. Will Durant's 'Story of philosophy' was a runaway success and a critically acclaimed book even today. Durant was nevertheless realistic about the shortcomings of his book. He wrote in a preface "The worst sin of all-though the critics do not seem to have noticed it- was the omission of Chinese and Hindu philosophy. Even a 'story' of philosophy that begins with Socrates and has nothing to say about Lao-Tze and Confucius, Mencius and Chwang-tze, Buddha and Shankara, is provincially incomplete. ...The first volume of 'the story of civilzation' attempts to atone for this ommission"'. 

I wrote to Jeyamohan "And, atone, he did in in that volume titled "Our Oriental heritage". Durant pays glorious tribute to Indian philosophy, literature and heritage in general. His chapter on Buddha and Sankara, in typical Durant style, is glowing prose. Durant in fact traveled to India to do research first hand. He met Gandhi too. As far as I read those chapters I did not see any attitude of superciliousness. Durant is not Macaulay or Churchill or a neo-imperialist historian." Jeyamohan, to be fair, said he would check his notes when he gets back from travel. I had also asked him that this is only for a private exchange. (Attention to a disgruntled Boston blogger with whom I had dinner, 'I do not seek publicity'). I thought Jeyamohan at some stage will publish a correction. Today when I re-read the blog calling Dawkins a racist I felt I was in good company.

Two wrongs do not make it right. The following criticism is not to rationalize my mistake. But it is instructive to see if Jeyamohan measures up to the standards he asks of others. Chimamanda Adichie born and graduated from Nigeria emigrated to US and later graduated in creative writing from Johns Hopkins University. She became a fellow at Princeton University and wrote the critically acclaimed "Half of a Yellow Sun", based on the Biafran War, which won the prestigious Orange Prize. Later she won the MacArthur genius award.

Jeyamohan is perfectly within his rights to call her fiction trashy. Its his liberty. Yet he shocked by writing "Adichie, with no roots in Nigeria, born and brought up in USA, wrote this novel that stereotyped Nigeria unlike my well researched novel on the same country. The book was unduly praised in the west". The worst part was where he alleges cooly "who knows whether she herself wrote the book.I think several hands were involved in the book". Not content with all that slander the icing was this:"who knows why the west does all this. They probably plant books like these like landmines to destabilize Nigeria. A river of blood will flow and Hollywood can make a Hotel Rwanda movie again". Pray, my dear readers, where does one begin to get agitated about this naked slander.

Instead of looking at any criticism as just criticism Jeyamohan often attributes racism and inferiority complex. He often alleges that one who criticizes does so out of a keen sense of failure by self. What are we to make of him when he alleges "in my opinion Chinua Achebe is not at all an African writer. He writes about Africa for general consumption. He writes according to our expectations". Again, Jeyamohan is perfectly within his rights to form such an opinion. To be sure he wrote this in 2009. The first time I heard of Achebe was when he died and every major newspaper wrote glowing obituaries of him. Every obituary noted specifically that Achebe wrote fiction about Africa that would not be typical of African fiction thus far published and that he consciously wanted to expose western biases. New York Times obituary notes "“Things Fall Apart” gave expression to Mr. Achebe’s first stirrings of anti-colonialism and a desire to use literature as a weapon against Western biases. As if to sharpen it with irony, he borrowed from the Western canon itself in using as its title a line from Yeats’s apocalyptic poem". I'll not debase myself by wondering that lack of international recognition in the scale of Achebe motivated Jeyamohan to write thus. 

Capitalizing on the lack of professional critics when untrained critics, including me, seek to criticize he often finds convenient grounds, sometimes justifiable too, to ridicule the criticisms. But, in doing so, he will gladly discard even the valid parts. He did the same on two occasions with my criticisms. Going back to the Ayn Rand affair I had pointed out several important corrections. That letter, I gladly concede, was poorly constructed. An indignant Jeyamohan rubbished it in entirety. He persisted in saying that Ayn Rand died a lunatic. She did not. Its one of the greatest myths about her. He had said that to show that her philosophy was so pernicious to the mind that even its proponent went mad. I'll reserve further analyses of the Ayn Rand affair for later blogs. The most recent one talked about 'creativity' versus 'inspiration' without so much as even deigning to address it he glided by that.

Sometimes his ideological hatred blinds him and leads him to serious misunderstandings. I do sincerely believe that he has an ideological axe to grind about the west and grind it, he does, without fail. His views on holocaust mirror that of a hateful anti-semite's. In an earlier blog, after my visit to Auschwitz, I had detailed them. I still dont think he is anti-semtic. When somebody says 'holocaust has not been subjected to strict historical analyses' and adds "I am currently reading David Irving" then one wonders if he would study the issue of slavery through a KKK handbook. 

Jeyamohan's understanding of world history is often patchy. In a sweeping line he attributes, what is incorrectly often referred to as Europe's 'Dark Ages', to almost a totalitarian control of a continent by Christian Church. The 'dark ages' are more appropriately called 'medieval era' (which he does say so). Concluding the chapter on Aristotle Durant writes "and then darkness descended over Europe". The next philosopher is Francis Bacon in the 16th century. Between the collapse of the Roman empire and the birth of Reformation, Renaissance and Enlightenment all of Europe was in a constant churn in which religion played a part but the Church was nowhere near the omnipotent totalitarian power that Jeyamohan makes it out to be. The medieval era had its own intellectual churning and much of it had its roots in theological debates about the relationship of man, society, god, faith and reason. Durant calling it 'darkness' was only to refer to the period of unrest when no dominant philosophy or philosopher riled the roost. But Jeyamohan's slip is in attributing an incorrect cause simply because of his entrenched hatred against the Church as an 'established religion'. He does love the Bible though. (I'd disagree with calling either Christianity or Islam as 'organized religion'. They have enough variety and push and pull within them creating enough divergences. There are local eddies. On the contrary Hinduism is not as 'disorganized' as we might think. The lack of a central pontiff is not the the only reason to call it 'unorganized'. Thats a different debate)

I've digressed a bit into areas that I should have reserved for a fuller criticism. The readers letters published on his site are the most puzzling. Only he and another writer do that. I am yet to see any critical email being published. Almost all the letters are sycophantic and fawning. I do not expect any man, let alone one who has achieved much through his intellect, to take joy in publishing critical opinion of oneself. Its too much to expect. But I wish he publishes some decently critical letters. If he says that he receives none like that I'd say thats because of how critics have been treated in the past. 

I'd like to conclude by saying that reading Jeyamohan is quite an education. I'll never say that his writings are empty. That's downright silly. Another blogger wrote today, while disagreeing with Jeyamohan's idea of reforming Tamil, "Jeyamohan told me 'when I say or write about something I'd have gathered enough material to write about it for 100 pages". That's hyperbole. I'd only say 'read him. but read him, as you would read anybody, with a pinch of salt'.  

 Publisher and entrepreneur Badri Seshadri wrote a blog about why India's Mar's mission has relevance to the layman's welfare and asked "why has no intellectual in Tamil Nadu spoken or written about this". Jeyamohan responded back with a blog titled 'Mangalyan' and wrote about Sam Pitroda though Pitroda had nothing to do with Mangalyan. In an attempt to write something about a topic he knows little about he felt compelled to drag in an angle of very tangential relevance. 

Jeyamohan tried to write about technological revolution and how, contrary to his own then thinking, it has yielded good. Its a classic style of speaking about a tangential topic when we cannot speak 'to' the topic. Also, Sam Pitroda had nothing to do with the telecom revolution anyway.  The disclaimer towards the end, with a link to Badri's blog, was a cop out and irrelevant. Why write a 2 page blog and then say "I know nothing about this. This is only from my personal experience in a very limited perspective". Everyone has such experiences. But when a person is read widely and trusted on an array of subjects one could be more careful about what one chooses to write about. I wish Jeyamohan had stuck to his own advice of non-subject-matter experts not speaking about a subject. Incidentally Jeyamohan wrote a brilliant piece on Gunter Grass asking Indians not to indulge in literature when there is so much poverty around.

I'd also add that I've far greater grouses against S.Ramakrishnan who gleefully dishes out his version of history. About that another day. 

PS: I am no blind worshipper of Ayn Rand either. Before reading Ayn Rand I read Nehru's 'Discovery of India'. Asked to write what is his philosophy of life Nehru wrote "life is too illogical to be contained within a single philosophy". I believe that till today.

References:

1. Jeyamohan on Chimamanda Adichie "http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=496"

"ஸீமமெண்டா என்கோசீ அடிச்சி ஒரு அமெரிக்க தயாரிப்பு. அமெரிக்காவில் பிறந்து வளர்ந்த அவருக்கு நைஜீரிய வேர்களே இல்லை. கேள்விப்பட்டவற்றின் அடிப்படையில் மீண்டும் நைஜீரிய இனக்குழுசார்ந்த உபதேசிய கனவுகளை கிளறியும், இனக்குழு சார்ந்த அவநம்பிக்கைகளை சீண்டியும் இந்நாவலை எழுதியிருக்கிறார்.....நைஜீரியாவில் கண்ணிவெடிகளை புதைக்க முயல்கிறார்கள் ஏகாதிபத்தியவாதிகள். அவை வெடித்து அங்கே ரத்தஆறு ஓடினால் அவர்களே காமிராவுடன் போய் ‘ரவாண்டா ஓட்டல்’ போன்ற படங்களை எடுப்பார்கள். அவற்றைப்பற்றி நம் ஆங்கில இதழ்கள் கட்டுரைகள் எழுதும். நம் சிற்றிதழ் அறிவுஜீவிகள் பெரிய வியாசங்கள் சமைப்பார்கள்…" (See the blog link for full discussion)

2. Adichie wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie 

3. On Achebe http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=5738.

"சினுவா ஆச்சிபி ஆப்ரிக்க நாவலாசிரியர் அல்ல என்றே நான் சொல்வேன், அவர் ஆப்ரிக்கர்களைப் பற்றி பொதுவான உலக வாசகர்களுக்கு எழுதுபவர். அவர் காட்டும் ஆப்ரிக்கா அல்ல ஆப்ரிக்கா. அது நாம் காணவிரும்புவது மட்டுமே. நம் எதிர்பார்ப்புகளுக்கு ஏற்ப எழுதப்பட்டது. நான் வோல் சொயிங்கா அல்லது பென் ஒக்ரியையே நாடிச்செல்வேன். எனக்கு தேவையானது அசலான பண்பாட்டு தன்மை கொண்ட எழுத்தே."

4. NYT obituary of Achebe http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/world/africa/chinua-achebe-nigerian-writer-dies-at-82.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0

5. On Will Durant and Richard Dawkins http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=34725

" டாக்கின்ஸுடையது ஓர் வெள்ளையர் மைய நோக்கு. அங்கே உள்ள, அவர்களைப் பாதிக்கிற விஷயங்களை மட்டுமே அவர் பொருட்டாகக் கருதுகிறார். இந்த நோக்கு பல சிந்தனையாளர்களுக்கு இருந்திருக்கிறது. மிகச்சிறந்த உதாரணம் உலக தத்துவ வரலாற்றை எழுதிய வில் துரந்த் தம்பதியினர். அவர்களின் நோக்கில் ஒரு சராசரி ஐரோப்பிய சிந்தனையாளரில் பாதிப்பங்கு முக்கியத்துவம்கூட வேதாந்தம் அல்லது சூனியவாத பௌத்தம் போன்ற ஒரு சிந்தனைமரபுக்குக் கிடையாது. அவர்கள் எழுத்தில் உள்ள அலட்சியம் எந்தக் கீழைநாட்டவனையும் கசப்படையச்செய்வது"

6. On Europe's 'Dark age' http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=3414

மத்தியகாலகட்டம் என்பது சிந்தனையில் செமிட்டிக் மரபு மட்டுமே நீடித்த, அது மட்டுமே அனுமதிக்கப்பட்ட, ஒரு காலகட்டம். திரள்வாதம் என்று அயன் சொல்லும் அனைத்துமே மத்தியகாலகட்ட கிறித்தவ சிந்தனைக்கே சரிவரப்பொருந்துவதை சாதாரணமாகக் காணலாம். கிறித்தவத் திரள்வாதத்தால் தனிமனித சிந்தனையும் ஆன்மீகத்தேடலும் முழுக்க முழுக்க கட்டுப்படுத்தப்பட்டன, மீறல்கள் ஒடுக்கப்பட்டன. அதை ஐரோப்பிய  நாகரீகத்தின் இருண்டகாலக்ட்டம் என்று இன்று குறிப்பிடுகிறார்கள் (There are very valid analyses in the 4 part analyses of Ayn Rand and then there are the mistakes too).

7. My blog on Holocaust and Jeyamohan's views http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2012/11/jeyamohan-and-holocaust-poisonous-edge.html

8. "gathered enough material to write about it for 100 pages" -- http://www.haranprasanna.in/பத்திரிகை/ஜெயமோகனின்-ஆங்கில-எழுத்த.html

9. Jeyamohan on Sam Pitroda and Mangalyan http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=41579

10. "The story of India's telectom revolution' - Livemint and WSJ - http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/biNfQImaeobXxOPV6pFxqI/The-story-of-Indias-telecom-revolution.html

"Pitroda, in fact, torpedoed attempts to bring mobile telephony to India in 1987, as Panagariya records".

11. Badri Seshadri's blog on Mangalyan http://www.badriseshadri.in/2013/11/blog-post_5.html

Do I hate Indian authors and blindly adore Western authors?

I've written many blogs refuting or rebutting views by others like Thamizhachi's slander about Gandhi or another blogger spewing venom about celebrating September 5th as teacher's day in memory of S.Radhakrishnan. Those blogs were written after extensive due diligence and cross referencing of sources. When I wrote the rebuttal to Thamizhachi I referred several biographies of Gandhi and Tagore. I painstakingly cross-checked the facts because if I had gotten a single fact wrong the entire blog could have been brushed aside as 'flawed'. When those I criticize have a bigger following I tend to be extremely careful. Above all I owe that to my intellectual integrity. My last blog was a shame in as much as I had rushed to judge a work of fiction. Though the blog was written circumspectly an unfortunate remark, saying the work was plagiarized, on social media, overtook the remarks in the blog which walked back those remarks. The remark made on twitter created a very unfortunate chain of events. I still regret the mistake and my apologies to the author. I thought I had had done my due diligence but apparently not so. Credibility is a precious commodity. Its a bitter lesson.

A blog has a personal flavor and I used that to narrate what set of my search of the source material. I had said that the author, despite being a recent immigrant to Boston, gave detailed descriptions of locales elsewhere including knowledgeable references to cancer treatment hospitals. I had said I wondered how at such knowledge by a recent immigrant which in turn made me want to find out about the source material. This was grossly misunderstood by some and intentionally misinterpreted by a person in whose website the story had appeared.

A few weeks after my blog on a biography of Lalgudi I received an email from Jeyamohan. Jeyamohan while commending my 'strict' review of the biography asked "would you show the same strictness to a western author", "you cite Walter Isaacson's 'authorized' biography of Steve Jobs, why do you think its not a 'commercialized' biography and not the biblical truth". I replied back to him that I am well aware of the short comings of Isaacson's biography and I am very well aware that the book was rushed to the market to capitalize on the death of Steve Jobs. My citation of the Jobs biography was in the limited context of how an 'educated' Jobs 'chose' Isaacson compared to 'uneducated' Lalgudi relying on a fawning author who happened to be the mother of his student. I had also explained to Jeyamohan that in the west an 'authorized' biography is done under strict contracts where biographers would insist on walling off the subject from influencing the book. If Isaacson had written a sugary fawning account he would lose his integrity and the book would be panned resulting in a commercial failure.

Jeyamohan who knows that I live in America and have a fondness for Pulitzers and western authors unfairly alleged that my wonderment about the short story's author's knowledge of America stemmed from being in thrall to Western, particularly, white authors. He had forgotten that I had, with his help, defended Gandhi at length with patient scholarship. He says he reads me every now and then. Maybe he missed my defense of S.Radhakrishnan.

In my first year at college I won Rs 300 as prize money from various competitions. After collecting the money from college at a function I took a bus straight to the only dingy book store in Tanjore and bought all 3 books by Nehru and an omni-bus edition of Kahlil Gibran. I remain a big admirer of Nehru. I've avidly collected and read books on Nehru, Gandhi, Indian history, Indian philosophy, India's freedom movement, post-Independence India, Indian literature. For a guy living in America I think I've a very decent collection of books on India. Many are by Indian authors and some by western authors. I've avidly bought and read every good biography that is there on Gandhi starting with Louis Fischer to D.G.Tendulkar's 8 volume to Lelyveld. I scrounged and saved to buy S.Gopal's masterful 3 volume biography of Nehru in 1993. I did not like Stanley Wolpert's biography of Nehru. In college I used to scavenge and look for books on Indian philosophy by S.Radhakrishnan. Only by S.Radhakrishnan. I was dismissive of Kannadasan's attempt at philosophy. Seeking to learn about ancient Indian history I've bought, with great effort, books by Romila Thapar, D.D.Kosambi and Neelakanda Sastry. An interesting book I recently had the chance to buy was Indian expatriate experience in America which contains impressions of America by Indian writers during their visits to US. On the partition alone I've read Yasmin Khan's well researched 'Great Partition', a rare illustrated copy of Khushwant Singh's 'Train to Pakistan' and in my recent trip, to attend to my sick dad, I acquired a 2 volumes of writings on Partition edited by noted historian Mushirul Hasan. Oh just on the way out at the airport I happened to buy a good edition of India's freedom movement by Bipin Chandra et al. At that store I also bought a collection of stories by Puthumai Pithan in addition to Jeyamohan's own book that I had bough earlier in the trip. I remain an admirer of Ramachandra Guha's books.

All that said am I blind to the follies of western authors? Thomas Friedman earned a Pulitzer as New York Times's foreign affairs correspondent in Beirut. Friedman is a keen journalist who wrote the best possible introduction to globalization in 'Lexus and the olive tree' at a time when such a book never existed. But then he started thinking of himself as an expert on globalization. I bought and read his 'The world is flat' and sold it back on Amazon.com with disgust. The book painted a very rosy picture of India's emergence. Its a book that every CEO, on a flight to India, loved to read and think they understood India. I started seeing Friedman losing his focus. The saving grace in America is the book was panned in some reviews. Particularly Friedman's flawed analogy of Columbus declaring the world is round. That was Magellan. The book was embroiled in a controversy too over a cover photo for which the publisher did not have the rights.

Alex Haley's biography of Malcolm X used to be considered a work of scholarship. Then came Manning Marable who exposed how Haley had exaggerated Malcolm X's days of hooliganism to play up the conversion to becoming a radical. Then Marable set to work on a magisterial biography of Malcolm X that was unflinching at some of Malcolm X's weaknesses like anti-semitism. Marable was awarded the Pulitzer, posthumously.

In the same year that Marable's book won a Pulitzer for biography another book that could not be ignored was John Lewis Gaddis's equally impressively written biography of American statesman George Kennan. Now, this was an authorized biography. Gaddis was given access to all of Kennan's papers, extensive interviews were done but Kennan never knew what Gaddis wrote. Further the agreement was that Gaddis will publish the book only after Kennan died. Kennan lived to be 102. The book was published to great acclaim. To accommodate another Pulitzer for a biography along side Marable's book one of them was moved to the general fiction category.

Talk show hostess Oprah Winfrey also runs a 'book club' and a book being selected by her can help sell the book in millions. Once she selected an auto-biography by author James Frey. The book, 'A million little pieces', skyrocketed in sales. I've never considered Oprah Winfrey to be the arbiter of literature. I've seen old classics being re-issued with a stamp "An Oprah Book Club Selection". I'd never buy that copy. James Frey was then exposed as a fraud. An enraged Winfrey called Frey to her studio and dressed him down in a live telecast watched by millions. Later columnists ripped Winfrey for not accepting any responsibility for her own shoddy research before hailing a book and for deflecting all blame to Frey alone. Welcome to America.

I maintain strict standards on books I buy. I often go by book reviews in Economist and New York Times. I follow www.fivebooks.com where authors while speaking of their recent book will pick 5 books they consider good in the same topic. I follow the Pulitzer and National Book awards obsessively.

I was amused to note being characterised as a guy who hates Indian authored books. When Siddhartha Mukerhjee's classic 'Emperor of all maladies' was in the running for a Pulitzer I was checking www.pulitzer.org at exactly 1:01 PM when Columbia university announces the prizes. None would have rejoiced more than me when Mukherjee won the Pulitzer and other awards for the same book. I've gifted that book to several doctor relatives. On the same genre I love Atul Gawande's 'checklist manifesto'. Atul Gawande is a rare doctor-literatteur combination, a pleasure to read. I attended Brooklyn Book festival simply because Indian author Pankaj Mishra was going to appear and present his latest book "From the ruins of the empire", a scholarly treatise on rebellious intellectuals who remade Asian thinking.

I used to like Jhumpa Lahiri a lot until she started hawking her latest book 'Lowlands' like cheap merchandise. By the way I am aware that many may not like her writing but this is about whether or not I ignore Indian authors.

I am careful to pick books by authors who are unassailable subject matter experts in the topic. When I see books by authors whose primary area of educational background is different from the subject matter I carefully weigh.Terry Eagleton an English professor wrote 'Why Marx is right' and Francis Spufford, another English professor, wrote "Red Plenty". Spufford's book traces the planned economy phenomenon in the Krushchev era and presents it within a fictional format. The book was so well written that Economist reviewer exulted "when the time comes for an award it will be difficult to judge if this book should be awarded for non-fiction or fiction". Eagleton's book on the other hand is polemical and therefore never garnered my attention beyond the customary browsing at a book store.

Paul Krugman is a case in point. Ever since the liberal economist won a Nobel prize he has been writing a regular column in New York Times where he opines on every issue beyond economics. Even within economics his specific expertise is limited to trade. Yet, Krugman, will weigh in on how Obama should promote healthcare bill. His columns have now become a joke and according to rumors NYT staff have a tough time editing his column for inaccuracies. In a well publicized debate republican commentator Joe Scarborough took Krugman to task on changing his stance to suit his politics.

Gore Vidal is a brilliant novelist who does scholarly researches for his fiction. Yet, when Vidal wrote a trashy polemical tract sympathizing with Timothy McVeigh, the guy who bombed a federal building killing many, he was roundly ignored.

The first time I heard of Jeyamohan was when he wrote a series of articles critical of Ayn Rand. I had no idea who Jeyamohan was. One day late into the night after reading pages and pages of his critique I shot off an ill written email. While it had valid points Jeyamohan used the ill structured language to ridicule it and brush it aside.

Ayn Rand was the subject two different biographies a few years back. One biography was authorized by Ayn Rand's literary heir Leonard Peikoff another biography was not authorized. That meant one author was given access to Ayn Rand's papers held in the institute run by Peikoff the other author lacked access. But both books were highly readable and appreciated by critics. As much as I love Ayn Rand I am well aware of her inconsistencies and foibles. The problem with India is that most often there is only one book on a topic. There are no multiple books by various authors giving a textured view of the subject. How many good books are there about Chola history or of the history of Kamba Ramayanam?

Why do my Facebook posts and twitter feeds mostly speak of Indian authors, especially Tamil authors, in a bad light? Its a phenomenon due to various factors. Much of what I read and get excited about is not the area of interest of many friends. I am not sure how many would even read a post about George Kennan or Arthur Schlesinger Jr's tract on why Kennedy, not Nixon, should be chosen? Most importantly America has institutions for criticism and debate. India lacks that. I've never seen a single critical letter about a single issue or story that has appeared in Jeyamohan's site or anybody else's as for that matter. S.Ramakrishnan, popularly called 'wikipedia writer', has a penchant for dishing out inaccuracies by the bushels. Yet he goes completely unchallenged in public forums other than a facebook post here and there by one or two. This institutional failure makes me an outlier when I continue to call out inaccuracies. Letters that criticize are scrutinized for the letter writers intellectual standards, fairness, veracity and more. Whereas letters that praise, even letters that are written by patently mediocre minds, are published gleefully. I, again, regret the mistake in my initial outburst that was not undone by the blog. My last blog is not what I am talking about. I am talking in general.

So was I racist in wondering how an Indian immigrant who recently came to US could have such detailed knowledge of US locales? This was a cop out by Jeyamohan who, despite knowing me personally and corresponding personally, used that ruse to rubbish the criticism. But to be fair to Jeyamohan another friend asked me "Aravindan you essentially said a H1B guy could not know about America". Point to be noted I had never alluded to visa status. I then explained to my friend about the controversy over 'slave narratives'.

Amongst my collection of books relating to slavery and civil rights is a wonderful book called "Slave narratives", a collection of writings by slaves, edited by pre-eminent Afro-American scholar of black studies in Harvard Henry Louis Gates Jr. The writings show great depth and high literary quality. As I was narrating this my friend interjected "Aravindan those could be written by the notes takers or transcribed into better language". I then stopped him right there and said "see you are assuming that a slave could not have written it". A similar controversy arose over 'The Bondwoman's narrative'. Only recently it was decisively concluded that it was indeed written by a slave woman.

When women write steamy novels it raises an eyebrow. This happens even in the west. Shobha De made a commercial killing on that premise. Women poets writing explicit verse has always kicked off a furore. Stereotypes do not happen in a vacuum. They do happen with some reason. When my American colleagues raise an appreciative eyebrow about my knowledge in American politics it means "well I am surprised that a recent immigrant knows about America's arcane primary election rules etc". Likewise when an American colleague, married to a Kashmiri, talks about Laloo and Tamil Nadu I am, indeed, surprised.

It was beyond malice to suggest that my wonderment had to do with slavishness to anything that a white skinned author may dispense. Many have used that argument against me because I live in America and mostly read English books, mostly written by authors who happen to be white. I've with great zeal sought out books on slavery, slave literature and civil war. I don't have to prove that I seek books by and about blacks just to burnish by racial credentials. It is disheartening to see that any criticism of India, Indian things from America by an Indian expatriate are rubbished by many as "disgruntled NRI", "seeks to be white", "coconut" etc.

East or west my standards are always the same. I am not blind to the west, I am not in thrall of everything western, I don't hate anything simply because an Indian might be involved. After, all, I am Indian too by birth. A cousin's wife, whenever she used to criticize anything in India, would add a disclaimer "I am not suggesting everything is great in America". I always disliked that. It was unnecessary and hypocritical even. If America was as bad as India we would not only not have emigrated here but we would also not continue to stay here. Here in America I can question Pankaj Mishra in an open forum.

By the way I am often told that my blogs are 'harsh', 'abrasive'. I am advised that I should pay attention to my 'tone'. When an author who confesses to not being a great speaker scolds an entire society, with choice words, just because an audience in one event walked out, due to rain, while he was speaking, then am I the one to be corrected? When a Sahitya Akademi winner narrates, in an award function, in colorful vernacular, how an award committee member would run 'butt naked' in Mount Road if Sundara Ramasamany got an award, then am I the one to 'tone' down? I guess having an award or two helps in earning the freedom to be abusive. That said reality does tell me that me being no decorated writer, no Sahitya Akademi or Pulitzer, when I have to get my point across to those above my station I need to tone down a bit. I hope I did that today.

American Civil War, Two Museums and Two Perspectives

America was willed into existence, as Americans are fond of saying, with the 'Declaration' that 'all men are created equal'. A nation, so born, was also mired in hypocrisy by not just refusing to end slavery but by enshrining it in the constitution. It is mild to call it hypocrisy, it is America's shame and America's original sin. However we might dress it up as "expedient arrangement" or that "the promise was what enabled the country to end slavery, eventually", it remains a dark chapter that continues to cast a shadow, two centuries later, on America.

Nearly a century after America went to war with itself, and nearly two centuries after the founding, Martin Luther King Jr scolded the country that the promise of equality, a promissory note, came returned,"marked insufficient funds".

Last year as I toured the Nazi museums of Berlin I wondered why does America not have a single museum that would match Germany's 'Topography of terror' museum. That museum is constructed right where the Gestapo headquarters used to stand. The museum not only bares the horrors of the Nazi regime but also puts to rest myths about the Nazi regime such as Hitler resurrecting German economy and the lies about lack of direct involvement of Nazi higher officials in Holocaust. Several of Berlin's museums were constructed solely to cleanse a nation of its sin. The goal is to ensure 'never again'. America should learn this lesson from Germany and learn it with urgency.

As Hillary Clinton saw her hopes to be President evaporate in wintry Iowa and New Hampshire her husband Bill Clinton became unhinged. After a brutal, ill advised, contest in South Carlina where Obama defeated Hillary handily Bill Clinton told a reporter "well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina when he ran". The entire black community erupted in anger. That remark was interpreted, unfairly, as suggesting that Barack Obama, like, Jesse Jackson, another black aspirant to the Oval office, cannot go beyond a traditional stronghold like South Carolina. When rumors surfaced that Bill Clinton wanted Obama to 'wait' his turn the resentment in black community crossed boundary. Black voters interpreted the 'wait your turn' comment as "the time has not yet come for a black President". Racial politics still tears into America.

The pivotal moment of 2008 primaries was when news of Obama's pastor cursing 'God damn America' emerged. Obama's campaign went into a tail spin. A largely sympathetic press then helped Obama tamp that story down aided by a mediocre speech on race relations. Commentators helpfully quoted MLK Jr that "sunday morning 10 AM is the most segregated hour in America". MLK Jr was talking about the fact that black and white churches where, well, 'black' and 'white'.

I visited "The Museum of the Confederacy" and "Civil War Museum" in Richmond recently. The Confederacy Museum, thankfully, was not outright racist but it showed a remarkable blindness to America's shame. We have to note that both museums only deal with the war as their central theme. Slavery is an incidental topic in one and a side note in the other.

The first exhibit in the Confederacy Museum was titled "Why Secession, Why War". The exhibit explains that the leaders of the Confederacy acted because "they believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S.President threatened the South's interests. Lincoln's Republican Party championed a high tariff and federally subsidized internal improvements-economic policies that the South had long resisted-and opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories". The exhibit concluded saying that Abraham Lincoln wanted the South to fire the first shot and start the war. A third exhibit speaking about the firing at Fort Sumter ends with "Abraham Lincoln had succeeded in maneuvering the Confederacy into firing the first shot of the war".

The exhibit "Why did they fight" said the South thought it was embarking on a second revolution to protect constitutional rights and that 'among these rights was the right to own slaves-a right sanctioned by Constitution and by custom-even though the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves".

The most curious exhibit was about refuting the rumor that Jefferson Davies, President of the Confederacy, tried to escape wearing his wife's clothing. The museum carefully and most emphatically disproves that rumor.

The museum hews close to a typical narrative in the South that the war was all about rights, that slavery was not the prime mover, that after all slavery was indeed a right under the constitution (and sanctified by subsequent Supreme Court ruling as in Dred Scott). The museum is titled "The museum of the Confederacy". But it has nothing about life in the Confederacy and is only about the Confederate view point regarding the Civil War.

A sad exhibit was the one titled 'Fraternization' that spoke of how soldiers of the Union and Confederacy who were butchering each other would still get together to relax, share food and even trade. It reminded of a poem by T.Hood that speaks for a soldier who remembers his opponents and wonders if they had met in bar that they would have shared a drink. Civil War historian Drew Gilpin Faust in 'Republic of suffering' estimated the US lost nearly 1/6th of its population.

My next museum was the 'Civil War Museum' at Tredegar near Richmond. This is a more intellectually honest museum. This museum traces the history of the conflict through the two key issues of slavery and economic structures. The agrarian South was dependent on slavery for its labor. Industrialized North, by virtue of industrialization, needed free men. As a college student I had read Nehru's 'Glimpses of World History' wherein Nehru quotes Lincoln showing that freeing slaves was not the primary aim of the war. Lincoln only desired to keep the union. Emancipation was a by product of the war. In fact if Lincoln had declared Emancipation as the goal, it can be fairly said, many in the Union army would not have gone to war.

Through out the war slaves were defined as property by both the Union and the Confederacy. Wartime customs of confiscating enemy 'property' was used to liberate slaves in conquered territory. Lincoln hated slavery but never believed that blacks and whites were equal.

At a place where visitors could write their thoughts on a stickie paper a visitor wrote "African kings helped white traders in getting slaves. Where would those slaves be in life if they had lived in Africa". Pre-eminent Afro-American Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates Jr wrote an oped in New York Times about a much less spoken part of slavery. White slave traders would dock their ships in the port and wait for slaves to be brought by local kings from the inland. This is a controversial part in the slavery debate akin to the role of the 'Judenrat' (Jewish Councils) in Holocaust. But that a person in 2013 America could ask indirectly "did they not have a better life by being brought to USA, albeit as slaves" is what is appalling.

I read Margaret Mitchell's 'Gone with the wind' when I had not yet read much about slavery in USA. I did not think much about the glorification of the South's way of life much. Only when I read Malcolm X's biography by Alex Haley the political angle of the book struck me. Malcolm X, a vagabond when the movie was released, watched it in Harlem (of all places). Not knowing much about the movie he went to the theater and he was startled that he was the only person in a Harlem theater watching 'Gone with the wind". Mitchell glorifies the South and makes it appear that slaves were treated like human beings, even almost equals, with great care and concern by their masters.

Henry Louis Gates edited a nice collection of writings by slaves titled 'Slave narratives'. It is a moving collection of writing. When children are torn from their parents and sold into slavery it is hard not to shed a tear. Young girl children were abused. Education was denied. Even unto the modern era the lynchings, Jim Crow, KKK all tell a very sordid saga. KKK was born out of the civil war.

Both museums concentrate mostly on just how the war went. Neither museum delve into any aftermath in considerable measure. Drew Gilpin Faust in her book would focus on how the war completely remade gender relationships and redefined role of women in society. The museums barely scrape such an effect.

On civil rights I've a note to add. It is a misconception that racism is only by whites against blacks. Racism is usually intertwined with what a race feels perceives as threats to its economic prospects. Black mayor of Washington DC recently made very objectionable comments about stores owned by Asians in DC. When Asian basketball player Jeremy Lin became a sensation he was mocked by blacks chanting 'go back to your books'. During the recent 50th anniversary of MLK Jr's immortal 'March on Washington' a columnist recalled the pivotal role played by Bayard Rustin, a little spoken of civil rights hero. MLK Jr shunned him because Bayard Rustin was a homo-sexual. When Obama made the decision to support gays in military he had to placate Afro-American pastors. Black churches are stridently anti-gay rights. Ever since the formation of Israel Jewish Americans and Blacks have parted way with anti-semitism taking roots among black churches. When Obama's estranged, disavowed, pastor Jeremiah wright was asked if he made peace with the President he said "them Jews will not allow me". Obama's then chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, was a Jew.

America, on tax payer money, has to construct two museums. One for slavery and another to tell the story of civil rights. This will be America's atonement. This should be Barack Obama's calling. I wish he undertakes it as his first post-Presidential task. This will go a long way in educating millions about the basic decency to respect all as human beings. America needs to face up to its shameful past unflinchingly as Germany does. Only such an honesty will make this great country greater still.

Lalgudi Jayaraman and Lakshmi Devnath: Virtuoso Performer and Mediocre Biographer.

One of the best decisions Steve Jobs took in his life was the choice of his biographer. Jobs chose Walter Isaacson, former editor of Time magazine and author of two best selling biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Einstein. Isaacson asked Jobs, if, by choosing him, Jobs saw himself in the league of Franklin and Einstein. Nobel laureate V.S.Naipaul chose bestselling author Patrick French to write his biography. Churchill distrusting others to do justice to World War II and his role decided to write it himself. Of course, self-servingly.

Lalgudi Jayaraman, or just 'Lalgudi' to his legions of fans, who lacked any formal education, 'allowed' Lakshmi Devnath to be his biographer. Devnath's biography, decent, by half, may very well remain the only biography of a man who took his music across the globe and thrilled millions. That is sad.

When a biographer starts by saying how she admired the subject and refers to the subject as 'uncle' ('mama') a reader like me hesitates. Only my eagerness to learn about a man that many referred to as 'genius' compelled me to plod on. Devnath claims that she has been objective and that Lalgudi or his family did not interfere in any way with her book. They did not have to.

The biography is a labor of love and it shows. In a very unique gesture Devnath has made out a CD with Lalgudi's recordings to illustrate key points she makes. The book helpfully notes, without too much intrusion, places where the reader can pause and sample the recording. The choice of English as a language is made solely to reach a wider audience else this book would have probably benefited more by being written in Tamil. A very helpful glossary of Tamil words, for both vernacular usage and music terms, is nicely compiled. That the author is ill at ease in English is apparent when she writes "she was kind to the core and strict to the hilt". As proof of Gopala Iyer's (father of Lalgudi) abilities beyond music we are offered a summary, "he sawed with precision, nailed with mastery and glued with finesse". Reading 'coachile vandhirukkaaaar' is grating to my senses instead of "கோச்சு வண்டியிலே வந்திருக்கார்" or 'vango' instead of 'வாங்கோ'. 

Lalgudi amongst all musicians has the rare privilege of claiming to descend from a direct disciple of Thyagaraja, the most revered amongst the Carnatic music trinity. The introduction of the violin to Carnatic music and such a rare musical heritage opens up many avenues for a skilled biographer to write a magisterial sweep of music history alongside the subject person. Devnath barely manages to race past the musical and biographical heritage.

The greatest disservice a biographer can do to a man millions called genius is to attribute his genius to astrology and make it appear that he was destined to be great. Devnath gushes about Lalgudi's horoscope and how his impending greatness was foretold. This obsession with unscientific mystery strikes a jarring note  when Kandasamy Bhagavathar dies of cancer despite his wife's 'knowledge of indigenous medicine and mystic powers'.

In my past blogs on music I've written about how Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner were widely read and how their intellectual pursuits impacted their creativity. When Lalgudi's teacher punished him by caning his fingers Gopal Iyer stopped his son from going to school. Most Carnatic musicians have little or no education until recent times. Even then it is a cursory education. T.M. Krishna has a degree in accounting and, by his own admission, 'dabbles in reading'. Gopal Iyer arranged private tutor to teach Math, English, Telugu and Sanksrit. Telugu and Sanksrit, we are told, 'would help understand the meaning of the songs'. It did not even strike the biographer as odd that Gopal Iyer did not think it fit to tutor his son in Tamil. He probably thought there was nothing worthwhile in Tamil to be taught requiring a tutor. That brings to mind a sore controversy about the Tamil music versus carnatic music shenanigans.

Music and caste are intertwined in an unholy nexus in India (as in America too), especially in Carnatic music. Gopal Iyer takes Jayaraman to listen to a performance in a Mariamman temple. Devnath lists the artistes. All of them are from the 'Pillai' caste. Not a single Brahmin because its the Mariamman temple. The very next paragraph details the artistes at a function in the temple at Srirangam. All are Brahmin artistes. Not a single non-Brahmin. Devnath, probably Brahmin herself, does not bat an eyelid at this dichotomy.

Carnatic music is vocal music with no tradition, for decades, of having accompanying instruments especially one like the violin. The place of instruments and its players in a performance is a still debated one. As violin evolved to be more than 'just' an accompaniment Jayaraman wanted to see violin solo performances. This rubbed vocalists and other, hitherto, solo instrument players like veena players.

Madurai Mani for whom Lalgudi used to accompany ensured that only the vocalist had a mike. Semmangudi, the ever irascible vocalist, would push away the mikes in front of a violinist. Jayaraman's own protege singer T.N. Seshagopalan took to the print and snidely complained that the violinist does not 'his' place. Veena Balachander confronted Jayaraman that his demand for solo performances was upsetting veena players. Brahmins, the chief practitioners of carnatic music, are famously vigilant about caste hierarchies and owe their social pre-eminence to a rigid caste structure entrenched in the name of tradition. It is little wonder that such practitioners were livid about upsetting 'tradition'. Check this link about Semmangudi (http://www.carnaticcorner.com/articles/semmangudi.html). A young Semmangudi is performing with accompaniments but only he and the violinist have the mike. An older Semmangudi then performs with mikes for mridangam and the violinist too.

Jayaraman ruffled many a feather with his venu (flute)-veena-violin concerts. Apparently he even composed music for such concerts. It is this composing that is often spoke of by his admirers as setting him apart from other violinists who were only virtuosos. That and the unique and legendary 'Lalgudi Bani' (Lalgudi way of playing) are collectively referred to as his genius. Devnath does a decent explanation of those.

The only place in the biography where Devnath attempts objectivity and balance is in giving quotes from those who did not think high of Lalgudi's compositions. But the biographer rescues her 'uncle' by rounding off with counter quotes and gentle brushing away of criticisms.

A biographer with wider knowledge of music would have used this to illustrate the differences with Western classical and bring out how western classical, written for instruments by a composer, contrasts with a vocal tradition. I'll not be surprised if Devnath thinks there is no music beyond carnatic music. A non-Brahmin author might have taken a broader view.

Indians enjoy the recognition that Indian philosophy, literature and music receive from Westerners, that too Whites. I've only heard of Beatles swooning over Ravi Shankar or Yehudi Menuhin swooning over Lalgudi or U Thant introducing MS at the UN. We never hear of John Coltrane or the Jazz musicians interacting with Indian music.

Lalgudi was very warmly introduced by Yehudi Menuhin. Menuhin instructs his audience not to judge carnatic music with their customary paradigms. He gently lectures that in carnatic music the instrument 'follows' the singing. Carnatic musicians who performed abroad were often feted back home. They had grand send off's and equally grand welcome back functions like conquering caesars. Often such functions were organized by Sabhas. Strangely none of these Sabhas thought it fit to invite a Zubin Mehta or Leonard Bernstein to India. Smugness. No carnatic musician would have done what Menuhin did for Lalgudi. Indians only love to boast of what they taught the world. Never interested in learning.

The carnatic music world is incestuous with a clique like mentality. Music Academy and The Hindu (a newspaper of dubious quality but loved by Brahmins on par with their worship of carnatic music) have an unholy nexus. Brahmin controlled news magazines and their so called critics formed a relationship with sabhas and performers. There was (and is) no professional critic. The Music Academy itself has a clique mentality.

Devnath dwells, justifiably, on the politics of the 'Sangeetha Kalanidhi' award fracas. Jayaraman had taken great efforts to renovate the house of Thyagaraja and organize annual festivals in his honor. Inaugurating a Thyagaraja Aradhana G.K.Moopanar addressed Semmangudi, MS, Lalgudi etc with the prefix 'Sangeetha Kalanidhi'. Semmangudi barked on the stage "he is not one". Besmirched thus Lalgudi next day visited Semmangudi and told him that even if given he would not accept the title 'Sangeetha Kalanidhi'. Photocopies of press clippings with English translations give these pages a racy flavor.

Carnatic music has always been accused of reeking with casteism. Thats a blog for another day. I was surprised to learn that the Kanchi Mutt had taken ownership of the homes of the musical trinity. Carnatic music and Hinduism are inseparable. They need not be torn asunder but when music is sheltered under religion it does not augur well. Compiling the Pancharatna Kritis of Thyagaraja Lalgudi, Devnath writes, takes the help of Kanchi's mutt's then reigning pontiff Chandrasekarendra Swamigal. That pontiff would not even see a non-Brahmin. In a famous rendezvous with Gandhi Chandrasekarendra pleaded "dont destroy hinduism" referring to Gandhi's attempts  to eradicate untouchability.

Lakshmi Devnath herself bares her biases ever so subtly. She is scrupulous in quoting the names, even an Assistant Collector, of whose quotes she is using or whose views she is sharing in relation to Lalgudi. Striving to drive home the point that everyone in the Lalgudi lineage, including Guruswany Iyer (grand uncle of Lalgudi who died young) is musically talented Devnath reaches to 'a book'. In the 'compilation of notable vidwans of this period, published as part of a book, talks about Guruswamy Iyer'. 'Guriswamy dyer sings well in strict adherence to rules. He is also an excellent vidwan'. Devnath, not accidentally, annotates the reference in the 'notes' as the book written by Nadar Christian Abraham Pandithar (possibly backward community then). Pandithar's book 'Karnamirtha Sagaram' is considered a definitive text and well researched material on the origins of Carnatic music. Contemporary Tamil writer Jeyamohan wrote of how Pandithar, being Christian, was studiously eclipsed by the Brahmin establishment. Even the Dravidian parties that emphasized non-Brahmin influence in music chose to ignore Pandithar because he was a Nadar Christian and not an 'Isai vellalar' the caste of Karunanidhi.

Devnath ignoring the caste dimensions in the Pillai versus Brahmin artistes depending on the kind of God in a temple is a telling lapse. Quite interestingly another book by Devnath, titled 'A class apart', is about Rashmi Parthasarathy. Mrs Parthasarathy, naturally, a Brahmin, is feted as an 'educationist'. She is no such thing in reality. The PSBB schools are notorious for their Hindutva emphasis and blatant promotion of Brahminism in the name of promoting Indian culture. I am sure Devnath would recoil with horror before writing of Thulasi Vandayar who is running a well regarded arts college in a villlage, without a penny in donations, for decades. If Mrs Parthasarathy is an educationist then so are Jeppiar and Wodayar, two bootleg manufacturers turned 'educationists'.

As I closed the book I certainly knew of key events in Lalgudi's life. The controversies, particularly the solo performance issue, were illustrative if the reader has prior thoughts in that regard else it was only gossip. A biography must delve into the mind of a subject and recreate the life in a composite manner, including a portrait of the era, for the reader. Lalgudi still remains distant to me. I still do not know the man. The book did leave a respectable impression of Lalgudi in my mind. But I am afraid the lack of an intellectual flavor could also be because the subject person lacked it too. Here is no Wagner wondering about why not use Buddhism. No Beethoven flinging a condemnation at an emperor. A biography of Ilayaraja might have more drama in it. Raja, as film musician, had more freedom to experiment and push the horizons of what people thought of as music. Lalgudi born into a family steeped into music for generations takes to it like fish takes to water. Raja hailed from a very low caste with no musical heritage. Sadly Devnath succeeds in a way she did not perhaps want to succeed. If the reader thinks at the end 'great man. Admirable principles and decent man. Yet, we can only admire that instead of frittering away his advantages he built on it'.

Jobs commenting on what he thought as the reason for his famous rival's, Bill Gates's, reason for not being as creative as himself said "if only Bill had dropped acid in college or went off to an ashram". Lalgudi the ever obedient, eager to please, role model son scaled heights on the shoulders of a storied family and capitalized on a very stratified art form that prided itself on 'connections'. Maybe someday a better biographer will do better justice to a talent that readers could understand better.

Radhakrishnan, Stalin and Mathimaran's Hatred.

September 5th is celebrated as 'Teachers Day' in India commemorating, philosopher-statesman, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's birthday. A recent trend in Tamil Nadu, amongst vitriolic Brahmin haters like Suba. Veerapandian and Mathimaaran (a blogger), is to write derisive blogs about Radhakrishnan questioning whether Sep 5th should be celebrated as Teachers Day. Sep 5th also happens to be the birthday of Tamil freedom fighter V.O.Chidambaram Pillai. Mathimaran asks mischievously if Sep 5th is celebrated for Radhakrishnan because he is a Brahmin and is VOC forgotten because he is non-Brahmin.

This year Mathimaran spewed venom in reaction to a column that appeared, in a non-Brahmin owned favorite of DK/DMK rag sheet (Dinathanthi). The columnist had cited an anecdote about Radhakrishnan consoling a sick Joseph Stalin. The columnist wrote, 'Stalin, a man who instilled fear world was moved and said "you are the first person to treat me as a human being"'.

That Stalin was referred to as a monster irritates Mathimaran beyond words. He proceeded to cast aspersion on the anecdote, not based on counter evidence, but purely on conjectures. Mathimaran bristles that Stalin, loved within the communist party and by all Russians, had thousands who would give their life for the leader and that Stalin was in no emotional need of being consoled by a reactionary Brahmin. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Mathimaran alleges, is nothing but a reactionary Brahmin who shored up support for Hindu philosophy and legitimized it in the eyes of the West.

There are two biographies of Radhakrishnan. One, by K.Satchidananda Murty and another by his own son S.Gopal. Both Murty and Gopal's accounts agree on most details but it is Gopal, the historian that he is, gives the more accurate account.

Radhakrishnan had an interview with Stalin in 1952. India had just then resolved the unification issue of Princely states. Stalin advised Radhakrishnan on how to implement socialism in India. Referring to the landlords Stalin said "liquidate, Mr Ambassador". Stalin prefaced it with a gesture of chopping. At the end of the interview Stalin comes over to Radhakrishnan and Radhakrishnan, as is his practice pats Stalin on his cheek. Later Radhakrishnan would do the same to Mao. This is where the accounts slightly diverge only to conclude identically.

In Gopal's account Radhakrishnan expressed hope that Stalin too, like Asoka, may have a change of heart and become a man of peace. He then quotes Christ about gaining the world while losing the soul. Stalin responded 'I too was a student of theology once'. Later Pavlov, the interpreter, told Radhakrishnan that after he had left Stalin remarked "he is the only man who treats me not as a monster but as a human being".

In Murty's account Radhkrishnan recounts the said remark as if Stalin said in his presence. Essentially the remark stays in both accounts.

I'd choose Gopal's account simply because he was a scrupulous historian who wrote an unsparing biography of his illustrious father. Gopal's biography starts with an explosive paragraph where he not only casts aspersion on the fact that Sep 5th was his father's birthday but more importantly asserts that his father might have the illegitimate offspring of his grandmother and another learned man not his grandfather. The tryst was supposedly arranged by Radhakrishnan's own uncle (brother of his mother). Gopal also does not shy away from the fact that Radhakrishnan was a philanderer who had marital affairs with many including his servant. Gopal's integrity in writing about his father is something that Mathimaran can never imagine possible. I'd love to hear from Mathimaran the dalliances of his mentor E.V.Ramasamy Naicker.

Radhakrishnan, chosen to be Spalding professor of Eastern studies in Oxford, did not just peddle 'Hindu' philosophy. He gave Indian philosophy a legitimacy as a philosophical discipline rescuing it from its religious confines. With his encyclopedic understanding of Western philosophy Radhakrishnan helped the West understand that the Upanishad is not theology but philosophy. He was invited to lecture at the finest universities in the world. To drive it home let's be clear that Kanchi Kamakoti Chandrasekarandra Swamigal would never be invited to be Spalding professor.

Indian Philosophy, or 'Hindu Philosophy', is a treasure of a great civilization. Only intellectual boors like EVR and Mathimaran would prattle about throwing it away. No westerner would throw away Plato, because he was undemocratic or Aristotle, because he was Alexander's teacher. Nietzsche's philosophy was hijacked by the Nazis but Nietzsche is still taught in the West. As much as I admire and laud Radhakrishnan for his expositions of Indian philosophy I am well aware of how Indian philosophy is straitjacketed as Hindu philosophy and twisted to fit Hindutva political agendas today.

Responding to Radhakrishnan's claim that Hinduism has survived for thousand years despite opposition EVR, Mathimaran quotes, is supposed to have asked "the cockroach too survives for a millennia shall we now revere the cockroach". As a tool of rhetoric its passable logic. But the choice of the cockroach analogy only illustrates, at a Freudian level, EVR's vituperative hatred of Hinduism. What if the same was asked of his Dravidian exceptionalism?

V.O.Chidambaram Pillai is an illustrious son of India and one of our bravest freedom fighters. The man chose to sink his wealth and challenge the very root of British power, maritime supremacy. After his gruesome incarceration he died in penury a broken man. I heartily agree that his memory should be commemorated. To be frank too, but for SubaVi and Mathimaran I'd not have known that Sep 5th was VOC's birthday too. I knew of Radhakrishnan's birthday just as I knew of Nehru's birthday (Nov 14th) because those days are holidays for school. I, just like millions others, did not learn of their birthdays because they were Brahmins.

Suba.Vi and Mathimaran crying for VOC is like the wolf crying for the sheep. VOC, a rich upper caste man, was a devout Hindu who spent his last years translating Bhagvad Gita and other Hindu texts into Tamil. If in a hypothetical world VOC was being celebrated these same people would shout from rooftops that VOC was a Hindutva in the nationalist clothing. Of course they would then extend it to their usual hate filled speeches of Brahmin-Bania dominance.

It is a tragic fact in India that many, many illustrious freedom fighters other than Nehru were completely overshadowed because, at Delhi, the Nehru clan holds power. In Tamil Nadu other than lip service to VOC and Kamaraj the Dravidian politics has scrupulously, out of hatred for the freedom movement, has overshadowed the immense sacrifices of our great sons and daughters. Most Tamils learned to love VOC only because legendary matinee idol Sivaji Ganesan made a biopic of him. I've read that VOC's son met and thanked Sivaji for that. Later Sivaji also funded a memorial for VOC.

Speak of Rajaji and Mathimaaran will froth at his mouth about 'Kula Kalvi' (hereditary education) without any acknowledgement of the fact that Rajaji was a freedom fighter and organized the famed Vedaranyam Salt march.

Speak of Bharathi, a poet who resurrected and revolutionized Tamil poetry, Mathimaran and his ilk will prattle about his caste and his Hindutva with no mention of him as a reformer and a person who dreamed of a unified India where all live in harmony.

Every year Suba.Vi and his fellow DK/DMK leaders visit the cemeteries of Annathurai and EVR on their birth anniversaries. I've never seen them honor VOC. So, dear Mathimaran, please save your manufactured outrage, you are outdoing Sivaji in acting though.

Mathimaran also bristled about Stalin and his concern to reform the world. Where am I to begin with that. I can start with Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago' but then such things are beyond Mathimaran's non-existent gray matter to understand.

Only hatred for a race can provoke somebody to write such a shameful blog. Hatred was the motivator and guiding principle. If Mathimaran had proved that such an anecdote was a fabrication I've no issues. But when conjecturing, propelled by hatred, masquerades as counter evidence we have to call him out.

In closing I'd say Radhakrishnan's birthday is worthy of being celebrated as Teachers Day even if the Stalin anecdote was fabricated (which it is not).


References:

1. Mathimaran's blog http://mathimaran.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/stalin-ambedkar-periyae-675/

2. Radhakrishnan: His Life and Ideas By K. Satchidananda Murty, Ashok Vohra page 125.

3. Radhakrishnan: A biography by Sarvepalli Gopal. Page 252.

4. செப்டம்பர் 5 - யாருடைய பிறந்த நாள்? - http://subaveeblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/5.html

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. 

Gandhi And The Failure Of Indian Education

Hating, misrepresenting, misunderstanding and mostly not understanding Gandhi is the latest fad in India. It is fashionable to say that the British left India because they were exhausted by War and could no longer control India from afar and India's independence had nothing to do with Gandhi. It is easy to ridicule 'Satyagraha' as an inefficient and impractical instrument of protest against powers unlike British and like Hitler or Rajapakse. From the political left and the right the man who comes in for equal hate and ridicule is Gandhi. Ferreting quotes without context for a man who lived to 79 and wrote or spoke voluminously over 50 of those years is easy. Ascribing conspiratorial motives for Gandhi 'selecting' Nehru over the more popular and duly elected 'Patel' is a national pastime. To cap it all is Gandhi's own shameful brahmacharya experiments are taken and made out to look like the man did nothing in his life other than sleep with women. Then there is the contentious Poona pact with Ambedkar that can be mined for selective re-telling to portray, of all people, Gandhi as a reactionary Hindu who was disinterested in the upliftment of the Untouchables, the Dalits, or 'Harijans' as he called them.

Yet, Gandhi is revered in the West. Louis Fischer, William Shirer, George Orwell, Stanley Wolpert, MLK Jr, Richard Attenborough, Time Magazine editorial committee and legions of other intellectuals across a political spectrum. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner included Gandhi alongside music composer Igor Stravinsky amongst a list of people he chose to study 'creativity'. Joseph Lelyveld in his biography marvels at the untouchability tour by Gandhi when he collected a princely sum to be devoted to projects for Dalits. Lelyveld wonders why no one speaks of it in India today.

The chief culprit is Indian education. Our school textbooks have deified Gandhi without humanizing him. As much as American textbooks may not speak of Jefferson fathering a child with his slave I do not expect Indian textbooks to speak of the Brahmacharya experiments. But every fault of Indian education is brought out clearly in how little or how wrongly Indians have understood Gandhi. That applies both to his detractors and to many admirers.

In response to the draconian Rowlatt act of 1919 Gandhi called upon Indians to observe a 'day of prayer' and remain in their homes. It was called 'hartal' (in Hindi). Tamil Nadu's insipid 'Equitable Education' textbook for 10th grade deals with this in 3 sentences: "In order to face the revolutionary movement in a successful manner, the British government passed the Rowlatt Act in 1919. It empowered the British Government to arrest any one without warrant and imprisoned without trial. The Indians under the leadership of Gandhiki opposed it. There was country wide hartal on April 6th 1919".

Classic Indian textbook. In order to encourage higher pass percentage a pivotal event is reduced to 3 badly written sentences. There is no detail on whether the protest succeeded, why such a protest was novel, no sense of wonderment or appreciation for what a one time tongue tied lawyer achieved in a country that spoke 30 languages and hundreds of dialects with so many religions and castes.

I understood the greatness of that 'hartal' from Larry Collin's and Dominique Lapierre's 'Freedom at Midnight' and from the third rate movie 'Gandhi' by Richard Attenborough. Gandhi and his people face an oppressor that was an Empire across continents. An impoverished people who last rebellion was a sham and a total failure had to find a way to tell their oppressor that they did not like a law. Gandhi, with no government propaganda machinery, asked Indians to do a simple act. 'Remain indoors'. It was a genius of creativity because only Gandhi thought of way for Indians to express their displeasure without hurting their rulers physically and opening the possibility of being hurt in return. The movie will show the Viceroy receiving reports of India, one fifth of humanity, coming to stand still. Napoleon and Alexander did not wield such power.

The same textbook then deals with Dandi march in a shameful manner. In 3 very short paragraphs, the most pivotal event of the most glorious freedom movement in all of human history is dismissed off. Within those 3 short paragraphs of just two-three lines each the student learns the dates and the distance covered. I am sure that students would hunch over and try to learn by rote memorizing the dates and the distance.

Overlooking the Great Depression Time Magazine exulted in declaring Gandhi as 'Person of the Year' in January 1931 for the Salt March. Collins and Lapierre reconstructed how a frail 61 year old man with a bamboo staff in his hand 'shook the pillars of the Empire' and 'dominated the world press'. Nehru, the Harrow-Candridge educated aristocrat, when he hears of the Salt March at first demurs. Later seeing its success he feels humbled before a man who had searched for his 'inner voice' to identify a suitable struggle to protest. Most western commentators have marveled at Gandhi's genius for choosing to protest the salt tax as it touched a commodity used by all Indians in as basic a function as cooking food. Even today it is ranked as one of the most successful protests in the quest for justice by a people in all history.

Irwin thought Gandhi will walk to Dandi in a little noticed event and what he got was newsreels of a half-naked fakir challenging an Empire where the sun never set. Gandhi included Dalits in his march much to the chagrin of upper caste Congress members. In every town that he crossed he insisted on staying in the poorest hut. Every penny of funds collected was accounted for no expense was too little to be scrutinized for impropriety. Only children and vainglorious adults will be thrilled reading about Alexander crossing into India or Ceasar crossing the Rubicon. No march by any army in history has left humanity a better place like Dandi March.

New York Times's report Webb Miller filed his immortal report of the Dharasana Salt March that told the world what it was to be Satyagrahi. At Dharasana, in one of the beautifully filmed scenes in the movie 'Gandhi', we see stoic satyagrahis walking up to receive mortally wounding blows without raising a single finger to strike back. Miller wrote "not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend of the blows. They went down like ten-pins'. C.E.M. Joad, writing for an anthology in honor of Gandhi's 75th birthday, said 'Gandhi's greatest success was in inspiring men and women to allow themselves to be beaten to pulp without raising a single finger in defense". In an age when suicide bombers are spoken of admiringly I think of those brave satyagrahis. A suicide bomber needs courage for just a minute and does not live with the consequences. Those satyagrahis were mostly poor and could not even afford hospitalization costs for the injuries suffered. Most injuries were life altering too. Gandhi, unlike Prabakaran and Arafat, led by example.

When Gandhi visited Liverpool factories the workers, mostly women, mobbed him affectionately. Here is the man who, by his boycott of their products, was causing them misery and unemployment. Yet, those workers understood Gandhi better than any modern Indian citizen. They knew and understood who Gandhi was fighting against. Many Indians would look at the photograph and glide by without pausing to wonder if any rebel in all history has ever been so affectionately received by those who were affected by a rebellion.

The 10th grade textbook remains shamefully silent on the horrendous riots during partition. It was the greatest migration undertaken by a people, again, to use an overused word phrase now, in all of human history. India was torn asunder and a civil war situation prevailed. Collins and Lapierre detail harrowing events like a train arriving from Pakistan with all its occupants killed and on the walls of the train was scrawled 'gift to Nehru and Patel'. Yasmin Khan's book 'The great partition' is a compelling read and is without the sensationalism of Collins and Lapierre.

West Bengal that had seen thousands of Hindu's killed on Jinnah's 'Direct action day' was ready to reap vengeance. With millions of muslim lives at stake and no police or military force to spare Mountbatten and Nehru appeal to the only man who can achieve what no military could have done. Gandhi undertook his fast unto death. He remained the only force between hordes of murderous thugs and quivering Muslims afraid for their lives. No man as leader has ever used his personal charisma to such a use saving thousands of lives. It is this act that Ambedkar, with personal animus, called 'blackmail with body as political tool'. If Bengal's riots had gone on unchecked India would have splintered in no time. Yet Indians write that an exhausted oppressor just ceased to oppress and India was born. Ever since Christ was crucified by his own people never was a man who led his people to freedom so disrespected.

Meena Kandasamy, a so called 'activist', raised shackles in a college event by quoting Gandhi's letter to South African authorities protesting against clubbing Indians together with 'kafirs', as he referred to blacks. The letters are actually in the 'Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'. Little do we realize that Gandhi, just like Lincoln, was not born a liberator. Its a life's journey that he undertook. Also we do not even notice the fact that Gandhi arrives in South Africa in 1893, aged just 24. Just, 24 years old. He leaves South Africa in 1914 aged, just 44 years. In an age and time when worldly knowledge and experiences were limited he was maturing into a leader. Let us not forget that Thomas Jefferson, aged just 33 in 1776, declared 'all men are created equal' while holding slaves. Lincoln never believed that blacks were 'equals' to whites. In a nation where learning history is so shoddy Meena Kandasamys proliferate and prosper.

While Indian speaker Thamizhachi sought to discredit Gandhi slanderously American professor Howard Gardner exults that Gandhi was probably the greatest leader in a 1000 years. Watch "http://youtu.be/RgH5ep6iEfU" .

Is Gardner naive? Would Gardner not know about Gandhi's warts? Why did William Shirer, a man who understood Hitler before most did, think Gandhi towered above his warts like being dictatorial at times or titular even? Did Lelyveld not know about his Brahmacharya experiments? Nothing has been a better stick to beat Gandhi with than his patently shameful Brahmacharya experiments with women associates. Sudhir Kakar wrote that several women were mentally affected. It was Nirmal Bose's 'My days with Gandhi' that laid bare the details of those experiments for the first time. Collins and Lapierre too dwell on it for some length. What no one has accused Gandhi was of molesting or abuse. Nirmal Bose's book paints a more complex picture. I reject attempts to whitewash this part of Gandhi but I equally reject attempts  to portray him like a Casanova. The experiments were consensual amongst adults who freely consented. This part of Gandhi's life is the most taxing on any person who admires him. Yet, it is this part that clearly calls for a perspective rooted in a historical appreciation of the man's life as a whole.

In a way we can extend the failure of Indians to understand historical personalities due to shoddy education to Nehru too. Nehru is easily ridiculed for Kashmir, being soft on Pakistan, of course his affairs with Edwina and others, focusing on heavy industries and more. Nehru was Washington and Jefferson combined. No man since Nehru has worried about educating Indians as he did. In an age when politicians send their children to English convents while asking others to study in mother-toungue  we should worship a Cambridge alumnus for trying to create the equivalent of Harvard and MIT in India.

Nehru nurtured the nascent institutions of government with a democratic zeal that was almost herculean in proportions. As Prime Minister he was insistent on attending the question hour in the parliament. He wrote incessantly to state CM's educating them on every matter conceivable as relevant to shaping a country. His writings run to 50 volumes and is still incomplete. The steady leadership of Nehru in the turbulent early 17 years was instrumental in cementing India as a country. Even his economic policy, which I disagree with, was actually in tune with the times. Harry Truman and FDR were to the left of Nehru on economics.

Indians, thanks to such shoddy education, lack the intellectual discipline to understand a life as complex and varied as that of Gandhi's. We don't even know how to mentally reconstruct events and understand their historical nature. In an education that focuses on dates and data without context a race to score marks ensures that the mind is incapable of contemplation and understanding complexity.

A recent discussion on Facebook summarizes this blog.

The photo on the right (of Gandhi) is fake

Here is Subhash Bose walking past a guard of honor by the army he raised. On the side is Gandhi in a dancing pose with a white lady, a fake photo. The question was "who did more for Indian freedom?" Bose, in his hatred for British, thought Hitler and the Japanese were nothing worse if not better. One shudders to think a what if about Hitler winning the war. Such is the level of historical perspectives amongst Indians.

An American school textbook I read had a chapter on Gandhi. At the end a question was posed as a debate exercise "would India have won freedom earlier if Gandhi had adopted violent means of protest". I'd point them to Gandhi's own writings of Satyagraha as a strategy and Orwell's essay on Gandhi where Orwell is skeptical if Gandhian methods would work against Hitler. Gandhi did advice Churchill to hand over the British Isles to Hitler and convert him by 'soul force'. Thankfully Churchill did not listen. At the same time lets not forget how MLK Jr adored Gandhi and found in Gandhi a mentor for the Civil Rights struggle. Indians cheekily ask "can Gandhi's method work against tyrants". They dont have the knowledge of world history to ask "could Kurdish people have adopted MLK Jr's methods against Saddam".

Gandhi and Nehru should be rescued from Indian education and re-introduced to Indians through Western presentation. Irony.


Suggested Reading:

1. Gandhi: A Biography -- Louis Fischer
2. Freedom at Midnight - Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.
3. Gandhi: 75th Birthday Anthology by S.Radhakrishnan
4.Gandhi - 8 volumes by D.G. Tendulkar
5. Gandhi: A memoir - William Shirer
6. The great Partition - Yasmeen Khan
8. Creativity - Howard Gardner
9. Gandhi - Stanley Wolpert
10. 'Great Soul' - Joseph Lelyveld.

11. My earlier blog "Thamizhachi Thangapandiyan's Slander on Gandhi"

  http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2012/07/thamizhachi-thangapandiyans-slander-on.html