The way things are happening i don’t know whether words like ‘shocking’ have any meaning. The arbitrariness and desultory process adopted in removing books from reading list is amazing to say the least and that too a threat from a boy!!. Maharashtra government, in particular, the Chief Minister is a disgrace. And what is about the book that is deemed ‘offensive’ than activities of Shiv Sainiks over the last few decades?. It is incompetence of successive governments in the Centre (including t
he present one) that laws are not strict and these people blackmail society. Ideally Thackeray and gang should be languishing in jail. Lax, tardy and politicised investigative agencies have seen to that people who foment hatred and threaten common people are made powerful (it is a Bhindranwala syndrome), politicians take mileage from these subjectivities. I think it also helps some to play ‘secularism’- unless fundamentalist aren’t around secularist are jobless, so it makes lots of political sense to pander Thackeray &Co. This blogger also believe that ‘minority appeasements’ (particularly some medieval practices in the name of religion like say polygamy and so on...not many civilised countries allow these kind of nonsense) has led to lots of resentment which is capitalised by Hindu fundamentalists like Shiv Sena and has got some legitimacy among the middle class. Keeping alive fundamentalism helps lots of powerful people.
It’s about playing divisive and usurping benefits. People will be killed, maimed and looted but no one will be prosecuted and we will be asked to be ’secular’ and be against ‘communalist’ (and pray how do we know who is what, should media tell us or decide?). Successive Governments at the centre (for keeping the investigation under itself) and the Judiciary (for slow process and low conviction rate) are the biggest communalist. They have failed the people; they work for short term gains at the expense of society.
It is vulgar t
hat much liked writers like Rohinton Mistry has become a pawn in this crude game, he is arguably one of the best writers around. This blogger takes pride in mentioning that i have read all the works of Mr. Mistry and eagerly waits for his next book. Such a Long Journey (though the movie was quite feeble) is one of the best books i have read, and i strongly recommend and everyone should read as much A Fine Balance.
A book if it is against what we believe or cherish should be encouraged as it adds to our understanding (not referring to writing as slander or personal diatribes-lets reserve that to crude woman and power hungry rodents!...it’s quite fun, giving some well directed punches sometimes to these pretentious people!!. I guess we now know what Vikram Akula is all about, play act saviours filling their coffers from poorest of people, some do it with slum children, some by kidnapping orphans in Leh) and gives us interesting perspectives. Denying these understandings is a loss, and i guess youngsters should be aware of these at the earliest the reason why anti-establishment material should be given space. I believe society should be matured to tolerate varied opinions. A society that puts any restrictions on ideas and thoughts is primitive.
Revisiting Gunnar Myrdal: I picked up Gunnar Myrdal’s The Challenge of World Poverty from College Street, Kolkata the other day, this a book i was keen on m
ore than a decade back, i recall a boy in JNU talked quite passionately about it, I read few chapters in the library. I searched for it on the pavements of few cities couldn’t find and forgot about it, anyway i was too much into fiction those days (so not really a ‘revisit’). Quite lucky to get it for 50R after so many years!!.
Gunnar Myrdal’s analysis is quite potent and much relevant to this day (the book came out some 40 years back). I particularly liked the chapter on ‘Soft State’, these lines are so very striking “...the laxity and arbitrariness in a national community that can be characterised as a soft state can be, and are, exploited for personal gain by people who have economic, social, and political power”.
Read these insightful paragraphs that were written almost four decades back
“when policy measures have been instituted specifically aimed at ameliorating conditions of lower strata, they have either not been implemented and enforced or have been distorted so as to favour the not-so-poor and to discriminate against the masses. The foreseen difficulty or impossibility of enforcing a law aimed at aiding the poor rather than the better-offs may indeed make it easier to get such law passed in a legislature, as the representatives of those who should make a sacrifice can feel that nothing much will be changed. An Indian State assembly can thus show generosity to the landless and poorer peasants by passing laws on minimum agricultural wages or moneylenders interest charges without a risk that such laws will be enforced (this blogger would like to remind readers the Minimum wage controversy in NREGA as also the fact that they couldn’t anticipate exploitation of farmers by microcredit NGOs is rather shocking). In regard to its practical effects, the whole political, legal and administrative system is thus systematically and heavily weighed against the masses of poor people. This comes about through lack of enforcement of laws and the distortion of policy measures...
The laws and policy measures are motivated as measures to realise the egalitarian ideals and, more generally, the modernisation ideals which have commonly become accepted by the educated upper class whose intellectual and political elite had been harbinger of these ideals. When it comes to actually formulating the laws and the policy prescriptions and, still more, taking measures to implement them, however, they commonly follow narrow selfish interest.
When dealing with the lower strata, including the very poorest, the state also avoids laying down definite obligations, sanctioned by state power, and relies upon inducements and voluntary adjustments. This gives a sort of conscience-consolation for not giving effect to the laws and policies instituted in their interest. ...
Though for these and other reasons the matter is complicated, fundamentally the main explanation of the soft state is that all the power is in the hands of upper class who can afford egalitarian laws and policy measures but are in an unchallenged position to prevent their implementation”.
he present one) that laws are not strict and these people blackmail society. Ideally Thackeray and gang should be languishing in jail. Lax, tardy and politicised investigative agencies have seen to that people who foment hatred and threaten common people are made powerful (it is a Bhindranwala syndrome), politicians take mileage from these subjectivities. I think it also helps some to play ‘secularism’- unless fundamentalist aren’t around secularist are jobless, so it makes lots of political sense to pander Thackeray &Co. This blogger also believe that ‘minority appeasements’ (particularly some medieval practices in the name of religion like say polygamy and so on...not many civilised countries allow these kind of nonsense) has led to lots of resentment which is capitalised by Hindu fundamentalists like Shiv Sena and has got some legitimacy among the middle class. Keeping alive fundamentalism helps lots of powerful people. It’s about playing divisive and usurping benefits. People will be killed, maimed and looted but no one will be prosecuted and we will be asked to be ’secular’ and be against ‘communalist’ (and pray how do we know who is what, should media tell us or decide?). Successive Governments at the centre (for keeping the investigation under itself) and the Judiciary (for slow process and low conviction rate) are the biggest communalist. They have failed the people; they work for short term gains at the expense of society.
It is vulgar t
hat much liked writers like Rohinton Mistry has become a pawn in this crude game, he is arguably one of the best writers around. This blogger takes pride in mentioning that i have read all the works of Mr. Mistry and eagerly waits for his next book. Such a Long Journey (though the movie was quite feeble) is one of the best books i have read, and i strongly recommend and everyone should read as much A Fine Balance. A book if it is against what we believe or cherish should be encouraged as it adds to our understanding (not referring to writing as slander or personal diatribes-lets reserve that to crude woman and power hungry rodents!...it’s quite fun, giving some well directed punches sometimes to these pretentious people!!. I guess we now know what Vikram Akula is all about, play act saviours filling their coffers from poorest of people, some do it with slum children, some by kidnapping orphans in Leh) and gives us interesting perspectives. Denying these understandings is a loss, and i guess youngsters should be aware of these at the earliest the reason why anti-establishment material should be given space. I believe society should be matured to tolerate varied opinions. A society that puts any restrictions on ideas and thoughts is primitive.
Revisiting Gunnar Myrdal: I picked up Gunnar Myrdal’s The Challenge of World Poverty from College Street, Kolkata the other day, this a book i was keen on m
ore than a decade back, i recall a boy in JNU talked quite passionately about it, I read few chapters in the library. I searched for it on the pavements of few cities couldn’t find and forgot about it, anyway i was too much into fiction those days (so not really a ‘revisit’). Quite lucky to get it for 50R after so many years!!.Gunnar Myrdal’s analysis is quite potent and much relevant to this day (the book came out some 40 years back). I particularly liked the chapter on ‘Soft State’, these lines are so very striking “...the laxity and arbitrariness in a national community that can be characterised as a soft state can be, and are, exploited for personal gain by people who have economic, social, and political power”.
Read these insightful paragraphs that were written almost four decades back
“when policy measures have been instituted specifically aimed at ameliorating conditions of lower strata, they have either not been implemented and enforced or have been distorted so as to favour the not-so-poor and to discriminate against the masses. The foreseen difficulty or impossibility of enforcing a law aimed at aiding the poor rather than the better-offs may indeed make it easier to get such law passed in a legislature, as the representatives of those who should make a sacrifice can feel that nothing much will be changed. An Indian State assembly can thus show generosity to the landless and poorer peasants by passing laws on minimum agricultural wages or moneylenders interest charges without a risk that such laws will be enforced (this blogger would like to remind readers the Minimum wage controversy in NREGA as also the fact that they couldn’t anticipate exploitation of farmers by microcredit NGOs is rather shocking). In regard to its practical effects, the whole political, legal and administrative system is thus systematically and heavily weighed against the masses of poor people. This comes about through lack of enforcement of laws and the distortion of policy measures...
The laws and policy measures are motivated as measures to realise the egalitarian ideals and, more generally, the modernisation ideals which have commonly become accepted by the educated upper class whose intellectual and political elite had been harbinger of these ideals. When it comes to actually formulating the laws and the policy prescriptions and, still more, taking measures to implement them, however, they commonly follow narrow selfish interest.
When dealing with the lower strata, including the very poorest, the state also avoids laying down definite obligations, sanctioned by state power, and relies upon inducements and voluntary adjustments. This gives a sort of conscience-consolation for not giving effect to the laws and policies instituted in their interest. ...
Though for these and other reasons the matter is complicated, fundamentally the main explanation of the soft state is that all the power is in the hands of upper class who can afford egalitarian laws and policy measures but are in an unchallenged position to prevent their implementation”.
