Today
I have known
that the past
ragged, worn,
is longing
to be my friend
again
this May.
We had parted
with smiles
while sharing
open skies.
But the lesson
wasn't learnt
to this day.
And with the Beatles
it seems,
just like yesterday.
----------------
Haven't found the time to write for a while. Rather, the need hasn't arisen. Updates:
1. Wrapping up my thesis/rather resolving everyday to do so.
2. Reading "The Argumentative Indian" again but slowly and carefully, making sure I can quote at will from the book.
3. Experienced the most horrible examination in two years - Non-linear Dynamics end semester. Silly mistakes make you feel silly. Which is good once in a while.
4. Watched the "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - must watch french movie. Shall blog about it later if I find the time and the inclination and the need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I read argumentative indian some time ago (a year I think). I thought it was pointless. He wanted to elaborate on the argumentative nature of indian culture (or schools of thought) which he didn't do.
The book has gross factual errors like "Jainism was started by Mahavira" or something like that. Plus he's so much a left liberal that he sometimes is a leftist (CPIM wala) :-(
@Purshya-I don't agree with you that the book is pointless. I might have agreed if you would have said that there is nothing substantially new he's talking about in the book and that it contains ideas presented in his other words. Still I think it is a synthesis of ideas and has been presented well. I shall come to your first critique shortly but let me tell you that I have gone through every instance of his mention of Jainism again (there are around 15 such places where it finds mention according to the index) and I didn't find any instance of your accusation. Infact, he never mentions Mahavira in his entire book. So it would be nice if you could precisely tell me where you found the factual error ( I might have missed something inspite of being judicious with my reading this time).
I think your calling him a 'leftist' or 'left liberal' is a highly simplistic and completely unwarranted. He enunciates the importance of economic reforms more than once in chapter 9 (Tryst with Destiny); the only instance where he quotes the indian way of communism is when he quotes the example of Kerala citing how it has a high literacy rate and a high life expectancy but he is also careful to point out that the state has a long way to go as far as economic progress is concerned. He is also deeply critical of the naive nationalism that CPI/CPIM has been perpetrating in its refuse to collaborate with the west (chapters 3 and 4); in fact here, he is critical of Gandhi himself, so I don't really see how you can label him in such a facile manner.
Now coming to your first point of criticism, let me say that whether a book is pointless or not is a subjective argument. You might probably be prescient and might have anticipated the ideas that were presented in the book, but I must say that I imbibed a lot from them; also the book presented a lot of interesting history that I was not completely aware of.
I have already mentioned the fact that there is something to be noted of the ability of an author to be able to synthesize many ideas and present them together, even if they have been presented in isolation before.
As far as the "argumentative nature of indian culture" is concerned, I might agree with you in as much that he has not gone into so deep an analysis of the carvaka or the advaita or other schools of thought
as much as you might have wanted him to, but he has presented a lot of glimpses and has presented a contemporary critical analysis of many perceptions of India and argued why they are in many ways limited. In fact one of the things I liked about the book was that it was extremely contemporary.
The first two parts of the book did deal with many aspects of what he refers to as the argumentative tradition in India. The last two parts, I agree were more contemporary and could have gone by another name, but I don't regard them as 'pointless'.
I make one correction to my comments. There are exactly three mentions of Mahavira in chapter 15 (India through its calendars- I had skipped this chapter for later reading) and all of them are in the context of the 'Mahavira Nirvana' calendar associated with the Jains. I still haven't found an instance of your accusation.
Mahavira was the last Tirthankar. If what you say is true, then it is a significant error which can be pointed out, so I'll request you to be precise :-).
nizz arguments.
nou i is relly itching 2 read da buk.
as certain cute cats might say.
I don't have a copy hence I cannot point out. And it was a year ago, but when I think about the book, that is the only thing I remember.
Since it's subjective, I think it's _pointless_ to argue about whether the book is pointless. But, as the title suggested, and so did the reviews, the book was supposed to be about the argumentative tradition in india. I didn't think it did any justice to that. It was a collection of random essays, I do not deny that the observations are important and genuine. Just that they don't fit in with the _purpose_ of the book.
About the left thing, I guess I was referring to one other book of his, I guess which was about communal divide in India. In the first reading, I had an impression that he wanted to blame the hindu right for all the communal problems. Which I thought was an uwnarranted bias. I shall take back the criticism of him being CPIM :P
OT: I wonder what leftist intellectuals are saying for China/Tibet in the wake of the torch. Sitting here, I couldn't find a single article from the likes of Thapar, Roy and similar such. But you will indeed have a better judgment since I do not have access to all the print media.
I quote a line from the preface of the book which might probably go to suggest that the book was not meant to only 'elaborate on the argumentative nature of indian culture' as you say so.
"The selection of focus here is mainly for three distinct reasons: The long history of the argumentative tradition in India, its contemporary relevance, and its relative neglect in ongoing cultural discussions."
So I don't particularly agree with you calling the essays 'random' because there is a cogent thought process that develops with their flow. One might not have anticipated his discussion of 'women's rights' and 'the nuclear bomb issue' by devoting entire chapters for them to foward his thesis behind the book. You might find it superfluous but I argue that it is the case of an author choosing a particular domain to reflect his observations on a particular topic. The essays embark not only in the area of Indian history but also 'contemporary culture and the Indian identity' as the subtitle of the book suggests on the cover page.
That said, I reiterate that a reader might have felt unsatiated as far as Sen's lack of focus towards a comprehensive exposition of the 'argumentative tradition' of India is concerned; that is understandable, but all I say is that he clearly outlines the extent and scope of his book in his preface (which ought to be read and not just the 'title') and that is not far removed from what the book actually turns out to be.
I have just finished reading that book.. About the title.. I don't think the book was supposed to talk about The argumentative nature of indian all throughout. It is essentially a collection of Essays about India by Amartya Sen. The title could either mean that Indians are argumentative by nature (which would refer only to the first chapter), or it could also mean that the author himself is the argumentative Indian...
Overall, i thought the book was quite an interesting read for people interested in the socio-political fabric of india..
Post a Comment