I came across was a book titled ‘Gandhi vs. Jinnah: The debate over the partition of India’. The book has been written by a western author namely Allen Hayes Merriam. The author has viewed partition as an inevitable event culminating from irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims. The author’s basic theoretical underpinning for the partition is that Hinduism and Islam represented essentially two diametrically opposite belief systems and religions whose basic tenets and modus operandi are antagonistic to each other and hence form the basis of two separate nations.
The author has harped on the Hindu-Muslim relations in Indian history in discussing the social context of the partition in the introductory chapter. It is the framework upon which he builds and buttresses his theory in the book. In the essay I will endeavor to state as accurately as possible the author’s viewpoint regarding the nature of Hindu-Muslim relations in history and its implications for the bloody vivisection of the country. I will also examine the veracity of the author’s claims as well as reflect my viewpoint on the partition.
The author has underscored the fundamental cultural differences in the two religions namely Hinduism and Islam. He has emphasized the different roots and conflicting attitudes of the two religions. He underlines their importance in fostering and perpetuating tension between the two communities. The author notes several differences in the two social systems. He points out to the opposite theological and social ideologies of Hinduism and Islam. He speaks of the concept of “one God (Allah)” in Islam contrary to belief of many Gods in Hinduism. He speaks of the concept of surrendering oneself to God to acquire deliverance, and standardization of religious worship in Islam as opposed to the focus on private “meditation” and exclusive prayer in Hinduism He goes on to describe further differences.
The author also speaks of the vital concept of Islamic law being the core of a nation’s existence and functioning. Hinduism, on the other hand, divorces statecraft from religion. He remarks the absence of idolatry in Islam whereas image worship is inalienable to Hinduism. He reminds the reader that Islamic holy literature is written in Arabic whereas Hindu scriptures are written in Sanskrit. He talks of the belief of final Day of Judgment in Islam contrasted to the unceasing Hindu cycle of rebirth and reincarnation . He also speaks about the spiritual life of Muslims being Arabia-centered whereas the Hindus gain spiritual inspiration from the Himalayas and Ganges .
Northrup has asserted Muslims believe they are “God’s chosen people” and display a belligerent ardor to proselytize the infidel whereas Hindus bear acceptance. Merriam views Hinduism as a feminine ideology in essence contrasted to the brazenly masculine and Procrustean personality of Islam. He has also noted the different patterns of social organization emanating from different ideologies in the socio-religious setup.
Merriam has observed that Hindu social organization arrangements and interaction was determined and played out through the hierarchical and iniquitous concept of caste. On the other hand the lofty concepts of equality and social democracy were ingrained in Islam. Subsequently Islam provided a strong sense of solidarity and unity among its followers in sharp contrast to the disunity, extremity and bitterness which characterized inter-caste relations in Hinduism. The caste structure of Hindu society proscribed inter-caste communication, marriage and relations especially between the elite and the dregs of society.
Merriam has buttressed his arguments by citing examples to show Hindu-Muslim hostility. He speaks of the military successes of Imad-ud-din and Mahmud of Ghazni against Hindu chieftains in the northwestern part of the country in the 8th and 11th centuries respectively. He stresses upon the ruthlessness of the Muslim conquerors. He speaks of Qutub-ud-din Aibak’s impertinently erected mosques on the remains of razed Hindu temples . He cites the Arab traveler Ibn Batuta’s accounts of Muslims being unwelcome in Hindu homes in the Malabar Coast. He believes the caste system forbade Indians from hobnobbing with Muslims. He records the invasions of Tamerlane, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani in India. He speaks of Aurangzeb’s discriminatory policies towards the Hindus culminating in their antipathy and odium towards Muslims. He also documents Aurangzeb’s revulsion towards Sikhs and believes his policies fomented hostile relations between them.
Interestingly he has also taken account of interaction, mutual give and take, communication and forbearance between the two communities but believes such friendly intercourse was restricted to the educated, upper classes of both communities.
The author has underplayed the British role in inciting loathing between the two communities. He has also ignored the avarice of politicians and the propaganda machinery of the extremists, the combination of which proved lethal. Instead he is convinced that ethnic differences and differing ideologies contributed to tension, which simmered beneath the surface and often manifested itself in violent reaction. He believes a cleavage always existed between the two communities, and over a period of time it widened and ultimately crossed the threshold of tolerance. He believes the wedge had become wide enough for the fracturing of the country.
The author’s first contention is that Islam is monotheistic while Hinduism is polytheistic. This statement simply betrays the author’s sheer ignorance about the essence of Hindu beliefs. Like Islam, beneath the veneer and superficiality of worshipping different gods and goddesses, the essence of Hindu philosophy is that it believes all divinities are essentially different manifestations of one Supreme Being or one God. This basic philosophical underpinning may have come about due to the Muslim presence in India. This strongly hints at Hindu-Muslim interaction across medieval Indian society. The author’s ignorance is even more explicit as surrender to God is an element of both Hinduism and Islam. The homogeneity of worship as well as privately praying and meditating are also common to both faiths. There is a strong possibility that these common features may have come about due to interaction between Hinduism and Islam. The robust probability of such hypothetical interactions undermines the author’s views of the lack of social exchange between the two communities, thereby considerably reducing the author’s purported fricion and discord to an outrageously grotesque figment of imagination .
Concerning correlations between religion and matters of state it has to be stated both Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists wanted religion to be the basis of the state whereas moderates and pacifists from both communities severed religious decrees from statecraft. Concerning image worship, it is true that Islam does not condone iconoclasm and the majority of Hindus believe in idol worship, it is also reliable to say that some sects in Hinduism do not acknowledge idol worship, and Hindus who keep idols also pray and meditate before a formless God. Besides India has always been a multicultural and multiethnic land where different communities, religions and sects have pursued their individual forms of worship but only once in a blue moon has it ever contributed to rampant strife. From another angle Muslims live peacefully all over the world with other religions which have different forms of worship, some espousing a formless God while others giving God a human form.
As far as the holy scriptures of the world religions are concerned, different languages have been employed for each. However, this does not poison relations between people of different religions. Each religion has its own views about life and death but that has no bearing upon relations between adherents of different religions. Addressing questions about spiritual inspiration, it must be said that each religion derives spiritual inspiration from God but the direction of prayer may be different for different religions. There are many religions in India where such differences are inevitable. Notwithstanding such divergence, none of the religions and communities is at loggerheads with each other.
Northrup’s proposition that Muslims consider themselves “God’s Chosen People” is true but this does not tantamount to all Muslims or all Christians or all Jews in India or the world resorting to bellicose behavior. It is true that Hinduism believes in the equal status of all religions and is a tolerant religion but it certainly would be unwise to generalize all Hindus as tolerant. The reality is that most people of all religions are tolerant with extremists being on the fringe and present in all religions. The feminine predominance of Hinduism is not accurate as there are many more gods in Hindu religion than goddesses and gods occupy more pre-eminent positions. The truth is that due to patriarchy almost all the major religions have a masculine character.
Although it is true that Islam had more democracy, equality and social mobility than Hinduism, it would be incorrect to conclude that Islam had absolute equality. Islam and Hinduism alike accorded lower status to women, and even Islam had gradations of status according to occupation although these distinctions were not so sharply defined. This again suggests interaction between the two communities. Hindu upper-caste women veiling themselves in public exemplify the borrowing of cultural traits. Besides, the caste system never prohibited Hindus from rubbing shoulders with people who had a penchant for espousing religious customs divergent from their own. It is through the medium of such interaction and exchange of ideas and knowledge that many lower caste Hindus converted to Islam to attain a higher social status and more freedom. In fact most Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are Hindus who converted to Islam to gain a better life. Most Indian Muslims were and are therefore of an indigenous stock who share a common heritage and common language. Even though a minority of Indian Muslims belonged to a foreign stock, they had been assimilated into a pluralistic Indian culture and were and are as much Indian as the descendants of the other foreign invaders of India. Over a period of time they have contributed to the richness and diversity of Indian culture. The Muslims of foreign stock and the progeny of the other buccaneering invaders were and are still as much citizens of an organic India as are the natives.
Despite cultural differences there was always and still is cultural fusion manifest in dress, food, social manners, language, art, literature as well as architecture. This was not merely circumscribed to the upper classes but also permeated to the lower rungs of society.
Finally coming to the issue of Hindu-Muslim conflicts, in the thirteen centuries of living together, there have been very few truculent episodes among the civilian masses. There were very few riots up till the beginning of the 20th century. Civilian Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace and harmony for centuries with continuous, friendly and mutually beneficial exchange. As far as the laconian and callous nature of Muslim conquerors is concerned, it must be kept in mind that all wars are ruthless and all conquerors are belligerent. The motive of such wars was inordinate covetousness, not religious, social or cultural obligations. Ibn Batuta’s account is dubious and portrays his narrow-minded outlook. Besides, the Malabar Coast hardly had any contact with Islam.
As we have already seen interaction amongst Hindus and Muslims was pervasive. It must also be remembered that despite Aurangzeb’s policies there were never civil wars amongst Hindus and Muslims or Muslims and Sikhs. On the contrary, rivalry and wars were confined to politics and was not symptomatic of the populace. It must be remembered that people from all three religions rallied behind the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar in the Revolt of 1857 and participated in Gandhi’s civil disobedience movements.
These lucidly vindicate the argument that Hindu-Muslim relations in India were always cordial. This in turn demolishes the theory that India had to be divided into two countries. The reasons for the partition of India therefore had nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim animosity, as there existed no innate animosity. The reasons lie in the complex politics of the twentieth century. It must finally be remembered that the roots of nationhood is always borne out in peace and harmony, economic welfare, frequent and beneficial interaction and diffusion of positive cultural traits, social welfare and a shared heritage. The roots of nationhood transcend esoteric thinking and ethnic differences. It is not possible to collapse all identities into one exclusive identity, for if that were the case India would be fragmented into many nations on the basis of ethnicity. From a wider angle the ethnic distribution of world population would have to undergo a dramatic and traumatic upheaval in line with egotistical bigotry. This would lead to a regression in world progress and take us back to the primitive age.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Book Reviews by the inimitable Rajeet Guha
Reviews Written by Rajeet Guha "Bookstore Cormorant" (USA)
Show: Most recent reviews Most recent comments
Page: 1
Julius Caesar
DVD ~ Jeremy Sisto
Price: $12.99
Availability: In Stock
50 used & new from $3.93
A dark brew of untrammelled barbarism and insouciant Rachmanism served boiling hot, June 19, 2009 The movie Caesar concluded a few years ago on TNT. It was a historical film documenting Julius Caesar's life and achievements. Besides Caesar the other key characters in the film are Pompeii, Sala, Cato, Brutus, Cassius, Cleopatra, Carnelia, Julia, Calpania, and Mark Anthony, all of whom played a significant role in Caesar's life. It weaves various stages of Caesar's meteoric rise and fall into a single exciting movie. At the same time the movie gives us an insight into the relationship of the Senate with the dictator of Rome. The strife-ridden Roman society and the paramount importance of a strong military at that time can be underscored. It highlights the threats posed to the Roman Empire from its neighbors and pirates at that time. The movie also dwells upon the intertwining of military and political power in the time of a fluid political situation in Rome and the people's desire for a stable government. It hints at the enormous size of the Roman Empire in Caesar's time. It gives us glimpses into the workings of Roman society as well as its economy and culture. It can be easily inferred that at that time trade was an intrinsic part of Roman economy. It gives us a peek about the status of women and the gullibility of the general populace in Roman society. Most of this historical movie makes the viewer participate in the history of the contemporary epoch by implicitly stating information. The film captures the martial spirit and reckless plunder and conquest of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. The movie underlines the pivotal role of army commanders in Roman society in the times of Julius Caesar and prior to that. At this time Rome was ridden with friction with its neighbors. The pirates often captured Roman ships laden with grain and wealth. Rome in 82 B.C. was subjected to protracted warfare. Rome's boundaries were uncertain and constantly changing. Military generals of foreign countries plundered Rome with impunity and Roman citizens lived in a state of perpetual terror. Rome's wealth was frittered away in extravagant and destructive military purposes. Fratricidal skirmishes were common. Peace had become non-existent in Rome. Wealthy military despots and senators ruled Rome's commoners and slaves. The people were so-called indirectly represented by an elitist and selfish Senate that constantly bickered with the dictator and his armies. In reality the majority of the plebeian citizens had little say in the political process. The movie opens by dwelling on Caesar's many trysts with danger to his life and how he overcame them. In doing so the film brilliantly portrays some of the important traits of Caesar's personality and character. The film starts by showing Caesar being blacklisted in 82 B.C. by the tyrant Sala for aiding his enemies. Nothing about his life before 82 B.C. is told in the film. Julius Caesar was a commoner. He was reverent towards his mother and doting towards his wife Carnelia and daughter Julia. His wife Carnelia had a lot of influence over his actions. Sala blacklisted him as he had sided with his enemies. Despite his humble origins he was proud of his ancestry and claimed to be of divine descent. He was bold, courageous and forthright in his beliefs. The film chronicles these traits of Caesar's personality when Caesar stood his ground firmly even in the face of grave danger. Despite Sala's ultimatum Caesar refused to divorce his wife. With the help of Pompeii, a Roman military general, and the urging of his wife Carnelia, Caesar finally escaped Rome and traveled abroad for many years. By the time Caesar returned, Pompeii had become the head of state. Caesar had bought a slave called Apylonius during his journey in a province of the Roman Empire. The slave was an intellectual who was well read in Greek classics, literature, philosophy and politics. He had bought the slave to teach his daughter Julia. In telling this story the film throws light on Roman economy and society. The overwhelming majority of slaves and their labor was the bulwark of the Roman Empire. This was indubitable, as the tyrants of Rome had conquered many nationalities over a period of time and enslaved their citizens. The slaves were denied citizenship in the Roman Empire. They were denied the rights and privileges granted to the citizens of Rome. They were the workhorses of the Roman Empire. It is upon their backbreaking productive labor, and trade that Rome's military and legislative establishment and plebeian citizens enjoyed a parasitic existence. All necessities and luxuries were initially distributed among the upper crust of Roman society namely the military and political establishments before going to the citizens. Slaves were an indispensable part of the Roman economy. Slaves were intellectuals and some of them were kept in Roman households for educational purposes, thereby playing an important role in the education of its citizens. Women in Rome did not wear veil and attended parties and had social status but were denied access to political and military establishments. It was extremely difficult for the plebeian citizens to enter into politics. Rome's republican tradition and culture bore resemblances to the Greek civilization. It can be inferred that Roman society was highly stratified and the Roman economy epitomized inequality. Upon Caesar's return to Rome he was greeted with misfortune in the family as his wife passed away moments after his arrival. His return would be the harbinger of momentous events in the history of Rome. The film also makes a telling commentary on the political ambitions of Caesar and how he realized them. Caesar understood that winning the support and hearts of the people was the sine qua non of political legitimacy. Caesar used the demise of his wife to win the affection of the people. He juxtaposed feelings of his heart, plainspoken oratory skills and tact to win over the hearts of the plebeian citizens of Rome. He gained access to politics with Pompeii's backing. He exerted his oratory influence on the Senate and persuaded the Senate to unite behind Pompeii and permit Pompeii and his army to launch an onslaught on the pirates who disrupted Roman trade and economy. He used his oratory skills to express his concern for Rome's welfare as well as further his political advancement. Subsequently Pompeii went off on a military mission but before leaving Rome he named Caesar as the stand-in-consul. During this period of Pompeii's long absence in politics Caesar wielded considerable power over matters of the state. Later in the movie Mark Anthony's address to the citizens vindicated Caesar's commitment to the people's welfare during the time he was the stand-in-consul. Caesar commissioned projects for public welfare in this time when he was the stand-in-consul and in doing so, often took decisions without ratification of the Senate. This revealed his independent-minded personality and his scant respect for the Senate. It is in this period that Caesar made many enemies amongst a large section of the Senate, which included influential Senators like Cato and Cassius. In spite of his absolute authority Caesar never flinched in matters of honesty and integrity. He never aggrandized personal wealth from state revenue. In the meantime Caesar had wedded Calpania and Julia had grown into a fine woman. After Pompeii returned to Rome, Caesar arranged a marriage between his daughter Julia and Pompeii, who was smitten with love for Julia, in exchange for a large part of Pompeii's armies. Caesar and Julia shrewdly arranged this compromise to further Caesar's political ambitions of becoming head of state, as he knew that military glory was a passport to becoming dictator. The movie again showed Caesar's single-minded purpose of becoming the head of state and the lengths he would go to achieve his goal. The next part of the movie typifies Caesar's brilliant military strategies. Caesar set out foot abroad to conquer new lands and defend Rome against its hostile enemies and pirates who would play havoc with Rome's peace and prosperity. Caesar proved to be the greatest military commander Rome ever witnessed. He surpassed Pompeii's magnificent generalship. He fought for many years against various peoples like the Gauls and others. This showed his perseverance and tenacity. He stood out as an outstanding and tolerant general. He won wars through strategy when his army was outnumbered by the enemy and received little support from Rome. He conquered many nationalities and enlarged Rome's boundaries more than any dictator had ever done. He defeated belligerent opponents but made peace whenever possible. His share of misfortune increased in this period as his daughter and newborn grandchild passed away. However, he endured his share of tragedy. The movie also portrayed the jealousies, anxieties and fears of Rome's political incumbents when they realized Caesar's successful conquests would culminate in Caesar becoming consul. Around this time Pompeii declared war on Caesar and Cato too adorned military garb to challenge Caesar's claim to consulship. However when they heard Caesar had crossed the Rubicon they refrained from warring with him and instead fled Rome to gain temporary refuge. Caesar got a grand reception from the plebeian citizens of Rome. This part of the film shows Caesar's closeness to the people and political astuteness. He became the head of state but refused the title of consul and preferred to be called Caesar. He knew he derived his power from the people and did not want to distance them from himself. He was the people's democratic dictator as opposed to the tyrants prior to his ascendancy to Rome's supreme seat. The film also depicts Caesar's mercifulness and compassion when he did not blacklist the senators who were rabidly against him becoming dictator. Caesar had brought peace and prosperity to the people of Rome by overwhelming Rome's enemies. He united the people of Rome. Rome was a wealthy Empire at the time of Caesar. There were also extensive education, religious and entertainment institutions created for the plebeian citizens of Rome due to Caesar's administrative and military efforts. However he had unquestioned and absolute authority in matters of state. Caesar had to however settle issues with Pompeii who had fled Rome. Caesar named his lieutenant and second-in-command Mark Anthony as his stand-in replacement for the time he was tracking down Pompeii and fighting against him. Caesar marched again with his armies to fight his rivals. Caesar found Pompeii's camp where Brutus was in charge of a part of Pompeii's army, Caesar's nephew was in charge of Pompeii's camp as Pompeii had left for Egypt unarmed. Caesar spared Pompeii's army commanders and soldiers. The film again showed Caesar's compassionate nature. Another part of Pompeii's armies was with Cato. Caesar asked Brutus to head back to Rome and promote Caesar's image of a benevolent dictator. Caesar marched with his armies to Egypt to meet Pompeii. In the meantime Pompeii was murdered in Egypt. Caesar and his armies were welcomed in Egypt by power-wielding statesmen. Egypt's king had died suddenly around this time and Egypt's political and social situation was in flux. An adolescent boy and girl were jointly made king and queen but seasoned statesmen wielded power and the teenage monarchs were pawns in the sordid game of brinkmanship. This part of the film showcases Caesar as a shrewd statesman with a considerable foresight. Caesar was disappointed to find Pompeii murdered but granted Egypt the status of an independent country in return for monetary tribute to Rome and unwavering loyalty. Caesar intervened in the political instability of Egypt and restored power to the royal authority. Caesar strengthened his political situation and decided to keep power in the family by marrying the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra and begetting a son from her. Before returning to Rome Caesar overwhelmed Cato's armies. Cato had refused to recognize Caesar's dictatorship till the end. Cato could not bear the ignominy of defeat and the humiliation of surrendering to Caesar and to avoid shame committed suicide. The film also showed the cunning and persuasive influence of the Senate on Brutus. By the time Caesar had returned to Rome the Senate had poisoned the ears of Brutus by saying that Caesar was going to convert Rome to a monarchy. Brutus however was not convinced about Caesar's motives and demanded proof. Rumors of Caesar's affair with Cleopatra were rife in Rome and had traumatized Calpania. Calpania did not give Caesar a warm welcome when he returned. She remained his wife but refused to have sexual relations with him. Caesar and Cleopatra received a grand reception from the plebeian citizens of Rome. On this occasion Caesar's and Cleopatra's infant son was revealed. This convinced Brutus that Caesar wanted to keep power in the family. Brutus was an idealist who thought that Caesar was going to violate the tradition and promise of a republic and decided that murdering Caesar would be the only solution to Rome remaining a republic. The last part of the movie shows treachery and betrayal. Brutus decided to take the plunge to murder Caesar. He arrived at a plan to murder Caesar. He told the envious Senators about his plan to murder Caesar next morning where the Senators would form a ring in the Senate and stab Caesar once. Lest the conspiracy failed to materialize or was exposed each of the participants would stab themselves to death. On the next day before Caesar went to the Senate his wife Calpania warned him that she had a premonition about Caesar being slaughtered to death and urged him not to go. However Caesar was persuaded to go to the Senate by Brutus. Calpania's nightmare came true when many senators including Brutus murdered Caesar in the Senate. With the murder of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March the lives of one of the greatest generals and statesmen on earth came to an end. The movie ends with the murder of Caesar. The movie was well made and captured the spirit, culture, economy, society, and politics of Republican Rome in its entire splendor. The actors have acted out their parts well. The setting and direction of the movie resembles the Roman Empire as told and visualized by historians and archaeologists. The costumes worn by the actors capture the fashion prevailing at that time. However, the movie suffers from lack of sufficient information, so vital in a historical movie to viewers who are not familiar to Roman history. Much of the movie expects the viewer to know and infer information. The movie makes no reference to Caesar's background and early life before 82 B.C. The movie tells us nothing about Roman history prior to 82 B.C. No information is given about the origins of the Roman Empire. There is no geographical description in the movie describing the size of the Roman Empire and the nationalities, which it had engulfed within it. The movie does not say anything about the items of trade. The movie also gives scanty information about the enemies of Rome. The movie ends abruptly with the death of Caesar and makes no reference to the history of the Roman Empire after Julius Caesar and also the fact that Caesar became the title for Emperor on Julius Caesar's death. However, despite its shortcomings the movie was enjoyable.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: abject depravity of roman society
Truth, Love and a Little Malice
by Khushwant SinghEdition: Paperback
Price: $19.76
Availability: Not in stock; order now and we'll deliver when available
20 used & new from $11.11
Pulls no punches, June 19, 2009 Truth, Love & a little Malice is an autobiographical account of India's most renowned, prolific and controversial living author and journalist videlicet Khushwant Singh. It is the living legend's swan song written in the twilight of his illustrious career and colorful life. It is a brutally honest memoir documenting his life, experiences, achievements and disappointments from infancy to the present day. It recounts his relationships with his parents, grandmother, school and college friends and friends and acquaintances he later established. It also gives an account of his mixed and checkered experiences with men of importance, influence, power, wealth, intellect and glamour. It also furnishes Khushwant's analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies of acclaimed politicians and intellectuals. It presents Khushwant's own idiosyncrasies, obsessions and phobias. It gives his opinions on caliber of writers. It records his views on secular and religious matters. It also gives us a glance into the frailty and fragility of communal harmony among the gullible, unenlightened masses in times of crises and bigoted propaganda. It also gives us a glimpse into history. It is written in a simple, lucid and unpretentious style. It is written in a style characteristic of Khushwant Singh - amusing, bantering, mocking, critical, candid, bold, poignant and Bohemian styles interwoven into an enjoyable and spellbinding story. The story holds fast the reader's attention and interest until one finishes reading.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: the octagenarian pulls no punches, the venerable grand old journalist of india
Nathan The Wise
by Gotthold Ephraim LessingEdition: Paperback
Price: $11.95
Availability: In Stock
30 used & new from $5.98
Conflict between religion and tolerance: Reality or myth, June 19, 2009 Lessing played a pivotal role in the German Enlightenment. Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise" is as relevant, if not more so, in the post 9/11 world of the 21st century as it was in the late 18th century when it was written. No single group has a monopoly over religious beliefs and practices. Every individual has the right to exercise freedom over whatever religion he or she chooses to follow. "All religions lead to the same God through different paths" according to the Indian divine and mystic Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa who practiced all religions. No religion can claim to know the absolute truth. The belief of knowing the absolute truth has been the starting point of all religious violence that has been witnessed through the ages, even to the present day. Thinking of one religion's as superior to others and holding prejudices towards other religions has led to riots and religious holocausts. The false notion of thinking of the other religions as antagonistic to others has been the root of religious fundamentalism. Making generalizations about people from a specific religion as evil or moral or superior is a folly. Every religion has its share of adherents who not only fall into extreme shades of black and white but can also be classified within intermediary shades of grey. Devouts and fanatics are in every religion though most people fall in between these two categories. In today's world the stakes are too high for religious bigotry and belligerence. In a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, religious chauvinism can lead to the decimation of all of humanity, no matter what religion they follow. Religious jingoism has to be struck at its roots before the monster devours the whole of humanity. It is also important to remember that religious riots and violence are often triggered by petty and avaricious politicians and leaders for their own vested interests while the gullible public fall prey to such predatory and vicious political marketing of hypocritical and immoral ideals. It is necessary to have a balanced view of religion and not look at other religions with a jaundiced view.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: preternatural writer
The Death of Ivan Ilych
by Leo TolstoyEdition: Paperback
Price: $9.95
Availability: In Stock
38 used & new from $3.74
The hard, bitter and unvarnished truth about senescence, June 19, 2009 The death of Ivan Ilyich is a tour de force in the realm of literature. It is a literary masterpiece. It is written by one of the greatest writers the world has witnessed namely Leo Tolstoy. It is a story written during the relentlessly worldly and materialistic age of Czarist Russia. The story is a flashback of the life of a worldly careerist judge who dies. It is the morbid story of a successful judge who is spiraled downwards into the inescapable jaws of death. The protagonist is hurled into the throes of death in a quick space of time. It shows how difficult it is to acknowledge death for a man who has never ever given the thought of death even a fleeting thought. The book documents the trauma faced by the judge when he comes to terms with his ill fate. Tolstoy is a well renowned authority on the subject of death. Through the agonies of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy portrays death as a terrible irreversible phenomenon, which humans find it difficult to grapple with. The book is a thorough and horrific glimpse into the abyss that is death. The story depicts death also as an unknown mystery that is viewed as an unavoidable and macabre absolute. The story was the culmination of a nine-year spiritual crisis in Tolstoy's life. It reflects Tolstoy's obsession and fear of death and his inability to come to terms with it. The judge is a worldly careerist who is fascinated with his work. His work keeps him engrossed and diverts his mind from distractions and problems in his life. He is endowed with arbitrary power. He has position, prestige and status in his society. He is bestowed with the trappings of power. He is very conscious of his status, power and position in society. He has inclinations toward materialistic and worldly pursuits. He socializes with people of high social stature and does not interact with people whom he deems to be below his status. He had strained relations with his wife but did not divorce her due to fear of negative social reactions. His life is divorced from spirituality. He never prayed to God and never attended churches. He led a life exactly opposite of a simple earthly existence. Suddenly he falls ill and his life is turned upside down. He contracts a fatal disease and is terminally ill for the rest of his days. The disease and his realization of his imminent death brings out the worst in him. The fear and trepidation of death completely devastates him. He loses focus on work. His concentration is ripped apart. His personality is metamorphosed. He starts throwing temper tantrums at his wife and children. He hates the world around him. He thinks his wife and children and friends are not showing genuine affection, empathy and sympathy with him. His pride and ego is hurt. He feels people are lying to him and are deceiving him. He finds only a simple boy called Gerasim comforting and sympathizing with him. He feels only Gerasim understands him. He finally dies. Through this story Tolstoy tries to express a few of his ideas. Tolstoy believes people fear death. Tolstoy feels people can never acknowledge their own death. He also feels people should lead spiritual lives and believe and pray in God. He feels leading simple, spiritual and austere lives would reduce the fear and suffering associated with death. He also feels people think of dying men as liabilities.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: a depressing novel but nevertheless a magnum opus
Candide (Enriched Classics Series)
by VoltaireEdition: Mass Market Paperback
Price: $4.95
Availability: In Stock
54 used & new from $1.62
Tour de Force, June 17, 2009 Candide is a modern classic written in the 18th century by one of the greatest intellectuals that the world has witnessed namely Voltaire. It is a magnum opus in the field of modern literature. It portays the society, economy, culture and polity of Europe, Africa and the New World in the terrible, strife-ridden age of imperialism. It presents a pessimistic, cynical and blunt picture of the chaos, agonizing misery, crippling destitution, unbearable frustration and excruciating torture, suffering and relentless humiliation that poor, weak and ordinary men and women of Europe, Africa and the New World were subjected to when the wantonness, lechery, avarice, hubris and worship of Mammon had deluged the minds of hard-headed individuals of power and wealth. It also gives us an insight into the bitter, conflictual and suspicious relations that existed between whites and blacks, masters and slaves, Christians and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and non-Jews, men and women, Europe and Africa, Europe and the New World, and warfare amongst European neighbors. It reflects the ruthlessness, depravity, maliciousness and wickedness of human nature. It is a satire that vehemently ridicules and attacks the philosophy of optimism, which dogmatically preaches that everything that takes place in this world is ultimately for the good of humanity and the whole world and a person should always have a positive outlook, hope for the best, cultivate conviction in oneself, have faith in the benevolence of the Creator and believe in the intrinsic goodness and compassion of fellow human beings. The satire is exercised through the indefatigable narration of the malevolence and viciousness of human nature. The story revolves around the character and adventures of a quixotic gentleman called Candide, who is the protagonist in the story, and people who come in contact with him. Candide is the nephew of a German baron who is driven out of the royal castle when he is caught red-handed smooching with his cousin, who is of a higher royal descent than him. This begins the saga of misfortunes and dreadful ordeals that Candide suffers in the course of the story. He is incessantly plagued with misery throughout the story but doggedly sticks to the philosophy of his tutor and mentor, Dr. Pangloss, namely optimism. Candide's character and that of most others in the story typify the virtues of optimism, hope, tenacity, perseverance, determination, courage, confidence and strength which enable them to endure the indignity, shame, ignominy, torture, pain, deceit and disappointment that falls upon them and ultimately overcome them. The story captures the age of European imperialism when the New World and Africa were being colonized with brutal and ghastly rapacity. It personifies the rampaging plunder and loot that the maritime European merchants, kings and soldiers were inflicting upon each other and the militarily impotent nations of Africa and the New World. It also gives us a peek at the spiteful relations that existed between whites and blacks. This is exemplified by the derogatory names by which blacks are addressed by whites and attribution of inhuman cruelty and rage only to Africans. It also depicts the lamentable and gruesome treatment meted out to slaves by their masters. It accounts for the prejudice that existed between Christians and Muslims. This is borne out by the cannibalistic traits associated with Muslims in the story. It hints at the mistrust of Jews by the non-Jews. It gives instances of the rift that existed between Catholics and Protestants at that time. It chronicles the innumerable suffering that women bear at the hands of soldiers. The story tirelessly highlights the fact that vice, evil, corruption, greed, lechery and warfare are entrenched in human nature and the world is a nasty place. Notwithstanding the belligerence, carnage and destructiveness epitomized in the story, it portrays the fabled land of riches, joy and happiness in El Dorado. The story paints El Dorado as a mythical place of immense peace and prosperity, something Greek to the real world. This emphasizes the idea that only in one's imagination and dreams places like El Dorado exist. The story ends with a morsel of optimism conveyed through the message of persistent work. It underscores the point that work is the primary objective of human beings in life. The story signifies that despite all the trials and tribulations that humans undergo, work cannot be neglected in any circumstance. The story tells that wealth, happiness, peace and prosperity are extremely volatile in this world. It shows that being optimistic about securing peace, happiness and prosperity yields no dividend until a person works. The story brings to light that optimism is rare and product of a long, arduous process of work. The story symbolizes a vitriolic onslaught on the philosophy of optimism but does not deny its scanty presence. It underlines the point that hard work is the only path to attain a fragment of optimism on the fronts of happiness, peace and prosperity. The story is well written but is not devoid of weaknesses. It gives no history of Europe, Africa and the New World during the 18th century or prior to that. It assumes the reader to know world history. Only a reader with some knowledge of world history can figure out the context. Despite these minor shortcomings the story presents a brutally honest picture of the world. Voltaire's classic is a landmark in the history of philosophy and world history stands as a testament to his philosophy.
Comment Permalink
Love in the Time of Cholera (Vintage International)
by Gabriel Garcia MarquezEdition: Paperback
Price: $10.17
Availability: In Stock
143 used & new from $2.05
A chef d'oeuvre, June 17, 2009 The book `Love in the time of cholera' has been written by the Nobel Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The story has been translated from Spanish by Edith Grossman. The story is written in elegant prose. The style of writing is exquisitely flowery. The fustian language used in the book is reminiscent and typical of Marquez's other works like `One hundred years of solitude' and `Autumn of the patriarch.' This novel is verbose at times. The theme of the story is love. The enduring love affair is based on a fate similar to that which afflicted the author's parents. The philandering, flamboyant and womanizing character of the protagonist in the story is similar to the real life character of the writer. The story is a tale of an unalloyed, undiminished and unyielding love that transcends time, age, life, birth, disease and ultimately death. The protagonist in the story displays relentless determination to win over the woman he loves in spite of odds that would seem insurmountable. Like Marquez's other novels this one too is full of acts of consummation of love. This piece of literature has much less surrealism than his most famous novel that has become synonymous with him namely `One hundred years of solitude.' The story is set deep in the heart of an imaginary Latin American country. The entire story is set against the backdrop of a cholera epidemic that was the scourge of the hapless victims in the late 19th century and early decades of the 20th century in Latin America. Florentino Ariza is a forlorn lover in his youth who tries to woo the girl he has fallen head over heels in love with namely Fermina Daza. He sings ballads, plays waltzes on the accordion and writes a flurry of love letters to the woman he loves and wants to marry. The girl has also fallen for Florentino Ariza. However, there is a twist in the story. The girl's father is vehemently opposed to their marriage and will stoop down to any base level to block their path to marital bliss. He threatens to use physical force on the boy and tries to intimidate him. But the boy won't budge an inch. The girl's father is a pugnacious, unscrupulous and domineering man who marries off his daughter to a wealthy doctor named Juvenal Urbino much to the dismay of Florentino Ariza who is shell shocked and broken and is driven to engage in a promiscuous lifestyle but who still hopes that her husband passes away or divorces her and wistfully yearns to marry his beloved someday. He waits patiently for his time to come. After almost nearly half a century of waiting the opportunity arises when Fermina Daza's husband dies after falling off from a tree. He grabs the chance with both hands and proposes to Fermina Daza when he attends her late husband's funeral. She is outraged at his audacity and impertinence and spurns him away. Notwithstanding her refusal he does not lose heart and tries to win her over by writing a torrent of letters to her. At first she is livid at his indecency and thinks of consigning the letters to the dustbin but eventually her fury subsides and she reads his letters. Contrary to what she thinks the content of the letters have a calming effect on her. They help her to overcome her bereavement and she decides to renew her friendship with her childhood sweetheart. Ultimately Florentino Ariza's patience pays off and Fermina Daza agrees to go on a honeymoon with him in his ship. There is a happy and to some extent even a funny ending that finally they both find solace in coital love at a time when they are very old, withered and in a decrepit state in the twilight of their lives. Marquez has written a masterpiece. The language as mentioned earlier is highly ornate. However, like all of Marquez's novels this one too is a little bit unrealistic. It shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel when in reality there should have been none. The novel's Panglossian ending is beyond the pale of reason.
Comment Permalink
amznJQ.onReady('CustomerPopover', function() {});
Show: Most recent reviews Most recent comments
Page: 1
Julius Caesar
DVD ~ Jeremy Sisto
Price: $12.99
Availability: In Stock
50 used & new from $3.93
A dark brew of untrammelled barbarism and insouciant Rachmanism served boiling hot, June 19, 2009 The movie Caesar concluded a few years ago on TNT. It was a historical film documenting Julius Caesar's life and achievements. Besides Caesar the other key characters in the film are Pompeii, Sala, Cato, Brutus, Cassius, Cleopatra, Carnelia, Julia, Calpania, and Mark Anthony, all of whom played a significant role in Caesar's life. It weaves various stages of Caesar's meteoric rise and fall into a single exciting movie. At the same time the movie gives us an insight into the relationship of the Senate with the dictator of Rome. The strife-ridden Roman society and the paramount importance of a strong military at that time can be underscored. It highlights the threats posed to the Roman Empire from its neighbors and pirates at that time. The movie also dwells upon the intertwining of military and political power in the time of a fluid political situation in Rome and the people's desire for a stable government. It hints at the enormous size of the Roman Empire in Caesar's time. It gives us glimpses into the workings of Roman society as well as its economy and culture. It can be easily inferred that at that time trade was an intrinsic part of Roman economy. It gives us a peek about the status of women and the gullibility of the general populace in Roman society. Most of this historical movie makes the viewer participate in the history of the contemporary epoch by implicitly stating information. The film captures the martial spirit and reckless plunder and conquest of the pre-Christian Roman Empire. The movie underlines the pivotal role of army commanders in Roman society in the times of Julius Caesar and prior to that. At this time Rome was ridden with friction with its neighbors. The pirates often captured Roman ships laden with grain and wealth. Rome in 82 B.C. was subjected to protracted warfare. Rome's boundaries were uncertain and constantly changing. Military generals of foreign countries plundered Rome with impunity and Roman citizens lived in a state of perpetual terror. Rome's wealth was frittered away in extravagant and destructive military purposes. Fratricidal skirmishes were common. Peace had become non-existent in Rome. Wealthy military despots and senators ruled Rome's commoners and slaves. The people were so-called indirectly represented by an elitist and selfish Senate that constantly bickered with the dictator and his armies. In reality the majority of the plebeian citizens had little say in the political process. The movie opens by dwelling on Caesar's many trysts with danger to his life and how he overcame them. In doing so the film brilliantly portrays some of the important traits of Caesar's personality and character. The film starts by showing Caesar being blacklisted in 82 B.C. by the tyrant Sala for aiding his enemies. Nothing about his life before 82 B.C. is told in the film. Julius Caesar was a commoner. He was reverent towards his mother and doting towards his wife Carnelia and daughter Julia. His wife Carnelia had a lot of influence over his actions. Sala blacklisted him as he had sided with his enemies. Despite his humble origins he was proud of his ancestry and claimed to be of divine descent. He was bold, courageous and forthright in his beliefs. The film chronicles these traits of Caesar's personality when Caesar stood his ground firmly even in the face of grave danger. Despite Sala's ultimatum Caesar refused to divorce his wife. With the help of Pompeii, a Roman military general, and the urging of his wife Carnelia, Caesar finally escaped Rome and traveled abroad for many years. By the time Caesar returned, Pompeii had become the head of state. Caesar had bought a slave called Apylonius during his journey in a province of the Roman Empire. The slave was an intellectual who was well read in Greek classics, literature, philosophy and politics. He had bought the slave to teach his daughter Julia. In telling this story the film throws light on Roman economy and society. The overwhelming majority of slaves and their labor was the bulwark of the Roman Empire. This was indubitable, as the tyrants of Rome had conquered many nationalities over a period of time and enslaved their citizens. The slaves were denied citizenship in the Roman Empire. They were denied the rights and privileges granted to the citizens of Rome. They were the workhorses of the Roman Empire. It is upon their backbreaking productive labor, and trade that Rome's military and legislative establishment and plebeian citizens enjoyed a parasitic existence. All necessities and luxuries were initially distributed among the upper crust of Roman society namely the military and political establishments before going to the citizens. Slaves were an indispensable part of the Roman economy. Slaves were intellectuals and some of them were kept in Roman households for educational purposes, thereby playing an important role in the education of its citizens. Women in Rome did not wear veil and attended parties and had social status but were denied access to political and military establishments. It was extremely difficult for the plebeian citizens to enter into politics. Rome's republican tradition and culture bore resemblances to the Greek civilization. It can be inferred that Roman society was highly stratified and the Roman economy epitomized inequality. Upon Caesar's return to Rome he was greeted with misfortune in the family as his wife passed away moments after his arrival. His return would be the harbinger of momentous events in the history of Rome. The film also makes a telling commentary on the political ambitions of Caesar and how he realized them. Caesar understood that winning the support and hearts of the people was the sine qua non of political legitimacy. Caesar used the demise of his wife to win the affection of the people. He juxtaposed feelings of his heart, plainspoken oratory skills and tact to win over the hearts of the plebeian citizens of Rome. He gained access to politics with Pompeii's backing. He exerted his oratory influence on the Senate and persuaded the Senate to unite behind Pompeii and permit Pompeii and his army to launch an onslaught on the pirates who disrupted Roman trade and economy. He used his oratory skills to express his concern for Rome's welfare as well as further his political advancement. Subsequently Pompeii went off on a military mission but before leaving Rome he named Caesar as the stand-in-consul. During this period of Pompeii's long absence in politics Caesar wielded considerable power over matters of the state. Later in the movie Mark Anthony's address to the citizens vindicated Caesar's commitment to the people's welfare during the time he was the stand-in-consul. Caesar commissioned projects for public welfare in this time when he was the stand-in-consul and in doing so, often took decisions without ratification of the Senate. This revealed his independent-minded personality and his scant respect for the Senate. It is in this period that Caesar made many enemies amongst a large section of the Senate, which included influential Senators like Cato and Cassius. In spite of his absolute authority Caesar never flinched in matters of honesty and integrity. He never aggrandized personal wealth from state revenue. In the meantime Caesar had wedded Calpania and Julia had grown into a fine woman. After Pompeii returned to Rome, Caesar arranged a marriage between his daughter Julia and Pompeii, who was smitten with love for Julia, in exchange for a large part of Pompeii's armies. Caesar and Julia shrewdly arranged this compromise to further Caesar's political ambitions of becoming head of state, as he knew that military glory was a passport to becoming dictator. The movie again showed Caesar's single-minded purpose of becoming the head of state and the lengths he would go to achieve his goal. The next part of the movie typifies Caesar's brilliant military strategies. Caesar set out foot abroad to conquer new lands and defend Rome against its hostile enemies and pirates who would play havoc with Rome's peace and prosperity. Caesar proved to be the greatest military commander Rome ever witnessed. He surpassed Pompeii's magnificent generalship. He fought for many years against various peoples like the Gauls and others. This showed his perseverance and tenacity. He stood out as an outstanding and tolerant general. He won wars through strategy when his army was outnumbered by the enemy and received little support from Rome. He conquered many nationalities and enlarged Rome's boundaries more than any dictator had ever done. He defeated belligerent opponents but made peace whenever possible. His share of misfortune increased in this period as his daughter and newborn grandchild passed away. However, he endured his share of tragedy. The movie also portrayed the jealousies, anxieties and fears of Rome's political incumbents when they realized Caesar's successful conquests would culminate in Caesar becoming consul. Around this time Pompeii declared war on Caesar and Cato too adorned military garb to challenge Caesar's claim to consulship. However when they heard Caesar had crossed the Rubicon they refrained from warring with him and instead fled Rome to gain temporary refuge. Caesar got a grand reception from the plebeian citizens of Rome. This part of the film shows Caesar's closeness to the people and political astuteness. He became the head of state but refused the title of consul and preferred to be called Caesar. He knew he derived his power from the people and did not want to distance them from himself. He was the people's democratic dictator as opposed to the tyrants prior to his ascendancy to Rome's supreme seat. The film also depicts Caesar's mercifulness and compassion when he did not blacklist the senators who were rabidly against him becoming dictator. Caesar had brought peace and prosperity to the people of Rome by overwhelming Rome's enemies. He united the people of Rome. Rome was a wealthy Empire at the time of Caesar. There were also extensive education, religious and entertainment institutions created for the plebeian citizens of Rome due to Caesar's administrative and military efforts. However he had unquestioned and absolute authority in matters of state. Caesar had to however settle issues with Pompeii who had fled Rome. Caesar named his lieutenant and second-in-command Mark Anthony as his stand-in replacement for the time he was tracking down Pompeii and fighting against him. Caesar marched again with his armies to fight his rivals. Caesar found Pompeii's camp where Brutus was in charge of a part of Pompeii's army, Caesar's nephew was in charge of Pompeii's camp as Pompeii had left for Egypt unarmed. Caesar spared Pompeii's army commanders and soldiers. The film again showed Caesar's compassionate nature. Another part of Pompeii's armies was with Cato. Caesar asked Brutus to head back to Rome and promote Caesar's image of a benevolent dictator. Caesar marched with his armies to Egypt to meet Pompeii. In the meantime Pompeii was murdered in Egypt. Caesar and his armies were welcomed in Egypt by power-wielding statesmen. Egypt's king had died suddenly around this time and Egypt's political and social situation was in flux. An adolescent boy and girl were jointly made king and queen but seasoned statesmen wielded power and the teenage monarchs were pawns in the sordid game of brinkmanship. This part of the film showcases Caesar as a shrewd statesman with a considerable foresight. Caesar was disappointed to find Pompeii murdered but granted Egypt the status of an independent country in return for monetary tribute to Rome and unwavering loyalty. Caesar intervened in the political instability of Egypt and restored power to the royal authority. Caesar strengthened his political situation and decided to keep power in the family by marrying the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra and begetting a son from her. Before returning to Rome Caesar overwhelmed Cato's armies. Cato had refused to recognize Caesar's dictatorship till the end. Cato could not bear the ignominy of defeat and the humiliation of surrendering to Caesar and to avoid shame committed suicide. The film also showed the cunning and persuasive influence of the Senate on Brutus. By the time Caesar had returned to Rome the Senate had poisoned the ears of Brutus by saying that Caesar was going to convert Rome to a monarchy. Brutus however was not convinced about Caesar's motives and demanded proof. Rumors of Caesar's affair with Cleopatra were rife in Rome and had traumatized Calpania. Calpania did not give Caesar a warm welcome when he returned. She remained his wife but refused to have sexual relations with him. Caesar and Cleopatra received a grand reception from the plebeian citizens of Rome. On this occasion Caesar's and Cleopatra's infant son was revealed. This convinced Brutus that Caesar wanted to keep power in the family. Brutus was an idealist who thought that Caesar was going to violate the tradition and promise of a republic and decided that murdering Caesar would be the only solution to Rome remaining a republic. The last part of the movie shows treachery and betrayal. Brutus decided to take the plunge to murder Caesar. He arrived at a plan to murder Caesar. He told the envious Senators about his plan to murder Caesar next morning where the Senators would form a ring in the Senate and stab Caesar once. Lest the conspiracy failed to materialize or was exposed each of the participants would stab themselves to death. On the next day before Caesar went to the Senate his wife Calpania warned him that she had a premonition about Caesar being slaughtered to death and urged him not to go. However Caesar was persuaded to go to the Senate by Brutus. Calpania's nightmare came true when many senators including Brutus murdered Caesar in the Senate. With the murder of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March the lives of one of the greatest generals and statesmen on earth came to an end. The movie ends with the murder of Caesar. The movie was well made and captured the spirit, culture, economy, society, and politics of Republican Rome in its entire splendor. The actors have acted out their parts well. The setting and direction of the movie resembles the Roman Empire as told and visualized by historians and archaeologists. The costumes worn by the actors capture the fashion prevailing at that time. However, the movie suffers from lack of sufficient information, so vital in a historical movie to viewers who are not familiar to Roman history. Much of the movie expects the viewer to know and infer information. The movie makes no reference to Caesar's background and early life before 82 B.C. The movie tells us nothing about Roman history prior to 82 B.C. No information is given about the origins of the Roman Empire. There is no geographical description in the movie describing the size of the Roman Empire and the nationalities, which it had engulfed within it. The movie does not say anything about the items of trade. The movie also gives scanty information about the enemies of Rome. The movie ends abruptly with the death of Caesar and makes no reference to the history of the Roman Empire after Julius Caesar and also the fact that Caesar became the title for Emperor on Julius Caesar's death. However, despite its shortcomings the movie was enjoyable.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: abject depravity of roman society
Truth, Love and a Little Malice
by Khushwant SinghEdition: Paperback
Price: $19.76
Availability: Not in stock; order now and we'll deliver when available
20 used & new from $11.11
Pulls no punches, June 19, 2009 Truth, Love & a little Malice is an autobiographical account of India's most renowned, prolific and controversial living author and journalist videlicet Khushwant Singh. It is the living legend's swan song written in the twilight of his illustrious career and colorful life. It is a brutally honest memoir documenting his life, experiences, achievements and disappointments from infancy to the present day. It recounts his relationships with his parents, grandmother, school and college friends and friends and acquaintances he later established. It also gives an account of his mixed and checkered experiences with men of importance, influence, power, wealth, intellect and glamour. It also furnishes Khushwant's analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies of acclaimed politicians and intellectuals. It presents Khushwant's own idiosyncrasies, obsessions and phobias. It gives his opinions on caliber of writers. It records his views on secular and religious matters. It also gives us a glance into the frailty and fragility of communal harmony among the gullible, unenlightened masses in times of crises and bigoted propaganda. It also gives us a glimpse into history. It is written in a simple, lucid and unpretentious style. It is written in a style characteristic of Khushwant Singh - amusing, bantering, mocking, critical, candid, bold, poignant and Bohemian styles interwoven into an enjoyable and spellbinding story. The story holds fast the reader's attention and interest until one finishes reading.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: the octagenarian pulls no punches, the venerable grand old journalist of india
Nathan The Wise
by Gotthold Ephraim LessingEdition: Paperback
Price: $11.95
Availability: In Stock
30 used & new from $5.98
Conflict between religion and tolerance: Reality or myth, June 19, 2009 Lessing played a pivotal role in the German Enlightenment. Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise" is as relevant, if not more so, in the post 9/11 world of the 21st century as it was in the late 18th century when it was written. No single group has a monopoly over religious beliefs and practices. Every individual has the right to exercise freedom over whatever religion he or she chooses to follow. "All religions lead to the same God through different paths" according to the Indian divine and mystic Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa who practiced all religions. No religion can claim to know the absolute truth. The belief of knowing the absolute truth has been the starting point of all religious violence that has been witnessed through the ages, even to the present day. Thinking of one religion's as superior to others and holding prejudices towards other religions has led to riots and religious holocausts. The false notion of thinking of the other religions as antagonistic to others has been the root of religious fundamentalism. Making generalizations about people from a specific religion as evil or moral or superior is a folly. Every religion has its share of adherents who not only fall into extreme shades of black and white but can also be classified within intermediary shades of grey. Devouts and fanatics are in every religion though most people fall in between these two categories. In today's world the stakes are too high for religious bigotry and belligerence. In a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, religious chauvinism can lead to the decimation of all of humanity, no matter what religion they follow. Religious jingoism has to be struck at its roots before the monster devours the whole of humanity. It is also important to remember that religious riots and violence are often triggered by petty and avaricious politicians and leaders for their own vested interests while the gullible public fall prey to such predatory and vicious political marketing of hypocritical and immoral ideals. It is necessary to have a balanced view of religion and not look at other religions with a jaundiced view.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: preternatural writer
The Death of Ivan Ilych
by Leo TolstoyEdition: Paperback
Price: $9.95
Availability: In Stock
38 used & new from $3.74
The hard, bitter and unvarnished truth about senescence, June 19, 2009 The death of Ivan Ilyich is a tour de force in the realm of literature. It is a literary masterpiece. It is written by one of the greatest writers the world has witnessed namely Leo Tolstoy. It is a story written during the relentlessly worldly and materialistic age of Czarist Russia. The story is a flashback of the life of a worldly careerist judge who dies. It is the morbid story of a successful judge who is spiraled downwards into the inescapable jaws of death. The protagonist is hurled into the throes of death in a quick space of time. It shows how difficult it is to acknowledge death for a man who has never ever given the thought of death even a fleeting thought. The book documents the trauma faced by the judge when he comes to terms with his ill fate. Tolstoy is a well renowned authority on the subject of death. Through the agonies of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy portrays death as a terrible irreversible phenomenon, which humans find it difficult to grapple with. The book is a thorough and horrific glimpse into the abyss that is death. The story depicts death also as an unknown mystery that is viewed as an unavoidable and macabre absolute. The story was the culmination of a nine-year spiritual crisis in Tolstoy's life. It reflects Tolstoy's obsession and fear of death and his inability to come to terms with it. The judge is a worldly careerist who is fascinated with his work. His work keeps him engrossed and diverts his mind from distractions and problems in his life. He is endowed with arbitrary power. He has position, prestige and status in his society. He is bestowed with the trappings of power. He is very conscious of his status, power and position in society. He has inclinations toward materialistic and worldly pursuits. He socializes with people of high social stature and does not interact with people whom he deems to be below his status. He had strained relations with his wife but did not divorce her due to fear of negative social reactions. His life is divorced from spirituality. He never prayed to God and never attended churches. He led a life exactly opposite of a simple earthly existence. Suddenly he falls ill and his life is turned upside down. He contracts a fatal disease and is terminally ill for the rest of his days. The disease and his realization of his imminent death brings out the worst in him. The fear and trepidation of death completely devastates him. He loses focus on work. His concentration is ripped apart. His personality is metamorphosed. He starts throwing temper tantrums at his wife and children. He hates the world around him. He thinks his wife and children and friends are not showing genuine affection, empathy and sympathy with him. His pride and ego is hurt. He feels people are lying to him and are deceiving him. He finds only a simple boy called Gerasim comforting and sympathizing with him. He feels only Gerasim understands him. He finally dies. Through this story Tolstoy tries to express a few of his ideas. Tolstoy believes people fear death. Tolstoy feels people can never acknowledge their own death. He also feels people should lead spiritual lives and believe and pray in God. He feels leading simple, spiritual and austere lives would reduce the fear and suffering associated with death. He also feels people think of dying men as liabilities.
Comment Permalink
Reviewer's Tags: a depressing novel but nevertheless a magnum opus
Candide (Enriched Classics Series)
by VoltaireEdition: Mass Market Paperback
Price: $4.95
Availability: In Stock
54 used & new from $1.62
Tour de Force, June 17, 2009 Candide is a modern classic written in the 18th century by one of the greatest intellectuals that the world has witnessed namely Voltaire. It is a magnum opus in the field of modern literature. It portays the society, economy, culture and polity of Europe, Africa and the New World in the terrible, strife-ridden age of imperialism. It presents a pessimistic, cynical and blunt picture of the chaos, agonizing misery, crippling destitution, unbearable frustration and excruciating torture, suffering and relentless humiliation that poor, weak and ordinary men and women of Europe, Africa and the New World were subjected to when the wantonness, lechery, avarice, hubris and worship of Mammon had deluged the minds of hard-headed individuals of power and wealth. It also gives us an insight into the bitter, conflictual and suspicious relations that existed between whites and blacks, masters and slaves, Christians and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and non-Jews, men and women, Europe and Africa, Europe and the New World, and warfare amongst European neighbors. It reflects the ruthlessness, depravity, maliciousness and wickedness of human nature. It is a satire that vehemently ridicules and attacks the philosophy of optimism, which dogmatically preaches that everything that takes place in this world is ultimately for the good of humanity and the whole world and a person should always have a positive outlook, hope for the best, cultivate conviction in oneself, have faith in the benevolence of the Creator and believe in the intrinsic goodness and compassion of fellow human beings. The satire is exercised through the indefatigable narration of the malevolence and viciousness of human nature. The story revolves around the character and adventures of a quixotic gentleman called Candide, who is the protagonist in the story, and people who come in contact with him. Candide is the nephew of a German baron who is driven out of the royal castle when he is caught red-handed smooching with his cousin, who is of a higher royal descent than him. This begins the saga of misfortunes and dreadful ordeals that Candide suffers in the course of the story. He is incessantly plagued with misery throughout the story but doggedly sticks to the philosophy of his tutor and mentor, Dr. Pangloss, namely optimism. Candide's character and that of most others in the story typify the virtues of optimism, hope, tenacity, perseverance, determination, courage, confidence and strength which enable them to endure the indignity, shame, ignominy, torture, pain, deceit and disappointment that falls upon them and ultimately overcome them. The story captures the age of European imperialism when the New World and Africa were being colonized with brutal and ghastly rapacity. It personifies the rampaging plunder and loot that the maritime European merchants, kings and soldiers were inflicting upon each other and the militarily impotent nations of Africa and the New World. It also gives us a peek at the spiteful relations that existed between whites and blacks. This is exemplified by the derogatory names by which blacks are addressed by whites and attribution of inhuman cruelty and rage only to Africans. It also depicts the lamentable and gruesome treatment meted out to slaves by their masters. It accounts for the prejudice that existed between Christians and Muslims. This is borne out by the cannibalistic traits associated with Muslims in the story. It hints at the mistrust of Jews by the non-Jews. It gives instances of the rift that existed between Catholics and Protestants at that time. It chronicles the innumerable suffering that women bear at the hands of soldiers. The story tirelessly highlights the fact that vice, evil, corruption, greed, lechery and warfare are entrenched in human nature and the world is a nasty place. Notwithstanding the belligerence, carnage and destructiveness epitomized in the story, it portrays the fabled land of riches, joy and happiness in El Dorado. The story paints El Dorado as a mythical place of immense peace and prosperity, something Greek to the real world. This emphasizes the idea that only in one's imagination and dreams places like El Dorado exist. The story ends with a morsel of optimism conveyed through the message of persistent work. It underscores the point that work is the primary objective of human beings in life. The story signifies that despite all the trials and tribulations that humans undergo, work cannot be neglected in any circumstance. The story tells that wealth, happiness, peace and prosperity are extremely volatile in this world. It shows that being optimistic about securing peace, happiness and prosperity yields no dividend until a person works. The story brings to light that optimism is rare and product of a long, arduous process of work. The story symbolizes a vitriolic onslaught on the philosophy of optimism but does not deny its scanty presence. It underlines the point that hard work is the only path to attain a fragment of optimism on the fronts of happiness, peace and prosperity. The story is well written but is not devoid of weaknesses. It gives no history of Europe, Africa and the New World during the 18th century or prior to that. It assumes the reader to know world history. Only a reader with some knowledge of world history can figure out the context. Despite these minor shortcomings the story presents a brutally honest picture of the world. Voltaire's classic is a landmark in the history of philosophy and world history stands as a testament to his philosophy.
Comment Permalink
Love in the Time of Cholera (Vintage International)
by Gabriel Garcia MarquezEdition: Paperback
Price: $10.17
Availability: In Stock
143 used & new from $2.05
A chef d'oeuvre, June 17, 2009 The book `Love in the time of cholera' has been written by the Nobel Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The story has been translated from Spanish by Edith Grossman. The story is written in elegant prose. The style of writing is exquisitely flowery. The fustian language used in the book is reminiscent and typical of Marquez's other works like `One hundred years of solitude' and `Autumn of the patriarch.' This novel is verbose at times. The theme of the story is love. The enduring love affair is based on a fate similar to that which afflicted the author's parents. The philandering, flamboyant and womanizing character of the protagonist in the story is similar to the real life character of the writer. The story is a tale of an unalloyed, undiminished and unyielding love that transcends time, age, life, birth, disease and ultimately death. The protagonist in the story displays relentless determination to win over the woman he loves in spite of odds that would seem insurmountable. Like Marquez's other novels this one too is full of acts of consummation of love. This piece of literature has much less surrealism than his most famous novel that has become synonymous with him namely `One hundred years of solitude.' The story is set deep in the heart of an imaginary Latin American country. The entire story is set against the backdrop of a cholera epidemic that was the scourge of the hapless victims in the late 19th century and early decades of the 20th century in Latin America. Florentino Ariza is a forlorn lover in his youth who tries to woo the girl he has fallen head over heels in love with namely Fermina Daza. He sings ballads, plays waltzes on the accordion and writes a flurry of love letters to the woman he loves and wants to marry. The girl has also fallen for Florentino Ariza. However, there is a twist in the story. The girl's father is vehemently opposed to their marriage and will stoop down to any base level to block their path to marital bliss. He threatens to use physical force on the boy and tries to intimidate him. But the boy won't budge an inch. The girl's father is a pugnacious, unscrupulous and domineering man who marries off his daughter to a wealthy doctor named Juvenal Urbino much to the dismay of Florentino Ariza who is shell shocked and broken and is driven to engage in a promiscuous lifestyle but who still hopes that her husband passes away or divorces her and wistfully yearns to marry his beloved someday. He waits patiently for his time to come. After almost nearly half a century of waiting the opportunity arises when Fermina Daza's husband dies after falling off from a tree. He grabs the chance with both hands and proposes to Fermina Daza when he attends her late husband's funeral. She is outraged at his audacity and impertinence and spurns him away. Notwithstanding her refusal he does not lose heart and tries to win her over by writing a torrent of letters to her. At first she is livid at his indecency and thinks of consigning the letters to the dustbin but eventually her fury subsides and she reads his letters. Contrary to what she thinks the content of the letters have a calming effect on her. They help her to overcome her bereavement and she decides to renew her friendship with her childhood sweetheart. Ultimately Florentino Ariza's patience pays off and Fermina Daza agrees to go on a honeymoon with him in his ship. There is a happy and to some extent even a funny ending that finally they both find solace in coital love at a time when they are very old, withered and in a decrepit state in the twilight of their lives. Marquez has written a masterpiece. The language as mentioned earlier is highly ornate. However, like all of Marquez's novels this one too is a little bit unrealistic. It shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel when in reality there should have been none. The novel's Panglossian ending is beyond the pale of reason.
Comment Permalink
amznJQ.onReady('CustomerPopover', function() {});
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
