Sea of Poppies Part-II

it is not not that India has forgotten its history, its a question of priorities. There is enough knowledge, and there are enough number of people who remember and this is sufficient for the time being. In a life cycle of a nation and its peoples, there comes a time when economic survival is important, culture, history, arts etc take a back seat. Industry, work, innovation etc become a primary focus. In this struggle, it is natural for some curious people to get flustered over the lack of historical knowledge. More interestingly, history can be an unncessary baggage in the quest for advancement - why fester with old injuries. Till such time we are confortable with history.

Anyway the Sea of Poppies has had a good review here in the UK. For example The Times reviwer had this to say in his review
britain as the Biggest drug pusher in the world: "THE BRITISH VERSION of history glosses over the time when this country was the world's biggest drug pusher. Afghanistan now produces the poppies to supply Europe's heroin. But two centuries ago it was British fortune seekers in India who turned the banks of the Ganges into a sea of poppies and tried to force refined opium on the reluctant Chinese."

The fertile farms of the Ganges plain are blooming only with poppies - beautiful, deadly, denying the peasants the crops to sustain them and indebting them to moneylenders and landowners, themselves indebted to the buccaneers of the East India Company. Skilfully and seemingly randomly
These two quotes taken from http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/fiction/ article4080024.ece

the Guardian also says something similar, but draws parallels with Walter Scott's Waverley. In as much as this novel is a Semi-historical, hence the story in the book is just half the story. In fact Amitava Ghosh seems to have taken Scott's style to heart - In an Antique Land is very much similar. This book (a proposed trilogy) is a larger version of In An Antique Land. The canvas is larger, though the period is smaller(my take) But the Guardian Review shys away from the historical review - as if the reviewer does nto want to know the bad side of the colonial history. (you can go here for it: http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,,2284351,00.html )

But for shear audacity of ignorance, and the most banal critique you should read the review in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11402597). Completely ignores the historical setting, and then complains "The only flaw in “Sea of Poppies� is that as the introduction to the trilogy it ends rather abruptly. The readers who have been hooked by the adventures of the jahaj-bhais will have to wait until 2010, when the second instalment is due to be published, to meet them once more." But I guess this must be taken as par for the course, after all The Economist is a free trader, and morality is not something it cares much for.