Vijay Tendulkar: A Voice Against Misogyny

#66
Anil,
I am sorry yaar, but we will continue this discussion once I get back in town. OK??
----------------


#67 & 69
Chittagong,

I agree with you.
Vijay was the greatest among Sub-continent's playwrights in 20th century. I pity myself for not meeting him once in my life. :(
Anyway. Thanks for posting.

Even I do not know who I am�, says Rajaninath, a character in “Giddh�, a controversial play written by Vijay Tendulkar, who died on May 19 at the age of 80. Through his characters like Rajaninath, he questioned middle class intellectuals and asked them to discover their own identity in a world afflicted with economic and social chaos. Most of his plays removed the mask from the face of the Indian middle class and their conventional society and exposed the inhuman face of a society dominated by feudal chiefs and the priestly class.

From a little known Marathi journalist, he rose to become India’s foremost playwright. He was a rebel with a cause. In his denunciation, he was ruthless, using strong language and invectives to reveal feudal arrogance and the bourgeois angst.

When “Giddh� was first staged in 1972 in Mumbai under the direction of Shreeram Lagoo, it created a storm of protest leading to its censorship and was banned. Ultimately, the matter went to a court of law. When 15 years later the Hindi version of “Giddh� under the direction of the late B.M. Shah was presented by post-graduate students of the National School of Drama, the audience was shocked to hear such crude language on the stage for the first time.

Dramatic insight


Endowed with dramatic insight and a keen observation of the society and human nature, his plays were replete with violence and street language that captured the ambience of the characters they belonged to. In the course of his illustrious creative career, Tendulkar penned nearly 40 plays which became milestones not only in Marathi theatre but in contemporary Indian dramaturgy. Undaunted by violent protests, he wrote “Ghasiram Kotwal� in 1973. The conservative elements of Maharashtrian Brahmins vehemently opposed it, denouncing the play as an attempt to tarnish the image of Nana Phadnavis and India. When the play, a folk opera, was taken to Europe, it dazzled the audience there, winning rave reviews. Directed by Jabbar Patel with Mohan Agashe in the title role, the play depicted a society of political intrigues, moral decay and degeneration of Brahmins. With music direction by Bhaskar Chandavarkar, the play was also a rare artistic blend of folk and contemporary theatrical innovation. Through this play Indian theatre was finally placed on the international map.

“Ghasiram Kotwal� is now being staged in almost all Indian languages by eminent theatre directors in a variety of styles. Among his other plays are “Shantata! Court Chalu Ahe� that deals with the intricate relationship between art and life and “Sakharam Binder� which reveals the life of a deviant and his relationship with women deserted by their husbands whom he picks up from the street. Though “Shantata! Court Chalu Ahe� is inspired by European playwrights like Luigi Pirandello, Tendulkar depicts the Indian ethos and characters rooted to Indian soil.

Tendulkar was anguished over the dearth of original plays in India worthy of staging. He wanted NSD and Sahitya Akademi to collaborate to encourage young Indian playwrights. He was also concerned about the current scenario of contemporary Indian theatre.

Speaking at a national seminar on the state of Indian drama organised by the Sahitya Akademi in 2000, he said: “It is true that there was a brief period in the Indian theatre in the ’60s which produced some excitement. (Girish) Karnad, (Badal) Sarkar, (Mohan) Rakesh and myself wrote a few plays and Ratan Thiyam, K.N. Panikkar, Jabbar Patel and a few directors knew their approach and execution. It was felt that an Indian theatre in the real sense is taking shape, but that period is now history.� He wanted freshness and dynamism essential to the growth of Indian theatre but he felt that this kind of drive is missing today.

Born on January 7, 1928, he was a versatile writer, who wrote plays for children, essays, newspaper columns and short stories. He was awarded by SNA for his contribution in enriching Indian theatre as a playwright in 1970. He was also honoured with the Padma Bhushan in 1984.

His contribution as a screenplay and dialogue writer is immense as he wrote for eight Marathi films and nine Hindi films. His screenplay for films like “Nishant� and “Manthan�, directed by Shyam Benegal, were a rare treat.

He will always be remembered as a playwright who created immortal characters, realistic plots and a new theatre language. A trendsetter in folk opera, he gave a new dimension to the characterisation of the marginalised and the oppressed. He has left a rich legacy for Indian theatre practitioners.


GIRISH KARNAD


Vijay Tendulkar was the greatest playwright of the 20th Century in India. No one else wrote so many plays of such intensity and quality. He revealed the pain and trauma of the middle class like no one else has. He was more generous than I could be to youngsters. They owe him a lot. He made them feel that their plays were important.

SATYADEV DUBEY


I once asked Vijay Tendulkar what he was thinking of. He said in Marathi, `I just want to understand how the world works.' That's why he was a major playwright. He knew how to put profound thoughts simply. He seldom watched his own plays, but he gave us so many insights.He could listen to other people for hours on end.

AMAL ALLANA

The last time I met him was in Pune, about a year ago. I knew his health was not good and I knew about the tragedies in his family. But I was taken with his calmness. He was an aloof man, but in that aloofness he had a stature. His critical stance was his most important contribution.

RAM GOPAL BAJAJ


Vijay Tendulkar should not be known as a Marathi playwright. He should be known as a major Indian playwright. He took stands as a citizen and in his writing. He was soft spoken yet firm and always rational. He had a light on his face that came from a man who lived with his conscience. He encouraged us all to take stands. He was a man of great stature and credibility. He understood the sufferings of others.

ARVIND GAUR


Tendulkar ji's plays like "Sakharam Binder", "Ghashiram Kotwal" and "Silence! The Court is in Session," changed the Indian theatre scenario. There were controversies about his themes and language. But what he did for content was remarkable. In his plays, directors have to exceed their own imagination.

Sakharam Binder was performed in English in New York for a long time. Here is a review from New York Times.

Sakharam Binder thinks he has the system by the tail. That system is the de facto enslavement of women in postcolonial India, despite the promises of democracy and modernity. Sakharam, a bookbinder, picks up other men's discarded women -- castoff wives who would otherwise be homeless, destitute or murdered with impunity -- and takes them in as domestic servants and sex partners.

He rules his home like a tin-pot tyrant, yet each woman is told that she is free to leave whenever she likes. He will even give her a sari, 50 rupees and a ticket to wherever she wants to go. ''Everything good and proper, where Sakharam Binder is concerned,'' he says. ''He's no husband to forget common decency.'' What he doesn't anticipate are the moral and emotional complications of this arrangement, which prove heartbreakingly ruinous to everyone involved.

Banned in India after its 1974 premiere, ''Sakharam Binder'' is the most famous and influential drama by Vijay Tendulkar, India's foremost living playwright. The wonderfully clear and superbly acted production by the Play Company of this excruciating yet absorbing work is the culmination of the monthlong Tendulkar Festival sponsored by the Indo-American Arts Council. (The festival has included readings, workshops, public discussions and film screenings.)

Mr. Tendulkar, 76, has often been embroiled in controversies during his 40 years as a prominent playwright, screenwriter and essayist. Last year, effigies of him were burned in six cities after he spoke out against Narendra Modi, the Hindu chief minister of Gujarat state, where anti-Muslim riots killed more than 2,000 people in 2002. Despite his reputation as a fearless social critic, his plays are not polemical. They are based on merciless character observation and could be described as hypernaturalistic, though some employ nonrealistic conventions.

''Sakharam Binder,'' directed by Maria Mileaf, tells the story of Sakharam's seventh and eighth ''birds'' (as his envious friend Dawood calls Sakharam's women). Laxmi (Anna George) is shy, submissive and pious, whereas Champa (Sarita Choudhury), her successor, is brash, voluptuous and spoiled. Their very different reactions to Sakharam's lordly manner and modest circumstances are sharply and poignantly delineated by Ms. George and Ms. Choudhury.

Ms. George projects a steely and oddly moving brittleness as she putters around Sakharam's cramped house, which has no modern amenities and only a single, thin rollup mat for sleeping. Ms. Choudhury radiates a proud, willful acuity that reads as desperate indignation as Champa shirks, malingers and turns to alcohol to blunt her disgust at Sakharam's sexual demands.

No one comes off as wholly innocent here. Even the victims prove capable of selfishness and self-deception when their survival is on the line. The play's main conflict is set in motion when Laxmi returns after Sakharam sent her packing, and convinces Champa to let her stay.

It's not the plot, however, but the depth and the subtlety of Bernard White's portrayal of Sakharam that injects variety, surprise and fascination into this almost three-hour play. Mr. White vividly captures the strange and complex pathology of Sakharam, who seems to want to please his ''birds'' even as he bullies them and who speaks like a freethinking crusader for women's rights one minute and like an philistine scornful of their devotion to him the next.

Sakharam's tragedy turns out to hinge on his budding social consciousness, his arrested enlightenment. He can see -- almost -- an idea of equality and shared humanity that transcends individual appetite, but nothing in his life (including the women) ever encourages him to follow its logic. Like Brecht's Mother Courage, he exploits a corrupt system for personal advantage, then discovers that the price of playing the game is everything he hoped to protect. Unlike Brecht, though, Mr. Tendulkar never judges his protagonist but concentrates instead on painting him with unsettling compassion, perceptiveness and thoroughness. His play deserves to be much better known in the United States than it is.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=&tols_ti tle=Sakharam%20Binder%20(Play)&pdate=20041103&byline=Jonathan%20Kalb& ; ;id=1098953824821

Vjay Tendulkar was a great writer. Check out some of his plays in the original Marathi language. Shantata Court Chaalu Aahe, Kanyadaan, Sakharam Binder, Ghashiram Kotwal, Gidhade are masterpieces.



Girish Karnad on Vijay Tendulkar in Outlook, May 29, 2008

Marathi is the only Indian language today which has a viable urban theatre, managed by and for the educated middle classes. Right from the early 1930s, alongside the commercial natak mandalis which specialised in song-and-spectacle melodramas, playwrights like Mama Varerkar, M.G. Rangnekar and Acharya Atre devoted themselves to creating a 'parallel theatre', with tasteful and socially engaged plays, aimed at the elite.

Vijay Tendulkar, who died on May 19 at the age of 80, was a product of this tradition, but managed to lead it in a wholly different direction. He created a new language for the stage, rejected the sentimental and self-regarding complacence of his predecessors, and explored middle-class problems with an honesty and depth that often scared the audiences away. He wrote over 30 plays, some inevitably indifferent, but a few—like Shantata! Court Chaloo Aahe (Silence! The Court is in Session), which brought him national recognition in 1969—so powerful and original that they have ensured his place as the greatest Indian playwright of the 20th century.

When Ghashiram Kotwal first competed for the Maharashtra state awards, its innovative combination of music, choreography and analytical design so baffled the judges that they couldn't decide whether it was legitimate theatre. Half a century later, it stands unexcelled for the sheer brilliance of its artistry. Anyone who has ever been involved in such an enterprise knows the amount of preliminary discussion, rewriting and revision that such a complex work demands. But amazingly, Ghashiram Kotwal arrived readymade and complete. The production followed the text exactly, playing every detail as Tendulkar wrote it—a tribute to the precision of Tendulkar's conceptualising.

What makes the play so unique is also its prophetic quality. The plot concerns Nana Phadnavis, the 18th-century ruler of Pune, who tries to create a puppet for his own little games, only to realise that he has given birth to a monster who may swallow him up. The play predicted, with terrifying accuracy, the Indira Gandhi-Sant Bhindranwale dance of death, 11 years in advance of the events. The Shiv Sena, claiming the play vilified a Maratha hero, tried to stop it from being sent abroad. But it was smuggled out with the help of the CM, Sharad Pawar, and went on to win global acclaim.

Then came Sakharam Binder. It's not only Tendulkar's best play, but one of the masterpieces of Indian drama. When first performed, several political parties united to demand a ban on the play, and it had to be rescued by the courts. Its critics claimed to be scandalised by its overt sexuality. But one suspects that Tendulkar had once again hit a raw nerve, the basic middle-class hunger for property as a guarantee of security, and the ruthlessness this hunger could unleash. Lakshmi, a perfect embodiment of Hindu womanly virtues, manoeuvres a murder to keep the roof intact over her head, invulnerable in her sense of moral rectitude.

Tendulkar was a journalist by profession and was also known for his scripts for films like Nishant, Manthan, Ardha Satya and Aakrosh. In his last 20 years, he authored two novels, which were received in embarrassed silence, but wrote no new plays. He was buffeted by a series of domestic tragedies—his son died, then there was the traumatising loss of his daughter, Priya, whom he regarded as his creative heir, and finally the lingering death of his wife.

During his tumultuous life in the theatre, Tendulkar was always associated with the adventurous young. Vijaya Mehta at the very beginning of her career, Arvind and Sulabha Deshpande when they started their own group, the Progressive Dramatic Association, Shreeram Lagoo, Satyadev Dubey, Jabbar Patel, Kamlakar Sarang—one can go on.Even during his last few months in the hospital, the volunteers who attended on him would have made the who's who of today's young Marathi theatre. They had all drawn upon his hospitality and warmth, his almost legendary ability to 'listen' to people for hours and give counsel.

When he discovered that there was no hope of his recovering from his final illness, he decided he would rather die. As actor Mohan Agashe emphasises, "It was not a sign of depression. As always with him, it was a rational decision." Satish Alekar notes Tendulkar wasn't a popular playwright. "But," notes the protege and director of the Lalit Kala Kendra, "his plays have been widely translated and staged. They have influenced the theatre in all Indian languages. He was the backbone of the movement that has shaped the sensibility of Indian drama during the last couple

Re: # 58

Bittersweetmojo:

I have attempted a point wise response.

1. "I have a feeling that you are not sticking to my premeses when you address me. For instance, I made up an example to postulate a moral question, which is driven from economic benefits to big companies."

I am sorry, but I was not trying to avoid it. Bigger companies were smaller at one time, especially in technology field with which I have been associated. My knowledge and experience relates to these. For large companies let us take examples of auto-industry. As I see there is a need to have new Big 3. This industry has rotted and has not innovated. Now their markets are shifting to developing economies like China, India, Brazil and Russia who would want manufacturing jobs in their countries. Markets do come up with tectonic shifts. We would see it in auto-industry.

In technology, IBM once ruled the way in personal computing, everyone demanded IBM PC compatibility. It is no more in personal computing business now. Numero Uno spot has been like musical chair. This industry is driven by relentlessly obsolescing its own products, before competition does it in. Those who followed thrived. Bill Gates of Microsoft is on the record to say that Internet will be dead, only a year later Microsoft put together one of the most aggressive programs to reinvent itself to remain number one. There is no guarantee it will remain so. No one can that it has been the case in automobile industry,where job security has been paramount. Even though jobs in this industry have declined not increased as they have in technology. I can go on further; but I am able to conclude large and small are relative to markets. This is a different perspective than Marxist, that in those markets which are vibrant and dynamic all benefit, because these markets distribute the wealth and profits better than any other system.


2. “Why not? I say why can't we avoid this pressure. I know you will quote me examples from history. Well, I would say the human race is potent enough mentally to act fair with rationality, at least NOW. “

Now that you have mentioned I would not quote from the history, as basis of your statement reflects that you are aware of historical events. This pressure is not always bad. In fact it is bad only in fewer circumstances where “pressureds� refuse to change. Most cases such pressures improve and make them better.

I am certain Masadi to you to Hamidm would agree that the pressure that arrival of Islam brought to Indian subcontinent was healthy and good.

I do believe survival of the fittest is a rule that has a very long life left to it. It brings natural selection and ensures evolution. It is problem for only those who think regressively. Nature has bestowed a huge advantage to the fittest. Once can have a fight with nature, if any one prefers.

3. “I always stick to basics, Anil. Because I think that humans are not born or inherently evil or selfish.�

I too believe in the above, however being the fittest does not always means evil or selfish. That is why I questioned “Elitism� of Masadi.

4. “ And suppose if there is as it may have taken roots in some of us in the process of history, why can't we change it, keeping in mind the so-called advancement of knowledge and stuff?�

Change is something that does not stop. Those who slow down, they too sooner or later change and evolve or simply become extinct.


5. “I have serious reservations. And they are not because I like Jinnah and hate Gandhi. The fact is I don't like both of them.�

I have stated my views on these two personalities. Jinnah is an abandoned Indian Hero, while non-violence as a force to change the rules of engagement for the less powerful is more potent than Gandhi.

My point was about some Palestinian who could do the same. Throwing those rockets before, during or after overwhelming might is simply fool hardy. Those who want to maintain the status quo would prefer it.

Palestinians want change, only they must change rules of engagement. Their constraint is that they do not have more potent weapons yet want to push Israel into the ocean. You may not but I do see contradiction in it.


6. “But I think Palestinians did produce somebody called Arafat, who was secular and progressive. But what happened? Did Israel stop its atrocities?�

I can answer what happened, Palestinian simply did not sustain long enough for the world to see. Gandhi failed miserably with is non-violence as a weapon many times, before making it successful. So was Martin Luther King. This rocket throwing provocation, according to me, is suicidal. It assures continued defeat not success. As long as Palestinians cannot throw Israelis into an ocean, Israel will remain a reality. Palestinians need to come to terms with this reality. Just as according to me the reality for India has been such that it cannot send planes or troops over the border to neutralize those who attacked Mumbai. A sense is prevailing, and I am happy that Indians are not behaving like Palestinians or Israelis.

7. “NO. Because, nobody in Israel and the US is willing to listen. “

Do you think any one was listening to India / Gandhi-Jinnah for almost 40 years? No one was, and that should not make people violent, when non-violence can be more effective due incomparable strengths.

Initially the U.S. was not listening to Civil Rights movements, and laws as late as 1950s that banned inter-racial marriage. It was almost shamed into listening and soon there would be an African American president.

8. “This is exactly like saying, if I have the switch to turn off power supply in New York, should I do it or not?�

Yes indeed. You and I may agree to disagree on which response is right and when.

I hate to use the word “exploitation�, but resources have constantly been exploited, and would be in the future. The model in my mind is that similar exploitation and ensuing trade has existed from the day when one hunter gathered more than he could use, and the other could not.

The important question is whether there is a benefit to both producer and consumer, if it is beneficial, then trade will continue to build, unless need dies.

There is a transfer of wealth, $600 billion a year from the U.S. alone, to the Middle East. Governance there, need attention and not destruction, which people seem to be doing there.

9. “And yes, this technology edge does not give anybody the moral authority to use others resources.�

We need to define “moral authority� first. The definition too changes over a period of time. There was a period when slavery was accepted norm, not today.

10. “Agreed. But expalin to me, who are these 'people living on Earth' you are talking about? Are they the big chiefs? OR ordinary people.�

There is a sense of manifest destiny that we cannot deny, however harsh it may look. It is a reality, it was a reality when Islam arrived in the subcontinent also. Bin Qasim justified it using some moral authority, European settlers in North America justified it too.

To me, manifest destiny provides a right to someone who can use the resource. This right needs to be negotiated to share benefits with those who are conservator or provider of resources. It is called contract, Islam was among the first to institutionalize. Who determines what is equity and what is equitable? Ofcourse, Europeans in America have abysmal record, and depending upon who you ask, Islam in India has patchy record.

There is an order that allows benefits to reach into nation-states involved in trade. How it is handled or distributed inside is left to the managers of the nation-state. This does create exploitative situation, and hence there is constant struggle and indeed violence, to redress.

Larger markets have unfair advantage. That is why China gave trillion dollars to America and not a penny to Pakistan. This is reality. This “unfair advantage� is used to create competitive advantage also. China is a great example. It is wrong to look at it as being fair or unfair, instead use it as a “unfair advantage over competition�. Market forces cannot stop it. That is why entrepreneurs have “unfair advantage over competition� from job seekers. I have expressed it all the time, and people must derive benefits from these unfair advantages. There are certain commodities, where African countries have unfair advantages, they need to control their manifest destiny. OPEC did it.


11. "Exactly. That's why I say that we can make this world a better place.�

Yes, it will create more equitable distribution of profits and jobs. That is why I find old ideologies, like Marxism to be left alone in the heap of time.

Big kahuna must not be dreaded, ability to find his weakness to attack and win is more important. Big Chiefs are fallible Big Time.

12. “Anil, this world can only be changed by radical movements - not like Al Qaeda, but like Che's and Bhagat's. “

This is a separate discussion. Let us have it when you write another thought provoking essay.

#57
Qibla,

This time around nobody beat Masadi but himself. Just check out his posts in response to some guy nicked 'BSM' on this site, and see for yourself how Masadi has embarassed himself in front of us all.

Besides, I request you to take him downtown and get him admitted to the best school available in 1st grade. I will pay all his expenses, I swear!

Qibla, I know how difficult it is for you and me to see such a 'bright' mind wasting himself in the dark slumbers of his existence. And I also know it's a big favour I am asking for. But since you are a kind man, I am sure you won't disappoint me.

After all, what are rich people for, if not to help the needy, right? :P

Thank you.

#59 to 62,

Masadi, you are right. Bas, ab khush!

#63
Anil,

Forget him! Haan tu hum kya baat kar rahey thay, Anil! :)

Shriman Masadi Mian ji:

Thodi akkal borrow kar lein tou shayad apke samajh mein aane lage. Sawal yeh hai, aapko akkal dega kaun. After all you went to buckle of bible belt college, that you are too ashamed to name.

BS writes "On the other hand, Jinnah never promoted or advocated non-violence. He was a pretty cool guy, no?"

No, he was a pathetic wannabe moron and a mass murderer, a colonial lackey who got too big for his boots. You are no independent thinker, you are entrapped by your high school text books and Manto....

Have a nice day,

TNITC masadi

....and don't spend the whole day on Chowk, your already fried brain will get deep fried....just look at tahmed what 18 hours daily on Chowk has done to him......and his sidekick hamidm...where is he? did the destiny that is soon going to affect Kulharee enveloped him already? Probably so....

Have a nice day and get an education,

TNITC masadi

BS writes to Anil "Why not? I say why can't we avoid this pressure"

Make up your mind mian, like I said you are a walking talking contradiction, either it is social determinism which you were supporting while discussing religion or it is agency which you now support and claim for yourself. Make up your goddamned mind....

Have a nice day and take it easy...get a brain and some morals,

TNITC masadi

Anil writes "A famous general said after the American Civil War that if Americans have thought of the destruction and consequences, they would have sat down to alternately resolve it."

Being unaware of the causes of war in a particular political economy you come up with such BS only befitting your friend BS. Tahmed sahib, these morons are fit for each other, read BS's responses to my posts and you'll know what a sorry a$$ performance he has put up thus far, and Anil is busy equating the Moon with social pressure.....

BS writes "Anil is way better than you as far as the argumentation is concerned. At least he has the guts to argue, being in the limits of a supposed discourse."

You two are like peas and carrots, you go together, your intellects match and so do your morals as a result. Read your posts BS, you are full of fluff and nothing else, not a single point do you either bring up or try to counter only to be responded to by Anil with "these are strong points"....strong to him only because of their invisible nature, like the invisible pull of the moon....

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

p.s: My posts are not about who is smarter, don't need to prove the obvious, your attitude of rubbishing everyone else while know sh** is what bothered me, as did your initial demeanor on Chowk....grow up and we will discuss stuff...

#56
Anil,

I have a feeling that you are not sticking to my premeses when you address me. For instance, I made up an example to postulate a moral question, which is driven from economic benefits to big companies. Anyway.

Let's see what how you have said responded.

"The pressure that I mentioned and you resented is present in every family or human structure. The dynamics of all human structures is such that you cannot avoid this pressure, which also is the cause of violence at some level and terror at the other level."

Why not? I say why can't we avoid this pressure. I know you will quote me examples from history. Well, I would say the human race is potent enough mentally to act fair with rationality, at least NOW.

Besides, your argument is borrowed from the rule of the survival of the fittest - though it seems to be a suger-quoted form of it.

I always stick to basics, Anil. Because I think that humans are not born or inherently evil or selfish. I reject the idea of Origional Sin. There's no way, for me, to keep this burden on my shoulders. :)

And I think society makes them what they are. There is no such thing as a selfish gene. And suppose if there is as it may have taken roots in some of us in the process of history, why can't we change it, keeping in mind the so-called advancement of knowledge and stuff?

On Islam, I hear what you say and agree with it.

On this:

"Middle Eastern problem will not get solved, until rules are changed. Palestinians need to produce and Palestinian Gandhi, not Jinnah. Gandhi changed the rules of engagement and Jinnah artfully rode on this change to rightfully create a separate entity."

I have serious reservations. And they are not because I like Jinnah and hate Gandhi. The fact is I don't like both of them.

But I think Palestinians did produce somebody called Arafat, who was secular and progressive. But what happened? Did Israel stop its atrocities? NO. Because, nobody in Israel and the US is willing to listen. The fact is, that land belongs to Palestinians - whoever they are, Christians and Muslims or whoever. Why? Because they have been living there for hundreds of years. And so what if they sold a piece of their land to Israelis in the middle of last century. The point is: Now Israel doesn't want to solve it and goes on killing more and more Palestinians. And the Palestinians do not have big artillary to fight back, so these Palestinains have turned themselves into deadly bombs. This is called Fighting BACK, and not Fighting AGAINST.


OK. Move on. You said:
"....my sand is mine' was applicable logic when humans could not create forces that can make changes equal to that of nature. For example, today the technology exists where in space a shield can be put to put permanent shadow on certain part and deny natural resource to certain area."

This is exactly like saying, if I have the switch to turn off power supply in New York, should I do it or not?

Well, I say: if the West has this technology and on the basis of that if they have (read threaten) to make certain parts of the world 'resourceless', then it's again not Justice. :) I will object to it. And yes, this technology edge does not give anybody the moral authority to use others resources. Besides, it sounds like, when a feudal tells his farmer that he can cut off water supply to the farmer's land because te pipeline is in his hand if the farmer doesn't give the feudal 80% of his crop. Will that be right? NO. Will that be an fair at all? NO. Can that be justified anyway? NO.

Again. you said:

"... but natural resources on the Earth belong to people living on the Earth."

Agreed. But expalin to me, who are these 'people living on Earth' you are talking about? Are they the big chiefs? OR ordinary people.

And please don't tell me that ordinary people actually 'use' these resouces, as in terms of oil and stuff. I am talking about profit here. The Capital, which goes on producing more profit for big chiefs on the basis of these resources.

Move on.

"....wealth is generated through a trade between different parts of the world."

Anil, you know very well as to what basis these trades are conducted. The big supplier gets bigger and the gap gets widening. Now all this is written in my textbook. You don't need to explain that. What I am asking is: IS THIS JUST AND FAIR?

Answer me.

Move on.

"Now capital and labor moves faster than the commodities to create integrated global markets."

Exactly. That's why I say that we can make this world a better place. We can snatch the profit from big chiefs for the welfare of humankind. We can put an end to arms industry and provide food to Africans instead. Or send more and more missions out in the space, but only once we take away everything from Big Chiefs.

"Something Gandhi understood and created non-violence as even more potent weapon to get justice."

Non-violence suited the British, however I don't deny Gandhi's determination of protesting against anything he thought wrong. On the other hand, Jinnah never promoted or advocated non-violence. He was a pretty cool guy, no? So what's this fuss over JInnah and promotion of Gandhi. Don't do that. OK.

But tell me what happened in India after that. The national rich class replaced the Goras. Did anything change? No.

On the other hand, Bhagat Singh stood against Gandhi, because Bhagat thought India's destiny can't be changed with a mere replacement of faces. And he was right, no?

Anil, this world can only be changed by radical movements - not like Al Qaeda, but like Che's and Bhagat's.

Peace and stability and equality can never be begged for or bought. These things are fought for either democratically in elections or thru guerrilla struggle - if possible, because the big bosses won't let go anything from their hands so easily. They have police, laws, armies to protect their interests. And yes, they have one more thing: The promotion of their system as democratic and the bacon of freedom. And in this system, only votes are counted, not voices. You see. :) Voices.

Masadi: Have you been utterly defeated again on chowk today?

I dont want to know what you were discussing below, and who said what - just give me the results.

Re: # 42

Bittersweetmojo:

You have presented powerful points, I do agree with most, however not with the conclusions

The pressure that I mentioned and you resented is present in every family or human structure. The dynamics of all human structures is such that you cannot avoid this pressure, which also is the cause of violence at some level and terror at the other level. That is why I said religion is not the root cause of violence / terror. This is my view. Most all religious thoughts during formation and during reformation had violence / terror. Please look at it this way that Islam was external to most place it spread, it too brought external pressure (some through sword of Islam, and most through Sufi and economic taxation on those who chose to stay outside). Yes it is people inside who is the catalyst for change. The change gains power from within when critical mass of people within is reached. Violence / terror is not rational, so I know my explanation can be viewed as an attempt to rationalize, irrational situation. Therefore it cannot be universally acceptable, other issues may play more important role also.

Again what I have described with analogy to Moon, is present in all structures, irrespective of Asian, African or whatever else. You cannot escape it, when survival is threatened humans at all level react with their best response. A baby responds, family responds and indeed nation-state structure has been responding too. Therefore, in my view the answer to violence / terror is not more violence / terror, as Masadi challenged to “Bring On� after Mumbai attacks. It is bringing sanity back to see the devastation these acts cause, rather than false sense of security in the aftermath. A famous general said after the American Civil War that if Americans have thought of the destruction and consequences, they would have sat down to alternately resolve it.

Middle Eastern problem will not get solved, until rules are changed. Palestinians need to produce and Palestinian Gandhi, not Jinnah. Gandhi changed the rules of engagement and Jinnah artfully rode on this change to rightfully create a separate entity.

“What is under my sand is mine� was applicable logic when humans could not create forces that can make changes equal to that of nature. For example, today the technology exists where in space a shield can be put to put permanent shadow on certain part and deny natural resource to certain area. Do you think someone should do it? If your answer, like mine, is no, then you cannot say the resource that lies beneath exclusively belongs to people living on the top. I would say that a new world order is needed where people living on top have rights as the conservator of this resource, but natural resources on the Earth belong to people living on the Earth. Oil underneath that sand does not create wealth on that sand. This wealth is generated through a trade between different parts of the world. Something that was not possible in early days. Now capital and labor moves faster than the commodities to create integrated global markets, no one should see only the supply side of the equation. It was not seen this way when Mohammad the general seized Mecca and routed others. He saw beyond others that trade and controlling trade routes is the key. In those days control came from barrel of the gun, today it comes from the ownership and use of capital. If there is anything that stops Arabs in deploying and using their capital on the demand side, they can and should deal with that this level, and not throwing rockets which are no match for other weapons. Something Gandhi understood and created non-violence as even more potent weapon to get justice.

Evolution and revolution is what I see as need of the hour, and two generation is nothing when you consider humanity.

#53
Masadi,
Anil is way better than you as far as the argumentation is concerned. At least he has the guts to argue, being in the limits of a supposed discourse.

You don't wanna take part, it's okay. Live with your silly wits. Who cares!