Do you? I on the other hand think it's an atypical American response, written utterly in a language crafted for the NYT and suchlike society? The US has, pretty much post WWII silently raped and pillaged innumerable countries. Just ask any Hispanic. While it vociferously condemns the Commies for every blunder they make, the US plods on and on...not to mention the fact that they created Taliban in the first place. India, on the other hand is plain protecting it's own terrain. Talk to any moderately/well educated Pakisthani and they will tell you volumes on how India tries to act big brother. Which pretty much sums up their motto. Which's sick really coz unlike the US, India does not go out of its way to poke into others' affairs (LTTE excepted, probably). If your country has come down to the stage where a couple of billion dollars is make or break for a nation, and then you go crib over others' presumed prosperity, there's a word for it - moronism. But puh-lease, comparing terror strikes in India to 9/11 is a sad and convoluted perspective of a much more unfair deal being meted out to us.
"Nor did the violence create a sense of existential crisis for the nation, as in 1984. Thus, despite all loss of life, this year could well be counted as a victory not for terrorism but for India’s citizenry. "- i am not so sure thats a good thing, if this kind of violence fails to leave and impact then that shows we are just indifferent. aar sikh militancy-r baa anti-sikh riots er shonge ei ghotona taa-r kono parallel hotei paarey na. uni godhra-r parallel ditey paarten, kintu riots and terror attacks are two different things. since, as god is our witness, we have had enough experience of both, we of all people shouldn't confuse the two. i personally thought his take is rather equivocal...
@rim: yes, i agree that the response (not ghosh's response in the form of this article, but the response india -- the word we have to use as a collective noun here -- will have to make to the business at hand), our response (the last word in the article), is crucial. i don't even want to go into amitav ghosh's perenial tendency to mire himself in his and everyone's else's doubts... but yes, that's exactly what i think. comparing mumbai to 9/11 (as most of indian journalism has done, i see) is quite terrible. even dangerous. sort of making a graft of exactly the presumed big brother you mention. i think ghosh get's it right to understand that there are considerable risks in the use of the 9/11 idiom.
@ mojo: of course equivocal. when on earth is amitav ghosh not? but that's a separate story. i do agree, though, that on the whole, it's a good thing (in this case, necesary) to manifest involvement in ways other than 'precipitate action'. and that needn't signify indifference at all.
I agree with mojo that comparing the 1984 riots to the mumbai blasts is a bit weird but otherwise i agree with amitav ghosh rather than with rim or mojo.
5 comments:
Do you?
I on the other hand think it's an atypical American response, written utterly in a language crafted for the NYT and suchlike society?
The US has, pretty much post WWII silently raped and pillaged innumerable countries. Just ask any Hispanic. While it vociferously condemns the Commies for every blunder they make, the US plods on and on...not to mention the fact that they created Taliban in the first place.
India, on the other hand is plain protecting it's own terrain. Talk to any moderately/well educated Pakisthani and they will tell you volumes on how India tries to act big brother. Which pretty much sums up their motto.
Which's sick really coz unlike the US, India does not go out of its way to poke into others' affairs (LTTE excepted, probably). If your country has come down to the stage where a couple of billion dollars is make or break for a nation, and then you go crib over others' presumed prosperity, there's a word for it - moronism.
But puh-lease, comparing terror strikes in India to 9/11 is a sad and convoluted perspective of a much more unfair deal being meted out to us.
"Nor did the violence create a sense of existential crisis for the nation, as in 1984. Thus, despite all loss of life, this year could well be counted as a victory not for terrorism but for India’s citizenry. "- i am not so sure thats a good thing, if this kind of violence fails to leave and impact then that shows we are just indifferent.
aar sikh militancy-r baa anti-sikh riots er shonge ei ghotona taa-r kono parallel hotei paarey na. uni godhra-r parallel ditey paarten, kintu riots and terror attacks are two different things. since, as god is our witness, we have had enough experience of both, we of all people shouldn't confuse the two.
i personally thought his take is rather equivocal...
leave an impact*
@rim:
yes, i agree that the response (not ghosh's response in the form of this article, but the response india -- the word we have to use as a collective noun here -- will have to make to the business at hand), our response (the last word in the article), is crucial. i don't even want to go into amitav ghosh's perenial tendency to mire himself in his and everyone's else's doubts...
but yes, that's exactly what i think. comparing mumbai to 9/11 (as most of indian journalism has done, i see) is quite terrible. even dangerous. sort of making a graft of exactly the presumed big brother you mention. i think ghosh get's it right to understand that there are considerable risks in the use of the 9/11 idiom.
@ mojo:
of course equivocal. when on earth is amitav ghosh not? but that's a separate story.
i do agree, though, that on the whole, it's a good thing (in this case, necesary) to manifest involvement in ways other than 'precipitate action'. and that needn't signify indifference at all.
I agree with mojo that comparing the 1984 riots to the mumbai blasts is a bit weird but otherwise i agree with amitav ghosh rather than with rim or mojo.
Post a Comment