A strange disease seems to be afflicting Tamil cinema. I don't know if the other Indian movies are affected similarly, due to my obvious lack of knowledge. However I've seen this unhealthy trend for a long period of time and here are my two cents about it. Tamilnadu is the land which has supposedly welcomed the dark hero
Rajnikanth and made him world famous. Rajnikanth is a cult figure here.
In every other movie of his, Rajnikanth harps on his dark skin and says what a great gift it has been , thanking his mother, his country and thanking the Tamil people for accepting him. However all his heroines, and I say all (dispute me if you can) are fair skinned and most likely brought down from Mumbai. They do not know Tamil (obviously) and are pretty bad at lip sync. This is not only restricted to Rajnikanth. Almost all other tamil heroes are dark, but they prance around with fair heroines brought down from the south of Vindhyas. It seems the idea of a dark skinned heroine is anathema to them though most of them encounter dark skinned women all their life. They probably think that their mothers and sisters are ugly too. I don't know. They are dark skinned, they talk at length about the superiority of dark skin and all that crap, but they will act only with fair skinned heroines. This obvious hypocrisy is baffling.
This can be seen particularly in that big blockbuster joke of a movie called Shivaji with Rajni at the lead. In the movie Rajni tries a lot to become fair by dabbing fairness creams, but ultimately his lady love (the fair skinned Shriya) tells him that she likes him just the way he is. It seems this reflects the mentality of Tamil youth (atleast the B and C class moviegoers). They need the constant reaffirmation from fair skinned ladies that they are good looking however dark they maybe. This reflects a deep seated insecurity and self hate seen in Tamil men.
They obviously are not proud of their color whatever dialogues they might mouth in movies targetting the same insecure Tamil youth. And sadly people like Rajnikanth are proprogating this insecurity and self hate unconsciously. Or maybe they have been in the field for so long that they have internalized these values and don't see the obvious hypocrisy involved. I really don't know. This guy is no superstar. He is just super insecure. Pretty pathetic that there are no dark skinned Tamil heroines though 80% of the population here is dark skinned. What message are we sending our girls through these movies? That somehow being fair is superior and beautiful?
These kind of movies are also partly the reason why fairness creams are the highest selling beauty products in our country. These companies tell people (especially girls) that their natural skin color is somehow degrading and ugly and not good enough to be deemed beautiful, and earn millions in the process!! Shame on us Tamilians!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
MYTH BUSTED
One more revelation which will help in the transition of this country from a superstitious, irrational one to a sane rational one. The Makara vilaku which appears every year on the first of the Makaram month is a man made one! The Minister of Temple Affairs G.Sudhakaran has just confirmed this.. I personally know many people who actually believe that the makara vilakku is a supernatural phenomenon in this day and age. Too bad for them the list of miracles just keep dwindling day by day. And the temple authorities should be punished for fooling people consistently for so many years.
It is time we busted the other big miracle maker of our age : Sai baba. This guy can apparently produce lingams, sacred ash and what not out of thin air. Millions of devotees throng him every year in the hope of recieving blessings and good luck. He should be tested under controlled conditions and his fraud should be exposed. He should spend the rest of his days in jail where he can entertain his other prison mates with magic tricks. Many prominent personalities (including prime ministers) take blessings from this guy and for long he has roamed this country in the guise of a god man "blessing" people with his "powers".
Worshipping statues and stones is one thing. You could probably call it "projecting" your faith onto something which can be seen and felt.( I dont support this either but doesn't seem to be too harmful to me.) But worshipping another human being is quite another thing altogether. It smacks of slavery and servility. Indians seem to excel in this form of slavery particularly.
We seem to be clinging to the slave mentality that we acquired during the British period. Bending over backward to please our gora masters has morphed now into this strange Indian obsession of deifying human beings. Lack of courage to face the present gets translated as "faith" and "bhakti". These guys make use of the weaknesses in the human psyche and manipulate people and their feelings by making them feel powerless.
Also people who were normal human beings become Gods after they die. There is this one person I know who doesn't believe in the present Sai baba saying he is a trickster out to fool people. However she has tremendous faith and belief in Shirdi Sai baba who according to her is the "original" sai baba. What rubbish!! Orginal or duplicate, both are human beings. There is nothing divine or special about any one of them. They are all living , breathing humans like us, with all the human weaknesses.
The same goes for the controversy surrounding Ram sethu. Rama may have been a powerful king during his time or he might have just been part of a mythical folktale. Either way Rama was no God and there is enough evidence to prove that Ram sethu was not man made. However archaeologists who stated this obvious fact were fired and the Congress had to give an apology to assuage the feelings of "ram bhakhts".
Harry Potter is a pretty popular book now, the way the Ramayan tale was during its time. In another thousand years (by that time the tale might get twisted to give harry "godlike" characteristics), there is every chance that Harry might become God and the Harry Potter books might just become one of the sacred books of the Potterians ( a new religion based on the Harry potter books). And Hagrid might just become someone like Hanuman. Provided we don't nuke ourselves before that :)
It is time we busted the other big miracle maker of our age : Sai baba. This guy can apparently produce lingams, sacred ash and what not out of thin air. Millions of devotees throng him every year in the hope of recieving blessings and good luck. He should be tested under controlled conditions and his fraud should be exposed. He should spend the rest of his days in jail where he can entertain his other prison mates with magic tricks. Many prominent personalities (including prime ministers) take blessings from this guy and for long he has roamed this country in the guise of a god man "blessing" people with his "powers".
Worshipping statues and stones is one thing. You could probably call it "projecting" your faith onto something which can be seen and felt.( I dont support this either but doesn't seem to be too harmful to me.) But worshipping another human being is quite another thing altogether. It smacks of slavery and servility. Indians seem to excel in this form of slavery particularly.
We seem to be clinging to the slave mentality that we acquired during the British period. Bending over backward to please our gora masters has morphed now into this strange Indian obsession of deifying human beings. Lack of courage to face the present gets translated as "faith" and "bhakti". These guys make use of the weaknesses in the human psyche and manipulate people and their feelings by making them feel powerless.
Also people who were normal human beings become Gods after they die. There is this one person I know who doesn't believe in the present Sai baba saying he is a trickster out to fool people. However she has tremendous faith and belief in Shirdi Sai baba who according to her is the "original" sai baba. What rubbish!! Orginal or duplicate, both are human beings. There is nothing divine or special about any one of them. They are all living , breathing humans like us, with all the human weaknesses.
The same goes for the controversy surrounding Ram sethu. Rama may have been a powerful king during his time or he might have just been part of a mythical folktale. Either way Rama was no God and there is enough evidence to prove that Ram sethu was not man made. However archaeologists who stated this obvious fact were fired and the Congress had to give an apology to assuage the feelings of "ram bhakhts".
Harry Potter is a pretty popular book now, the way the Ramayan tale was during its time. In another thousand years (by that time the tale might get twisted to give harry "godlike" characteristics), there is every chance that Harry might become God and the Harry Potter books might just become one of the sacred books of the Potterians ( a new religion based on the Harry potter books). And Hagrid might just become someone like Hanuman. Provided we don't nuke ourselves before that :)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A FARMERS BUDGET! - REALLY?
I am no economist and do not claim to be one(being a doctor by profession). These are some of my views on the budget as I understand it from various newspaper articles and magazines especially the Frontline.
.
This budget is dubbed as a populist one targeting the common man especially those in the agricultural sector. The loan waiver announced by the Finance Minister Chidambaram is viewed by many(especially in the print media) as one that will bring a huge relief to the debt ridden farmers
However there are two clauses to the loan waiver: one is that only farmers who have borrowed from the banks could avail of the loan waiver and the other is that only farmers who have a land holding of two hectares or less could avail the loan waiver. So essentially the relief is going to reach only 25% of the farmers. It is especially not going to give relief to farmers from the suicide prone Vidharba district as most of the farmers there own more than two hectares though they are the most hit by the drought and the agrarian crisis. (This paradox is because most of these farmers have arid lands with little access to irrigation and hence the produce from each land is limited and meagre. Therefore inspite of having more than two hectares their agriculture produce is pretty less when compared to farmers who have access to irrigation and who can make a huge produce with one or two hectares.
Most of these farmers have also acquired loans from private moneylenders who charge exorbitant interest rates which have added to the farmers misery. Hence the debt relief package will not reach farmers such as those in Vidharba who are the ones in a quagmire.
Also it is touted that the debt relief package will cost the exchequer. This is not true as the banks have to write off the loans and receive bonds from the government in return and receive a steady interest rate which will cost the government only 4000 crores.
The government should have instead settled the loans borrowed from private money lenders by providing loans through co-operative banks in this regard. This proposal was mooted but was not taken up by the government.
The farmer’s predicament is truly miserable. Imagine that you have a part-time job with a company. Instead of the steady salary you receive every month the company decides to hold up your salary every time it goes through a bad patch even tough you work regularly. This comparison may sound dubious but this is somewhat the state of the Indian farmer. This is where insurance schemes can help the farmer but the government has failed to implement it properly.
The cost of input for agriculture has increased because of subsidies for fertilizers have largely decreased over the past decade. Add to this the compounding problem of drought and the increasing price of seeds.
The farmers borrows from a private moneylender and invests into his land. If a drought season comes he is left with little or no output and no money left to pay his loans which drives him to penury and suicide. Even if the rains come on time and the farmers produces a bounty of harvest he is given a minimum procurement price by the government. Though the cost of input has increased exponentially over the past few years the government keeps the support price of procurement to a minimum level. The prices are kept low so that the prices of foodgrains do not increase and contribute to further inflation. The farmers have been made the scapegoats and shock absorbers here. And the government proudly proclaims that that most of its policies are pro-poor and pro-agrarian.
Have we strangulated our farmers in our quest for liberalization? Liberalisation brought with it the upward moblility of the middle class and an increased access to consumer goods and durables such as computers and mobile phones. India was touted as the perfect destination for MNCs by the government and sops and subsidies were extended several IT companies to set shop here. However with the era of liberalization the farmer has been marginalized more and more and pushed to the background. Farmers income have declined over the past decade thanks to the policies of the government.
Many people say that Nehru made a big mistake by pursuing socialist policies in the post independence era. However they do not realize that it was his socialist policies which gave a firm support base for the economic growth of the country. If we had followed capitalist policy we would have ended up like one of the present African countries.
It is shameful that India has four billionaires in the Forbes list while simultaneously having a human development Index (HDI) of 128. I do not blame them for India’s record. However no other country from which the top ten were listed had such a dismal record except us. We are much behind Srilanka, China and even Namibia. HDI is based on gross domestic product(GDP), literacy levels and human life expectancy at birth.
India has one of the highest rate of malnutrition and underweight children at birth. Over the past few years inspite of a G.D.P of 9% we have fallen in the HDI from 126 to 128. This is because of our dismal literacy levels and life expectancy. G.D.P per capita is basically a non indicator in this regard.
By pursuing such policies India is going to put itself in deeper inextricable problems and the disparity between the rich and poor is going to increase alarmingly. We cannot be happy that a few people have reached the super-rich category while million others are struggling for three meals per day. This kind of unsustainable policies are going to wreck the country in the long run. The government can pursue liberalization policies if it simultaneously decides to protect the interests of the poor , but I don’t see this happening at all. The way we are going we will end up as brain deficient, retarded free market fundamentalists.
.
This budget is dubbed as a populist one targeting the common man especially those in the agricultural sector. The loan waiver announced by the Finance Minister Chidambaram is viewed by many(especially in the print media) as one that will bring a huge relief to the debt ridden farmers
However there are two clauses to the loan waiver: one is that only farmers who have borrowed from the banks could avail of the loan waiver and the other is that only farmers who have a land holding of two hectares or less could avail the loan waiver. So essentially the relief is going to reach only 25% of the farmers. It is especially not going to give relief to farmers from the suicide prone Vidharba district as most of the farmers there own more than two hectares though they are the most hit by the drought and the agrarian crisis. (This paradox is because most of these farmers have arid lands with little access to irrigation and hence the produce from each land is limited and meagre. Therefore inspite of having more than two hectares their agriculture produce is pretty less when compared to farmers who have access to irrigation and who can make a huge produce with one or two hectares.
Most of these farmers have also acquired loans from private moneylenders who charge exorbitant interest rates which have added to the farmers misery. Hence the debt relief package will not reach farmers such as those in Vidharba who are the ones in a quagmire.
Also it is touted that the debt relief package will cost the exchequer. This is not true as the banks have to write off the loans and receive bonds from the government in return and receive a steady interest rate which will cost the government only 4000 crores.
The government should have instead settled the loans borrowed from private money lenders by providing loans through co-operative banks in this regard. This proposal was mooted but was not taken up by the government.
The farmer’s predicament is truly miserable. Imagine that you have a part-time job with a company. Instead of the steady salary you receive every month the company decides to hold up your salary every time it goes through a bad patch even tough you work regularly. This comparison may sound dubious but this is somewhat the state of the Indian farmer. This is where insurance schemes can help the farmer but the government has failed to implement it properly.
The cost of input for agriculture has increased because of subsidies for fertilizers have largely decreased over the past decade. Add to this the compounding problem of drought and the increasing price of seeds.
The farmers borrows from a private moneylender and invests into his land. If a drought season comes he is left with little or no output and no money left to pay his loans which drives him to penury and suicide. Even if the rains come on time and the farmers produces a bounty of harvest he is given a minimum procurement price by the government. Though the cost of input has increased exponentially over the past few years the government keeps the support price of procurement to a minimum level. The prices are kept low so that the prices of foodgrains do not increase and contribute to further inflation. The farmers have been made the scapegoats and shock absorbers here. And the government proudly proclaims that that most of its policies are pro-poor and pro-agrarian.
Have we strangulated our farmers in our quest for liberalization? Liberalisation brought with it the upward moblility of the middle class and an increased access to consumer goods and durables such as computers and mobile phones. India was touted as the perfect destination for MNCs by the government and sops and subsidies were extended several IT companies to set shop here. However with the era of liberalization the farmer has been marginalized more and more and pushed to the background. Farmers income have declined over the past decade thanks to the policies of the government.
Many people say that Nehru made a big mistake by pursuing socialist policies in the post independence era. However they do not realize that it was his socialist policies which gave a firm support base for the economic growth of the country. If we had followed capitalist policy we would have ended up like one of the present African countries.
It is shameful that India has four billionaires in the Forbes list while simultaneously having a human development Index (HDI) of 128. I do not blame them for India’s record. However no other country from which the top ten were listed had such a dismal record except us. We are much behind Srilanka, China and even Namibia. HDI is based on gross domestic product(GDP), literacy levels and human life expectancy at birth.
India has one of the highest rate of malnutrition and underweight children at birth. Over the past few years inspite of a G.D.P of 9% we have fallen in the HDI from 126 to 128. This is because of our dismal literacy levels and life expectancy. G.D.P per capita is basically a non indicator in this regard.
By pursuing such policies India is going to put itself in deeper inextricable problems and the disparity between the rich and poor is going to increase alarmingly. We cannot be happy that a few people have reached the super-rich category while million others are struggling for three meals per day. This kind of unsustainable policies are going to wreck the country in the long run. The government can pursue liberalization policies if it simultaneously decides to protect the interests of the poor , but I don’t see this happening at all. The way we are going we will end up as brain deficient, retarded free market fundamentalists.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
WOMEN'S DAY- CAUSE TO CELEBRATE?
In this post I'm not going to start singing paens to those few women who have made it big in their life. I'm going to talk about the vast majority who haven't. I am warning beforehand that this post is loaded with pessimistic thoughts and sweeping generalizations.
The other day I was reading Forbes list of the ten most richest people in the world. Most of those listed were industrialists. Obviously there was not a single woman on the list. This was hardly surprising. Women have never been in the upper echelons of business and industry.
Constituting roughly 50% of the world's population women are hardly represented in the top ranks of any field. In fact when you go through the list of Nobel prize laureates the results are even more enbarassing. Women contribute to just a handful of recepients. Is this due to the 'glass ceiling' or is the problem more deeper?
Is it that women are just not motivated or passionate enough to make it big in the world? (I know I am sounding remarkably juvenile when I say this but I don't know how else to put it). Or are their priorities just different from guys? Do they value raising children annd starting families more than they value their independence, career and profession?
When a system (ex: religion) oppresses women and puts them on a lower social status than men why aren't the oppressed raising their voices against it. Clearly it seems women just aren't interested in coming out of their 'comfort zones'. It takes a great deal of persevearence and courage to fight the system and women just aren't upto the task. They are contented in being second class to men as long as they remain in their comfort zones. They don't even support other women who have the guts to speak out. (How many Muslim women are ready to support Taslima Nasreen?) Women constitute half the population and I don't think it is impossible for them to break the shackles of a system if only they want to.
However most women (atleast in India) are contented in being a docile wife and mother as long as thier positions are not jeopardized. Surely the housewives are the bane of women's liberation.
They also blame men for their woes while it was they who played a major part in legitmizing and condoning the system in the first place. If women are not adequately represented in every field they have no one to blame but themselves. They are just inheriting their ancestor's complacency in not fighting for their rights all these years which has contributed to the sad state of affairs today. How long can one blame a society which was formed and legitimized by women? The society simply would't exist without them.
Depiction of women as sex symbols in commercial movies and advertisements doesn't help either. It only reinforces stereotypes about women and their (lack of) intellectual capacities.
The other day I was reading Forbes list of the ten most richest people in the world. Most of those listed were industrialists. Obviously there was not a single woman on the list. This was hardly surprising. Women have never been in the upper echelons of business and industry.
Constituting roughly 50% of the world's population women are hardly represented in the top ranks of any field. In fact when you go through the list of Nobel prize laureates the results are even more enbarassing. Women contribute to just a handful of recepients. Is this due to the 'glass ceiling' or is the problem more deeper?
Is it that women are just not motivated or passionate enough to make it big in the world? (I know I am sounding remarkably juvenile when I say this but I don't know how else to put it). Or are their priorities just different from guys? Do they value raising children annd starting families more than they value their independence, career and profession?
When a system (ex: religion) oppresses women and puts them on a lower social status than men why aren't the oppressed raising their voices against it. Clearly it seems women just aren't interested in coming out of their 'comfort zones'. It takes a great deal of persevearence and courage to fight the system and women just aren't upto the task. They are contented in being second class to men as long as they remain in their comfort zones. They don't even support other women who have the guts to speak out. (How many Muslim women are ready to support Taslima Nasreen?) Women constitute half the population and I don't think it is impossible for them to break the shackles of a system if only they want to.
However most women (atleast in India) are contented in being a docile wife and mother as long as thier positions are not jeopardized. Surely the housewives are the bane of women's liberation.
They also blame men for their woes while it was they who played a major part in legitmizing and condoning the system in the first place. If women are not adequately represented in every field they have no one to blame but themselves. They are just inheriting their ancestor's complacency in not fighting for their rights all these years which has contributed to the sad state of affairs today. How long can one blame a society which was formed and legitimized by women? The society simply would't exist without them.
Depiction of women as sex symbols in commercial movies and advertisements doesn't help either. It only reinforces stereotypes about women and their (lack of) intellectual capacities.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
REMINISCING POTTER
It has been a wonderful, mindboggling journey. One filled with happiness,sadness, joy ecstasy, hope and sorrow. I am talking about my journey with Harry Potter.
Now you might say ‘She is one of those delusional Potter maniacs who are crazy about all things Harry”.And I say “Yes!” A resounding yes. Our love for Potter extends beyond liking a well written book with an excellent plot. It has been an emotional and thrilling experience too.
How can a book, a mere book make you feel happy and sad at the same time? This one can. You’ve got to be reading Potter for a while for the experience to sink in.
I am going to confine myself to describing certain parts of the book for obvious reasons.
I first read Potter when I was in my eleventh standard. I enjoyed the first book but thought it was way too childish for my taste. However I loved the plot and Rowling’s way of bringing of the magical world of Hogwarts right in front of your eyes.This lady has tremendous imagination and creativity! Most of us Potter fans had imagined the Hogwarts castle complete with its revolving staircases and talking portraits even before the movies got released, thanks to Rowling’s beautiful descriptions.
The books started more like a beautiful fairytale and became more engaging, macabre and dark by each installment. Her last book “the Deathly Hallows” is hardly a children’s book, more to be read by teens and adults.
The best part of these books are the well fleshed out characters. Each character in the book have a three dimensional personality, a story of their own and black and white and shades of grey. This is one of the most important reason for the immense popularity of the books. There is such a variety of characters that everyone reading the book can identify with atleast one of them. Rowling highlights the positives and negatives of each character in a beautiful manner. Be it the motherly Mrs.weasley, the ever sarcastic Severus Snape or the benevolent Dumbledore each character has been brought out in its entirety. Mrs.Weasley is not only motherly but courageous, defiant and proud, Snape can also be caring and loving and Dumbledore of all people a powerhungry and cunning man.
The next best thing about the books are its plots and subplots. Rowling masterfully weaves a web of stories and and branches them out into delightful subplots with each character having a central space in the individual subplots. Her books contain heavy doses of foreshadowing and glib oneliners which become the predictions for the future books. She is also an expert at planting red herrings all the way to fool the unsuspecting readers to reach wrong conclusions which they realize only in the next book.
Her books also contain delightful little intricate details like the origin of the names of the different characters. There is also an entire family tree who have been named after stars and constellations!
A master storyteller Rowling has thrilled us like no other.
Now you might say ‘She is one of those delusional Potter maniacs who are crazy about all things Harry”.And I say “Yes!” A resounding yes. Our love for Potter extends beyond liking a well written book with an excellent plot. It has been an emotional and thrilling experience too.
How can a book, a mere book make you feel happy and sad at the same time? This one can. You’ve got to be reading Potter for a while for the experience to sink in.
I am going to confine myself to describing certain parts of the book for obvious reasons.
I first read Potter when I was in my eleventh standard. I enjoyed the first book but thought it was way too childish for my taste. However I loved the plot and Rowling’s way of bringing of the magical world of Hogwarts right in front of your eyes.This lady has tremendous imagination and creativity! Most of us Potter fans had imagined the Hogwarts castle complete with its revolving staircases and talking portraits even before the movies got released, thanks to Rowling’s beautiful descriptions.
The books started more like a beautiful fairytale and became more engaging, macabre and dark by each installment. Her last book “the Deathly Hallows” is hardly a children’s book, more to be read by teens and adults.
The best part of these books are the well fleshed out characters. Each character in the book have a three dimensional personality, a story of their own and black and white and shades of grey. This is one of the most important reason for the immense popularity of the books. There is such a variety of characters that everyone reading the book can identify with atleast one of them. Rowling highlights the positives and negatives of each character in a beautiful manner. Be it the motherly Mrs.weasley, the ever sarcastic Severus Snape or the benevolent Dumbledore each character has been brought out in its entirety. Mrs.Weasley is not only motherly but courageous, defiant and proud, Snape can also be caring and loving and Dumbledore of all people a powerhungry and cunning man.
The next best thing about the books are its plots and subplots. Rowling masterfully weaves a web of stories and and branches them out into delightful subplots with each character having a central space in the individual subplots. Her books contain heavy doses of foreshadowing and glib oneliners which become the predictions for the future books. She is also an expert at planting red herrings all the way to fool the unsuspecting readers to reach wrong conclusions which they realize only in the next book.
Her books also contain delightful little intricate details like the origin of the names of the different characters. There is also an entire family tree who have been named after stars and constellations!
A master storyteller Rowling has thrilled us like no other.
Monday, February 18, 2008
AYN RAND'SFOUNTAINHEAD AND WHY I HATE IT
I've been wanting to write about this for a long time (ever since I read the book) and here I go. This book was recommended to me by a friend who said it depicted the realities of the world.
The fountainhead is regarded as an excellent fictional book the world over with heavy doses of philisoophy, ethics, morality and her unique philosophy "Objectivism".
However I failed to understand why the book is appreciated so much the world over. It is not a very engaging book and is extremely pessimistic and disillusional.
The protagonist Howard Roark is an extremely unrealistic character who if he had existed in the real world would probably have had a nervous breakdown because of his isolation from the social world of humans. But jokes apart I read in a website that Rand had modelled Howard Roark on what she considered the 'ideal man', free of prejudices and free of common human failings like jealousy. To ensure that she introduces him as an orphan who is free of the 'corrupting ' influence of his parents.
As the book progresses we see that Howard wants to be an architect in his own right and wants to build bulidings in his own unique way. Pretty idealistic and perfectly alright. We are then introduced to his friend Peter who is a pretty pathetic creature always requiring the approval of others for everything he does and says- a perfectly insecure young man who will go to any depth to get things his way.
Then she introduces us to a beast of a human called Dominique Francon who like I said if had existed in the real world would have been locked up in an asylum for her sadistic cruelty. This lady will go to any length to ridicule and and belittle others in the knowledge that she is more purer and nobler than others. It is at this point that I start having doubts.
Someone who knows the faillings of others will most likely understand the reason for those human incocnsistencies and sympathize with them or at the most will consider themselves superior. But this lady in her attempts to depict the shallowness of those around others stoops to a level worse than them in her cruelty and highhandedness.
But as she is pretty and the daughter of a rich architect she is tolerated at best by most and despised by a few. This lady falls in love with Howard for according to her he is the embodiment of all that is pure in mankind. But she realises that this 'shallow' and 'ugly' world will not let him survive.
So she decides that she will accelerate his downfall because she does not want him to be 'tainted' by the 'ugly world'.
She goes about spreading wrong things about Howard and hitching every possible assignment he gets to destroy him totally. And every day that she successfully ruins his projects she sleeps with him.
At this particular point I have become totally convinced that this is an absolutely psychotic book but I continue reading it to see what I have missed that the others can see. The book continues on with Howard's heroic struggle with the world and his ultimate triumph in the end. As the book unfolds Domonique keeps moving from one successful guy to antoher and ditching him in his moment of despair. Needless to say she unites with Howard in the end.
This book is supposed to champion the celebrated concept of individuality and it expresses the idea that taking care of your self interests will benefit the society in the long run.
She portrays Horward as a dynamic individual who charts his own course and succeeds in life. But what of the female protagonist?
Howard loves his job and wants to work the way he wants to. He is an admirable perrson in the book. The author portrays Dominique as a woman of pure and noble nature above human failings(I dunno how to express this but that is how she is percieved in the book). But she does not have an ambition of her own, she does not seem to love her work , however she loves to point out other people's faults.
This degrading mentality disgusted me and being a bit of a feminist myself wondered why Rand being a woman had opted for such a disgusting portrayal of a woman. (She is not required to, but well I always pin my hopes on female writers to tell the female side of the story.) The female protagonist does nothing more than sleep with different guys and bring them down at the best possible opportunities. The merits of the book are how it successfully showcases the superficiality of the world and its failings.
Rand is an advocate of "laissez fair" capitalism and free market fundamentalism both of which can be disastrous to a country. Concepts like welfare are anathema to her and she believes in exclusive capitalism. Socialism is a strict no-no, and the concept of equality for all a completely devious plan bent on 'punishing' the truly 'meritorious'.
The fountainhead is regarded as an excellent fictional book the world over with heavy doses of philisoophy, ethics, morality and her unique philosophy "Objectivism".
However I failed to understand why the book is appreciated so much the world over. It is not a very engaging book and is extremely pessimistic and disillusional.
The protagonist Howard Roark is an extremely unrealistic character who if he had existed in the real world would probably have had a nervous breakdown because of his isolation from the social world of humans. But jokes apart I read in a website that Rand had modelled Howard Roark on what she considered the 'ideal man', free of prejudices and free of common human failings like jealousy. To ensure that she introduces him as an orphan who is free of the 'corrupting ' influence of his parents.
As the book progresses we see that Howard wants to be an architect in his own right and wants to build bulidings in his own unique way. Pretty idealistic and perfectly alright. We are then introduced to his friend Peter who is a pretty pathetic creature always requiring the approval of others for everything he does and says- a perfectly insecure young man who will go to any depth to get things his way.
Then she introduces us to a beast of a human called Dominique Francon who like I said if had existed in the real world would have been locked up in an asylum for her sadistic cruelty. This lady will go to any length to ridicule and and belittle others in the knowledge that she is more purer and nobler than others. It is at this point that I start having doubts.
Someone who knows the faillings of others will most likely understand the reason for those human incocnsistencies and sympathize with them or at the most will consider themselves superior. But this lady in her attempts to depict the shallowness of those around others stoops to a level worse than them in her cruelty and highhandedness.
But as she is pretty and the daughter of a rich architect she is tolerated at best by most and despised by a few. This lady falls in love with Howard for according to her he is the embodiment of all that is pure in mankind. But she realises that this 'shallow' and 'ugly' world will not let him survive.
So she decides that she will accelerate his downfall because she does not want him to be 'tainted' by the 'ugly world'.
She goes about spreading wrong things about Howard and hitching every possible assignment he gets to destroy him totally. And every day that she successfully ruins his projects she sleeps with him.
At this particular point I have become totally convinced that this is an absolutely psychotic book but I continue reading it to see what I have missed that the others can see. The book continues on with Howard's heroic struggle with the world and his ultimate triumph in the end. As the book unfolds Domonique keeps moving from one successful guy to antoher and ditching him in his moment of despair. Needless to say she unites with Howard in the end.
This book is supposed to champion the celebrated concept of individuality and it expresses the idea that taking care of your self interests will benefit the society in the long run.
She portrays Horward as a dynamic individual who charts his own course and succeeds in life. But what of the female protagonist?
Howard loves his job and wants to work the way he wants to. He is an admirable perrson in the book. The author portrays Dominique as a woman of pure and noble nature above human failings(I dunno how to express this but that is how she is percieved in the book). But she does not have an ambition of her own, she does not seem to love her work , however she loves to point out other people's faults.
This degrading mentality disgusted me and being a bit of a feminist myself wondered why Rand being a woman had opted for such a disgusting portrayal of a woman. (She is not required to, but well I always pin my hopes on female writers to tell the female side of the story.) The female protagonist does nothing more than sleep with different guys and bring them down at the best possible opportunities. The merits of the book are how it successfully showcases the superficiality of the world and its failings.
Rand is an advocate of "laissez fair" capitalism and free market fundamentalism both of which can be disastrous to a country. Concepts like welfare are anathema to her and she believes in exclusive capitalism. Socialism is a strict no-no, and the concept of equality for all a completely devious plan bent on 'punishing' the truly 'meritorious'.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sonia and her Order of Leopold
Sonia Gandhi is to be conferred the Order of Leopold by Belgium. This award is given to those who have served Belgium outstandingly through the military, or through the society and state. However this could mean her allegiance and adherence to Belgium.
Hence the huge debate on whether she should be allowed to recieve the Order in the first place. So the Election Comission has served a notice on her on a disqualification complaint filed against her by a lawyer in Kerala. The election Comission has been divided on the whole issue what with the voting going 2 to 1.
However I wonder why Sonia is being given the award in the fiirst place? What did she do to earn the gratitude of the Belgian government to select her for the highest award in Belgium? In what way could she have served Belgium? Is the honour purely decorative?. Is there something I can't see?
Hence the huge debate on whether she should be allowed to recieve the Order in the first place. So the Election Comission has served a notice on her on a disqualification complaint filed against her by a lawyer in Kerala. The election Comission has been divided on the whole issue what with the voting going 2 to 1.
However I wonder why Sonia is being given the award in the fiirst place? What did she do to earn the gratitude of the Belgian government to select her for the highest award in Belgium? In what way could she have served Belgium? Is the honour purely decorative?. Is there something I can't see?
Friday, February 8, 2008
RANTINGS
A walk on the beach may not guarantee fresh air but it sure does guarantee a good dose of stench. That was my experience today morning when I went for a walk on the Marina beach. Considered to be one of the longest beaches of the world it is in a pretty sick state right now. A main factor is the proximity of slum areas or "kuppam" in local parlance, to the beach. These people consider the beach their private property and openly defecate on it in the early morinngs. An entire compund wall has been converted into a smelly urinal. It would be better if our ridiculous chief minister, instead of providing free television sets to poor people could construct toilets for them instead of letting them live in subhuman conditions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)