Had a decent time at Tehelka's THiNK fest in Goa last week, but the unexpected
personal highlight was the acquisition of... this cushion cover.
The illustration on it was done by Sudeep Chaudhuri for the cover of the year-end Tehelka special I co-edited with Nisha Susan in 2008 (later published in book form by Hachette), and I remember how delighted I was when I first saw the picture all those years ago: Foxie was just a few months old at the time, and it was a lovely coincidence that the dog in the illustration resembled her so much - the posture, the long limbs, even the red collar she wore as a pup. (The resemblance became more pronounced subsequently, with
her illness and emaciation.) It is still a
source of strange, irrational comfort that a book with my name on it
has this picture on the cover.
[More on the anthology here, for anyone interested. And here is one of the stories, Manjula Padmanabhan's piece about a vampire in Delhi]
The illustration on it was done by Sudeep Chaudhuri for the cover of the year-end Tehelka special I co-edited with Nisha Susan in 2008 (later published in book form by Hachette), and I remember how delighted I was when I first saw the picture all those years ago: Foxie was just a few months old at the time, and it was a lovely coincidence that the dog in the illustration resembled her so much - the posture, the long limbs, even the red collar she wore as a pup. (The resemblance became more pronounced subsequently, with
her illness and emaciation.) It is still a
source of strange, irrational comfort that a book with my name on it
has this picture on the cover.[More on the anthology here, for anyone interested. And here is one of the stories, Manjula Padmanabhan's piece about a vampire in Delhi]
Just heard that a prominent Afghan Taliban leader was a speaker at the summit!!!?
ReplyDeleteFormer Taliban leader/co-founder, yes. Poor chap was trying very hard to stress that he wasn't there as a "representative" of the Taliban though.
ReplyDeleteand Salman Rushdie is not allowed in lit-fests :)) we sure live in interesting times
ReplyDeletePessimist fool : We sure do. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine far more moderate law abiding specimens like an RSS pracharak or even a Republican Tea Party leader being invited to the THiNK summit, though those specimens can have a lot more interesting things to say than a Taliban leader (reformed or otherwise).
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how radical Islam thrusts its way into the most civilized of gatherings while far less extreme ideologies fail to do so.
A great personage like VS Naipaul becomes a social outcast in our times because he happened to say something nasty about women writers. While here we have barbarians being honored with a civilized audience!
@ Shrikanth - lol, this seems to be a script of a comedy like Jaane Bhi Do Yarron with reformed Taliban leader stressing on him not being representative of Taliban, while organisers using Taliban link. Naipaul shouting something against women writers and his wife Nadira saying, "yeh log kya bakwaas kar rahein hain, sab ko dafa karo. mera pati Nobel Prize winner hai"...on a serious note, yes, sadly in our country anything and really anything can happen if it does not affect someone's vote-bank. If it does, impossible is the word for it. In case of Goa, I would be pleasantly shocked if a Nigerian writer had come to visit the event. In that case, perhaps, some politician would have heaped praise on him/her only days after declaring Nigerians should be thrown out :P Interestingly, there are hoardings in Goa saying, "Say No to Nigerians, Say No to Drugs"
ReplyDeletejai you often write about your age...such i was a child in late 1980s etc....but i saw you quite a few times you look far older..may you were just a kid....but you look quite old....chubby , plump , funny and round
ReplyDeleteAnon: I'm 36, but you're right, I look more like 50 on most days - partly due to the white hair I have sported since I was 18, partly because of the ungainly plumpness you refer to (I have lost a good deal of weight in the past year actually, but a Platonic ideal of Roundness does remain).
ReplyDeleteYou, on the other hand, must be very young, if not in age then at least in spirit. I can tell from the comment, including the charming use of three adjectives that mean much the same thing when there are so many more colourful ones to choose from. Plus the persistent and youthfully enthusiastic attempts to re-post, without realising that comments are moderator-enabled.
Jai - The second para of your comment from "you, on the other hand" to "moderator enabled" is the funniest that I read in a long long time.
ReplyDelete"if not in age then in spirit" is gem. "youthfully enthusiastic attempts to re-post" is a beauty.
@Shrikanth - Agree. Censorship and comfort zone works in interesting ways. One of the most interesting questions of our times is - What is ok to make fun of (I know I am getting the grammar wrong and cant get it right for the life of me)? What is in good taste and what goes too far. And dont even get me started on the unfair advantage religion gets in the matters of censorship by being sacrosanct.
ReplyDeleteAnd I wud hardly go so far as to call RSS pracharak law abiding.
And I wud hardly go so far as to call RSS pracharak law abiding.
ReplyDeleteI am not referring to the few hoodlums or trouble-makers in their organization. Those people exist even in the venerable Congress (I) or the CPI(M).
Am talking about the typical RSS member. Most RSS members are tax-paying participants in this complex society of ours working from 9 to 5 as bankers, lecturers, shopkeepers and scientists like anybody else.
In fact a good number of them go one step ahead and proactively contribute to social capital with their community work.
I for one don't agree with their views on most subjects under the sun. And wouldn't associate with the organization even with a 10 foot pole.
But there is no moral equivalence between this nativist organization of cranky men and a barbaric, decidedly uncivilized entity which has ruined a whole nation!
Think2013 has crossed a line by inviting this speaker.
Agree. Censorship and comfort zone works in interesting ways. One of the most interesting questions of our times is - What is ok to make fun of
ReplyDeleteSid: Whether one likes it or not, Censorship is an integral part of our society. One cannot express whatever that comes to one's head and wish to get away with it. The moment we step out of our houses we start censoring our feelings. That's the essence of civilization.
Am sure even this "reformed" Taliban leader made all the right noises and garnered a lot of sympathy in this fest. In other words, he'd have censored his true convictions and sounded "reasonable" in order to win some of the audience.
And that to my mind is a pity. Because even Hitler or Stalin can make the right noises if they try hard. One should judge people by their track record and past behavior. And if that was the criterion, this guy shouldn't have been there.
Ofcourse one seeks diversity. It's no fun to have the summit infested with suave, liberal types with very similar world views. So by all means do invite some intelligent "zara hatke" voices. I wouldn't mind if that voice didn't have a perfect background. For eg: An RSS pracharak or a former KGB spy.
But Taliban!? That's like inviting Mother Theresa to inaugurate a nudist colony.
Am sure even this "reformed" Taliban leader made all the right noises and garnered a lot of sympathy in this fest.
ReplyDeleteNope, not the case. That seemed close to happening in the first session he was in, where he was paired with a former CIA man, and Shoma kind of catered to the audience's kneejerk anti-Americanism - suggesting equivalence between the imperialism of the US and the actions of the Taliban. And of course, the audience, being what it was, applauded at a number silly things. But eventually, both in that session and in a subsequent one featuring only Mullah Zaeef, things were more layered and tempered.
Shrikanth, please do stop leaping to conclusions. I know you have very strong opinions and are unafraid to express them, but there was nothing at all here to justify the dramatic "THiNK has crossed a line by inviting this speaker".
Shrikanth, please do stop leaping to conclusions. I know you have very strong opinions and are unafraid to express them, but there was nothing at all here to justify the dramatic "THiNK has crossed a line by inviting this speaker"
ReplyDeleteSorry if I sound a tad strident. Not my intention. Am just providing a necessary corrective to the prevailing opinions. Because I know that in this Mullah's place if we had had an RSS bigot or some loon from the bible belt, the reactions of that audience would've been very very very different.
And I suppose it's okay to let go a bit in blogs :) This is one place where one needn't "censor" one's feelings to the extent that everyone behaves like a zombie.
@shrikanth - pretty much agree with what you say about RSS - they make social contributions and their mission statement "selfless service" is to be lauded but do not agree with their extreme right wing ideology or some of their methods. And like it or not, an organization is responsible for the acts of their hoodlum leaders unless they actively go out and dissociate themselves. That is called ownership and accountability. I see a lot of parallel behind the violent intentions of these hoodlums and the taliban extremists.
ReplyDeleteI believe we are judged more for our actions than speech and hence whole "freedom of speech" idea. With censoring, the problem arises in deciding what is in good taste and what is not ok to make fun of. Like Dawkins said, in today's world , it is ok to make fun of the food prepared by professional chefs but not ok to make fun of religious figures. For all you know, they may be equally important to the some people.
But totally agree with you that he should not have been allowed.
Because I know that in this Mullah's place if we had had an RSS bigot or some loon from the bible belt, the reactions of that audience would've been very very very different.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, even if this is the case (and personally I'm not sure it is - btw, what do you know about the audience reaction to Zaeef anyway?), it is still not enough reason to say "he shouldn't have been called".
And a big LOL at "providing a necessary corrective to the prevailing opinions". You certainly are very sure of yourself, aren't you?
Once again, even if this is the case (and personally I'm not sure it is - btw, what do you know about the audience reaction to Zaeef anyway?), it is still not enough reason to say "he shouldn't have been called".
ReplyDeleteI only judged from your previous comment where you said the audience applauded some of his points and it was a tempered discussion, suggesting that the reaction was not hostile.
Anyway it is the organizers' call on who they wish to invite. I was only expressing my opinion on the invitee list.
If I ever have a son, I will tell him - "you shouldn't smoke". But that's still just my opinion. He will still be free to go out and enjoy a good smoke!
My main concern is the atmosphere of non-judgmentalism we all live in. Withholding judgment can be an admirable thing but not when carried too far. The same arguments of tolerance and open-mindedness motivated Chamberlain's handshake with Mr.Hitler in 1938 at Munich. Sadly it was misguided tolerance!
Anyway, thanks for a good discussion.
The judgementalism/non-judgementalism issue is a completely separate one from what is being discussed here. Banning a certain type of person is hardly a good way of letting people see/decide for themselves what he stands for and believes in. To my ears, it rings dangerously close to the banning of books, initiated by people who simply don't want their followers/constituencies to even be exposed to certain ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though Zaeef made it very clear that he was NOT representative of the Taliban, the audience (who was often fickle and flippant in some contexts) caught on to some of the evasive or regressive things he said, and booed him for it.
Banning a certain type of person is hardly a good way of letting people see/decide for themselves what he stands for and believes in. To my ears, it rings dangerously close to the banning of books, initiated by people who simply don't want their followers/constituencies to even be exposed to certain ideas.
ReplyDeleteJust a clarification. I am not advocating a "ban" here. A ban if any can only be imposed by the govt in the event of security concerns. Else there is no ground for a ban.
I am discussing a matter of propriety not the legitimacy of the action of sending this guy an invite. There are lots and lots of things in our lives which are perfetly legal but not necessarily proper.
If it's okay to hear out Taliban in a conglomeration of distinguished writers/artists/social workers, then it must also be proper enough to invite a creationist to a science summit! Maybe this guy didn't sound that bad after all, but that's how radical groups always gain footholds in the mainstream.
@jai - Have to agree with Shrikanth. Essentially the big difference between banning and boycotting is a significant one. One is imposed legally by authority and other is free will by the junta.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is still free to hold his own events to broadcast his "Reformed" views. But what bites me big time is the hypocrisy of inviting this guy and still saying say that THINK do not support Taliban.
But what bites me big time is the hypocrisy of inviting this guy and still saying say that THINK do not support Taliban.
ReplyDeleteThat's a strange thing to say, Sid - there is ZERO hypocrisy involved there, and no logical connection at all between the two things. But of course, you're free to say whatever you feel too!
Shrikanth: in my earlier comment, I could easily replace "Banning a certain type of person..." with "Firmly deciding not to invite a certain type of person..." and I would still stick by the statement.
in my earlier comment, I could easily replace "Banning a certain type of person..." with "Firmly deciding not to invite a certain type of person..." and I would still stick by the statement.
ReplyDeleteWell. I have firmly decided not to invite thieves, sharia enthusiasts, women haters, sponsors of terror and mass murderers to my house. I don't care if that makes me a narrow minded crank akin to those who like to ban books that offend their sensibilities!
Thanks Jai. I believe I am stressing strongly on accountability. An example - if i were to conduct an event tomorrow and I were to invite an active core member of an organization to the event, I cannot hide behind the wall of liberal views saying "I may or may not agree with the person and have invited him just to hear him out". I can be agnostic (not sure if agnostic applies only to religion), but then should not be inviting the person.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry if my last post came on too strong. I am realizing this after re-reading it. On to your next post then :-)
Moderator, Mr could we please have some diversity in the comments section too -- instead of chewing Taliban-RSS gum. Something on what was happening on the sidelines of THiNK... heheehehehehe
ReplyDelete