Well, a while since my last blog, but it has been a hectic set of days since then as well, traveling between cities and friends. Also, I would like to thank all those people who wished me on my birthday, and for those of you who didn’t (grr!). Well, I have read a lot of books since then, (good books all!), some of them being, Nandan Nilekani’s Imagining India, Asimov’s End of Eternity, Niall Ferguson’s History of Money and many more. It has been a while since I critiqued a book and I figured I should go back to my original self when I do this.
The first and easiest book to tell about would be Asimov’s book. When I saw the book I was shocked that I missed a novel from the master and lord of science fiction. The book is about time travel and its consequences mainly. Assuming for a moment time travel is possible, and that a group called Eternity was set up to control all time movement, and historical facts to weed out the unusual over time and stop wars from happening, and other things to ensure a future which would be safe and sound, Asimov talks about the destruction that this would cause to the human spirit. The Unusual is what makes humans different from the rest, that one man can take on the world and plunge it into war or rise to glory and fame is what makes the world move and have paradigm shifts. The existence of Eternity would ensure mediocrity and a world where humans become more docile. Anyway, before spoiling the book, it is a must read for all, and the fact that it is short also helps. I have no critique on this book, other than to say, Asimov continues to be one of my favorite authors and he doesn’t disappoint with this book.
The next book would be Nandan Nilekani’s book Imagining India. He presents his views in a unique manner, and is unique due to the place that he is in now, the leader of one of the largest companies of India and one who is involved steeply in formulating government policies as well. In this book, he outlines what he sees as the problems of India, what he sees as the roadblocks in growth and development of India. From problems of population to bureaucracy to infrastructure, he talks about these problems giving possible solutions wherever he can. He admits that he does not have all the solutions but he provides his insights clearly and expresses himself in a lucid manner. Given my general aversion to Indian authors, I was enthralled to find a book which could talk to me as it were. Nandan Nilekani talks to the educated generation through this book. It is not a book meant to inspire or glorify his company or a biography, but an attempt to discuss his own thoughts, like a blog almost, albeit a bit long one. He talks about ideas in four different parts, ideas that have arrived, ideas in progress, ideas in battle, and ideas to anticipate. Overall, it is a good book to read, to expand your own horizons and see a person who solves complex problems in his own world, attempt that in our world as well.
Apart from these, I have read a lot of Alistair Maclean’s books over the last two weeks. Short and sweet, I like these books mainly for the action, the sarcastic wit of the main characters, and the tangled web plots that he weaves in his books. If you are a fan of fiction and especially war fiction, then Alistair Maclean is the way to go.
One other thing I wanted to comment on was the shoe throwing incident of Bush. The fact that a reporter who violated the norms of his profession, has turned into a cult figure among the masses in the Middle East is fascinating because it is an example of the unpopularity that American faces in the Middle East. Though I do not support the shoe throwing incident, it is not hard to see why it has happened. The only thing remains to be seen is whether Bush will face that in his own country once he steps down from the Presidency. Will his own people be able to embrace him after his mishandled and clearly bungled terms as President is a question that remains to be seen.
Lastly, I had just gone through Arundhati Roy’s essay on terrorism in Mumbai “9 is not 11”. Her last ending line left an impression on me:
“The only way to contain (it would be naive to say end) terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We're standing at a fork in the road. One sign says 'Justice', the other 'Civil War'. There's no third sign and there's no going back. Choose.”
Are these the only two options that we have? What is ‘Justice’? Some would look at genocide as justice for the losses that they have faced and some would look at complete appeasement as justice. Both of these extremes are clearly wrong. Justice and Civil War are vague terms at best. If Civil War is defined as countrymen fighting each other, haven’t we been at Civil War for the last 60 years or so since partition. The future historians might choose to look at it that way. Brother turned against brother, son against father, and neighbour against neighbour. This does fit the classic definition of a civil war, however, does terrorism and anti terrorism come under the domain of a civil war? Will the doings of a couple of men change that?
5 comments:
Yes i think you are quite right that the words are vague in this context. But i think Arundhati roy wanted to express something deep.
Justice, i think should be done to the people of india, who believe that they are safe or else they will resort to every possible way to get it. In that condition we will be on the verge of civil war when one belief will be fighting against another. See hindi movie "A wednesday" for example.
I have seen that movie..I was not questioning Arundhati Roy's motives in this...What I am questioning is our own motives in this..Are we out for revenge against Muslims? Are we willing to shed the blood of our own brothers for a belief? Sure some terrorists might be, but are we still ready to know what blind hatred is?
"We" DoM?
I do believe you're making (as is Mrs. Roy) blanket statements. Are you capable of any hatred at all? Do you really think it is that easy to go on a riot?
Learn from the past. The people who are out to hurt are people who've got nothing to lose. Whose rage is potent enough to let them forget any worldly tie. What is the solution? How do you 'contain' or 'stop' terror? How many will you fight? Using what? Can you fight at all? Don't you have things to lose? Would you deny yourself in the same manner to fight that madman? Have you that strength or the will?
Is there an alternative? Perhaps. Give them something to lose. That is the only way to turn them. It is not a civil war (sense of scale please), and there is no justice (there is no undoing the wrongs). It's just a battle of belief, and not the religious kind. Weaken their resolve, and you've won your war.
Oh btw, on Maclean: You should read the classics, Navarone and Where Eagles Dare. Brilliant stuff.
How in the world did you miss Asimov?
I think i phrased it wrong when i wrote it..I was questioning Arundhati Roy's blanket statements as well..When she says we, like you said, the proper question is Who is we? Who will stand up in a riot? I agree a person like me lets say, probably will avoid a riot, whether right or wrong, sit at home and watch the news channel. If it is a battle of belief, then will there ever be an end..if you want to look at it historically..since the crusades has it ever stopped? I have read all those..i think i have nearly completed maclean..by missing aismov i meant, i missed that one book by accident..
Post a Comment