December 16, 2011
December 5, 2011
Dev Anand Saab
88 is an age even Gregory Peck who is called America's Dev Anand hasn't lived. While we all recollect the golden period that Dev Anand belonged to - there are many things that made Dev Anand adorable and different. My father and I read his autobiography "Romancing with Life" avidly and recount his candour, zen for life and creative juices that kept flowing till the last. Dev was well-read throughout and didn't stop reading after B.A.English Lit. For most of the actors or anybody, reading was something to be done when you have lots of time and money. Hardly the case with Dev Anand - he made movies despite dwindling response - movies spurred by reading a Times edit or an article in "India Today". Movies with Rs.1-2 crs. budgets with a point or two on current issues. So what if Bharat Dabholkar asked the famous questions: "Who watches Dev Anand's films now?" and "Who finances his films?". Dev Anand took care of his health (almost as legendarily as ANR does today). He takes wine to de-clog his arteries in the same doses as kids take alcohol - in teaspoonfuls or tiny pegs each day. He never worried about his health or wealth, never let his stardom get to his family in arclights. He gave many starturns to star aspirants- male and female - and gave them teasers and cameos. He gained commercially sometimes and left the starturns to happen based on the young actors' luck and self-belief. He knew that his self-belief took him to the pedestal that he stood on and thought that the world will continue to oogle at him. In his heydays, he took on mighty superstars with his youthful effervescence and taught stylish dressing to so many of our fathers and grand-fathers. He was mighty humble and never believed he was the smartest guy in town - I remember he came to one of the cine awards function in South and somebody was introducing Bhanumathy Ramakrishna as a multil-faceted lady - Director, playwright, singer, producer, writer etc. Dev said he was astonished and humbled by her talents. A few years back, he hugged Saif Ali Khan who was imitating Dev Anand at another Awards Nite - so much for his ability to laugh at himself. Dev Anand had great work-life balance but worked hard to deliver creative output with 18-hour schedules. He gave space to so many talented music directors and technicians - SD Burman, RD Burman, Kishore Kumar and so on. He built a studio NavKetan Films that boasts of a marquee catalogue of films that will mostly stand the onslaught of time. Yes, he had famous run-ins with literary giants like Pearl S.Buck and RK Narayan and gave us International Productions and Bi-linguals when we are just getting into color; of course, I never liked the way he short-changed RK Narayan's "The Guide" by feigning that he will adapt the movie from "Guide" but paid a paltry sum to RK Narayan. That experience has forever made RKN shy of giving his books for screenplays and you will find two-three versions of what happened in Dev's autobio, RK's autobio and a rejoinder by Jerry Pinto. Whatever be the truth, Dev Anand fiercely fought till the last to protect his halo and his fading "youth". Of the famous trio, you now have only Dilip Kumar Saab remaining from the Bollywood of the 1950s. But Dev Anand will be remembered as the original happy-go-lucky Hero who gave Independent India its happiest reason to watch Hindi films - to dress like metrosexuals during years of Hindu rate of GDP growth, to live and love like chivalrous men, to live merrily and selfishly and to keep the youthful vigour alive till the last. To me and my dad, the moving visual of a black and white or a color Dev Anand whistling in full-buttoned shirts and driving open-roof cars at fuel-efficient speed is a lasting memory of happiness whenever we see - something that knows no generation gap.
Shankar Sharma's Special Appearances
If I am starved of entertainment during the day, and work demands a break, I tune in to these business channels where anchors and talking heads get paid to talk. The most amusing speaker according to me is Shankar Sharma - he is the Indian equivalent of a Dr.Doom or a human incarnation of a Nomura Securities. I was tuning in the other day, when Shankar Sharma was on one channel. It was irresistabl...e and irascible as usual. He says (and I paraphrase): "Inflation is not in our hands and only Growth is in our hands and yet RBI Governor has continued raising interest rates even at the cost of sacrificing growth. This 1930s thinking to monetary policy has to change.And hence the market will fall by 2500 points." Or something to that effect. Does he know what he is talking about? I am not concerned if and whether the markets will fall by 2500 points as market panics seldom have reason. But I am aghast at his knowledge of economics (as it is most people who are experts have got zero knowledge of economics but thats another matter) and impact on India. He should realise that India is not a small economy like Zimbabwe or Argentina which can afford hyperinflation. There will be issues - social and civil if ground inflation reaches a critical stage and we just can't afford it. There will be issues, he should know, with currency if Rupee touches 60 to a dollar and nobody will allow borrowing against your currency. So, RBI and its legacy of governors from Rangarajan to Jalan to Reddy to Subba Rao are well in their groove to know whats right for the country. I am a beneficiary of capital markets but that doesn't mean the country is less important than stock markets. People like Shankar Sharma who have this foot-in-the-mouth disease and self-righteousness can only make special appearances when the markets are already punished 25 per cent - so they can make more money for jam by going short on the market which is already in panic mode. Discerning viewers and investors will know who comes in when. Coming back to the currency and RBI's policy, now that China has cut interest rates and we have already raised 365 basis points since the last cut - RBI has got every trick in its sleeve to cut to grow. We don't need traders barred by SEBI to tell RBI what to do. RBI's Central Governors can rank amongst the best Governors in the world - they are not just here to sign one rupee notes; they are here to make sure the rupee note is honored by the rest of the world as well and retains the face value they sign on.
Pilla Zamindar
"Pilla Zamindar" is a short and breezy comedy with lively performances by an ensemble of stage artistes who never get their share of limelight in films. Director Ashok and Producer GS Rao have created a fun-filled tale of how a Richie-Rich Naani who takes money for granted gets to earn his spurs and grow as a mature human being who learns that what drives happiness is not money but other things i...n life - love, friendship, self-growth, personal victory and service-mindedness before the world can recognise you. Earlier, he loves things and uses people but towards the end he loves people and uses things - and in this real "graduation" process, the Director has shown enormous talent and command over the script, story-telling and entertainment aspects with oodles of right-balanced emotions. No foreign locations, no exotic sets, no thorough-fare fights that exhaust you. In just 130 minutes, you get a lung-expanding excursion into the village atmosphere and get to see folks who make merry in their rustic walks of life with greater ease than urban folks who smart under the metrosexual madness. Except for a bit of crassiness and maybe one vulgar song, the movie is a victory for what a combination of raw talent, good performances, tight scripting, flair for outstanding humour and spirited execution can achieve. Naani, Rao Ramesh, MS Narayana and the gang who hang out with the hero all deserve applause. There is an unconventional speed and exuberance in the screenplay that gets you hooked even though you know whats coming. Once in a while, we commit a statistical error of watching a good movie wee bit late. Like that, we saw "Ala Modalaindi" and "Golimaar". Its now the turn of "Pilla Zamindar" which is already into 50days run. The experience was thoroughly enjoyable and leaves you light-hearted inspite of the subtle messages beamed out. Saptagiri 70mm where we saw is as robust in viewing experience as a multiplex - and that was just one of the other pleasant surprises - music and photography were equally good. Movie-makers should make this movie a case-study on making low-budget movies that can become paisa-vasools.
Niall Ferguson Vs. Pankaj Mishra
I am excerpting a now famously spirited spat between Niall Ferguson and Pankaj Mishra both acclaimed writers in their own right. Pankaj reviewed Niall's book "Civillisations" and thats where the trouble started for Pankaj where Niall was "alleged" to be "racist" in his views of West Vs. East. I couldn't paste the link from LRB site (London Review of Books) without keeping other letters column. So duly acknowledging these two letters - Niall Ferguson's letter and his repartee by Pankaj Mishra - both are captured in this. Source: London Review of Books (lest I be facing a suit next!)
Niall Ferguson's letter to London Review of Books:Watch this man
Pankaj Mishra is now in full and ignominious retreat. As my last letter explained, in his review of my book Civilisation, he made a vile allegation of racism against me (Letters, 17 November). In his response he nowhere denies that this was his allegation; nor does he deny that he intended to make it. He now acknowledges that I am no racist. Any decent person would make an unconditional apology and stop there. But Mishra proves incapable of doing the right thing. His mealy-mouthed acknowledgment is qualified by the offensive suggestion that I lack ‘the steady convictions of racialist ideologues’, to whom his original review so outrageously compared me. Mishra’s slippery spin on his original words is that he meant to accuse me only of a ‘wider pathology’ of ‘bow[ing] down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible’. Unfortunately for his reputation, this new smear is also demonstrably false.
If Mishra bothered to read my work – or if he were not so intent on misrepresenting it – he would have to concede that since my book Virtual History (1997) I have consistently argued against the notion of irreversible trends in history. He would have to concede that the first article I published on the subject of ‘Chimerica’ (in the Wall Street Journal on 5 February 2007) explicitly concluded with a warning that the Sino-American economic relationship could prove to be a chimera. Far from writing ‘whatever seems resonant and persuasive at any given hour’, I have consistently sought to challenge the conventional wisdom of the moment. The Cash Nexus (2001) – published at a time when most bien pensants were ardent proponents of European monetary union – accurately foretold the current crisis of the euro. My book Colossus (2004) was subtitled ‘The Rise and Fall of the American Empire’ and warned that neoconservative visions of American imperium would likely founder on three deficits, of manpower, finance and public attention. Throughout 2006 and 2007, when others fell victim to irrational exuberance, I repeatedly warned of the dangers of a large financial crisis emanating from the US subprime mortgage market. And, far from hailing ‘the Chinese Century’, I spend pages 319-324 of Civilisation discussing the numerous challenges that China is likely to face in the coming decades. In fact, the phrase ‘Chinese century’ does not appear in my book.
As Mishra – and the LRB’s editor – must have appreciated, the allegation of racism in Mishra’s review was ostensibly buttressed by repeated accusations of omission of important issues and evidence. In my last letter I took five of these supposed omissions and showed they are in fact in the book under review, in black and white – and in the index. Had Mishra read the book so casually that he missed all five? Or was he wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting it?
Exposed, Mishra now retreats into quibbling about my tone. For example, my reference to Kenneth Pomeranz’s work is said to be ‘uncouth’. Really? Here is what I wrote:
For a century after 1520, the Chinese national savings rate was negative. There was no capital accumulation in late Ming China; rather the opposite. The story of what Kenneth Pomeranz has called ‘the Great Divergence’ between East and West therefore began much earlier than Pomeranz asserted.
I leave readers to make up their own minds about whether or not this is uncouth. (By the standards of serious economic historiography it is actually pretty polite.)
Mishra’s disingenuous approach is exemplified by his treatment of Chinese economic history at the start of the modern era, a central topic of Civilisation. Mishra’s original review said I gave no evidence for my position. Now that he stands corrected, Mishra responds that ‘[Ferguson] now unearths a footnote’ citing ‘two obscure Chinese scholars’. I find this extraordinary in two respects. First, the reference needed no ‘unearthing’. It was there, in the source notes and bibliography, for him and other readers to see. Second, David Daokui Li is hardly an ‘obscure scholar’. He is one of China’s leading economists. Not only is he the director of the Centre for China in the World Economy at Tsinghua University, he is also a member of the People’s Bank of China’s Monetary Policy Committee. He is, moreover, a former fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a former editor of the Journal of Comparative Economics. To say that Professor Li’s curriculum vitae is more impressive than Pankaj Mishra’s would be an understatement. A simple Google search, had Mishra bothered to do one before he wrote his rejoinder, would have spared his blushes. Your readers can now draw their own conclusions about the quality of the work you allow into your publication.
My book is not a ‘paean to the superiority of Western civilisation’, as Mishra describes it in a last pathetic salvo. I explicitly disavow triumphalism in the introduction. Rather it is a dispassionate examination of why the West came to dominate the Rest economically, geopolitically and even culturally between the 1500s and the 1970s. Besides the familiar, ugly methods of expropriation and enslavement – employed by Western and non-Western empires through the ages – there were novelties, not all of them pernicious. One of these was the scientific method, whereby claims are not advanced that patently conflict with empirical evidence. Another was the rule of law, under which, among other things, the freedom of the press does not extend to serious defamation, at best reckless, at worst deliberate and malicious. It is deplorable that the London Review of Books gives space to a man who seemingly cares about neither of these things.
I am still waiting for an apology, from both Pankaj Mishra and the editor who published his defamatory article.
Niall Ferguson
Harvard University
Pankaj Mishra writes: Niall Ferguson does not, alas, satisfactorily embody the ‘novelties’ – ‘scientific method’ and ‘rule of law’ – that he insists were the West’s gifts to the ‘Rest’. He seeks to mitigate the crimes of his beloved Western empires – what he calls ‘ugly methods of expropriation and enslavement’ – by also implicating ‘non-Western’ empires in them. He persists with questions that I have already answered in our previous exchange. Asked for proof of the ‘recent research’ that has ‘demolished’ Kenneth Pomeranz’s The Great Divergence, he comes up with the curriculum vitae of a Chinese academic nearly as well connected as he is. However, some readers of Civilisation may still want to see the actual paper that apparently singlehandedly discredits a major work of scholarship.
It is hard, even with Google, to keep up with Ferguson’s many claims and counter-claims. But his announcements of the dawning of the ‘Chinese Century’ and his more recent revised prophecy that India will outpace China, can be found as quickly as the boisterous heralding of the American imperium that he now disavows. As for his views on the innate superiority, indeed indispensability, of Western civilisation, these can be easily ascertained from his published writings and statements. Here is an extract from an interview early this year in the Guardian justifying the conquest of Native Americans:
The Apache and the Navajo had all sorts of admirable traits. In the absence of literacy we don’t know what they were because they didn’t write them down. We do know they killed a hell of a lot of bison. But had they been left to their own devices, I don’t think we’d have anything remotely resembling the civilisation we’ve had in North America.
It says something about the political culture of our age that Ferguson has got away with this disgraced worldview for as long as he has. Certainly, it now needs to be scrutinised in places other than the letters page of the LRB.
Niall Ferguson's letter to London Review of Books:Watch this man
Pankaj Mishra is now in full and ignominious retreat. As my last letter explained, in his review of my book Civilisation, he made a vile allegation of racism against me (Letters, 17 November). In his response he nowhere denies that this was his allegation; nor does he deny that he intended to make it. He now acknowledges that I am no racist. Any decent person would make an unconditional apology and stop there. But Mishra proves incapable of doing the right thing. His mealy-mouthed acknowledgment is qualified by the offensive suggestion that I lack ‘the steady convictions of racialist ideologues’, to whom his original review so outrageously compared me. Mishra’s slippery spin on his original words is that he meant to accuse me only of a ‘wider pathology’ of ‘bow[ing] down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible’. Unfortunately for his reputation, this new smear is also demonstrably false.
If Mishra bothered to read my work – or if he were not so intent on misrepresenting it – he would have to concede that since my book Virtual History (1997) I have consistently argued against the notion of irreversible trends in history. He would have to concede that the first article I published on the subject of ‘Chimerica’ (in the Wall Street Journal on 5 February 2007) explicitly concluded with a warning that the Sino-American economic relationship could prove to be a chimera. Far from writing ‘whatever seems resonant and persuasive at any given hour’, I have consistently sought to challenge the conventional wisdom of the moment. The Cash Nexus (2001) – published at a time when most bien pensants were ardent proponents of European monetary union – accurately foretold the current crisis of the euro. My book Colossus (2004) was subtitled ‘The Rise and Fall of the American Empire’ and warned that neoconservative visions of American imperium would likely founder on three deficits, of manpower, finance and public attention. Throughout 2006 and 2007, when others fell victim to irrational exuberance, I repeatedly warned of the dangers of a large financial crisis emanating from the US subprime mortgage market. And, far from hailing ‘the Chinese Century’, I spend pages 319-324 of Civilisation discussing the numerous challenges that China is likely to face in the coming decades. In fact, the phrase ‘Chinese century’ does not appear in my book.
As Mishra – and the LRB’s editor – must have appreciated, the allegation of racism in Mishra’s review was ostensibly buttressed by repeated accusations of omission of important issues and evidence. In my last letter I took five of these supposed omissions and showed they are in fact in the book under review, in black and white – and in the index. Had Mishra read the book so casually that he missed all five? Or was he wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting it?
Exposed, Mishra now retreats into quibbling about my tone. For example, my reference to Kenneth Pomeranz’s work is said to be ‘uncouth’. Really? Here is what I wrote:
For a century after 1520, the Chinese national savings rate was negative. There was no capital accumulation in late Ming China; rather the opposite. The story of what Kenneth Pomeranz has called ‘the Great Divergence’ between East and West therefore began much earlier than Pomeranz asserted.
I leave readers to make up their own minds about whether or not this is uncouth. (By the standards of serious economic historiography it is actually pretty polite.)
Mishra’s disingenuous approach is exemplified by his treatment of Chinese economic history at the start of the modern era, a central topic of Civilisation. Mishra’s original review said I gave no evidence for my position. Now that he stands corrected, Mishra responds that ‘[Ferguson] now unearths a footnote’ citing ‘two obscure Chinese scholars’. I find this extraordinary in two respects. First, the reference needed no ‘unearthing’. It was there, in the source notes and bibliography, for him and other readers to see. Second, David Daokui Li is hardly an ‘obscure scholar’. He is one of China’s leading economists. Not only is he the director of the Centre for China in the World Economy at Tsinghua University, he is also a member of the People’s Bank of China’s Monetary Policy Committee. He is, moreover, a former fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a former editor of the Journal of Comparative Economics. To say that Professor Li’s curriculum vitae is more impressive than Pankaj Mishra’s would be an understatement. A simple Google search, had Mishra bothered to do one before he wrote his rejoinder, would have spared his blushes. Your readers can now draw their own conclusions about the quality of the work you allow into your publication.
My book is not a ‘paean to the superiority of Western civilisation’, as Mishra describes it in a last pathetic salvo. I explicitly disavow triumphalism in the introduction. Rather it is a dispassionate examination of why the West came to dominate the Rest economically, geopolitically and even culturally between the 1500s and the 1970s. Besides the familiar, ugly methods of expropriation and enslavement – employed by Western and non-Western empires through the ages – there were novelties, not all of them pernicious. One of these was the scientific method, whereby claims are not advanced that patently conflict with empirical evidence. Another was the rule of law, under which, among other things, the freedom of the press does not extend to serious defamation, at best reckless, at worst deliberate and malicious. It is deplorable that the London Review of Books gives space to a man who seemingly cares about neither of these things.
I am still waiting for an apology, from both Pankaj Mishra and the editor who published his defamatory article.
Niall Ferguson
Harvard University
Pankaj Mishra writes: Niall Ferguson does not, alas, satisfactorily embody the ‘novelties’ – ‘scientific method’ and ‘rule of law’ – that he insists were the West’s gifts to the ‘Rest’. He seeks to mitigate the crimes of his beloved Western empires – what he calls ‘ugly methods of expropriation and enslavement’ – by also implicating ‘non-Western’ empires in them. He persists with questions that I have already answered in our previous exchange. Asked for proof of the ‘recent research’ that has ‘demolished’ Kenneth Pomeranz’s The Great Divergence, he comes up with the curriculum vitae of a Chinese academic nearly as well connected as he is. However, some readers of Civilisation may still want to see the actual paper that apparently singlehandedly discredits a major work of scholarship.
It is hard, even with Google, to keep up with Ferguson’s many claims and counter-claims. But his announcements of the dawning of the ‘Chinese Century’ and his more recent revised prophecy that India will outpace China, can be found as quickly as the boisterous heralding of the American imperium that he now disavows. As for his views on the innate superiority, indeed indispensability, of Western civilisation, these can be easily ascertained from his published writings and statements. Here is an extract from an interview early this year in the Guardian justifying the conquest of Native Americans:
The Apache and the Navajo had all sorts of admirable traits. In the absence of literacy we don’t know what they were because they didn’t write them down. We do know they killed a hell of a lot of bison. But had they been left to their own devices, I don’t think we’d have anything remotely resembling the civilisation we’ve had in North America.
It says something about the political culture of our age that Ferguson has got away with this disgraced worldview for as long as he has. Certainly, it now needs to be scrutinised in places other than the letters page of the LRB.
Let the Parliament function
Even though I am a die-hard bull about the economy and stockmarket, I am worried about the way the Parliamentarians in India are acting out of their wits. If they don't allow the ongoing Winter Session to function properly, and deliberate and discuss the passage of crucial bills - you can rest assured that not only FII outflows will increase or additional FDI get stalled, it will do more harm than... good to Brand India in the near-and-long-term. I am scared that if this session doesn't function its chartered course, Rupee can touch 56-58 to a dollar and markets can slip to 12k also - aggravating a fragile balance in macroeconomic headwinds. Opposition in India have opportunities galore already, they should just rein in their destructive emotions to act responsibly - else, they will be perceived as enemies bigger than some neighbouring countries. Dear opposition, choose your batttles well, you are on the verge of winning a war, why fritter away a chance to show some statesmanship?
Congress-I and Customer Service
The concept of customer service (moments of truth) has never existed for Congress-I and its lieutenants. Look at the way they are treating their biggest bastion in South - AP and India's second Presidential Capital Hyderabad. Even with 40 plus MPs - we have no minister of reckoning who will award projects here or retain investments. Investments are flowing out of the city, commercial space i...s g...oing abegging, some 30,000 units are threatening closure, companies like ICICI Bank and Infosys have reduced their footprint here to other places (which was not the original plan) like Pune, Landmark Bookshop closed its Warehouse in Hyderabad, many prominent groups have shifted out of Hyderabad, students are not coming to study in Hyd anymore especially Inter/Degree/PG level students which is the backbone of student population, MICE events have taken the severest knock last few years, IT Parks are shifting their R&D to other centres in India and abroad. Congress-I never treated the Hyd city or the state of AP with the respect and support - issues pile up and burial is the solution. This is nothing but a heist comparable in scale to what the British plundered in pre-independence era. The state is ignored in getting Railways footprint, projects, industrial corridors, everything and they manage to keepo the state folks perenially in illiteracy and disempowerment with doles for the poor. Today, the poor of AP are going out of the state for work; a few years back states like Bihar saw outlflow of people because of de-growth in Bihar - now Bihari workers in AP are moving back to Bihar because there are better prospects there. Does that mean we are becoming worse than Bihar?In the triangular contest happening between TDP, Jagan and Telangana demands - the Cong-I has precipitated CBI enquiries which are going nowhere but threatening to cast a shadow on every businessman in the city. I just hope that the next election will teach a lesson on customer service to Congress-I by decimating their base built on crooked plans, divisive politics and devious policies based on faultlines developed by them alone. Who will cry for you, Andhra Pradesh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)