Criticising for Fad

At times lack of commonsense prevails when even an educated individual is unable to differentiate between good, bad and ugly. Although Bipasha Basu's picture of two young girls tying (presumably) her shoe laces is not creative by any means but why should she render a public apology? All of us have had our share of dumb and embarrassing moments in life which are better left to ourselves. Just because someone is a celebrity does not imply that scope for an error (which does not harm anybody) is also not given its due. It appears that all those being so vociferous about child labour, et al, should carry out an introspection. This will help them to rule out the impression that they are saying what they are saying since it is an in thing. As for the national daily which seeks public apology, please do not scandalize petty issues. 'Unethical Journalism', I must say.

Bridging the Gap Through Urdu

I am not a religious fanatic, in fact I have always loved Urdu as a mellow yet powerful language. Use of Urdu in couplets and ghazals by renowned and lesser known poets has inspired and entertained millions, irrespective of caste. Despite having a positive attitude towards Urdu I always felt that it is a Muslim language, a thought which has been transmuted by Ali Khan Mahmudabad through his article ‘Urdu: A Shared Legacy’. I have discovered it as an ‘Indian Language’.

Unlike region and caste specific languages, Urdu has been an evolutionary and improvised language. It was meant to communicate between people of different origins - original habitants of India and the Muslims who came from 11^th century onwards and were trying to make India their home.  It is a ‘Sanskrit-derived language written in Persio-Arabic script and with literary conventions and specialized vocabulary being retained from Persian, Arabic and Turkic’ (Wikipedia). Using the example of Urdu to look at each others common history and understand each other is an excellent idea propounded by Mahmudabad.

Credits

Ali Khan Mahmudabad

Wikipedia

A Bad Reviewer

The review of ‘Hostel Room 131’ (R. Raj Rao, Penguin) in Hindustan Times September 25, 2010, by Ashok Row Kavi is bitterly insensitive and savagely uncouth. The ending note of hitting the author with his own book is definitely neither a literary statement nor good humour but smacks of personal vengeance irrespective of the reviewer’s acquaintance with the author. Such unsympathetic reviewers should be barred from writing reviews and employed to write inflammatory political speeches

A Study in Confusion

Barkha Dutt seems to be totally confused in ‘No Triumphalism’ (October 02, Hindustan Times). Whether she is lampooning the learned judges of the High Court, or using the hatchet at the political parties, or demanding action against perpetrators of 1992 demolition, or highlight instances of communal harmony is acutely indiscernible.

With regard to the judgement, ostensibly the focus of her article, she needs to be better educated about  Indian Laws, judicial language and procedures. ‘An observation’ on the ‘live issue’ of demolition in a High Court Verdict cannot be equated with a political or journalistic statement. Every word penned has legal implications-grant some wisdom to an honourable bench instead of taking over the Supreme Court’s Job. You are welcome, Barkha, to file a suit for action against those responsible for the demolition and let the law take its own course.