Basu’s is a readable translation of Tagore’s short stories
which deal with different themes, viz., The End of Progress
begins as a lighthearted satire on pseudo-feminism and ends up
on a tragic note, highlighting the complexities of a woman’s
mind; At Night explores a guilt-ridden husband’s
psyche; Giving and Owing is a telling comment on the
dowry system; Grandfather, laced with subtle humour,
deals with feudal profligacy and hypocrisy; and Revenge
is about the caste-versus-economic-status conflict that ends on
an idealistic note. But The Beggar Woman appears
contrived — young Kashmiri girls didn’t wear sarees but pheran
or salwar kameez.
Tagore’s
understanding of the human thought processes is masterly. Basu
has succeeded in highlighting this aspect. Tagore employs the
paranormal as an effective narrative device. Overall Basu has
done well but occasionally she is inconsistent regarding the
tenses. For example, in The Crown, she uses past
continuous and present perfect interchangeably in the same
paragraph without any apparent reason. In the original text this
form of narrative may not jar, but, translated, it confuses.
Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad
edited by Mahavir Singh.
Anamika Publishers. Pages 135. Rs 300.
A stalwart of
India’s independence struggle, Azad, like Tilak and Gandhi,
mixed religion with politics. He helped bring the Muslim masses
into the mainstream of the freedom movement. A scholar of
Islamic theology, he entered the political arena as a young
journalist with strong Pan-Islamic views, evolved into a staunch
nationalist and was the INC’s president for two terms — in
1923, and later from 1940 to 1946.
Was Azad right in
criticising Nehru for excluding the Muslim League
representatives from the 1937 United Provinces Congress
ministry? Mehrotra disagrees with Azad that this action of Nehru’s
sowed the seeds of India’s Partition. In fact Azad indicts
Sardar Patel, too, in his book India Wins Freedom.
Mehrotra finds Azad’s explication "simplistic." V.N.
Datta focuses on the commonality between Azad and Nehru, as both
represented a composite culture and "stood for the
independent spirit of man in an age that tended to impose its
authority."
Mukherji says that
since his autobiography and available biographical material are
inadequate in understanding Azad’s mind, one should take a
look at his writings. He contradicts Azad’s contention that
the British had sowed the seeds of the Hindu-Muslim divide. He
avers, "`85the concepts of kafir, dar-ul-harb, dar-ul Islam,
jihad and jahiliya are ancient concepts and the
origins of separatism are to be traced in such seminal
ideas." I’d like to add that the notion of millat
too prevents Muslims from adopting multiculturalism as a way of
life. Ahmad says that Azad fought not only the British but also
obscurantism in Islam. Karlekar feels that despite his
Pan-Islamic beliefs Azad was a nationalist to the core.
Bhattacharya highlights Azad’s attempts as India’s first
Education Minister to "rebuild India’s tradition of
cultural appreciation."
Clearly Azad wasn’t
our stereotype secularist. He was an Islamist with patriotic
convictions.
Lockouts in
India
by Ruddar Datt. Manohar
Publishers. Pages 184. Rs
500.
Labour unions in
India have invariably been held culpable for industrial unrest
and strikes. Even lockouts have been deemed as the outcome of
labour indiscipline. This may be true, but not wholly. What
about the role of employers? Ruddar Datt gives an overview of
lockouts that took place between 1961 and 1997, with special
focus on the West Bengal industrial scenario. Mismanagement,
downsizing and exploitation of the labour force by keeping a
large chunk as casual workers, disputes among industrialist
family members etc are some of the major contributing factors to
lockouts. Datt provides relevant data to prove his hypothesis.
He gives
state-wise statistical analysis of lockouts in the
pre-liberalisation and post-liberalisation periods. He
attributes the decline in man-days lost during the
post-liberalisation era to the shift in government’s support
from the employee to the employer. Simplistic? Perhaps. Too pat?
Maybe. One may not agree with all the conclusions in this book
but it certainly is an important reference material for
economists as well as social scientists.
|