If George Orwell Were To Be Down and Out Today...

Ralph Steadman:

"I was re-reading Down and Out in Paris and London recently. I think if he were to be down and out today he could survive on the bins behind the superstores … there's so much free stuff that they throw away – perfectly good food."

 "Down and Out in Paris and London" has already appeared on this blog here. There, I compared the book to my favorite Arun Kolatkar poem, I call it "Down and Out in Mumbai":

"मुंबईनं भिकेस लावलं
कल्याणला गुळ खाल्ला
ज्या गावाला नाव नव्हतं
पण एक धबधबा होता
तिथं एक ब्लँकेट विकलं
अन पोटभर पाणी प्यालो

पिंपळाची पानं चघळत
नाशकापर्यंत आलो
तिथं तुकाराम विकला
अन वर खिमापाव खाल्ला
..."
['Arun Kolatkarchya Kavita' (अरुण कोलटकरच्या कविता), 1977/2003, Page:92]

Translated into English by Kolatkar himself

("Bombay made me a beggar.
 Kalyan gave me a lump of jaggery to suck.
In a small village that had a waterfall
but no name
my blanket found a buyer
and I feasted on plain ordinary water.

I arrived in Nasik with
peepul leaves between my teeth.
There I sold my Tukaram
to buy some bread and mince
...")


Recently it was widely reported that "Almost half of the world's food thrown away, report finds".

Orwell day was observed on January 21 2013.

Now, who could have connected these two news items?

Only a good cartoonist and illustrator like Ralph Steadman as quoted at the top! 

"...if Orwell were to be down and out today he could survive..."

I wish!

Artist:  Ralph Steadman, 'George Orwell and a pig',  1996 illustrated edition of  'Animal Farm'

Using Racist Distance as a Tactic of Rule in Battlefields and Tea Esates

Jo Johnson:

"The ascendancy of evangelical Christianity, the demise of the practice of inter-marriage or cohabitation with Indian wives, and the onset of undisguised imperial arrogance (once the British had defeated all their military rivals on the subcontinent) all contributed to the painful termination of the easy relationship between Indian and Briton that had, by and large, prevailed during the 18th century."

Maya Jasanoff:

"John Darwin has provided an ambitious, monumental and convincing reminder that empires are the rule, not the exception, in world history. What their passage has meant - and will continue to mean - for the people who live within them remains for others to explore."

Indivar Kamtekar:

"...Check this for yourself.  Almost no student, despite high marks in Indian history at school and university, will be able to tell you, even very approximately, how many Britishers were actually to be found in India in the colonial period.  He or she would have devoted a considerable amount of time to the study of British rule, would possess a store of other factual information, and may well be able to debate, quite intelligently, the character of colonial conquest.  But ask this particular question, and you are likely to draw a blank...

Officials numbered about 12,000 only.  These included all the British members of the Indian Civil Service, the Indian Police, the railways, and the irrigation and engineering services.  The most important group was thus numerically the smallest.  On the basis of these figures, there were more than two thousand Indians to each Britisher in India.

These figures are seldom, if ever, mentioned in nationalist historiography.  They are probably kept out of sight with good reason, for the numbers are embarrassingly small.  The remarkable thing about the British in India was that there were so few of them.  Even the Indian Civil Service, of which so much was heard, had only a thousand officers in all, half of whom were Indian.  An analysis based on such figures can make imperialism look more like a midget than a monster.  But in the nationalist view, the forces of justice and of good triumphed in India, despite the superior might of the foreign forces of evil.  An Indian David killed a British Goliath.  A fearsome adversary was overcome.  Conveying this impression requires exaggerating the might of the foreign forces of evil.  The story of 1947 has, in the last half century in India, moved towards precisely this exaggeration..."

As I have mentioned here earlier, I lived on  a tea estate in Assam from July 1989 continuously for about a year and then intermittently until 1992.

One of the weirdest things that was practised universally in the tea gardens of Assam was social segregation of three classes of employees- managers/ executives (few in numbers), babus/ clerks (quite a few) and labourers (large).

We were told not to socialise with the clerks, let alone labourers. That meant, we were neither supposed to invite them home nor go to their homes. Only 'executives' were given the membership to the plantation club.

Four-five labourers were assigned to our modest bungalow as helpers - mali, bearer, aaya, chowkidar. We did not know how to use bearer and aaya. So they liked to be posted to our place! As ordained, neither we  went to their homes nor got to know them properly.  It was as if they were Neanderthal while we were Homo sapiens! When we were away on vacation in Maharashtra, our chowkidar was murdered while returning home from the night duty.    

I got along well with a couple of clerks- so well that we occasionally exchanged dirty jokes. One of them used to tell me a lot about sex lives of rather large looking ducks of Assam as well infidelities of some of tea estate men including current and past executives. In the streets of the town around our estates, one came across a few very fair skinned men with light (even blue) eyes. Apparently, they were offsprings of the past British sahibs!

I would have liked to invite those friendly clerks home for a meal. But I never did.

We were brown sahibs, continuing the practices started by the British sahibs. Why did the Brits follow such practices? 

'From the Cape to Cairo', Puck, 1902

Britannia leads civilising soldiers and colonists against Africans as Civilisation conquers Barbarism. 

courtesy : Library of Congress and HisoryToday.com

John Darwin's two books 'After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire', 2007 and 'The Empire Project/ The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–1970', 2009 are masterly studies of the empires and also provide antidote to the writings of the likes of Niall Ferguson.

David Cannadine says : 

"Darwin makes a good point in 'The Empire Project' that some people do suggest that the Empire is a story of scandal and exploitation that we should feel guilty about. Other historians of a more right-wing persuasion think the British Empire is a great story that we should be proud of. Darwin says it is not really very helpful to keep fighting about whether it was good or bad because there will never be agreement. Instead the way to move forward is to try to understand how it worked and why it fell apart. "

Mr. Darwin  has a new book out "Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain".

Linda Colley writes in its review:

" Even when Britain's own troops were sparse – in India before 1770, or in the Caribbean because of disease levels – it often coped by hiring indigenous troops and slave soldiers to do the dirty work. The extreme smallness of British numbers in many overseas locations also tended to reinforce the use of racist distance as a tactic of rule. Keeping the "natives" (and women) out of certain clubs in imperial settlements was not just prejudice, but also an attempt to shore up the charisma of the local dominant white males."  

When I read it,  I realised how this 'tactic' was deployed in the tea estates of Assam as late as in 1980's! Clerks= indigenous troops, slave soldiers= labourers...?

I have known what it was to be a Gora Sahib in India. And I did not enjoy it at all.

British troops man a remote outpost during the Indian uprising of 1857. 

Photograph courtesy: Hulton Archive/Getty Images and Guardian,  December 28 2012

Padma Bhushan Mangesh Padgaonkar By Vasant Sarwate

Marathi news channels  reported on the afternoon of January 25 2013 that Mangesh Padgaonkar (मंगेश पाडगांवकर) was likely to be honoured with 'Padma Bhushan'.

This is the cover of Padgaonkar's book 'Udasbodh' (उदासबोध) by Vasant Sarwate (वसंत सरवटे). It features caricature of the author.

Sarwate talks about it in his latest book 'Samvad Reshalekhakashi' (संवाद रेषालेखकाशी), 2012:

"....Padgaonkar was little stunned seeing himself wearing a loincloth and  expressed it to the late S P Bhagwat , Bhagwat said 'lucky at least a loincloth is shown!'..."

("...आपल लंगोटीधारी व्यक्तिमत्व पाहून  पाडगांवकरांना जरा  धक्काच बसला व श्री पु भागवतांशी तसे ते बोलल्यावर भागवत म्हणाले होते 'नशीब लंगोटी तरी दाखवलीय!'...")

I was impressed with Bhagwat's sense of humour.


I wish Jaywant Dalvi (जयवंत दळवी) 'Thanthanpal' (ठणठणपाळ) were to be alive today. I wonder what he would have come up with on Mr. Padgoankar. Thanthanpal was very fond of Padgaonkar.

Finally, I too am glad that Sarwate showed the loincloth. You can't show a Padma awardee without one, can you?

Namdev Says Your Home Has Little Less Gold and Cash नामा म्हणे तुमचे घरी थोडे कमी सोनें दाम...

On January 22 /23 2013 Marathi newspapers and TV channels have reported about the government of Maharashtra's  audit report on missing jewellery of Lord Vitthal at Pandharpur (पंढरपूर) temple. The value of  'missing' jewellery reportedly runs into millions of rupees.

As has been often said on this blog, Marathi is such a rich language because of the literature created in it by the saint-poets centuries ago.

A part of B S Mardhekar's (बा. सी. मर्ढेकर) poem reads:

"काय गा म्यां पामराने
 खरडावी बाराखडी; 
आणि बोलावी उत्तरें
 टिनपट वा चोमडी."

(What poor me
scratching alphabets
and giving answers
tinpot or impudent)

Most of what I write on this blog is 'scratching alphabets' and saying something 'tinpot or impudent'. 

It sounds even more so after one reads someone like Namdev (नामदेव):


"केशव पुसे नामयासी । तुझी नांदणूक कैसी ।।
...
नामा म्हणे तुमचे घरी सोनें दाम। आमुचे घरीं तुमचे नाम।। " (1739)


When asked by the god how his life was, Namdev ends his answer to Lord Vitthal with these words:

("At your home there is gold and cash, at our home is your name.")

I have never read or heard simpler and more moving words than these.

I interpret it like this:

"Keshav, that is Lord Vitthal, asks Namdev how his life is. Namdev goes on explaining that it is not easy,  comparing in the process  many aspects of his life with that of the god.  In short,  as I read it, Namdev's physical  life is quite miserable. Therefore, does Namdev ask his god anything?

Nothing.

On the contrary, he tells his god "You are wealthy alright but I am wealthy too because I have your name on my lips. You own gold & cash and I 'own' you in my heart! I am as wealthy as you without any attendant hassles of lockers, security, alarms, audits etc.""

This is Bhakti at its best.  It trumps 'Mukti'  hands down. These masters ask : Who wants Moksha when we have devotion?

I have never read what Vithoba's (विठोबा) response was to Namdev's answer but I am sure Vithoba couldn't have been prouder! He would have just moved away...What devotees he has got...No other god is that lucky!


[You may read an excellent essay on Namdev by M V Dhond (म वा धोंड) here]

However, after the alleged scam, Namdev's words have to be slightly modified to :

"नामा म्हणे तुमचे घरी थोडे कमी सोनें दाम। आमुचे घरीं तुमचे नाम।"

 Namdev as imagined by renowned artist: Bhaskar Hande (भास्कर हांडे)

Courtesy: the artist and Marathi periodical 'Ringan', 2012 (रिंगण)

Visit here to read the full issue of Ringan

If you read Marathi,  I strongly recommend reading Mr. Hande's article there.   His explanation of the thought process that went into the making of the painting is an absolute delight.

We Cried for Boxer and Shyamchi Aai

Yesterday, January 21 was Orwell day. The great man died in 1950 on that day at the age of 46.

He has appeared on this blog many times but he has been with me ever since my father translated "Animal Farm" into Marathi  "...Aani Kranticha Mudada Padala" (...आणि क्रांतीचा मुडदा पडला) - "...And the revolution's corpse fell"- around 1970.

We read it as  a kids' book. We did not know where USSR was. We did not know what revolution was. We did not know who Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were.

But we read the book many times. We imagined all those animals using our little imaginations. And we cried for Boxer.  The way we cried for "Shyamchi Aai" (श्यामची आई).

Since then I have read most of Orwell in English but not 'Animal Farm'. My father's translation is still good enough for me.

There is tons of pro and anti-Orwell material on internet but I liked best what  Barry Gewen said recently about him: 

"...Orwell was against abstractions of every kind: fascism, Communism, especially nationalism; “Americanism,” he once said, was a term that could easily be used for totalitarian ends. His socialism was pragmatic, anti-utopian, perhaps little more than an expression of his hope that the conditions of the poor and the powerless could be improved...He was a friend of the common man who also had an appreciation of James Joyce. He was a socialist with little hope for real change unless decency could somehow prevail..."


Will decency somehow prevail?

New cover of the book

courtesy: Penguin Books, penguin.co.uk. typeasimage.com.

"The deep foreboding red of the Animal Farm cover evokes the political charge of Orwell's allegorical novel of 1945 – the type treatment managing to look jauntily cinematic and cartoon-like, and wholly unnerving at the same time."

Old cover of the book

courtesy: History Today