मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Friday, May 14, 2021

ब्रह्मदेश हा भारताचा भाग होता....Burma Was a Province of India

George Orwell, 'Burmese Days', 1934:  
‘For an average Englishman in India [Burma was then ruled as part of the Indian empire] the basic fact, more important even than the loneliness or the heat of the sun, is the strangeness of the scenery. In the beginning the foreign landscape bores him, later he hates it, in the end he comes to love it, but it is never quite out of his consciousness and all his beliefs are in a mysterious way affected by it.’
 
Amitav Ghosh, The Glass Palace, 2000: "...The British occupation had changed everything: Burma had been quickly integrated into the Empire, forcibly converted into a province of British India....Baburao welcomed everyone to the shade of the tree. Once the crowd was thick and deep he began to talk, his voice slowing to a chant in the reverential manner of a reciter of the Ramayana. He spoke of a land of gold, Burma, which the British Sarkar had declared to be a part of India...."
 
Richard Eaton, ‘India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765’, 2019 : “…In this way values and sensibilities embedded in works of the Persian canon were absorbed by Indian populations having no facility in the Persian language.

The case of Burma’s Arakan coastal region illustrates this process. Between the mid fifteenth and early seventeenth centuries the region’s Buddhist kings, seeking to integrate themselves with a maritime world saturated with Persian culture, adopted Persian royal titles and issued coins in the Perso-Arabic script, as well as those of Sanskrit and Arakanese. By the mid seventeenth century Arakanese was used as the language of the ruling elite, Sanskrit that of the court’s Brahmins, Pali that of the Buddhist canon, Bengali that of the kingdom’s sizeable Muslim population (the ancestors of today’s Rohingya community) and Persian that of administration and diplomacy….”

Jon Wilson, The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India, 2016: “…The English ruled territory in India from the 1650s. Britain was the supreme political force in the subcontinent that stretches from Iran to Thailand, from the Himalayas to the sea, from at least 1800 until 1947. These years of conquest and empire left remains that survived in South Asia’s soil, sometimes until today. Perhaps a quarter of a million Europeans are still buried in more than a thousand ‘cities of the dead’, as the British explorer Richard Burton called them in 1847, scattered through the countries that once made up British-ruled India – India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma….”

 १८२६ ते १९३७ पर्यंत ब्रह्मदेश हा भारताचा अधिकृतपणे भाग होता (Division of the Bengal Presidency 1826–1862 ; Province of British India 1862–1937; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_in_Burma)... ज्यावेळी लोकमान्यांना आणि थिबा राजांना मंडाले आणि रत्नागिरीत कोंडण्यात आले , ते त्यांच्या देशात, भारतातच. 

 वाङ्मय शोभाच्या एप्रिल १९४९ चे मुखपृष्ठ पहा :
 

 
 त्यावर जाहिरात आहे व्ही शांताराम दिग्दर्शित सिनेमाची - "अपना देश", त्यातील भारताचा नकाशा पहा. 
 
त्याच अंकातील पा. म. के. या लेखकाचा लेख पहा , 'आमचें राजकारण'. 

त्यातील एक छोटासा भाग :
 

 "परवां  परवां  पर्यंत आमच्यांतच तो सामावलेला होता"
 
अशी अनेक उदाहरणे देता येतील...