I would not compare Sunil with Humayun. Sorry to say that I have two different standards for the East and West Bengal. Humayun was a popular writer in Bangladesh but he never really tickled me as a good writer. Since the man is dead, I would not criticize him. He would not have passed the West Bengal standard. For Sunil, he was a factory and wrote too much and some came out OK but he did write for the money as Humayun. Not that, that is bad for a writer. But I prefer non-commercial writer like late Nirad Sri Chaudhury.
-SD
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
-Seuss
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:26 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
Sunil had a decent job in Ananda Bazar Patrika to fill its magazines with novels and poems. So his books were the obvious outcome and those were better than made by Humayun. He also had a desk reserved in the National Library in Calcutta. He read as much as he could. I find nothing wrong in his overtures to the Goddess Saraswati, even Kalidas had it when he chanted on the adornment of her breasts.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
A decent person does not sell that many books now a days. The man was a commercial writer from the get go and most of the products that he has produced are not of that good quality. Now, if create some drama and irrational sensation, suddenly, you get the public attention and with that you can inflate your demand and wallet. Salman Rushdie is another example.
But with the breath, I must say, nothing should be considered as holy. If there is a logic to go after something, I say, go for it!"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:08 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
Subimal Chakraborty said: "The point is Sunil could have confined his confession within a drawing room filled with his own cohorts."This is exactly what a decent man would do, but – Sunil was not a decent man. He was an arrogant man, too full of himself. He deliberately wanted to provoke followers of Hindu traditions. He knew he could do it at ease; nobody will catch his neck. In fact, many people from other religions could be pleased with his comment. That could be a reason behind this comment in public, and not in a closed door friendly conversations.Jiten Roy
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:47 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
The point is Sunil could have confined his confession within a drawing room filled with his own cohorts. By writing it for everybody, he hurt the feelings of many believers. All believers are not equal. They react in different ways. Our societies are not ready yet for all kinds of shocking information, particularly a piece of information that involves a sacred goddess and aroused sex in a human being.
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 12:53 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing wrong in winking at Saraswati. She is the Goddess of learning, love and war. Her equivalent in Avesta is Anahita, a stark naked Goddess riding a lion. Those critics of Sunil Ganguly had no knowledge of religious scripture.
Sent from my iPadI mean he was born of a Hindu family. Probably he became an atheist at an old age. In the weddings of his son and daughter he followed the Hindu rituals.Remember Sunil Ganguly created controversy by saying that on his young life the goddess Saraswati used to provoke sex in him? He was sued by a retired Hindu police officer. He was criticized heavily by many atheists, liberals, and believers.
Sent from my iPhoneWhen one stresses upon the need to understand the context, he forgets that it imposes the limits of non-universality upon the person being discussed curtailing the limit of his prophethood. With such followers, who needs non-believers?
On Thursday, February 27, 2014, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:How can the man be a Hindu and an atheist at the same time, Professor Chakrabarty? You probably did not mean it that way.On a more serious note, I think Dr. Roy's question of "what's the meaning of "crude bashing"" needs to be addressed, discussed and debated.To me, an example of "crude bashing" of religion would be drawing a so-called prophet/avatar/god in a disrespectful manner, such as pig face or sexually explicit. It would serve only to provoke the believer, with no attempt to educate, and I would condemn it.However, calling an unjust/hateful/barbaric religious teaching unjust/hateful/barbaric is not what I would call "crude bashing", although personally I would avoid doing the criticism. That is primarily because I do realize that people were less educated and less civilized when those teachings came about. There is no point in criticizing, or in trying to find the context for respecting, the ignorance/mistakes of our forefathers (the foremothers had very little power). The point really is not to follow (and not allowing to follow) any unjust/hateful/barbaric teachings, irrespective of what religion/tradition had that.Sukhamaya Bain=========================================On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:48 PM, Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a very close friend. He is Hindu. He was a professor of a renowned university of Bangladesh. Now he lives in a America. He is an atheist. Some of the comments he makes in Facebook are nothing but crude bashing of Hindu religion. I had an opportunity to read one of his ugly comments about goddess Kali in Facebook. This is called crude bashing. This does not help us.
Sent from my iPhoneSubimal Chakraborty Said: "I agree with Farida apa: crude bashing of Islam and for that matter any religion is indefensible. It is not only childish, it also provokes a fanatic and leaves in their hands 'weapons' to make an attempt to stop the progress of human thoughts and ideas. Therefore, critiquing of a religion should be objective and analytical with no preconceived hatred for it in the critic's mind."Who hates who? I do not think anybody here hates anybody personally; people just put forward opinions. The above statement means some people have hatred against some other people in this forum. This is a misguided notion.Now - what's the meaning of "crude bashing?" All we have heard so far from Ms. Majid and Mr. Rahman are terms like - "Islam bashing" and "hatred for Islam," when they run out of arguments to counter criticism. To them, every criticism of their religion is out of hatred for their religion. Now, an atheist is joining that cohort; this smells like a political stand, not ideological.The fact is – criticism of one's favorite object will always hurt his/her feeling; it does not matter how objective or analytical criticism may be. Also, how can someone defend a blind faith with a sound logic? They can't. Blind faith logic will always sound ridiculous to an open minded person. Mr. Rahman thinks that he knows the authentic version of Islam. Isn't it a ridiculous claims also? How could anyone be so sure that he/she has the most authentic version of religion, unless it's his faith.
Lately, I am hearing from Mr. Rahman that judging Prophet needs proper context. To me, a noble man is always a noble man; no context or excuse is needed to evaluate a noble man.Jiten Roy
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:33
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
