In the NYT: India joined the WTO in 1994, making a deal that would allow its drug manufacturers to make copycat pharmaceuticals cheaply until January 1, 2005.
Now, Indian drug manufacturers will have to stop selling copycat versions of drugs invented after 1995 (including recent AIDS 'cocktail' drugs) unless Parliament votes to exempt them. Those cheap Indian drugs have benefited Indians with AIDS, but also thousands of people fighting the disease in other countries.
Let's hope it happens.
Proto-fusion -- early Hindi appropriations of jazz and fado
Dilip D'Souza has a great post on early Bollywood musical fusion.
Death ends fun: Hey My Heart, Show Me
My own latest bizarre example: "Gela Gela Gela," one of the songs from the recent film Aitraaz samples "Thoia Thoing," R. Kelly's huge (and nonsensical) R&B hit from 2003. It actually kind of works.
Death ends fun: Hey My Heart, Show Me
My own latest bizarre example: "Gela Gela Gela," one of the songs from the recent film Aitraaz samples "Thoia Thoing," R. Kelly's huge (and nonsensical) R&B hit from 2003. It actually kind of works.
Youth Curry (new blog)
I came across a brand new blog called Youth Curry, via Om Malik. Rashmi Bansal is a journalist in Bombay; it seems like this will be a blog oriented to Indian youth-culture trends.
Her point about IPods seems pretty self-evident -- the market that can afford 20,000+ Rupees on an MP3 player is very small.
I also like her point about how cell phones change the dynamic for teenagers in more conservative households. Unintentional liberalization:
True in America as much as in India.
(It also obviously brings up the issue of the recent MMS video cell phone scandal, but that was kind of an anomaly. This is going to be nearly universal middle-class households.)
Her point about IPods seems pretty self-evident -- the market that can afford 20,000+ Rupees on an MP3 player is very small.
I also like her point about how cell phones change the dynamic for teenagers in more conservative households. Unintentional liberalization:
The paradox of technology
Parents may feel a sense of security in knowing 'where their kids are', but the truth is - they have less idea than ever before. In simpler times, when you went to a friend's house for a sleepover you left your firend's telephone number behind.
In the cellphone era there's no way to tell where you really are. And when you don't want to be reached, you can always claim the signal was weak or you are out of network coverage. I'm not saying all teens use the cellphone to deceive their parents but many sure do.
Further, there is unprecedented privacy for the young person - especially girls from less liberal backgrounds. No longer can paranoid pappas vet all incoming calls and ask to know why such and such boy keeps calling.
The balance of power has shifted. Calls can be received after midnight on silent mode, with nobody the wiser for it.
True in America as much as in India.
(It also obviously brings up the issue of the recent MMS video cell phone scandal, but that was kind of an anomaly. This is going to be nearly universal middle-class households.)
Films Division: Another India Teaching/Learning Resource
The Indian Government's Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has a website where you can watch old, state-sponsored documentary films online. They are black & white films, seemingly from the 1950s, that have a strong statist, secularist, and patriotic tone to them. They are in "official" English.
After watching most of the film on the Partition and part of another one on the "Quit India" movement, I can say this: 1) the narration is densely historical, to the point that it is more than a bit boring, and 2) the reason they're worth watching anyway is for their status as visual archive of the nationalist and the early post-independence periods.
(Perhaps you have to be a bit of a history buff... but maybe try flipping around to get at the juicier parts.)
I can't hyperlink to individual documentaries on the site, but you can find them easily along the top of the page (the images in the 'film reel' click to the individual films that are available). Also, if you watch them in Windows Media Player at least, you can view the films in full-screen mode using the right-click. (I don't know how or whether this would work on a Mac.)
I found out about this via Another Subcontinent.
After watching most of the film on the Partition and part of another one on the "Quit India" movement, I can say this: 1) the narration is densely historical, to the point that it is more than a bit boring, and 2) the reason they're worth watching anyway is for their status as visual archive of the nationalist and the early post-independence periods.
(Perhaps you have to be a bit of a history buff... but maybe try flipping around to get at the juicier parts.)
I can't hyperlink to individual documentaries on the site, but you can find them easily along the top of the page (the images in the 'film reel' click to the individual films that are available). Also, if you watch them in Windows Media Player at least, you can view the films in full-screen mode using the right-click. (I don't know how or whether this would work on a Mac.)
I found out about this via Another Subcontinent.
Grudging Respect
I find myself in profound opposition to her world-view, and I think her role in the Bush presidency has been, well, not good. [Insert forceful tirade about Iraq war here]
I saw some of the footage of her Senate confirmation hearings yesterday on C-Span. It seemed to me she destroyed Barbara Boxer both rhetorically and stylistically; it wasn't even remotely competitive. If things continue as they are, Rice will probably continue to be a force after the Bush presidency as long as the Republicans continue to run things. Vice President in 2008? Watch out.
[Also see Chapati Mystery on Condi]
Paris, not London. And literature, itself
I thought this would be a light blogging day, but there is just too much going on.
Pascale Casanova has a "big argument" book called The World Republic of Letters that was reviewed in The Nation by William Deresiewicz in December. There seem to be two prongs to her argument. One has to do with situating literature withing the world-system:
The surprise being, of course, Paris. Most of us English lit. types think of it as London...
The other prong of her argument is about the autonomy of literature, its separatenes from social history. She is rebelling against historicism.
Aha. I wonder what Dan Green will think of all this.
I may or may not end up agreeing with all of Casanova's claims, but from this review I have a feeling it's something I'll really enjoy reading.
Pascale Casanova has a "big argument" book called The World Republic of Letters that was reviewed in The Nation by William Deresiewicz in December. There seem to be two prongs to her argument. One has to do with situating literature withing the world-system:
Casanova's work amounts to a radical remapping of global literary space--which means, first of all, the recognition that there is a global literary space. Her insights build on world systems theory, the idea, developed by Fernand Braudel and Immanuel Wallerstein, that the capitalist economy that has emerged since about 1500 must be understood as a single global system of interlinked national economies. Some of these economies belong to the ruling "core," others to the dependent "periphery," but none can coherently be studied as a discrete entity. Casanova, a scholar at the Center for Research in Arts and Language in Paris, argues, convincingly, that an analogous literary system, a "world republic of letters," has gradually taken shape since around the same time. In her analysis, a core group of nations--France, England and the founders of other "major" European literatures--having built up large reserves of "literary capital" over the past several centuries, control the means of cultural legitimation for the countries of the global literary periphery--a region that, as in the capitalist world system, has grown ever larger over the past two centuries with, first, the rise of European nationalism and, second, decolonization, as nations without previous literary standing, and writers from those nations, have sought international validation. And the capital of the world republic of letters, the place to which even other countries of the core must look for ultimate consecration and the global reputation it brings, is Paris.
The surprise being, of course, Paris. Most of us English lit. types think of it as London...
The other prong of her argument is about the autonomy of literature, its separatenes from social history. She is rebelling against historicism.
Whatever the terms under which it was conducted, however, it was this rivalry among national literatures that led to the creation of an international literary space. Indeed, it led, one might say, to the creation of literature itself--literature as an autonomous realm--for it was, paradoxically, through this same struggle that literary values were asserted independently of national political and moral agendas. By constituting a transnational sphere in which literature could be judged on its own terms, this rivalry enabled writers to appeal beyond their national publics, with their invariably conservative values. It made possible, in other words, the creation of an avant-garde. (And it is because of its unique hospitality to the avant-garde that Paris has endured as the world's literary center.) Here is where Casanova parts company with the historicism that has swept literary studies over the past two decades. Rather than tying literary phenomena to underlying social and political developments, she charts an autonomous history for literature itself. The world republic of letters is governed by its own rules, keeps time by its own historical clock, partitions the world according to its own map and features its own economics, its own inequalities and its own forms of violence.
Aha. I wonder what Dan Green will think of all this.
I may or may not end up agreeing with all of Casanova's claims, but from this review I have a feeling it's something I'll really enjoy reading.
Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste
From Professor Frances Pritchett of Columbia, another stunning Internet resource: an online edition of Ambedkar's Annihiliation of Caste, which is based on a speech he gave in the 1930s. For those who don't know, Ambedkar was India's first high-profile Dalit ("untouchable") intellectual. He had a Ph.D. himself from Columbia, and was a major player in the independence struggle. He is also one of the primary framers of the Indian Constitution.
Pritchett's edition of his book is here.
It's fully annotated. Specific terms and names are hyperlinked and defined. Also searchable. This is about as good as it gets... It's almost a Wiki!
My only criticism is that she's using frames, so it's hard to link into the project -- you don't get unique URLs for each section.
Pritchett's edition of his book is here.
It's fully annotated. Specific terms and names are hyperlinked and defined. Also searchable. This is about as good as it gets... It's almost a Wiki!
My only criticism is that she's using frames, so it's hard to link into the project -- you don't get unique URLs for each section.
Avoid the Arundhati Roy Trap
Again, Via the Literary Saloon, editor Jane Lawson on how not to write Indian literature, in the newspaper New Kerala.
Keep it in mind, kids! Cut out the cloying, exotic stuff. But keep in the family-shamily, scope-shope, and straddle-twaddle. But let me offer a toast to non-lyrical, historically sensitive multiculturalism. Oh, and the death of irony!
(That was meant to be a joke. It was also a reference to John Waters's film Pecker. Seen it? --Ed.)
Side note: It's the first week of classes, which means I am overwhelmed and exhausted, even after not actually doing very much. Blogging is/will be light.
If you are haunted by dreams of literary stardom and Booker fantasies, shun exotica and think big. For a start, avoid the Arundhati Roy trap, says British publisher and literary critic Jane Lawson.
"There is a fatigue about Indian novels post-Arundhati Roy, specially of the exotic and lyrical kind symbolised by Roy's Booker Prize-wining novel - 'The God of Small Things'," Lawson told IANS in an interview.
Lawson, a senior editor at Transworld Publishers, a division of the US' leading publishing conglomerate Random House group, is here to promote the diplomat-turned-author Vikas Swarup's debut novel "Q and A", a poignant story of a penniless waiter who wins a billion-dollar quiz contest.
It was Lawson who discovered Swarup's novel and snapped it up for Doubleday, the prestigious British imprint she represents, for a fabulous six-figure advance.
Going by what Lawson says, exotica is passe and multi-culturalism is the new prima donna of the British literary world.
"Quasi-poetic flourishes of Arundhati Roy variety have become a shade too cloying. There is more interest in novels with multi-cultural settings," adds Lawson, who scans at least 1,000 manuscripts every week as part of her job.
Lawson's brutally candid critiques of Indian writing in English shouldn't, however, force a misreading of her position.
"Although the Indian novel written by Indians living in India is slightly out of fashion, Indian writing in English is becoming a full-blown genre in itself," says the polyglot publisher who studied modern languages at Durham University.
The market for British Asian writing is, however, growing, says Lawson, who also discovered Monica Ali's Brick Lane - a Booker-short-listed novel in 2003.
"I am inclined to look at Indian novels more than at anything else. India is a very fertile land. Indians are very good with family histories and big themes," says Lawson, who points at the relative insularity of British writers by way of contrast.
Pitching in for more works celebrating the multi-cultural ethos, she adds: "There is a danger to be parochial with British writers. The works of diasporic writers settled in Britain like Monica Ali, Zadie Smith and Hanif Qureishi straddle various worlds and are more interesting."
Keep it in mind, kids! Cut out the cloying, exotic stuff. But keep in the family-shamily, scope-shope, and straddle-twaddle. But let me offer a toast to non-lyrical, historically sensitive multiculturalism. Oh, and the death of irony!
(That was meant to be a joke. It was also a reference to John Waters's film Pecker. Seen it? --Ed.)
Side note: It's the first week of classes, which means I am overwhelmed and exhausted, even after not actually doing very much. Blogging is/will be light.
Biddies Live: A night in Middletown
We went to see the Lascivious Biddies last night at a place called the Buttonwood Tree, in Middletown. What can I say? It was fun. They are very talented ladies.
I'm not making big predictions of greatness; I don't know if that's even what they're aiming for. But for the sake of argument, where on the radio would they go (besides College Radio, of course)? They are between two, and maybe three, genres. Jazz radio stations are way too conservative in their playlists; they only go as far into the 1990s as the candy-coated croonings of Diana Krall. And even Diana Krall is pretty rare, at least on the jazz stations I currently get.
I do think it might be really interesting if the Biddies teamed up with a playwright and... wrote a musical? Biddies, if you're reading this, think about it: Broadway ("Famous").
There is a fresh interview with the Biddies at Brian Ibbott's Coverville. You can download it as a single MP3 file ("podcast") here. There's a lot of chat, but Ibbott does include three full songs in the interview, if you're just looking to get a sense of what it's all about.
I'm not making big predictions of greatness; I don't know if that's even what they're aiming for. But for the sake of argument, where on the radio would they go (besides College Radio, of course)? They are between two, and maybe three, genres. Jazz radio stations are way too conservative in their playlists; they only go as far into the 1990s as the candy-coated croonings of Diana Krall. And even Diana Krall is pretty rare, at least on the jazz stations I currently get.
I do think it might be really interesting if the Biddies teamed up with a playwright and... wrote a musical? Biddies, if you're reading this, think about it: Broadway ("Famous").
There is a fresh interview with the Biddies at Brian Ibbott's Coverville. You can download it as a single MP3 file ("podcast") here. There's a lot of chat, but Ibbott does include three full songs in the interview, if you're just looking to get a sense of what it's all about.
Amitav Ghosh on politics of Tsunami relief; Locana on Ghosh
A couple of days ago, Anand posted links to the series in The Hindu by Amitav Ghosh. (For those who don't know, Ghosh is one of postcolonial India's greatest writers. Much of what he writes is a cross between journalism, history, and creative non-fiction essay. I've written about him a bit here.)
Here are the links Anand posted:
Anand has also offered a kind of critique of the essays here with a review of Shonali Bose's novel Amu as well. Anand compares this Ghosh piece (the three articles really run together, and form a single essay) unfavorably with Ghosh's own essay on the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, "The Ghosts of Mrs. Gandhi" (which you can read in The Imam and the Indian; I don't believe it is online anywhere.
I have two thoughts.
1) I think the Ghosh pieces on the Tsunami are worth reading as journalism -- very few journalists have written on what happened at Car Nicobar thus far (partly because the Indian government itself wasn't allowing anyone to go for awhile). Reading this essay, you learn about the history of Andaman and Nicobar, as well as the unusual mix of people who have ended up settling there since independence. Ghosh also makes an important observation about the failure of the local and national government structure to adequately help the survivors of the Tsunami in the ways that they need to be helped. It's not just about food and water. People's entire livelihoods have been wiped off the face of the earth. Many people have no papers, and no money. Their farms have been permanently ruined. Some or all of their families are gone. The kind of help they need is simply of a different order than a sack of rice.
It's expected that the government is unable to process something like this. As many people have been documenting, the government has been a lot less proactive in providing relief than the NGOs. Ghosh points out that the situation is especially bad in Andaman-Nicobar because the islands are governed directly from the center, without an elected local legislature.
In some cases, the government crosses the line between incompetency and outright corruption, as this BBC article demonstrates.
Still, I'm not sure that even the international relief agencies are equipped to assist on this scale. They have the money now (lots of money), but are they concentrating on the problem in that way?
2) Ghosh's search for metaphors for the Tsunami are indeed questionable, as is his ending to the essay.
It's not at all surprising he's thinking in these terms. Privileging the position of the writer, for instance, is something he's done many times in his books. But I'm not sure that it works in the context of the particular narrative he's describing (see sections 2 and 3 in the links above).
Here are the links Anand posted:
Anand has also offered a kind of critique of the essays here with a review of Shonali Bose's novel Amu as well. Anand compares this Ghosh piece (the three articles really run together, and form a single essay) unfavorably with Ghosh's own essay on the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, "The Ghosts of Mrs. Gandhi" (which you can read in The Imam and the Indian; I don't believe it is online anywhere.
I have two thoughts.
1) I think the Ghosh pieces on the Tsunami are worth reading as journalism -- very few journalists have written on what happened at Car Nicobar thus far (partly because the Indian government itself wasn't allowing anyone to go for awhile). Reading this essay, you learn about the history of Andaman and Nicobar, as well as the unusual mix of people who have ended up settling there since independence. Ghosh also makes an important observation about the failure of the local and national government structure to adequately help the survivors of the Tsunami in the ways that they need to be helped. It's not just about food and water. People's entire livelihoods have been wiped off the face of the earth. Many people have no papers, and no money. Their farms have been permanently ruined. Some or all of their families are gone. The kind of help they need is simply of a different order than a sack of rice.
It's expected that the government is unable to process something like this. As many people have been documenting, the government has been a lot less proactive in providing relief than the NGOs. Ghosh points out that the situation is especially bad in Andaman-Nicobar because the islands are governed directly from the center, without an elected local legislature.
In some cases, the government crosses the line between incompetency and outright corruption, as this BBC article demonstrates.
Still, I'm not sure that even the international relief agencies are equipped to assist on this scale. They have the money now (lots of money), but are they concentrating on the problem in that way?
2) Ghosh's search for metaphors for the Tsunami are indeed questionable, as is his ending to the essay.
It's not at all surprising he's thinking in these terms. Privileging the position of the writer, for instance, is something he's done many times in his books. But I'm not sure that it works in the context of the particular narrative he's describing (see sections 2 and 3 in the links above).
Expanded Interrogation Techniques
Andrew Sullivan reviews new accounts of the U.S.'s use of "expanded interrogation techniques" (torture) since 9/11. The new books are Steven Strasser's The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Report of the Independent Panel and Pentagon on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, and Mark Danner's Torture and Truth: America Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror.
Sullivan's piece is more than a 'review': it's a comprehensive account of the logic and administrative process that opened the way for systemic prisoner abuse authorized by the Bush administration. It occurred as much at Guantanamo as at Abu Ghraib. It occurred at several other prison/interrogation facilities in Iraq. And it occurred in Afghanistan. Sullivan also looks carefully at what was done, and how it was received by military and governmental authorities. Among the stuff I didn't know was this:
There are also lots of graphic accounts of torture in the piece (what I included above is among the tamer material), most of which you probably haven't heard about yet.
Andrew Sullivan, in case you didn't know, is a Republican, who initially supported the war. The fact that he's speaking out so publicly on this issue now, when most on the right have assiduously ignored it, or even obliquely supported the use of torture, says something about him.
The ending paragraphs speculate on how it's possible that this has been such a small issue in American politics, especially given the fact that the U.S. is losing the war over Iraqi hearts and minds. It's also shocking that it was ignored during the election, when Kerry had enough knowledge about the Administration's role in authorizing torture (the 'torture memos') to use it as a campaign issue. It's a game played by the left as well as by the right:
[See Amygdala]
Sullivan's piece is more than a 'review': it's a comprehensive account of the logic and administrative process that opened the way for systemic prisoner abuse authorized by the Bush administration. It occurred as much at Guantanamo as at Abu Ghraib. It occurred at several other prison/interrogation facilities in Iraq. And it occurred in Afghanistan. Sullivan also looks carefully at what was done, and how it was received by military and governmental authorities. Among the stuff I didn't know was this:
These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government. The Schlesinger panel has officially conceded, although the president has never publicly acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death. Twenty-three other deaths that occurred during American custody had not been fully investigated by the time the panel issued its report in August. Some of the techniques were simply brutal, like persistent vicious beatings to unconsciousness. Others were more inventive. In April 2004, according to internal Defense Department documents recently procured by the A.C.L.U., three marines in Mahmudiya used an electric transformer, forcing a detainee to ''dance'' as the electricity coursed through him. We also now know that in Guantánamo, burning cigarettes were placed in the ears of detainees.
There are also lots of graphic accounts of torture in the piece (what I included above is among the tamer material), most of which you probably haven't heard about yet.
Andrew Sullivan, in case you didn't know, is a Republican, who initially supported the war. The fact that he's speaking out so publicly on this issue now, when most on the right have assiduously ignored it, or even obliquely supported the use of torture, says something about him.
The ending paragraphs speculate on how it's possible that this has been such a small issue in American politics, especially given the fact that the U.S. is losing the war over Iraqi hearts and minds. It's also shocking that it was ignored during the election, when Kerry had enough knowledge about the Administration's role in authorizing torture (the 'torture memos') to use it as a campaign issue. It's a game played by the left as well as by the right:
American political polarization also contributed. Most of those who made the most fuss about these incidents - like Mark Danner or Seymour Hersh - were dedicated opponents of the war in the first place, and were eager to use this scandal to promote their agendas. Advocates of the war, especially those allied with the administration, kept relatively quiet, or attempted to belittle what had gone on, or made facile arguments that such things always occur in wartime. But it seems to me that those of us who are most committed to the Iraq intervention should be the most vociferous in highlighting these excrescences. Getting rid of this cancer within the system is essential to winning this war.
I'm not saying that those who unwittingly made this torture possible are as guilty as those who inflicted it. I am saying that when the results are this horrifying, it's worth a thorough reassessment of rhetoric and war methods. Perhaps the saddest evidence of our communal denial in this respect was the election campaign. The fact that American soldiers were guilty of torturing inmates to death barely came up. It went unmentioned in every one of the three presidential debates. John F. Kerry, the ''heroic'' protester of Vietnam, ducked the issue out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Or a belief that the American public ultimately did not care, that the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocents? I fear it was the last of these. Worse, I fear he may have been right.
[See Amygdala]
Only in Bush's America: "That's just the way it is."
It started out as a good day for Bush. Earlier, it was being reported that he admitted to making a mistake when he used the phrase "bring it on!" in response to the Iraqi insurgency. No dice.
Pharyngula has a link to some really disturbing quotes from George W. Bush from the conservative newspaper The Washington Times :
No wait, there's more:
Both statements have a certain bimodal pattern. 1) "On the one hand, blah blah blah secularism." --> 2) "On the other hand, you need the Lord." In other words, despite the imperative for secularism, you can't deny the final authority of My Religious Beliefs.
The first statement ("That's just the way it is...") seems like it might be misstatement -- a Bushism, if you will. Whether it comes from a loose tongue or just a moment of total logical lapse (I hope it's the former), I can't say. Perhaps it is a riddle?
(Bush is a little like Ghalib, in his moments of "impossible simplicity." Will people recite Bushisms 200 years from now they way they now recite Ghalib, savoring the gnomic, discordant quality of his poetry? A century after religious intolerance produces World War III, will subsequent generations of tortured young aesthetes look back on this with a certain melancholy pleasure?)
Pharyngula has a link to some really disturbing quotes from George W. Bush from the conservative newspaper The Washington Times :
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.
"On the other hand, I think more and more people understand the importance of faith in their life," he said. "America is a remarkable place when it comes to religion and faith. We had people come to our rallies who were there specifically to say, 'I'm here to pray for you, let you know I'm praying for you.' And I was very grateful about that."
No wait, there's more:
"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Mr. Bush said. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.
"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord," he said.
Both statements have a certain bimodal pattern. 1) "On the one hand, blah blah blah secularism." --> 2) "On the other hand, you need the Lord." In other words, despite the imperative for secularism, you can't deny the final authority of My Religious Beliefs.
The first statement ("That's just the way it is...") seems like it might be misstatement -- a Bushism, if you will. Whether it comes from a loose tongue or just a moment of total logical lapse (I hope it's the former), I can't say. Perhaps it is a riddle?
(Bush is a little like Ghalib, in his moments of "impossible simplicity." Will people recite Bushisms 200 years from now they way they now recite Ghalib, savoring the gnomic, discordant quality of his poetry? A century after religious intolerance produces World War III, will subsequent generations of tortured young aesthetes look back on this with a certain melancholy pleasure?)
Another Prominent Desi Author Has Immigration Issues
According to lit-blogger Beatrice (thanks to The Literary Saloon for the tip!) Pankaj Mishra recently got a taste of American immigration pareshaani when returning to the U.S. from South Asia. He was eventually allowed in, but not before being threatened with deportation:
Now I can sort of see it if Ramachandra Guha, who is very well-known in India but less known abroad, gets the "something on my computer doesn't look right" treatment. And after all, he was just giving lectures at Oberlin and Berkeley -- are those even real colleges?
But Pankaj Mishra? I mean, come on, just Google the guy -- you get 35,000 hits! They guy has his name on seven books (counting the Naipaul Literary Occasions, and the edition of Kim for which he wrote the forward).
For all this talk about "Intelligence," I'm continually amazed by the evidence that USCIS officials are operating in its absence.
Apparently I had a much easier time getting to the NYPL than Mishra did; we learned that just last week, Mishra had been coming back from a journalistic trip through Pakistan and Afghanistan when he was stopped at customs in JFK and, as he described it, "taken to a little cell where people who looked like me were sitting," where he was detained for several hours and threatened with deportation because an immigration official spotted "something on his computer" that made Mishra look suspect. Sounds like Ian McEwan got off easy compared to Mishra, who was clearly still rattled by the experience--and the blue-city New York audience was sympathetically anxious for him as well.
Now I can sort of see it if Ramachandra Guha, who is very well-known in India but less known abroad, gets the "something on my computer doesn't look right" treatment. And after all, he was just giving lectures at Oberlin and Berkeley -- are those even real colleges?
But Pankaj Mishra? I mean, come on, just Google the guy -- you get 35,000 hits! They guy has his name on seven books (counting the Naipaul Literary Occasions, and the edition of Kim for which he wrote the forward).
For all this talk about "Intelligence," I'm continually amazed by the evidence that USCIS officials are operating in its absence.
Bhangra CD Mini-reviews: Friction, Mehsopuria, Bally Sagoo
I picked up some new CDs the other day at SaReGaMa in New Jersey. All three are marked for release in India -- prices on the back are in Rupees.
1. Crossover dance party recommendation: Friction. It's a compilation of mostly UK Punjabi remix tracks, with a fair amount of Desi rapping (in English), and some heavy-duty hip hop sampling. I think it might be legalized material, since the label on the back says Sony, but I'm not sure how they can afford samples from Dr. Dre, Missy Elliot, Timbaland, Ed Lover, Groove Armada, and Beyonce... So this might be one of those CDs that's "legal in India"? Anyway, Bobby Friction, the BBC1 DJ, put it together. (I'm also looking forward to the Bobby Friction and Nihal joint compilation, which is supposed to be out sometime.)
This CD would be good for getting people out on a dance floor. Some of the tracks are catchy, and have monster beats -- that "whoa, where did you get this?" quality. It would work even if most of the people in the room aren't South Asian. You'll get most of what's going on even if you don't know Hindi or Punjabi; it's all about the beats and the hooks. You could probably get this only at an Indian grocery/music store; I'm not finding it online anywhere. It's ironic, because of the three CDs I'm talking about here, this one is the most influenced by American hip hop.
2. Traditional Bhangra recommendation: Mehsopuria, self-titled CD. Mehsopuria came out of nowhere last year, and stormed the UK Bhangra charts. He's doing traditional Bhangra, with the only nod to the Clubs being the heavy beats he uses on some tracks. On one track ("Dil Sada," our heart) he does use a 2-step beat; he never uses hip hop. For a guy born and raised in the UK, it's amazing that he resists the temptation to use English.
His name, apparently, comes from his family's village in Punjab, Mehsumpur. You should get this if you're looking for traditional Bhangra in the vein of Gurdas Mann. It also helps if you understand some Punjabi, and have a taste for this already. Not that the lyrics are all that original; most of it is classic Punjabi, "When you looked at me with those eyes, it made me lose my cool," material. But he has a good voice, lots of energy, and some nice melodies here. "Tumka", "Ranglay Punjab Diyaan", "Mahi" and "Punoo Haniya" are all really good. You can hear some audio samples (and watch music videos) at Mehsopuria's webpage.
3. Not quite a recommendation: Bally Sagoo, Bollywood Buzz, with vocals by Gunjan.
This one promised more in the vein of Bollywood Flashback, with hip-hoppy and R&B remakes of classic Hindi songs, and while it's a little thin (three out of ten tracks are mixes of the same song), it has at least two club-friendly tracks.
[Update: Cancel all that] The likely hit is the version of "Bindiya Chamkegi," which will not surprise people familiar with Bally Sagoo's earlier "Noorie" or "Chura Liya." But it does have the virtue of being a bit faster -- probably danceable.
Sagoo has for years relied on Gunjan's voice. She's good at getting that classic Hindi sound most of the time, but she doesn't quite carry the day on "Tune O Rangiley."
It seems that they've released basically the same album in the UK as Bindiya Chamkegi. (There are also some short samples from the songs at that link)
1. Crossover dance party recommendation: Friction. It's a compilation of mostly UK Punjabi remix tracks, with a fair amount of Desi rapping (in English), and some heavy-duty hip hop sampling. I think it might be legalized material, since the label on the back says Sony, but I'm not sure how they can afford samples from Dr. Dre, Missy Elliot, Timbaland, Ed Lover, Groove Armada, and Beyonce... So this might be one of those CDs that's "legal in India"? Anyway, Bobby Friction, the BBC1 DJ, put it together. (I'm also looking forward to the Bobby Friction and Nihal joint compilation, which is supposed to be out sometime.)
This CD would be good for getting people out on a dance floor. Some of the tracks are catchy, and have monster beats -- that "whoa, where did you get this?" quality. It would work even if most of the people in the room aren't South Asian. You'll get most of what's going on even if you don't know Hindi or Punjabi; it's all about the beats and the hooks. You could probably get this only at an Indian grocery/music store; I'm not finding it online anywhere. It's ironic, because of the three CDs I'm talking about here, this one is the most influenced by American hip hop.
2. Traditional Bhangra recommendation: Mehsopuria, self-titled CD. Mehsopuria came out of nowhere last year, and stormed the UK Bhangra charts. He's doing traditional Bhangra, with the only nod to the Clubs being the heavy beats he uses on some tracks. On one track ("Dil Sada," our heart) he does use a 2-step beat; he never uses hip hop. For a guy born and raised in the UK, it's amazing that he resists the temptation to use English.
His name, apparently, comes from his family's village in Punjab, Mehsumpur. You should get this if you're looking for traditional Bhangra in the vein of Gurdas Mann. It also helps if you understand some Punjabi, and have a taste for this already. Not that the lyrics are all that original; most of it is classic Punjabi, "When you looked at me with those eyes, it made me lose my cool," material. But he has a good voice, lots of energy, and some nice melodies here. "Tumka", "Ranglay Punjab Diyaan", "Mahi" and "Punoo Haniya" are all really good. You can hear some audio samples (and watch music videos) at Mehsopuria's webpage.
3. Not quite a recommendation: Bally Sagoo, Bollywood Buzz, with vocals by Gunjan.
This one promised more in the vein of Bollywood Flashback, with hip-hoppy and R&B remakes of classic Hindi songs, and while it's a little thin (three out of ten tracks are mixes of the same song), it has at least two club-friendly tracks.
[Update: Cancel all that] The likely hit is the version of "Bindiya Chamkegi," which will not surprise people familiar with Bally Sagoo's earlier "Noorie" or "Chura Liya." But it does have the virtue of being a bit faster -- probably danceable.
Sagoo has for years relied on Gunjan's voice. She's good at getting that classic Hindi sound most of the time, but she doesn't quite carry the day on "Tune O Rangiley."
It seems that they've released basically the same album in the UK as Bindiya Chamkegi. (There are also some short samples from the songs at that link)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)