dyons@houxa.UUCP (N.MITRA) (02/05/86)
Arising from this recent TV series on Mountbatten (of which I watched only the first episode), do you think that the recent trend of Masterpiece theatre and films like "Out of Africa" in showing reminisences of colonial India/Africa and the overwhelming viewer enthusiasm is symptomatic of the increasing conservatism in the USA these days? It seems to me that India(or Africa) is merely a backdrop for indulging in vicarious nostalgia for a time (of which ofcourse Americans have no experience except through books or TV) when class distinctions were alive, everybody knew their place and rulers were firm yet benign. Ofcourse, most of these productions are set at a time when these values were changing but there is something very subliminally suggestive I think in evoking Pax Brittanica (and everything that goes with it) in images of sitting down to afternoon tea while mobs rampage in the native quarters. I also found that series like "Brideshead Revisited", "Upstairs, Downstairs" and that Trollope thing (Barchester Towers, was it?) appeared to cater to the vicarious desire-impossible to achieve in this country and age-of a time when the world was at peace, the dividend checks were coming in regularly, nobody raised their voices and servants (what ARE they?) knew their place. Granted that these productions are superior to anything available commercially, so one argument goes, but I must say I suspect something more sinister than the desire to see superior TV in the overwhelming audience(principally the liberal intelligentsia) response on Sunday nights. Nilotpal Mitra ihnp4!houxa!dyons
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (02/12/86)
In article <929@houxa.UUCP> dyons@houxa.UUCP (N.MITRA) writes: > Arising from this recent TV series on Mountbatten (of which I watched > only the first episode), do you think that the recent trend of Masterpiece > theatre and films like "Out of Africa" in showing reminisences of colonial > India/Africa and the overwhelming viewer enthusiasm is symptomatic of the > increasing conservatism in the USA these days? It seems to me that India > (or Africa) is merely a backdrop for indulging in vicarious nostalgia for > a time (of which ofcourse Americans have no experience except through books > or TV) when class distinctions were alive, everybody knew their place and > rulers were firm yet benign. Ofcourse, most of these productions are set > at a time when these values were changing but there is something very > subliminally suggestive I think in evoking Pax Brittanica (and everything > that goes with it) in images of sitting down to afternoon tea while mobs > rampage in the native quarters. > > I also found that series like "Brideshead Revisited", "Upstairs, Downstairs" > and that Trollope thing (Barchester Towers, was it?) appeared to cater > to the vicarious desire-impossible to achieve in this country and age-of a > time when the world was at peace, the dividend checks were coming in > regularly, nobody raised their voices and servants (what ARE they?) knew > their place. Granted that these productions are superior to anything > available commercially, so one argument goes, but I must say I suspect > something more sinister than the desire to see superior TV in the > overwhelming audience(principally the liberal intelligentsia) > response on Sunday nights. > Nilotpal Mitra > ihnp4!houxa!dyons Please remember that "Mountbatten", *Masterpiece Theatre*, and all the other series you mention except the *movie* (*not* TV) *Out of Africa* are *British* in their origin. I doubt if "Mountbatten" would have turned out very much like it did if it had been produced by PBS in the United States. (As for *Out of Africa*, I haven't seen it.) Americans, after centuries of a republic, *are* fascinated by royalty and class structure (for others, that is -- I doubt if many Americans want it for themselves). However, this is nothing new (see the Society for Creative Anachronism, as an example). Even so, I believe that much of the popularity of the series "The Jewel in the Crown" stemmed not from fascination with the British class system and manners, but because that particular series successfully conveyed something of the mystery, wonder, and -- admittedly -- anguish of India. I know it did for me. I'm sorry you see something sinister in the popularity of these series. I believe you're mistaken in your suspicions -- about most of PBS's viewing audience, anyway. (What sinister motivation, movement, or conspiracy do you think you see, anyway?) Personally, I'm thrilled to have superior TV programming available, from whatever source. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Fool. The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason. Lear. Because they are not eight? Fool. Yes, indeed. Thou wouldst make a good fool. William Shakespeare, *King Lear*, Act I, Scene 5
zerksis@syr-cis-aos.cs-net (Zerksis Umrigar) (02/23/86)
I usually access this BB only in a read-only mode. However, since all the messages re. the Mountbatten TV series have been critical, I thought that it may be interesting to hear a different viewpoint. Hence a friend is forwarding this message for me. This TV series has been described as a "Dallas with brown skins"; someone else said that Gandhi is portrayed as a buffoon. These are subjective perceptions over which we may argue endlessly - I do not perceive the series in that way. Once I accept the historical facts of India's subjugation by an imperialist and racist colonial power, I do not see why a portrayal of the accompanying attitudes should be seen as a conspiracy to malign India. What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him. However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Hence, I have little doubt that this "ridiculous" incident did indeed occur and was not conjured out of thin air to magnify Mountbatten's character in the TV series. The TV series is almost entirely consistent with the events as portrayed in "Freedom at Midnight". Hence the accuracy of the series boils down to the accuracy of the book. Tho' the book is written as an extremely interesting and fast-paced novel, it appears to be thoroughly researched with attributions given for most of the "facts" presented. Unfortunately, one of the major sources for the book appears to have been Mountbatten himself - this possibly could have resulted in a bias. Collins and Lapierre interviewed Mountbatten extensively for their book and have reprinted their interviews in two interesting volumes published by Vikas. One good reason for their accepting Mountbatten's version of facts is that he alone, of the principals involved in the pre - independence negotiations (as far as I can determine), kept a precise record of all his meetings. Tho' Mountbatten is rather conceited (he himself admits that) and credits himself for being instrumental in many things, his perception is probably not all that distorted. In conclusion, I must say that I think that the Mountbatten series is true to historical fact. It does concentrate on Mountbatten, but that is not too surprising considering the title. I enjoy watching the series and would recommend it to everyone. - zerksis. zerksis@syr-cis-aos.cs-net.
reddy@ctnews.UUCP (T.S.Reddy) (02/25/86)
In article <115@Shasta.ARPA>, zerksis@syr-cis-aos.cs-net (Zerksis Umrigar) writes: > This TV series has been described as a "Dallas with brown skins"; > someone else said that Gandhi is portrayed as a buffoon. These are > subjective perceptions over which we may argue endlessly - I do not > perceive the series in that way. Once I accept the historical facts of > India's subjugation by an imperialist and racist colonial power, I do > not see why a portrayal of the accompanying attitudes should be > seen as a conspiracy to malign India. From your reply, you are implying that the net users who critiqued the series cannot swallow the fact that Indians were subjugated by the British. Since, in the following paragraph, you cite two or three sources for reaching the conclusion that Mountbatten single handedly subdued Pathans then perhaps you will be convinced by the spate of TV series on the "sensitive and caring British Raj" that they are nothing but a nostalgic take off by the British on their glory days. And my conclusion about Gandhi's portrayal still stands after five episodes - He's been made to look like a fool. > What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of > the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where > Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry > demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that > this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him. > However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at > Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal > of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on > pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of > Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Hence, I have little doubt that this "ridiculous" > incident did indeed occur and was not conjured out of thin air to > magnify Mountbatten's character in the TV series. To say that the entire Pathan crowd was taken in by the fact that Mount- batten was wearing the Muslim color (green) is indeed ridiculous. Can you imagine? Pathans who are supposed to be fierce warriors and who have seen war quite a bit in their time cannot recognize a military uniform when they see one! > Collins and Lapierre interviewed Mountbatten extensively for their book > and have reprinted their interviews in two interesting volumes published > by Vikas. One good reason for their accepting Mountbatten's version of > facts is that he alone, of the principals involved in the pre - > independence negotiations (as far as I can determine), kept a precise > record of all his meetings. Tho' Mountbatten is rather conceited (he > himself admits that) and credits himself for being instrumental in many > things, his perception is probably not all that distorted. Now who is being subjective? Should we conclude from the confessions of a pompous and self serving man and two authors whose books on history are as racy as a Jackie Collins novel that theirs is the true interp- retion of the tumultuous period that was the freedom struggle. > In conclusion, I must say that I think that the Mountbatten series is > true to historical fact. It does concentrate on Mountbatten, but that is > not too surprising considering the title. I enjoy watching the series > and would recommend it to everyone. Probably as true as the TATA trucks that turned up during the Pathan in- vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti- ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read only.
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/25/86)
There's a book called Stillwell and the American Experience in China,
by Barbara Tuchman. It has some interesting things to say about
Mountbatten and the general British propensity for presenting every
aspect of their history in a rosy glow. Neither Mountbatten nor
Churchill were particularly interested in winning Burma back from
the Japanese, for instance. There's nothing on the events just
before the independence of India, but the book might still be
worth checking out of a library by people interested in Mountbatten.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDUmwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (02/25/86)
++ > What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of > the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where > Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry > demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that > this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him. > However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at > Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal > of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on > pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of > Abdul Ghaffar Khan... > - zerksis. I might be that critic. Perhaps unfortunately, my impression of that scene was not derived from previous knowledge of what actually happened. Indeed, it would be ridiculous for the writers to make such an event up, if something like it didn't really happen. What I object to is the fact that the writing (and maybe the acting) was so bad that the viewer could not tell *WHY* the crowd settled down. He didn't do anything but wave at them! If Mountbatten was a great man, they certainly didn't capture that greatness. And I know Gandhi was a great man (from reading his autobiography) and they certainly didn't capture his greatness either! I watched the last episode since posting my original tirade on the series. Does anyone know what was going on when Mountbatten and Jinnah were in that car; they knew someone was planning to bomb it; you saw people in the crowd with grenades; and then the parade ended and Jinnah claimed to have saved Mountbatten's life. I didn't have the slightest idea what was happening. -Mark Garrett
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (02/26/86)
> Probably as true as the TATA trucks that turned up during the Pathan in- > vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti- > ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read > only. I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for. The net is there for the airing of opinions, often violently disagreeing ones. But, opinions that essentially state that someone else should not express his opinions on the net, go contrary to the purpose of the net. Therefore I think one should refrain from expressing them, unless of course they are associated with a "smiley" :-)! In any case, to claim that he will do "all of us a favor" by not posting any articles is a bit juvenile, don't you think? Jishnu Mukerji
Zerksis%syr-cis-aos.CSNET@ucbvax.UUCP (Zerksis Umrigar) (03/01/86)
Mark Garrett writes: >up, if something like it didn't really happen. What I object to is >the fact that the writing (and maybe the acting) was so bad that the >viewer could not tell *WHY* the crowd settled down. He didn't do >anything but wave at them! If Mountbatten was a great man, they I do not think that anyone knows for sure why the crowd settled down. One of Mountbatten's aides hypothesized that it may be because of the color green. The series shows that. Any further explanation would probably not be warranted by the historical evidence. >series. Does anyone know what was going on when Mountbatten and >Jinnah were in that car; they knew someone was planning to bomb it; >you saw people in the crowd with grenades; and then the parade ended >and Jinnah claimed to have saved Mountbatten's life. I didn't have >the slightest idea what was happening. Once again, I suspect that all that the historical evidence shows is that there was a plot to assassinate Jinnah and it was not carried out for unknown reasons. I think that the TV series is probably on thin ice when they show people in the crowd with grenades. According to Collins and Lapierre in "Freedom at Midnight" (why do I feel that certain people may not like this :-), one account for the failure of the plot was that the leader lost his nerve when it was time to throw the first grenade. I presume that making a historical series like this is complicated by the fact that not everything is neatly tied up in real life. Hence, there have to be holes in the presentation if they are to avoid the charge of fabricating history. Tho' I disagree with Mark on the above two incidents, I did think that the last espisode could have been clearer. When they showed the beginnings of the Kashmir incident (with the Tata trucks!), it was a couple of minutes before the audience was informed that it was Kashmir. A simple sub-title would have helped. Usually the history of recent events tends to be taught poorly - at least that has been my experience. For me at least, this series has been useful in that it encouraged me to inquire into events which occurred a few years before I was born. - zerksis. ========= Zerksis%syr-cis-aos.csnet@ucbvax.uucp
sridhar@tekecs.UUCP (S. Sridhar) (03/03/86)
> ++ > > What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of > > the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where > > Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry > > demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that > > this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him. > > However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at > > Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal > > of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on > > pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of > > Abdul Ghaffar Khan... > > - zerksis. > I also recall that either Lord or Lady M. could utter some Pushtu (one of the Pathan tongues) and this in addition to the Islamic color may've mollified the charged crowd. I don't remember if I read this in "Freedom at Midnight" or elsewhere. --Sridhar -- S. Sridhar sridhar%spy@tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
mukesh@epistemi.UUCP (03/06/86)
In article <1693@mtgzz.UUCP> jis1@mtgzz.UUCP writes: >> I hope that in the future you will conti- >> nue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read >> only. > >I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for. I agree. We had a similar views expressed during the brief period Joachim took to air to abuse Islam and its followers. At the time it was widely agreed that the net should not debar anyone from expressing thier views. Since I have had no postings to the contrary I assume that this is still the policy. While posting I would like to take the opportunity to thanks all those guys who compile and post the News bulletin. It's nice to know what REALLY is happening back in India. Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians. Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat about this. Mukesh Patel
das@orstcs.UUCP (das) (03/10/86)
>/***** orstcs:net.nlang.indi / epistemi!mukesh / 9:04 am Mar 6, 1986*/ >Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians. >Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by >the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat >about this. > > >Mukesh Patel >/* ---------- */ > Intellectuals never become politicians. As to who becomes, you have good examples in various leaders Rajiv Ghandhi, Ronald Reagan, etc. If intellectuals ( If I qualify, count me out, I am going back ! ) were let to become politicians (in India), we won't be having this "brain" drain. --- das@orstcs
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (03/11/86)
In article <584@epistemi.UUCP> mukesh@epistemi.UUCP (Mukesh Patel) writes: >Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians. >Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by >the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat >about this. > If by aweful you mean corrupt, then ... Yes, people really deserve them. Don't we have plenty of corrupt administrators, corrupt civil servants, corrupt businessmen and traders...! Corruption seems to have become acceptable aspect in one's character and this gets reflected in the set of politicians also. Afterall, they are selected by society and can not have traits unacceptable to the society ! No, they are not the dregs left behind by the huge brain drain. I can interpret such a thought only as an exercise in self-appeasement by the "Drained Brain". There is no shortage of 'brain' in India. It takes a lot of 'brain' to survive in Indian politics also! What we lack is a strong national character. The causes and fixes for this deficiency is another question. Raj Bhatnagar.
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/14/86)
>/* Written 11:04 am Mar 6, 1986 by mukesh@epistemi.UUCP */ >Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians. ^^^^^^ >Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by >the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat >about this. Hope you don't mind a near Brit butting in on a frivolous note. I think mukesh meant "awful", but I ask you whether "aweful" does not apply to the way much of the Indian public views politicians. I always have in my mind a news clip showing Mrs. Gandhi being showered in flower petals and being given gifts in some country village - in the middle of martial law. Almost the way people treat a king - or a god-king. Reaction? Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. USEnet: ...!ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms
rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/18/86)
> > Hope you don't mind a near Brit butting in on a frivolous note. A "near Brit"? Now is that almost Brit? Or is a near Brit better'n a far Brit? Or did you really mean "mere Brit"? > I always have in my mind a news clip showing Mrs. Gandhi being > showered in flower petals and being given gifts in some country > village - in the middle of martial law. Almost the way people treat > a king - or a god-king. > > Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. Canny folks, these villagers. Probably got a road built or a canal dug in exchange for the histrionics. Not a bad deal. As for the "awe" part, you ain't seen nothing till you've seen a film star being mobbed: you know, much like rock stars here. Sri Rajeev.
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/19/86)
This "near" Brit is a British citizen, of British parents, who speaks with as much of a British accent as a Canadian one, who plays soccer rather than the North American sports, yet who was born and has lived most of his life in Canada, is also a Canadian citizen, and doesn't really like England anyway. I was wrong in saying "martial law" - how does state of emergency sound? "Aweful" - unlike rock stars or other vedettes, Mrs. Gandhi had real power. My question is this: is it not dangerous combining the ceremonial functions of state with the executive; the executive has real power, the ceremonial head-of-state "awe"some power, when one person exercises both forms of power it may be difficult for constitutional mechanisms to control. Yes, this happens in the USA too - look how close Nixon came to getting away with Watergate.
rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/29/86)
In response to ccvaxa!aglew: > My question is this: is it not dangerous combining the ceremonial functions > of state with the executive; the executive has real power, the ceremonial > head-of-state "awe"some power, when one person exercises both forms of > power it may be difficult for constitutional mechanisms to control. I'm not really convinced this is a big problem, but even granted that it is, please note that the Indian constitution provides for this eventuality in the following manner: there is a Prime Minister with "real power" and a President who is the head of state, but who really has no power, "awesome" or otherwise. However, you have really changed the subject: what you said initially was that Mrs. Gandhi was treated like a god-king by villagers who gave her flowers and gifts. What irritated me was the ethnocentricism in that comment. Could you please explain to me how much more sensible than showering a politician with flowers the trappings of US democracy, for example, $500-a-plate dinners, are? (It'd be so much less ridiculous to just donate the $500 and be done with it!) We all go through our silly little rituals... (By the way, as a Canadian you are no stranger to being at the receiving end of ethnocentrism: I find it amusing and quaint that Canadians always say "North American", thereby including themselves, whereas the brash Yank would simply say "American", in referring to, say, sports!)