Re: gaddar's `comrade' Naajar is no more.

C. Kambhampati (shskambh@reading.ac.uk)
Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:20:25 +0000 (GMT)


On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 owner-telusa@cs.wisc.edu wrote:

> Granted that "food, shetler etc." are very important. But, 
> it is also important that we live a life of humans. 
> Happiness does not come just from the above mentioned 
> items. If it is so what is the difference between us and 
> animals? 

Oh yes I agree absolutely. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND
ANIMALS. Human beings are after all rational animals. IF that is the case
surely there ought to be a modicum of sensibility in us to see that
sometimes our social (as opposed to personal) priorities are skewed. When
millions are on the street not knowing where their next morsel is going to
come from sleeping on the street not knowing when the next vehicle will go
over them all we can think of is spending some money in cultural studies.
At a social level this is a waste of money. 

Yes at a personal level, I agree that culture makes the human being
complete. There is pure joy in reading good prose, literature, hearing a
song, poetry one an sit for hours and watch the sculptures at Belur or
Halibid or Warangal - indeed reading posts on Telusa itself can be a
luxury to many of us!. But this is leisure it is an individual pursuit and
is meaningless to the guy on the street.


 >And why  all those people who "cannot eat" are the 
> major patrons of cinemas, which  have become the popular 
> art of these days? 

The man on the street is not a major patron of the cinema. Indeed it is
the working class who is a major patron. In a country like India below the
working class you have some 30-40% of population who would be considered
the Perpetual Under Class - people without hope, without a future etc. It
is these people we should be worried about. But at a different level, one
can view this over patronisation of cinema as a escapist route - away from
the street where it is hot humid polluted by the the well fed and over
nourished. It is not the cinema which is attracting the people but the
fact that for a few rupees they can have respite from the hypocritcal
humbug society is.

>It is seen that many changes in the 
> society have come through the efficient use of arts. So, 
> I believe that it is important for people to understand the 
> history of our culture and try to apply to today's 
> conditions. 

What is the history of our culture? Can anybody give me one very good
example of what we have achieved in the cultural field in the last 100
years? What is it that we have achieved in the last 50 years with all this
so called culture?  WHat is it that we have learnt from this cultural
history? Hey, if it is a sense of hopelessness, destitution, and 
humbuggery one can do without this culture. No sir, that cannot be the
case.

There is a case for culture. But it is not a social one, but indeed a
personal one. It is personal fulfillment. Fulfillment only after we are
sure of the three meals a day we are going to have. How many of us - hands
on our hearts - would go through TELUSA posts - if there was this pressure
of a deadline to submit a proposal a paper a tender whatever - not one of
us would do it - for the proposal etc is OUR DAILY BREAD. Without the
bread TELUSA, SCIT and culture etc are meaningless. 

I agree with the below -

> 
> This message is purely to provoke a discussion not to hurt 
> anybody's feelings. 
> 
-Chandrasekhar


> Venkat 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 08:53:21 +0000 (GMT)  "C. Kambhampati" 
> <shskambh@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Agreed. But what is the point of these studies. It does not feed anybody
> > other than the people with vested interests. The maseses need food
> > clothing etc - there are millions out there who do not know if they are
> > going have their next meal. Cultural studies and cultural relativism and
> > associated studies of cultural movements happen by themselves if the
> > people are sufficient. If not all of this does not matter - culture is
> > useless if people cannot eat, live and prosper. Culture is meant for us
> > well fed humans.
> > 
> > The man on the street would rather use the books as tissue paper - for he
> > has no clean water - the books are of no value to him but are of immense
> > value to us. So reflecting on our own self-interest we decry the lack of
> > cultural studies - studies whic are going to be subsidised by the masses.
> > Yet we well fed humans are the first to resist any movement which would
> > ensure adequate funding provisions are made for a decent welfare state
> > where people are not going to think about from where the next meal is
> > going to come from.
> > 
> > Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all.......
> > 
> > is something which comes to mind....
> > 
> > Chandrasekhar
> 
> 
> 
>