an unusual friendship

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:59 pm

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-cartoonist-and-the-campaigner/article4105880.ece?homepage=true

in all my years of living in india and reading the ToI newspaper, i never developed an affection for r.k.laxman. that has nothing to do with this connection that i just learned about. i prefer the hindu's keshav.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:03 pm

ps: a political cartoonist who desists from lampooning a demagogue because of a friendship forged in youth, is dishonest to his readers.

by Sandee2020 Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:15 pm

How long have RKL and Kamala been divorced? I believe she lives in NY?

by Guest Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:26 pm

I've always liked R.K.Laksman and am a great fan of his brother, R.K. Narayan. I used to love the episodes on DD, 'Wagle Ki Duniya' which were based on his cartoons, 'The common man'. Mr. Wagle seemed so much like my dad.

Anyway, I didn't know that Mr. Thakerey was a cartoonist too. It's amazing that their friendship lasted so many years, from 1946 until now. I'm listening to the panel discussions about Mr. Thakerey on the indian news channels. Despite some of his shortcomings, he seems like a great personality. I'm sure history is going to treat him kindly.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:43 pm

shortcomings? blood on one's hands is not exactly described by the word shortcoming.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:44 pm

Sandee2020 wrote:How long have RKL and Kamala been divorced? I believe she lives in NY?

no idea. i don't know much about him beyond the fact that he used to draw for the ToI and that he was RKN's brother.

by Guest Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:51 pm

Sandee2020 wrote:How long have RKL and Kamala been divorced? I believe she lives in NY?

From wiki:

"He was first married to Bharatanatyam dancer and movie actress Kamala Laxman
(also known before marriage as Baby Kamala and Kumari Kamala). After a
divorce, he married again and his second wife's (a children's book
writer) name was also Kamala."

by Kris Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:23 pm

>>>"In 1966, when Thackeray announced the launch of the Shiv Sena, it directly targeted south Indians. But this did not change anything. “There were no political strings attached to their relationship,” she said, describing Mr. Laxman as “apolitical.”

Asked whether the Sena’s vicious attacks on south Indians bothered Mr. Laxman, she said: “Sometimes he said he shouldn’t have gone this far. But we understood he perhaps had his own reasons for doing what he did. But it never mattered that Laxman was a south Indian. Our friendship was totally different.

>>>>Laxman seems to have been a rather strange man.

by ashdoc Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:11 pm

maybe laxman understood the reason behind thackeray's attacks on south indians . thats why maybe he didnt attack thackeray .

and the reason was that in the 60s most of the jobs in the corporations , companys and banks in mumbai were being taken over by the south indians .educated marathis were being left jobless in premiere city of maharashtra itself .

what were maharashtrians supposed to be---only mill workers , police constables and conductors in BEST buses ?? no white collar job was available to them . these south indian officers used to bring people from their own towns and villages for the jobs and the local community was jobless !!

it was then that thackeray came on the horizon . he started publishing lists of names of people employed in banks and companys in mumbai in a column titled '' vacha and gappa basa '' ( read and keep quiet ) . all the people in the lists used to be south indian !! maharashtrians---almost nil.....

all the workers in south indian restaurants including waiters used to be from karnataka !! couldn't the owners of these restaurants employ some locals as waiters ?? yes they could but they preferred their own people .

how would you react if north indians came to chennai and took over the jobs and left tamils jobless ??

it was due to agitations launched by thackeray that marathis got some jobs in the city . from being derided as ghatis they got some pride back . today if you see a marathi security guard and marathi salesgirl in a shopping mall in mumbai it is due to thackeray !!

maybe some of the violence was necessary . maybe R L Laxman understood that......

by Kris Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:25 pm

ashdoc wrote:maybe laxman understood the reason behind thackeray's attacks on south indians . thats why maybe he didnt attack thackeray .

and the reason was that in the 60s most of the jobs in the corporations , companys and banks in mumbai were being taken over by the south indians .educated marathis were being left jobless in premiere city of maharashtra itself .

what were maharashtrians supposed to be---only mill workers , police constables and conductors in BEST buses ?? no white collar job was available to them . these south indian officers used to bring people from their own towns and villages for the jobs and the local community was jobless !!

it was then that thackeray came on the horizon . he started publishing lists of names of people employed in banks and companys in mumbai in a column titled '' vacha and gappa basa '' ( read and keep quiet ) . all the people in the lists used to be south indian !! maharashtrians---almost nil.....

all the workers in south indian restaurants including waiters used to be from karnataka !! couldn't the owners of these restaurants employ some locals as waiters ?? yes they could but they preferred their own people .

how would you react if north indians came to chennai and took over the jobs and left tamils jobless ??

it was due to agitations launched by thackeray that marathis got some jobs in the city . from being derided as ghatis they got some pride back . today if you see a marathi security guard and marathi salesgirl in a shopping mall in mumbai it is due to thackeray !!

maybe some of the violence was necessary . maybe R L Laxman understood that......

>>>> Where would you draw the line in terms of the violence? Just curious... bruising, maiming, killing, what would be the level of acceptability? If Laxman understood this violence to be necessary, he was not just a bystander who didn't want to get involved (bad as that is), he was an active accomplice in the thuggery.

by nevada Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:06 pm

ashdoc wrote:maybe laxman understood the reason behind thackeray's attacks on south indians . thats why maybe he didnt attack thackeray .

and the reason was that in the 60s most of the jobs in the corporations , companys and banks in mumbai were being taken over by the south indians .educated marathis were being left jobless in premiere city of maharashtra itself .

what were maharashtrians supposed to be---only mill workers , police constables and conductors in BEST buses ?? no white collar job was available to them . these south indian officers used to bring people from their own towns and villages for the jobs and the local community was jobless !!

it was then that thackeray came on the horizon . he started publishing lists of names of people employed in banks and companys in mumbai in a column titled '' vacha and gappa basa '' ( read and keep quiet ) . all the people in the lists used to be south indian !! maharashtrians---almost nil.....

all the workers in south indian restaurants including waiters used to be from karnataka !! couldn't the owners of these restaurants employ some locals as waiters ?? yes they could but they preferred their own people .

how would you react if north indians came to chennai and took over the jobs and left tamils jobless ??

it was due to agitations launched by thackeray that marathis got some jobs in the city . from being derided as ghatis they got some pride back . today if you see a marathi security guard and marathi salesgirl in a shopping mall in mumbai it is due to thackeray !!

maybe some of the violence was necessary . maybe R L Laxman understood that......

Good post except for that last line.

by Guest Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 pm

ashdoc, you jaijui?

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:07 am

Kris wrote:
>>>> Where would you draw the line in terms of the violence? Just curious... bruising, maiming, killing, what would be the level of acceptability? If Laxman understood this violence to be necessary, he was not just a bystander who didn't want to get involved (bad as that is), he was an active accomplice in the thuggery.

balasaheb's agitation against south indians did not reach to the level of killing---at least not in large numbers .

above all , like typical hindus the shiv sainiks did not resort to rape of women .

of course balasaheb killed the muslims---the enemies of the nation . here no line needs to be drawn . in fact lines need to be extended . veer savarkar has rightly pointed out that the hindus never raped the muslim women while muslims inevitably make hindu women the victim of their unbridled lust . maybe balasaheb like other hindus was too soft on the muslims . just maybe.....

by Kris Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:17 am

balasaheb's agitation against south indians did not reach to the level of killing---at least not in large numbers .

above all , like typical hindus the shiv sainiks did not resort to rape of women .

of course balasaheb killed the muslims---the enemies of the nation . here no line needs to be drawn . in fact lines need to be extended . veer savarkar has rightly pointed out that the hindus never raped the muslim women while muslims inevitably make hindu women the victim of their unbridled lust . maybe balasaheb like other hindus was too soft on the muslims . just maybe.....[/quote]

>>>> So killing is okay to some degree of south indians and indiscriminately of muslims? And the hindus' major failing was in not raping muslim women? Scary.. doesn't even begin to describe this mindset ..

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:22 am

ashdoc wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> Where would you draw the line in terms of the violence? Just curious... bruising, maiming, killing, what would be the level of acceptability? If Laxman understood this violence to be necessary, he was not just a bystander who didn't want to get involved (bad as that is), he was an active accomplice in the thuggery.

balasaheb's agitation against south indians did not reach to the level of killing---at least not in large numbers .

above all , like typical hindus the shiv sainiks did not resort to rape of women .

of course balasaheb killed the muslims---the enemies of the nation . here no line needs to be drawn . in fact lines need to be extended . veer savarkar has rightly pointed out that the hindus never raped the muslim women while muslims inevitably make hindu women the victim of their unbridled lust . maybe balasaheb like other hindus was too soft on the muslims . just maybe.....

how very considerate of him to screw the south indians only a little bit.

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:26 am

Kris wrote:

And the hindus' major failing was in not raping muslim women? Scary.. doesn't even begin to describe this mindset ..

you try to explain to yourself the mindset of muslims who rape hindu women to understand better .

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:30 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

how very considerate of him to screw the south indians only a little bit.

you south indians would have screwed us marathis more if we had come to chennai to take over your jobs .

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:30 am

ashdoc wrote:
Kris wrote:

And the hindus' major failing was in not raping muslim women? Scary.. doesn't even begin to describe this mindset ..

you try to explain to yourself the mindset of muslims who rape hindu women to understand better .

are you descended from nathuram godse?

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:32 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
ashdoc wrote:
Kris wrote:

And the hindus' major failing was in not raping muslim women? Scary.. doesn't even begin to describe this mindset ..

you try to explain to yourself the mindset of muslims who rape hindu women to understand better .

are you descended from nathuram godse?

no .

by Kris Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:33 am

ashdoc wrote:
Kris wrote:

And the hindus' major failing was in not raping muslim women? Scary.. doesn't even begin to describe this mindset ..

you try to explain to yourself the mindset of muslims who rape hindu women to understand better .

>>>>Anyone who rapes anyone is a sicko. This is a given, now what is your point? That one should get in the gutter and do the same thing to even things out? And the implication that all Muslims are guilty for the crimes of those who did the raping?

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:39 am

Kris wrote:
That one should get in the gutter and do the same thing to even things out?

i dont know .

at least veer savarkar felt so . he has written so in his book ' six glorious epochs of indian history ' . i was talking about that .

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:43 am

jeremiah mburuburu used to write about characters like ashdoc. i thought he was creating caricatures. ashdoc is no caricature. he is absolutely real, and that's the scary part.

by ashdoc Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:48 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:jeremiah mburuburu used to write about characters like ashdoc. i thought he was creating caricatures. ashdoc is no caricature. he is absolutely real, and that's the scary part.

when i started this thread i was writing as a hindu , and you did not even bother to post on this thread ----

https://such.forumotion.com/t8660-savarkar-s-advocacy-of-rape-as-revenge-was-it-correct

now that i write as a balasaheb thackeray supporter and a marathi , i am scary !! how perceptions change !!

by Kris Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:49 am

ashdoc wrote:
Kris wrote:
That one should get in the gutter and do the same thing to even things out?

i dont know .

>>>> Really? On moral grounds?

Hint: In practical terms, these movies never end well.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:36 am

Kris wrote:
>>>>Anyone who rapes anyone is a sicko. This is a given, now what is your point? That one should get in the gutter and do the same thing to even things out? And the implication that all Muslims are guilty for the crimes of those who did the raping?

Regardng get into gutter: When persuasion, legalities, threats and all else fails, if that is what it takes to clean the gutter, then that is what should be done.

Impliation of all muslims: when the muslim community insists on defining criminality per Quron - thus ignoring muslim raping hindu women, forced conversion, etc..which are sanctioned in Quron - and seeks to protect in the name of muslim Ummah, then all silent muslims need to be considered accomplices. Collective judgement is what the society arrives at.

I am talking about collective views. People tend to think differently when you ask them on an individual basis. There it is one of personal and common problems connecting the two individuals.

Ask any muslim what they think of Israel and Jews. If you can secretly
find out what any pakistani thinks about Hinduism and Hindus, it may be
an eye opener.

by Kris Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:30 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>Anyone who rapes anyone is a sicko. This is a given, now what is your point? That one should get in the gutter and do the same thing to even things out? And the implication that all Muslims are guilty for the crimes of those who did the raping?

Regardng get into gutter: When persuasion, legalities, threats and all else fails, if that is what it takes to clean the gutter, then that is what should be done.

Impliation of all muslims: when the muslim community insists on defining criminality per Quron - thus ignoring muslim raping hindu women, forced conversion, etc..which are sanctioned in Quron - and seeks to protect in the name of muslim Ummah, then all silent muslims need to be considered accomplices. Collective judgement is what the society arrives at.

I am talking about collective views. People tend to think differently when you ask them on an individual basis. There it is one of personal and common problems connecting the two individuals.

Ask any muslim what they think of Israel and Jews. If you can secretly
find out what any pakistani thinks about Hinduism and Hindus, it may be
an eye opener.

>>>> There are a couple of problems here. Many silent muslims may themselves not speak up because of fear. It is unfair to brand them as accomplices and go after them. Anyway, the long term implication of all this is a tit-for-tat downward spiral. I am not naive enough to think that there is no common unifying thread like the ummah and the 'us vs. the infidels' mindset that sets off many of the unruly elements. The solution however should lie not in getting in the gutter and fighting it out which will simply perpetuate the cycle. Instead, manage the issue with a firm law, order, judiciary perspective. In other words, no vote bank -driven politics, no pseudo secularism, but simply if 'you do the crime, you do the time' approach, regardless of the religion of who is involved. Of course, that is easier said than done, but what is the other choice? Mob- violence, the inevitable result of group think, is not going to lead anywhere.
With regard to the question on what the average muslim thinks of others (jews, hindus), the point is this should be a peripheral issue at best. As an example, the state of Michigan has a sizable muslim population. Let's assume a big section of this demographic has a bad view of the average midwesterner. Is the latter concerned about it? The point I am driving at here is that the latter has the security of the law and order environment, if harm comes his way (you can also argue the same point in the opposite direction). Either way, they both have the security the system provides them. In the end, that is the solution. We are never going to have everyone like everyone else. Will never happen.

by Rishi Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:33 am

No vote bank politics and no pseudo secularism in India?

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Looks like you are not the only dreamer like John Lenon.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:39 am

Rishi wrote:No vote bank politics and no pseudo secularism in India?

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Looks like you are not the only dreamer like John Lenon.

r.k.laxman is not a politician. he is a satirical cartoonist whose job it is to inform and entertain his readers by lampooning his subjects. his hands off treatment of one of the most notorious mobster-politicians of our times is a craven dereliction of duty.

by Kris Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:04 pm

Rishi wrote:No vote bank politics and no pseudo secularism in India?

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Looks like you are not the only dreamer like John Lenon.

>>>Its either this scenario of strengthening and enforcing existing governmental structures or mob violence. Apparently, limited killing/injuring of South indians, indiscriminate killing of Muslims and rape of muslim women are already ideas being brainstormed by champions of the latter approach.

by Rishi Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:54 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:No vote bank politics and no pseudo secularism in India?

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Looks like you are not the only dreamer like John Lenon.

r.k.laxman is not a politician. he is a satirical cartoonist whose job it is to inform and entertain his readers by lampooning his subjects. his hands off treatment of one of the most notorious mobster-politicians of our times is a craven dereliction of duty.

Thou doth protest too much.

Cartoonist derelicting his duty?

An artist or a cartoonist is not in the same league of professions such as public defender, doctor and police officers.

If an attorney is appointed as a public defender then he is bound to do his best to defend his client in the court of law even if he feels that the accused committed the crime.

Similarly a cop is supposed to arrest a suspect even though he might be his friend.

But the cartoonist or a political satirist is under no obligation to take on or lampoon everyone across the political spectrum.

Who knows why RK Laxman did not criticize openly the Bal Thackeray character. May be he was afraid of losing his readership. Maybe Bal Thackeray helped him in the past that he did not want to ruin his relationship.

Do you disapprove openly everytime your co-worker or your boss says something negative about other minority groups?

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:jeremiah mburuburu used to write about characters like ashdoc. i thought he was creating caricatures. ashdoc is no caricature. he is absolutely real, and that's the scary part.

+1

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:43 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Regardng get into gutter: When persuasion, legalities, threats and all else fails, if that is what it takes to clean the gutter, then that is what should be done.

Those who enjoy the gutter are quick to find justifications for getting into it. Those who don't, don't get in.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Impliation of all muslims: when the muslim community insists on defining criminality per Quron - thus ignoring muslim raping hindu women, forced conversion, etc..which are sanctioned in Quron - and seeks to protect in the name of muslim Ummah, then all silent muslims need to be considered accomplices. Collective judgement is what the society arrives at.

If silence makes one an accomplice, active advocacy of criminal behavior of the sort ashdoc and you are indulging in, what does that make you?

by Idéfix Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:44 pm

When we moved to this forum, we shed one gyanputra. It looks like we found his replacement.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:42 pm

Rishi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rishi wrote:No vote bank politics and no pseudo secularism in India?

Fat chance of that ever happening!

Looks like you are not the only dreamer like John Lenon.

r.k.laxman is not a politician. he is a satirical cartoonist whose job it is to inform and entertain his readers by lampooning his subjects. his hands off treatment of one of the most notorious mobster-politicians of our times is a craven dereliction of duty.

Thou doth protest too much.

Cartoonist derelicting his duty?

An artist or a cartoonist is not in the same league of professions such as public defender, doctor and police officers.

If an attorney is appointed as a public defender then he is bound to do his best to defend his client in the court of law even if he feels that the accused committed the crime.

Similarly a cop is supposed to arrest a suspect even though he might be his friend.

But the cartoonist or a political satirist is under no obligation to take on or lampoon everyone across the political spectrum.

Who knows why RK Laxman did not criticize openly the Bal Thackeray character. May be he was afraid of losing his readership. Maybe Bal Thackeray helped him in the past that he did not want to ruin his relationship.

Do you disapprove openly everytime your co-worker or your boss says something negative about other minority groups?

i think a satirist is both a comedian and a journalist who gets to the core truths in any political issue. i take them seriously. i think laxman himself took his work quite seriously. i look at satirists and cartoonists as people who speak truth to power. they may not have official government responsibilities, but they have a huge moral and ethical responsibility to the public . some of the best done political satire in the US for example occurs on jon stewart's daily show. i thought this is what laxman also spent a lifetime doing. the new knowledge that he treated bal thackeray with kid gloves throws all his work into a cloud.

i

by Sponsored content

an unusual friendship

an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship

Re: an unusual friendship