01-20-2007, 04:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2007, 04:05 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
But today we have women like Urvashi Butalia (self proclaimed progressive feminist) who tarnish the names of these brave woman, here is something from a couple of reviews of the book:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One important criticism about this work stands out: The author repeatedly blasts the mass suicides of the desperate victims of these riots. Does she mean to say that the invading armies of the rioters are nobleness and kindness incarnate ?
The hapless victims in the face of imminent slavery in the hands of the satanical mobs have little choice. Though unfortunate , suicide appears to be the only alternative. This practice has stood the test of time. From the times when the marauding armies of Mahmud of Ghazni swept the plains of Punjab, the helpless civilian populace knows what to expect and what fate awaits them in the hands of their brutal conquerors.
And this author has the cheek to question and criticize these practices...The author has chosen to turn a blind eye to these pages in history books. Or is it mere ignorance ? With this the author has hurt the sentiments of the victims of these riots. She has desecrated the memories of these victims and insulted the history of partition. This book is of little literary value and lacks penetrative opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Silence-V...ie=UTF8&s=books<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me it looks like she does this because she herself finds it unthinkable that there were woman who preferred honour over life.
Jauhar maybe different but the same principle comes into play, what today's progressives may find unthinkable was done by thousands of woman because of their conviction that it was better to die than be raped, the same thing comes into play during sati, just because you or me may find it unthinkable (just like many of us find it unthinkable about the self immolation of Buddhist monks as a protest against US intervention in Vietnam) doesn't mean that there aren't women who genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do, so how far should individual freedoms go (as long as they are not harming others)?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One important criticism about this work stands out: The author repeatedly blasts the mass suicides of the desperate victims of these riots. Does she mean to say that the invading armies of the rioters are nobleness and kindness incarnate ?
The hapless victims in the face of imminent slavery in the hands of the satanical mobs have little choice. Though unfortunate , suicide appears to be the only alternative. This practice has stood the test of time. From the times when the marauding armies of Mahmud of Ghazni swept the plains of Punjab, the helpless civilian populace knows what to expect and what fate awaits them in the hands of their brutal conquerors.
And this author has the cheek to question and criticize these practices...The author has chosen to turn a blind eye to these pages in history books. Or is it mere ignorance ? With this the author has hurt the sentiments of the victims of these riots. She has desecrated the memories of these victims and insulted the history of partition. This book is of little literary value and lacks penetrative opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Silence-V...ie=UTF8&s=books<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me it looks like she does this because she herself finds it unthinkable that there were woman who preferred honour over life.
Jauhar maybe different but the same principle comes into play, what today's progressives may find unthinkable was done by thousands of woman because of their conviction that it was better to die than be raped, the same thing comes into play during sati, just because you or me may find it unthinkable (just like many of us find it unthinkable about the self immolation of Buddhist monks as a protest against US intervention in Vietnam) doesn't mean that there aren't women who genuinely believe that it is the right thing to do, so how far should individual freedoms go (as long as they are not harming others)?