SAJAforum

HISTORY: Poll to decide New 7 Wonders of the World

[UPDATE: The Taj made the list when it was announced on 07.07.07. See SAJAforum posting here.]

The Taj Mahal is one of 21 sites around the world competing for the title of the New 7 Wonders of the World. The competition is taking place through an online poll that has received 24 million votes so far, from people in 185 countries. The organizers of the New7Wonders campaign are hoping to get 100 million votes by July 7, when the 7 winners are announced.

Go here to vote.

Other sites competing for the honor are the Acropolis, the Great Wall of China, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge and the Eiffel Tower. The Statue of Liberty is also on the list; its candidacy is set to get a promotional blitz. See the complete list.

The competition has generated some controversy, namely from the Egyptian government, which doesn't think the Pyramids of Giza should have to compete to stay on the list (the Pyramids are the only site still remaining from the Ancient Wonders list):

MOVIES: "Gandhi," 25 Years Later

I can't believe it's been 25 years since Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" hit the big screen. I was in New York City when the movie came out in 1982. We went to a big premiere hosted by the Indian Consulate, and even at 12, I remember being completely mesmerized by the film and the performance by Ben Kinglsey, the half-Gujarati, half-British actor who became Gandhi in my mind (the actual M.K. Gandhi looked somehow "unreal" in photos thereafter).  Soon after, I got to see it several times. We had recently gotten our first VCR and soon my father acquired, on a trip to Dubai, a pirated cassette of the movie. Since we owned only two films (the other was an Amitabh Bachchan-starrer called "Lawaris"), I saw "Gandhi" or parts of it, at least a dozen times. I was glued to the TV the following spring when it was up for 11 Oscars, winning eight, including best picture. I got in trouble the following day at school, an incident I wrote about in this essay, "Making Peace with Oscar."

Last week, Sony Pictures released a 25th Anniversary 2-disc Collector's Edition. That's the cover you see above.  If you click on the picture, you will see a larger size and you might notice that the image  (drawing?) of Kingsley they used is an odd one, making his makeup much too clear. It has a lot of features and has subtitles in Portuguese, Korean, Spanish, French - but no Hindi.  Am looking forward to watching the new edition tonight (a student is bringing it to a marathon "Gandhi" and Oscars party we are hosting tonight for my students and some friends).

Some "Gandhi" resources:

• See a New York Times collection of stories about "Gandhi," including the original Vincent Canby review ("...a big, amazingly authentic-looking movie, very sincere and aware of its reponsibilities in the panoramic manner of a giant post office mural.") and stories about the 20-year struggle to bring the movie to life.
• See a recent Telegraph interview with Attenborough, who says it's the only film of his that continuously makes a profit (it cost only $10 million to make).
• See a nine-minute featurette about Ben Kingsley from the new DVD. Among the relevations:  Nehru himself, who gave his support to the movie before he died in 1964, had suggested Alec Guinness as the actor to play the Mahatma. 
• See the Amazon page for the new DVD, which has a lot of information, photos and more.

Also see SAJAforum coverage of the recent death anniversary of Gandhi. Speaking of Oscars, here is SAJAforum coverage of Deepa Mehta's Oscar-nominated movie, "Water" ("Deepa Mehta Earns India's Indifference" and ("Water Nominated for Oscar"). Post your comments below.

HISTORY: Krauthammer, Zakaria, Hitchens debate Iraq comparison to 1947 India-Pakistan

This is a guest post by SAJAer and freelancer Salil Tripathi, whose work has appeared in The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal Europe, and numerous Indian publications.

--------------------------------------------------------

South Asian history is getting enmeshed in the ongoing debates about the Iraq war in the American media. But what's interesting about the current feud is not only that it is a feud within the family -- it is all going on within the stables of the Washington Post -- but that it brings on writers to take on nuanced positions. First, Fareed Zakaria, who blames the Bush administration for the Babylon bloodbath here.

Charles Krauthammer, writing for the Washington Post, acerbically calls Zakaria's argument "stupid", insisting that Iraq is "their" country, implying that ancient hatreds are spilling over, settling scores which could not be settled earlier (subscription required). Krauthammer points out:

"Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious. Did Britain "give" India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine? The tribal wars of post-colonial Uganda?

"We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?"

If Krauthammer's implication is that Britain did not "give" India the violence that accompanied Partition, that Hindus and Muslims were rarin' to go at one another in any case, he needs a quick history lesson, too, which comes from Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate.

Not so fast, says the contrarian who some call the Orwell of our times. Here, Hitchens agrees with Krauthammer's broad point, that Iraq's problems predated 2003 (a point yours truly made in a
speculative post on SAJA's discussion list -- where I said the US invasion probably speeded up what would have happened in any case). But Hitchens questions Krauthammer's reading of Indian Independence.

He says Britain did in fact give India the war of '47-'48 "by staying several decades too long and then compounding the mistake by leaving much too fast—even unilaterally advancing the date of independence so as to speed up the scuttle—and by capitulating to Muslim League demands for partition..."

That the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Slate are owned by the same company is of course, a mere coincidence. But it certainly shows the plurality of views in American media.

-Salil Tripathi

HISTORY: Jan. 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi assassinated

Today is the anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, who was shot to death on Jan. 30, 1948.

Thought some of you might like to see how the New York Times, led by Robert Trumbull, covered the story back then. You can find the coverage, including PDF links here.

It's part of SAJA's collection of landmark stories - a chance for you to see how SOME major front-page stories with South Asian connections were covered in the U.S. press (starting in 1857).

You should also take a look at some of the reporting by James W. Michaels, then of United Press, who broke the story of Gandhi's death by a few minutes - an eternity in the wire service days.

Trumbull's lead: "Mohandas K. Gandhi was killed by an assassin's bullet today. The assassin was a Hindu who fired three shots from a pistol  at range of three feet."

Michaels's lead: " Mohandas K. Gandhi was assassinated today by a Hindu extremist whose act plunged India into sorrow and fear."

Reax? Post you thoughts in the comments section below.

[See SAJAforum coverage of the 25th anniversary of the movie "Gandhi" in 2007.]