Once upon a time there were only two news weeklies, Blitz and Current, owned and edited by two feuding Parsis. The Cold War was in full swing and one of them, Blitz, was staunchly pro-Soviet. The other was firmly in the American camp. Paradoxically, Blitz was also a fervent supporter of that despot, the Shah of Iran. Why that was so remains a mystery to this day. The two tabloids were highly opinionated and very loose with facts. Television and a more discerning readership killed them both.
I met Khwaja Ahmad Abbas in 1967 in the corridors of the Blitz’s decrepit office in downtown Bombay. He wrote ‘Last Page’, the paper’s popular column that he had brought along with him from Bombay Chronicle after that daily folded. The column began in 1935 and continued till Abbas’s death in 1987. It holds the distinction of being the longest-running column in the history of Indian journalism.
My column in Blitz was somewhere in the middle pages, under the grand and self-given title of ‘literary editor’. Though he was much older and quite famous, we became friends. I soon found myself being wined and dined by such Sea Lounge socialists as Rusi Karanjia, editor of Blitz, Balraj Sahni, and Rajni Patel, the lawyer who ran Bombay for Indira Gandhi. Once, to my astonishment, I was seated at a dinner table next to Madame Binh, the foreign minister of Ho Chi Minh’s government-in-exile.
Abbas was very versatile. Besides being a journalist, he wrote novels, short stories and film scripts. He was fluent in three languages, Urdu, Hindi and English. He was not so successful as a producer and director of films. With the possible exception of Anhonee, starring Nargis and Raj Kapoor, none of his twenty or so films made any money. There was a reason for that. The films were not very good.
Abbas is credited with giving Amitabh Bachchan his first role in Saat Hindustani. In a generous foreword to I am Not an Island, An Experiment in Autobiography, the actor fondly recalls that the entire unit of that film travelled third class by train to Goa. That was all Abbas, the producer, could afford. Everyone slept on the floor at night in a government guest house that had no electricity.
While Abbas was dreadful at making films, he had a talent for writing wonderful screenplays that made heaps of money for others. He scripted some of the best Hindi films ever made, including Raj Kapoor’s Awara, Shri 420, Jagte Raho and Bobby. But Raj Kapoor was a notoriously bad paymaster and Abbas survived mainly on Rs 1,500 he received every month for his columns.
Abbas consciously made commercial films and used stars whenever he could afford them and they were willing to work for him. But they were progressive, socially relevant films. He was the most prominent voice of the Left in Indian cinema at that time. In one of his last columns for Blitz, written while he was seriously ill and dying, Abbas said, “See any of the pictures I produced and you will meet me.”
I am Not an Island is a curious autobiography. This is its second incarnation. It was first published over thirty years ago. This abridged version has been put together by Suresh Kohli, who knew the man well. The book is still too long. It begins in ancient Medina where, apparently, one of Abbas’s ancestors was a friend of Prophet Mohammed.
As for the author, Abbas was born in Panipat, educated in Aligarh, and chose to stay back when many in his family migrated to Pakistan after Partition.
The volume deserves a better publisher. You cannot publish a biography of an eminent personality without an index. It is just not done. A list of all the films in which this wonderful man was involved would have been useful.
The editors of both Current and Blitz were relatives and it was with their consent that the newspapers went to war, making fools of readers. K.A. Abbas, whose autobiography you reviewed (A Piece of the Continent, May 17), was a follower of the communist party. His writing is third rate, his cinema melodramatic.
This refers to Bhaichand Patel’s review of Khwaja Ahmed Abbas’s autobiography (Books, May 17). While I take his point that the book should have had an index (we planned one, but it was a casualty of unforeseen production problems), his glib comment that it “deserves a better publisher” is highly offensive and uncalled for. It’s like saying it deserved a better reviewer, who’d have talked a bit more about the book than himself. A good publisher is one who can spot a good book and is prepared to take the risk to print it. For the record, imprintOne has published some highly respected national and international writers, including Mushirul Hasan, Irshad Manji, Ziauddin Sardar (a distinguished scholar on Islam) and Namita Gokhale, to name a few.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT