Subscribe To The Perspectives

Friday, October 14, 2016

Does The Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution Hold 'True'? (Class XII Economics Project Under WBCHSE Board)

“The distribution of income of society is controlled by a natural law, if it worked without friction, would give to every agent of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates.” -J.B. Clark

It was assumed by him that the total stock of capital remains constant. Clark also supposed that the form of capital can be varied at will. In other words, physical instruments of production can be adapted to varying quantities and abilities of available labour. Further, he treats labour as a homogeneous factor by taking identical labour units and discusses how the wage rate of labour is determined.

Every rational employer or entrepreneur will try to utilise his fixed amount of capital so as to maximise his profits. For this he will hire as many labourers (labour units) as can be profitably put to work with a given amount of capital. For an individual firm or industry, marginal productivity of labour will decline as more and more workers are added to the fixed quantity of capital.

He will go on hiring more and more labour units as long as the addition made to the total product by an extra labour unit is greater than the wage rate he has to pay for it. The employer will reach equilibrium position when the wage rate is just equal to the marginal product of labour.

Amartya Sen writes (P.249-250,'Resources,Values and Development' by Amartya Sen),if marginal productivity theory of distribution of distribution applied,own share would have always been equal to 1 but that is not the case since the shortcomings of the theory are already well known.

Further,American economist Thomas Palley puts forward,"Dani is absolutely right about the empirical literature on pay, which is broad and multi-faceted. The question is what is the relation of that literature to marginal product theory and does it move mainstream economics beyond marginal product theory? I suggest not.
When it comes to unions, it is well documented that unions raise wages. Union supporters argue that (especially in highly unionized economies) unions do so with no adverse employment effects. Neo-classicals interpret unions through a marginal product labor demand lens, and generally argue they raise wages at the cost of lower employment. However, it is also the case that if employers have monopsony (buyer monopoly) power unions can also raise both wages and employment in a marginal product framework.
What about democracy? I suggest democracy raises wages by altering the division of the cake, but there is no adverse employment effect. Furthermore, by raising wages and improving income distribution, democracy strengthens consumer demand and may increase employment through a Keynesian channel. This is an argument based on a non-marginal product approach to income distribution.
What does neo-classical marginal productivity theory imply about democracy? Holding productivity constant, democracy would tend to lower employment because it raises wages. However, as with unions one could argue democracy lowers the monopsony power of employers, thereby raising both wages and employment. Under this neo-classical interpretation, democracy serves to move the economy closer to the idealized state of perfect competition in which the idealized version of marginal productivity theory of income distribution holds.
The bottom line is there are two stories about the wage effects of democracy (and unions) - one rooted in marginal product theory, the other not. My view is the institutionalist Keynesian story is more plausible. I am not sure what Dani's view is, as he seems to support both. However, that seems theoretically problematic.
When it comes to the neo-classical theory of income distribution you are either in or out with regard to the concept of marginal product. Under conditions of perfect competition, the marginal product of labor is the labor demand schedule, which tightly determines the relationship between wages and employment as a technological relationship. Under conditions other than perfect competition, the marginal product of labor remains ever-present and provides the reference point for determination of wages. However, if marginal product is an incoherent or unusable concept most of neo-classical economics (including its approach to income distribution) disintegrates: hence, the unwillingness to question marginal product analysis.
The bigger story is that the empirical data settle nothing and can be interpreted to be consistent with either theory. That suggests both should be taught with equal prominence in all economics departments, including top departments. Yet they are not. Instead, only the neo-classical marginal productivity theory is taught as part of the core curriculum, the concept of marginal product is never questioned, and heterodox theory is essentially suppressed."

MIT economists Peter Temin and Frank Levy have published a paper about the role of institutions in explaining inequality in 20th century America. Their paper is welcome and (to be self-promoting) expands analytical themes developed in my 1998 book, Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream and the Case for Structural Keynesianism. The engagement of these economists may be a sign that the economics professionals thinking about income distribution is headed for change. If that is so, neo-classical economics will be in serious trouble because marginal productivity theory figures critically in its macroeconomics (both new classical and new Keynesian), its microeconomics, and it approach to trade and globalization.

In this sense, Clark’s middle-way policy approach is strategic: it coopts the reform impulse of the Progressives, while simultaneously and determinately delimiting the scope of policy intervention. When, around the time of Clark’s death in 1938, American neoclassical economics is importing the more mathematical Continental tradition, marginalism and theoretical abstraction cease to be professional liabilities, and Clark’s policy approach becomes more entrenched. This difference in policy approach,among the many others, may help explain the divergent paths of Progressive economics, which was a spentforce by the 1930s, and neoclassical economics, which has been ascendant for more than sixty years.
There is in Clark no algebra, and no reflexive assumption of maximization.What’s modern in Clark is his faith in the virtues of competitive markets, his marginalist approach to price and wage determination,his aspiration for generality in economic theory, his elevation of a benchmark competitive ideal to which markets and policy should aspire, and his innovative approach to regulation, which I have argued is best characterized as one of market-failure remedy, especially the remedy of promoting more and better competition. In these respects, Clark is not a Progressive, butan early precursor of the American neoclassical

Summing it up,quite a number of arguments have been stated against the marginal productivity theory of distribution to prove the presence of several loopholes,unconsidering which the theory had been asserted and valuated to be true.Some of them have been stated below (collected) - 

1. Unrealistic Assumptions:

The theory assumes that there exists perfect competition in all the markets. But in reality, perfect competition is only an imaginary concept. In modern days, perfect competition does not hold good.

2. All Factors are not Homogeneous:

This theory assumes that all units of a given factor are homogeneous. It is wrong. In reality different units of a given factor are heterogeneous.

3. Difficult to Measure MPP:

Prof. Hobson has criticized this theory on the ground that it is not possible to measure the marginal productivity. He maintained that if the number of labourers is increased to measure their marginal productivity then other factors like raw material, tools, implements etc. will also have to be increased.

4. Only One-Sided Theory:

Marshall, Friedman criticised this theory on the ground that it is only one sided theory. As it assumes supply to be constant to determine the marginal productivity, it is possible only in the short-run. But in the long run supply of every factor is variable.

5. Labour is not Perfectly Mobile:

This theory assumes that labour is perfectly mobile. In actual life factors of production are not perfectly mobile. It is very difficult to move from one occupation to another.

6. Short-Period Ignored:

The marginal productivity theory holds good in the long run only while it ignores the short period. But in actual practice, the problems of short period are more important than that of the long period. As Lord Keynes stated that in the long run we all are dead. Therefore, all problems are needed to be solved in the short run.

Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Thursday, October 13, 2016

On My Dylan and the Nobel Prize

So,the messiah of my daydreams has earned himself the most honorary award of the generations foregone and those that are to come.Every warm hearted,sensible artist and enthusiast on the planet must be jumping in pure,glorious joy.
Even this afternoon,I had been listening to 'Mr.Tambourine Man' on loop.And thinking about how crazy ENFP types could drive you at points!The charm,the lyrics,the movement,the man - he is an undeniable legend made of an excellent composition of stardust,light and dark,and blood and all that is human and so is not at the same time.Dylan,you been my magic and an answer to every fuhrer's spirit alive.You,the manifestation of the emotions of an entire class of outcasts and artists ; made of bleeding hearts and dripping rainwater.You have been an answer,our voice,our poet - a denial to what they impose to be acceptable.A denial.On their face.To every institutional tool.Aren't you,weren't you?

Hurts,that hurts when you receive a Nobel Prize or another paltry,so called "honour" from his highness,the president of the United Terrorist States of America.Your words have cast a spell on us,have penetrated through our souls,have given life to our ever hurtful,ever suffering heart.You,an error and the truth,a petty Nobel Prize doesn't affect your valuation in our eyes.Your creation is far beyond numbers and figures.

The man who compared the Nobel Prize to a sack of potatoes,Jean-Paul Sartre is who comes to my mind right now.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

All That Comes To Mind (25) : Academic Pressure,Relationships (ENFP-INTP) and MBTI Analysis

A few very important things have been happening in my life.
First of all,this is my final year of schooling and I am stuck with a lot of academic pressure,a tight schedule and need for some breeze that is driving the littlest of the soul material inside me claustrophobic and overburdened.I simply do not understand what to do,most often.The blog once used to be a space for a lot of personal posts until I started taking a turn towards everything social and everything that would create an impact,an important one.

And another extremely important incident is that about a relationship that I have been taking very seriously,for the first time in my life.I had never even given the concept of making a compromise or two a thought and now my entire day runs like : study,talk,text,talk,study,text,study,talk....repeat.
The relationship is smooth,almost without a speck of doubt amidst our own very minds.Both of us are outcasts (my situation is worse),he deals in the most charming of ways possible with his lover's neurosis,he understands things before I can speak them up,which is a blessing since most of the times,I can't (yeah,you've got to believe that).
The only trouble is that we both belong to the NP category (intuition,perception) and that leads to a hell lot of similarities in between us.This should not be a problem apparently but if you delve deeper,you will understand that similarities are the biggest positive and negative sides two people can share.Both of us are hellishly narcissistic,I am snobbish on top of that and he is extroverted yet unsocial.Also,ENFPs (his personality type) show a lot of contradictory behaviour and one moment he will speak of contradictions and epistemology,the next he might talk about how well early marriages work.
Also,since there is nothing definitive perceptional people can settle towards,both of us are  indecisive to the power infinity.This (as a contradiction) does not hold true about the relationship in general but about most of the other things,exempting career and love life.
The best thing about this is that he is a very balanced person,even after being an ENFP.He knows how to gather things and practically manage them and I don't.I am the little girl lost in the woods without a map towards the light and I am always waiting for someone to show me the way on top of being drastically independent about most of the very important decisions of life.
However,I have been analysing if NP relationships do work and trust me,NP-NP relationships work far,far,far better than ST,NF,NJ,SJ types.Not that I have had a relationship in any of the other categories apart from a short talk session with an NF guy but I have acquaintances who are themselves living examples of what turns to what.To start off,I have had a HUGE number of problems with ESTJs.I do not think NPs (and even NFs) will ever be able to be happy in a relationship with an ST or SJ even though psychologists always recommend them as the natural partners of the NP.The medication to your abnormality doesn't have to be strict commands because as per as I know NTPs/NFPs HATE commands.The living poet doesn't have to be murdered by a bureaucrat,right? The thought itself is too disturbing. 
Also,NF personality types are a little too emotional.The good thing is ENFPs are not really NFs,they are more like a combination of NTs and NFs whereas INTPs are not really NTs,they are more like NFs. You won't believe how very strong emotions they store inside and once you are able to touch their soul and intellect,they are done for.Not that they would express this to you,it is expected that they wouldn't or if they do there is a very erratic pattern to their expression games. Sometime they might talk slowly,softly about highly romantic things and the next,they will shift to nuclear sciences and metaphysics without caring to mention the transition agent.That is how they are - strange,peculiar,snobbish,intellectual.Love is a puzzle to them and so is their lover.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Thirsty Throats at Rajendra Nagar : Report by Azmia Riaz

From around a month and a half back,I had been speaking to Azmia and we were on a constant lookout to write about intricate problems of the economically downtrodden in the federal accommodation of states we live in.We had managed to connect on IOPS despite its lack of Indian members (basically this applies for most third world countries since the awareness levels are glaringly low,which contributes to bad HDI ranks subsequently).

Since she is studying at IIJNM Bangalore and since I have been on an interactive spree for quite a while - solving queries of students,interviewing,talking to particular individuals for the Kashmir cause (some very interestingly daring posts are to be up on the blog soon),receiving guest articles etc,we were on a lookout for a cause we could observe and analyse rather than doing that in an unordered manner.

All through this time,a few more innocent lives were claimed in Kashmir,a riot took place in Bangalore,a child labour from the minority community was shot by a member of the Sangh Parivar.The ongoing riot in Bangalore blocked Azmia in her hostel and that was when we talked about information deception and mass fooling (talking politics when stuck in a riot-some city is tougher than you can imagine).It took her a few more days to come up with this article and I personally know the problems she faced throughout the journey - after all,the authority is not your best buddy offering you Margaritas ad cocktail on a summer holiday.

The article is about water shortage conditions and its dreary effects in quite a large slum situated in Adugodi,Bangalore.

An excerpt to the article has been provided below.Do click here (or at the end of the post) to read the complete article at The Weekly Observer.

KORAMANGALA - Rajendra Nagar is a colony where small houses stand lined up beside a canal that is overflowing with waste. The streets are crowded with screaming children and meandering cows. Children skip over mounds of cow dung and play frantically beneath strings that hang above them, bending under the weight of a dozen wet clothes.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Query Solved : Summary/Synopsis of 'Mrs.Dalloway' written by Virginia Woolf

I was requested by +Iram Mirza,a M.A English student to synopsise 'Mrs.Dalloway' authored by Virginia Woolf a few weeks back (apologies that it took me so long ; had my own academic preparation to handle in this while) and the post is ready by now! If anyone would like to seek some help regarding Academics,please go to this page and let me know.I will try my best to help (and that for free!)
You can catch up with a free,accessible copy of 'Mrs.Dalloway'on Project Gutenberg here.

The novel is all about Mrs.Dalloway,an upper middle class woman who has been focused as the showstopper of the ramp in the story is what the novel is named after.A rather classic approach as this can be considered to be,the novel does deal with quite a number of unconventional contexts.We have to,however,keep in mind that the book had been published in 1925,which is almost a century ago from now and hence,is not as direct in approach as,say in Simone de Beauvoir's 'The Second Sex' (published in 1949).
Woolf being one of the earliest advocators of feminism within the world of lady literateurs,the book could have been braver but it has got a subtle tone in terms of defiance ; one that does not come up with a solution on its own,one that makes you run over the same piece of ground many,many times until you feel dizzy ; partially claustrophobic,even.It totally draws the picture of how life used to be for the upper middle class in the twentieth century England - mostly revolving around slyly hidden scars,untold anecdotes,sexual attraction,obsessive tendencies and psychological imbalance. This is the very reason why the depressive mood is intensified by the introduction of World War I veteran Septimus.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Query Solved : English Project for Class 12 (WBCHSE Board) asked by Soumik

"Query : I want a english project for class 12 but i dont know which project to do.

Hi Soumik,
There are four options available for English Project in Class XII.However,the project this year would be of far more importance than the last because this is going to get scrutinised by the examiners appointed by West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (WBCHSE). 

The options that you might opt for are :-
2.Film/Theatre Script
3.Indianisation of a Novel

If you want to do something really autonomous,absolutely independent - the film/theatre script recommended (either one of the two,that is) but if you are looking for a guided job instead,I will recommend the Indianisation project which however,is not something I would look forward to or even advise students to do so.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Sunday, September 25, 2016

গল্পের নাট্যরূপ : ঋত্বিক ঘটকের ছোটগল্প 'ভূস্বর্গ অচঞ্চল ' অবলম্বনে / Dramatisation of a story : 'The Serene Paradise on Earth' by Ritwik Ghatak (Class XII Bengali Project Under WBCHSE Board)

The story,rather the portrayal of one of the most breathtaking moments that has repeated itself mercilessly innumerable number of times across the verge of this wide world is the subject to internationally acclaimed film director and author Ritwik Ghatak's 'Bhusworgo Ochonchol.'The phrase translates to something like 'The Serene Paradise on Earth' and revolves around the deprivation of Kashmiri civilians who fought and are tirelessly fighting for their freedom,constantly defying curfews,pellets and shotguns for the last six decades (that's more than half a century!).
In the name of Azaadi,to all those who have laid their lives for this cause.

দৃশ্য 1 

[পর্দা সরে যায়।স্টেজের উপর দেখা যায় পাহাড়ের ফাঁক দিয়ে সরু রাস্তা গেছে,পাশে বিবর্ণ কিছু সাইনবোর্ড,রাস্তায় উল্লসিত হানাদারের দল (যাদের হাতে বন্দুক) এবং দূরে দুর্নিরীক্ষ্য তুষারাবৃত পর্বতশিখা দেখা যাচ্ছে।রাস্তা দিয়ে হেঁটে যাচ্ছে আফ্রিদি ও মোমেনদের দল...তাদের পায়ের বুটের আওয়াজটা প্রতিদ্ধনির মতো শোনাচ্ছে,বোঝা যাচ্ছে গত রাতে তুষারপাত হয়েছে সেখানে।কিছু কাশ্মীরি মানুষ ছেঁড়া সালোয়ার আর মোটা কম্বল নিয়ে রাস্তার ধারে জড়ো হয়।
কিছু দূরে দেখা যায় গলায় ধসে যাওয়া একটা বাড়ির অংশ,একটা ক্ষীণ সন্তুরের আওয়াজ ভেসে আসতে থাকে পটভূমিতে গোটা সময়টা জুড়ে এবং লুঠ হওয়া মেওয়ার দোকানের পাশে হাতে দড়ি-বাঁধা অবস্থায় একজন মধ্য তিরিশের কাশ্মীরি যুবক গোটা ঘটনাটা প্রত্যক্ষ করে,এই প্রথম আলোর রশ্মি প্লাবিত করে মঞ্চের সেই অংশ যেখানে যুবক বসে আছেন এবং আমরা তাকে ভালো করে দেখতে পাই
তার পাশে বসে আছে একজন ছোটোখাটো,রোগা,বয়স্ক মানুষ। সে তার হাঁটু দুটোর মাঝখানে মাথা রেখে কাঁপছে,ছেঁড়া কম্বলে যারপরনাই শীত মানছেনা বোঝা যায়।]

দৃশ্য ২ 

ব্যাকস্টেজ থেকে কথকের কণ্ঠস্বর ভেসে আসে - এবং তার কথা অনুযায়ীই আলোর ব্যবহার দিয়ে দর্শকদের ঘটনাটার আভাস দেওয়া হয়...রাত থেকে ভোর হচ্ছে এরকম একটা সময়ে গোঙানির আওয়াজ শুনে এগিয়ে যান আমাদের গল্পের নায়ক,যাকে দড়ি বাঁধা অবস্থায় আমরা বসে থাকতে দেখেছি প্রথমেই।আওয়াজটাকে অনুসরণ করে তারা আরো এগিয়ে গিয়ে একটি নয়ানজুলিতে পড়ে থাকতে দেখেন একজন মহিলাকে।তাকে দেখেই বোঝা যাচ্ছিলো সে সন্তানসম্ভবা,শীতে তার ঠোঁট দুটো নীল হয়ে এসেছে এবং অনাবৃত,অর্ধমৃত দেহটা পড়ে আছে ঠিক রাস্তার মাঝখানে।
মকবুল : এ...এ কি!

চাচা [যে রোগা,ছোটোখাটো বয়স্ক মানুষটিকে আমরা প্রথমে দেখলাম]: সন্তানসম্ভবা ছিল। আর কিছুই যে করার নেই। 

[মকবুল অদ্ভুত দৃষ্টিতে মাটির দিকে তাকিয়ে থাকে খানিকক্ষণ।]

ফৌজ : মেয়েটির দিকে তাকিয়ে কুৎসিত ভঙ্গি করেন দুজন। সকলে পশুর মতো হেসে ওঠে। 

[  মকবুল আরেকবার সকলের দিকে সেই দৃষ্টিতে  বিদ্ধ করে দর্শকের আবেগকে।]

কথকের মাধ্যমে আমরা একটি মাত্র বাক্যই শুনি এই দৃশ্যের শেষে - "আজাদ কাশ্মীরই বটে।এতে ব্রিটিশ আমেরিকান সৈন্যরা আছে,পাকিস্তানিরা আছে,উপজাতি আছে,নেই শুধু কাশ্মীরি।বেশ মজার বিষয়।"

দৃশ্য 3 

[আমরা আবার ফিরে আসি প্রথম দৃশ্যপটে। আবার বিষন্ন সুরে সন্তুরটা বাজে কিছুক্ষন।

চাচা (রোগা,ছোটোখাটো,বয়স্ক লোকটি) নিজের হাঁটুদুটোর মধ্যে মাথাটা রেখে বেশ ভালো ভাবে কাঁপছেন।]

মকবুল : আহমদজান,কাঁদছেন নাকি?

চাচা : কই,না তো।

[মকবুল লোকটার দিকে তাকিয়ে ভালো করে দেখে।]

মকবুল : ভয় পাচ্ছেন?

চাচা : কবে আসবে সরকারি বাহিনী এখানে?

মকবুল : যবে আসার আসবে,মরতে আমাদের হবেই চাচা। আর যুদ্ধ নিয়ে প্রশ্ন করবেননা ,ও নিয়ে আপনি আদৌ কিছুই বোঝেননা,গেরিলা যুদ্ধ স্বচক্ষে প্রত্যক্ষ  করলেন এতদিন,নিদেন পক্ষে অন্তত ক্লিউশিন চালানোটা তো শিখে নিতেন!

চাচা :  আমি ওকথা বলছিনা। 

মকবুল : তবে?

চাচা : বলছি শেব-ই-কাশ্মীর একদিন এখানে আসবে তো? এরা হটে যাবে তো? 

মকবুল : নিশ্চই,চাচা। আমরা এই পশুদের হাত থেকে কাশ্মীরকে রক্ষা করব,একজন সত্যিকারের কাশ্মীরি বেঁচে থাকতে লড়াই চলবে। 

[চাচা আবার হাঁটুর মধ্যে মুখ গুঁজে পড়ে থাকেন।রাস্তায় হানাদাররা টহল দিতে থাকে রোবটের মতো। কিসের যেন অর্থহীন গর্ব তাদের,মস্তিষ্ক বলে কিছু নেই। খানিক বাদে ক্যাপ্টেন এসে হাজির হন এবং চাচার ডাক পড়ে।]

ক্যাপ্টেন : কি চাচা,আপনিই কি....?

চাচা : হ্যাঁ,আমিই।

ক্যাপ্টেন : বেশ।দেখছেন তো কেমন করে অর্থ জোগাড় করছি আমরা? আপনি কিন্তু দলের লোকেদের কোথায় কোথায় অবস্থান সেটা একটু বলে দেবেন।আমরা তোমায় বেকসুর খালাস করে দেব,বুঝলে?
[ফৌজের লোকগুলো হেসে ওঠে,ঠিক সেই ধর্ষিতা মহিলাকে দেখার পরে যেমন করে হেসেছিলো আজাদ কাশ্মীরের সৈন্যরা।]

চাচা : বলুন...

ক্যাপ্টেন : হিন্দু রাজা আর হিন্দুস্থানীর ধোঁকা খেয়ে খেয়ে তো জিনা হারাম হয়ে গেলো,এবারে একটু সাহায্য করুন পাকিস্তানিদের।
শোনো,শোনো।বহু টাকা পাবে,প্রাণেও বেঁচে যাবে।শুনছো? আব্দুল্লার দলের পরাজয় হবেই।

চাচা : কুত্তা,শের-ই-কাশ্মীর এখানে আসবেই।
[বলে ক্যাপ্টেনের মুখে থুতু ফেলেন তিনি।
ক্যাপ্টেনের সৈন্যরা রাইফেল তাক করে এগিয়ে আসেন,ক্যাপ্টেন রাগে লাল হয়ে মুখ মোছেন রুমালে।তারপরে ক্যাপ্টেন এগিয়ে এসে টুঁটি টিপে ধরেন তার অর্ধেক উচ্চতা এবং দ্বিগুন বয়সের মানুষটার।]

চাচা : আসবেই।

[ক্যাপ্টেন সৈন্যদের ইশারা করে কিছু একটা আনার জন্য।পরক্ষনেই তারা একটা দরজার পাল্লা নিয়ে এসে হাজির হয় এবং সেটা চাচার বুকের উপর রাখা হয়।সেই পাল্লাটার উপরে উঠে হাঁটতে শুরু করে চারজন সৈনিক।]

ক্যাপ্টেন (মকবুলের প্রতি) : কি,ঠিক করিনি?

মকবুল : তুমি...!

 চাচা ফের বলে ওঠেন : আসবেই।

[কিছুক্ষনের মধ্যেই চাচার নাক দিয়ে মুখ দিয়ে চাপ চাপ রক্ত বেরোতে শুরু করে এবং সে মারা যায়।]

ক্যাপ্টেন এগিয়ে আসে মকবুলের দিকে।

ক্যাপ্টেন : কি,তাহলে তুমিই তো জীবিত সর্দার,তাই না?

মকবুল : আমি,ইয়ে...

ক্যাপ্টেন : ন্যাশনাল কনফারেন্সে বক্ত্রিতা দিয়ে আসা নেতা!মকবুল শেরওয়ানি! আদাব হ্যায়,সাহাব।
বক্ত্রিতা দিয়েছিলে তো,সেদিন?

মকবুল : ইয়ে,মানে...ওই যে সেদিন জিন্নাহ সাহাব বক্ত্রিতা দিয়ে সাম্প্রদায়িকতা ছড়াচ্ছিলেন,তাকে আটকাতেই তো...গোটা কাশ্মীর জানে,এই বড়মুলাই একমাত্র জায়গা যেখান থেকে উনি ভয় পেয়ে পালিয়েছেন।

[মৃদু হেসে ক্যাপ্টেন চলে যান এবং যাওয়ার আগে সৈন্যদের গোলায় বিদ্ধস্ত বাড়িটার দিকে নির্দেশ করে কিছু বলেন।]

দৃশ্য 4 

[ মকবুলকে ওরা টানতে টানতে নিয়ে যায় ভাঙা বাড়িটার কাছে।যেতে যেতে সে দেখে আহমদজানের (চাচা) মৃতদেহটা পড়ে আছে পাশেই।]

Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Query Solved : English Project for Class 11 (WBCHSE Board) asked by Suraj Das

Hi Suraj,
I apologise that it took me a day to figure out your e-mail,it should have been answered on the very day you sent it.
Coming to the topic,the project that I did (and scored full marks) was an autobiography,the other choices that you get being developing a story from given 2-3 lines or dramatisation of a story.The autobiography is the choice where you can hold maximum autonomy since there are hardly any restrictions on the same.
This is the link to the project.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

#StopArmingSaudi - Call your senators right now!

The Saudi Coalition, backed by the U.S, has committed a multitude of war crimes in Yemen killing thousands of innocent civilians. The Senate and House are taking action by putting forth legislation to stop the current $1.15 billion US weapons sale to Saudi Arabia. There must be consequences for the atrocities committed by Saudi Arabia.  The US must not continue to participate by providing more weapons to the Saudi government.     
There is an extremely important vote in the Senate this afternoon to block the current $1.15 billion weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.  Call your Senators NOW at (202) 224-3121 to tell them that you support SJ Resolution 39 blocking this sale.  

Based on what we've learned from our allies who have been working tirelessly to support and move legislation in Congress, we believe that a vote could reach the Senate floor as early as this afternoon (Wednesday).


Your Senator has a rare opportunity to stop this inhumane war profiteering which is soaked in the blood of thousands of innocent Yemenis. Those on Capitol Hill need to know that you are watching, that we are watching, and we will hold them accountable for their position on this uncontroversial issue.

Join others around the country by picking up your phone now to call the US Capitol Switchboard : (202) 224-3121. Their system will assist you in reaching your Senators and Congressperson.
You can go to the US Senate website to find out more information on your senator before calling!
You can read more about what's going on in the Senate and House here,"Bid to block U.S. arms sale to Saudis faces tough opposition" (Reuters, 9/20/16).
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

David and Goliath : Guest Post by John Mulligan

David and Goliath

Michael Henderson, in 2014, wrote an article for the Spectator magazine. The heading of the article reads “Why Ken Loach hasn’t made a decent film since Kes.” There are a number of things to be concerned about here. I will deal with them which fall into two areas. The first being the magazine itself and the second with the film director Ken Loach, who, after all, is what the piece of writing is about. It seems reasonable to accept that the author of the piece of writing will reveal to us why Mr Loach has not “made a decent film since Kes”. Well, it is interesting what he has to say and it is not interesting at all; it is surprising what he has to say and it is not surprising at all. To understand this sentence you need to understand the philosophy behind the magazine itself. 
Kes, Ken Loach’s most famous film and many say greatest, was made in 1969. In the five full decades that have followed, he has not made a decent film according to Mr. Henderson. The first thing to note about the article is that it is very badly written which is not unusual for the publication. In the opening paragraph then he mentions one of Loach’s films - Jimmy’s Hall - he then goes on to attack the writer of this film, Paul Laverty. Of Laverty he says (Laverty) “who is usually described as a Scottish ‘human rights campaigner’. Wake up at the back! They’re doing this for your benefit.” Five years before this article was written Paul Laverty gave an interview in the Socialist Review, in it he said 
"I saved up some money and went out to work for a co-op in north Nicaragua, in the war zone. That was a real eye opener for me, I saw what the US were doing there, funding the Contras. I saw the systematic planned violence against the civilian population of Nicaragua. I visited El Salvador and Guatemala during their wars as well. In three years I saw how the US tore countries apart in a much more sophisticated way by cutting off loans to the IMF and World Bank, putting pressure on other countries to not deal with them.
Many of the same US politicians involved in the wars in Central America - Richard Perle, John Negroponte and a whole host of other shady CIA figures - were later involved in the Iraq war.”
 Michael Henderson, of course, does not mention any of this and the reason should be evident. The Spectator, in the 1980s, wrote on Nicaragua itself but instead on writing in detail about Reagan's terrorist war against the native population, they instead sought to write unceremoniously about the Sandinistas, which would, I suppose, be akin to somebody condemning a Nazi who murders a few people in his spare time on a whim and staying silent on the six million slain Jews and the other victims of Hitler’s megalomania. This is what Ambrose Evans-Pritchard did when he wrote in 1985 in the magazine.
 “It appears that the Sandinistas are either trying to exterminate the Contras, or provoke them into conflict in order to justify blocking the transfer of military power to the incoming government of Violeta Chamorro on 25 April. Meanwhile the state propaganda machine has accused the Contrast of terrorising peasants around Quilali and of breaking the ceasefire. President Ortega has threatened 'the full fury of civil war and insurrection, unless the Contras are disarmed.' He needs the Contras desperately. They are his last excuse for holding on to power after a crushing electoral defeat.” 

Nicaragua - The Iran Contra Affair

He says nothing about the crimes of the contras and nothing about the terror the Reagan administration were supporting, the magazine kept this line and so it is unlikely to change its tone. So straight away we see the article about Ken Loach is perhaps politically motivated. One would think Paul Laverty’s work in Nicaragua would be praised. Indeed, Mr Henderson has left nothing out. The article is not even about him. 
“Only one thing is for sure”, Henderson writes, referring to Loach. “Not many people, working-class or otherwise, want to watch his films. Even critics, one feels, see them out of a sense of duty.” The Wind That Shake the Barley, Loach's 2006 film grossed almost twenty-three million dollars worldwide, his 2009 film Looking for Eric, his 2009 film grossed eleven-and-a-half million dollars at the box office. In terms of the critics well one easy way to answer this conundrum is to look at the awards Ken Loach has won since Kes was made. He has won the Palme d’Or twice, arguably the most sought after award and most respected, he has won the Cannes Jury Prize twice, the Leopard of Honour, European Film Award, European Film Academy Award, British Independent Film Award, Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement, the list of honours go on and on. 
Michael Henderson goes on with other charges against Loach, and then the motives for his attack becomes clear. He praises Kes. It is “one of the finest films of post-war English cinema”, he informs us. He then, like a badly-written movie plot unfolding, gives away his motive for his angst and grievances albeit he does do state them. He asserts “Loachland occupies a world of permanent grievance, at home and abroad, with ‘issues’ getting in the way of the tale. Hidden Agenda was about Northern Ireland, Carla’s Song was set in Nicaragua, Land and Freedom took us to the Spanish Civil War. Tick, tick, tick”. What Mr Henderson cannot stomach and tolerate is the political content in Ken Loach’s films. It is not the political content alone of course it is much more than that. Loach is a socialist, openly so, and he makes films about people’s struggles, about communities, their spirit, resolve and the things the Spectator editorial team cringe at. It is this what Henderson really is writing this badly-written article for because there is nothing in the article that tells the reader why Ken Loach has not made a decent film since Kes. 
About half-way through the article he calls Ken Loach a propagandist.
Share this PostPin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Got A Doubt? Or A Suggestion?Talk To Us!


Email *

Message *