compare and contrast the autobiographies of nehru and chaudhuri
Answers
Answered by
0
Nirad C.Chaudhuri has provoked an emotional reaction, whether it is to the books or the person. Controversy has surrounded him, and there is no unanimity about the valuation of his work. Swapan Dasgupta’s Nirad C. Chaudhuri: the First Hundred Years: A Celebration (see Reading List below) presents fascinating pictures of Chaudhuri’s personality, as seen by eminent writers and critics like Nabaneeta Dev Sen, Meenakshi Mukherjee, Khushwant Singh md Keki N. Daruwalla. They comment on his English and Bengali writings, in addition to describing the man. Among all the critics, it is C.D.Narasimhaiah who has the poorest opinion of Chaudhuri’s autobiography.
He finds absolutely nothing praiseworthy in it. He has compared Nehru’s autography with Chaudhuri’s, and believes that they demonstrate “two kinds of Indian writing: one pulsating with human warmth. the other abstract, ponderous and dully academic; one meant for Indians, another for an English-speaking world abroad (Narasimhaiah. 1995, y.64). According to him, “Chaudhuri’s writing betrays an immaturity that one would not normally associate with a person of his age” (p.65). Illustrating with quotations from Unknown Indian. He condemns the “attitudinizing” and “looseness of thinking” of the book. and says that Chaudhuri “misses no chance to magnify things that have any relation to him whether it is the house he lived in, his mode of living, the fairs he visited, the festivals he celebrated, the books and paintings he owned and admired and the tastes he cultivated.
Snobbery is writ large 011 every page” (p.67). Narasimhaiah challenges Chaudhuri’s admirers “to produce from the autobiography any well-remembered chapter, section, or even a few pages of continuous writing which can be called distinguished prose” p.68). He points out that none of the people described are memorable, “They are not individualized, or they have nothing of interest to other human beings” (69). However, C.D.Narasimhaiah praises Chaudhuri’s later work: “Mr Chaudhuri has made ample amends for his poor and irresponsible writing by contributing an excellent work of scholarship in his recent book on Max Muller. Scholar Extraordinary”
He finds absolutely nothing praiseworthy in it. He has compared Nehru’s autography with Chaudhuri’s, and believes that they demonstrate “two kinds of Indian writing: one pulsating with human warmth. the other abstract, ponderous and dully academic; one meant for Indians, another for an English-speaking world abroad (Narasimhaiah. 1995, y.64). According to him, “Chaudhuri’s writing betrays an immaturity that one would not normally associate with a person of his age” (p.65). Illustrating with quotations from Unknown Indian. He condemns the “attitudinizing” and “looseness of thinking” of the book. and says that Chaudhuri “misses no chance to magnify things that have any relation to him whether it is the house he lived in, his mode of living, the fairs he visited, the festivals he celebrated, the books and paintings he owned and admired and the tastes he cultivated.
Snobbery is writ large 011 every page” (p.67). Narasimhaiah challenges Chaudhuri’s admirers “to produce from the autobiography any well-remembered chapter, section, or even a few pages of continuous writing which can be called distinguished prose” p.68). He points out that none of the people described are memorable, “They are not individualized, or they have nothing of interest to other human beings” (69). However, C.D.Narasimhaiah praises Chaudhuri’s later work: “Mr Chaudhuri has made ample amends for his poor and irresponsible writing by contributing an excellent work of scholarship in his recent book on Max Muller. Scholar Extraordinary”
Similar questions