Discussion:
AYODHYA VERDICT - NEARLY 3000 PEOPLE DETAINED IN MUMBAI
(too old to reply)
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2010-09-30 09:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Ayodhya verdict: nearly 3000 people detained in Mumbai

Press Trust Of India
The Hindustan Times
Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.

The Mumbai Police has rounded up nearly 3000 troublemakers in the
city since last night, taking the total number of preventive arrests
in view of the Ayodhya verdict to 7000. Till yesterday, over 4000
troublemakers were apprehended under preventive measures to avert any
eventuality in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court verdict,
police said.

"Since last night, nearly 3000 more were picked up. We are leaving no
stone unturned to maintain peace and harmony. All those picked up
were categorised as troublemakers who may have caused law and order
problem after the verdict," Deputy Police Commissioner (Operations)
Rajkumar Vhatkar said.

The city had witnessed large-scale riots post-Babri Masjid demolition
in 1992.

Elaborate security arrangements have been made here with security
personnel equipped with guns, lathis and riot control equipment
keeping a strict vigil across the city.

Besides city police force, State Reserve Police Force, Rapid Action
Force and Riot Control Force will be on the job to control the
situation in case of any untoward incident, he said, adding elite
forces such as the state's terror response teams Force One and Quick
Response Teams have been kept on standby.

More at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ayodhya-verdict-nearly-3000-people-detained-in-Mumbai/Article1-606421.aspx

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
cogitoergosum
2010-09-30 13:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Hindu Solomon’s Verdict
http://cogitoergosum.co.cc/2010/09/30/hindu-solomons-verdict/

I am amused at the Ayodhya verdict.

Hindu Hoodlums may not be so pleased as they were asking the whole
‘kitten kaboodle,’ for themselves. So what did a panel of three
distinguished justices did?

They asked that the land be trifurcated. 1/3rd to Ramlalla. 1/3rd to
Sunni Muslim Waqf Board and the last 1/3rd to ‘Nirmohi Akhara.’

Ain’t that a cute justice. The whole process of justice in the land of
milk, oops, holy Hindu cow milk, and corruption honey. Not to forget
mafia and black money, contrieved, unstable and dangerous unholy
political alliances, like UPA, NDA.

Even in the left side of the center parties such as SP, BSP, JD, JD(U)
we find a certain degree of injustice. That may be the understatement
of the millennium.

I like peace and I am doomed, oops, damned if I say that this strange
form of dividing the disputed land of Muslim Waqf Board is not the
right way to settle the dispute.

SO Let them cut that disputed baby in three.

King Solomon would be turning in his grave by this Banana Republic’s
aka India, form of injustice.

Imagine:

Muslims like to offer their prayers five times a day. Hindu hoodlums
of Ramlalla would make it a point to play loudly all those Bollywood
songs, albeit, Hindu worship songs at the exact time from their 1/3rd
part.

Nirmohi Akhara guys would go bonkers as they cannot read their Granth
Sahib in peace while Hindu Hoodlum make such a ruckus.

Muslims, fedup with this daily nonsense may join Sikhs of Nirmohi
Akhara, bring tons of explosive devices and throw tham at Ramlalla
Hindu Hoodlums. The place would go up in smoke in 1/3rd of a minute.

Mark my words, just 20 seconds’ action is what determines the future
of a Hindu Hoodlumland called India.

The End

Law Office of
Baruch C. Cohen, Esq.
A Professional Law Corporation

5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1410 Telephone: (213) 937-4501
Los Angeles, California 90036 Facsimile: (213) 937-4503

July 10, 1998

The Brilliant Wisdom of King Solomon
By: Baruch C. Cohen1

The Book of Kings [Melachim 1 3:12] states that Israel’s great King
Solomon was twelve years old when God promised him that he would be
granted great wisdom. He turned out to be the wisest man ever to live.
As an illustration of the fulfillment of this blessing of wisdom, the
Book of Kings reports the following account of a case that was brought
before King Solomon’s court in Jerusalem.

Two women came to King Solomon and stood before him. One woman (#1)
said: “My Lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house, and I gave
birth to a child while with her in the house. On the third day after I
gave birth, she also gave birth. We live together; there is no
outsider with us in the house; only the two of us were there. The son
of this woman died during the night because she lay upon him. She
arose during the night and took my son from my side while I was
asleep, and lay him in her bosom, and her dead son she laid in my
bosom. when I got up in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was
dead! But when I observed him (later on) in the morning, I realized
that he was not my son to whom I had given birth!”

The other woman (#2) replied: “It is not so! My son is the live one
and your son is the dead one!”

The first woman (#1) responded: “It is not so! Your son is the dead
one and my son is the living one!”

They argued before King Solomon.

King Solomon said: “this woman (#2) claims ‘My son is the live one and
your son is the dead one, ‘and this woman (#1) claims ‘Your son is the
dead one and my son is the living one!”‘

King Solomon said, “Bring me a sword!” So they brought a sword before
the King. The King said, “Cut the living child in two, and give half
to one and half to the other”

The woman (#2) turned to the King, because her compassion was aroused
for her son, and said: “Please my Lord, give her the living child and
do not kill it!”

But the other woman (#1) said: “Neither mine nor yours shall he be.
Cut!”

The King spoke up and said: “Give her (#2) the living child, and do
not kill it, for she is his mother!” All of Israel heard the judgment
that the King had judged. They had great awe for the King, for they
saw that the wisdom of God was within him to do justice. [I Melachim
3:16 - 27]. The woman was rightfully awarded custody of her son.

It should be noted, that King Solomon’s was the first major recorded
and published decision in the history of legal jurisprudence, and I
believe that with the help of the commentaries, one can begin to
appreciate the magnificent depth of his wisdom.

OBSERVATIONS
Some say that King Solomon truly knew who was the real mother as soon
as he saw the two women. This was the nature of the special divine
wisdom that God gave him. As King Solomon was able to understand the
speech of the animals and the birds, so he could see the truth in
someone’s face. His knowledge was of Divine origin. It was
infallible.

According to the Abarbanel and Metzudas David, King Solomon studied
the countenance of each woman as they presented their claims and
counter-claims, and by means of his penetrating and heavenly wisdom,
understood which of the two women was telling the truth.

Still, to prove this to the people, he had to demonstrate it in a way
that everyone would acknowledge. Perhaps that is why he pretended not
to know who said what, and repeated their arguments in reverse order,
by repeating Woman #2′s argument first, and Woman #1′s argument
second.

He even pretended to apply the well-known law of dividing disputed
property. If two people come to court holding on to the ends of a
piece of clothing, and each claims it to be his, the court divides it
and gives each one half. King Solomon seemed to pretend to be ignorant
of the many complicated details of this law, and to think that it
applied to babies as well, which would have been ridiculously
simpleminded. No judge would ever make such a foolish mistake. Yet, he
succeeded in convincing the two women that he was serious.

Nonetheless, he was careful not to let the trick go too far. He
specifically commanded his servants to bring the sword to him, not to
give it to one of the guards. They too, were no doubt fooled and he
did not want them to divide the baby before he had a chance to stop
them. In fact, the King’s ministers said “Woe to you Oh Land, whose
king is but a boy!” They thought “what has God done to us to give us
such a king? How long will we have to suffer with such foolish
judgments?” But afterwards, when they saw the women’s reactions they
knew that he had recently received Divine inspiration and rejoiced
saying “Happy are you, oh Land, whose king is a free man!” – i.e., one
who studies Torah (Koheles – Ecclesiastes 10:16-17).

King Solomon’s trick succeeded. The imposter revealed herself by her
heartless cruelty. After all, no mother would have let her own child
be killed just to spite another woman.

But how could King Solomon have been sure the other woman would not
also have mercy on the child? Wouldn’t most people break down in such
a situation and relinquish their claims? What sort of person would
want to be responsible for the death of an innocent child, even if it
were not her own?

Perhaps this was an aspect of the depth of King Solomon’s insight – he
knew that no normal mother lies on her own child and crushes him in
her sleep. Babies always sleep with their mothers and fathers, yet
this never happens, for perhaps God implants within a human being an
innate sensitivity that prevents her from doing such a thing. A woman
who lies on her child must be lacking basic human feeling, and such a
person would certainly have no mercy on the child of another.
According to the Abarbanel, perhaps such a woman developed a blood
lust and possessed a cruel desire to see another life snuffed out.

And what of the compassionate one? Was it not possible that she was
acting cunningly to impress the King with a false sense of motherly
commiseration?

WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENT?
Notwithstanding the outcome, many believe that Woman #1 still made a
convincing and persuasive argument. She made it clear that there were
no witnesses because they lived alone. Perhaps she suspected that
Solomon would be able to tell how old the baby was and identify the
mother. According to the Radak and the Metsudas David, her argument
was bolstered by the claim that no one else knew the identities of the
babies, nor had one been sick, that the neighbors might remember whose
baby it was. When she first got up, it was still dark. She could not
recognize the baby, so she did not suspect that it was not hers. All
she knew was that it was dead. But when it got light, she saw it and
realized what had happened. She asserted that her baby boy was born
three days earlier, and therefore there was some reliable distinction
available.

Woman #2 had only a brief presentation and did not claim to have any
proof. She simply said that the child was hers. All she did was state
her case.

Based on the first round of oral arguments, it would appear that Woman
#1 had the better claim, and that she was the real mother.

It is noteworthy, that the women did not bring the corpse of the dead
child for further identification. Perhaps the child was buried
already, or its features were already changed making recognition
difficult.

SUBTLE TRUTHS BEGIN TO UNRAVEL
Yet, as the women’s dispute continued, their respective positions
seemed to change ever so slightly. There was something disturbing and
disingenuous about the way in which Woman #1 continued arguing her
case, in that she subsequently seemed less concerned with having a
live child and focused more on the other having the dead one. The fact
that she mentioned the dead child first, in itself, was an indication
of this (“It is not so! Your son is the dead one and my son is the
living one!”).

Woman #2, by contrast, always spoke of her own son first (“No. my son
is the living one and your son is the dead one”). It seemed as if her
heart was with her son. She spoke out of love and was apparently
heartbroken at the thought of potentially losing her child.

According to the Devorim Rabah, King Solomon then repeated the
arguments of both women, verbatim, without adding anything, making
sure that he properly understood the arguments of both sides,
listening carefully, and if there was anything that he misunderstood,
the women had an opportunity to correct him.

ODD DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STORY
King Solomon’s wisdom surely gave him the insight to foresee that the
real mother (#2) would recoil in terror when she heard of his
intention to kill the infant, nevertheless, could his wisdom have
possibly predicted the liar (#1)’s response – to comply with this
grotesque compromise?

Second, the woman who was lying (#1) was initially interested in
taking the living child for herself, otherwise she never would have
asserted such a bold and aggressive claim.

As soon as the real mother offered to let the liar keep the child in
order to spare its life, the liar should have accepted the real mother
offer’s and kept the child. She could have played up her victory by
saying: “Aha! She admits that the baby was truly mine all along! She
is a kidnapper but not a murderer. The baby is mine.” Instead, she did
something totally unpredictable. She refused saying “Neither mine nor
yours shall he be. Cut.”

I have always wondered what made her suddenly lose interest in having
the child for herself?

A brilliant and original answer to these questions is offered by Rabbi
Mordechai Kornfeld of

Har Nof Jerusalem, of the Shmayisroel Torah Network
(www.shemayisroel.co.il), who cited two 13th century commentators: Rav
Yehoshua Ibn Shu’ib in his Drasha for Parshas Mishpatim, and Rav
Menachem HaMeiri in his commentary to Yevamos 17a; and another 14th
century commentator, the author of Shemen Rokeach and
Sha’arHachazokas. They believe that in order to understand the real
story behind King Solomon’s decision, an understanding of the laws of
Yibbum is necessary.

THE LAWS OF YIBBUM.
The Torah describes the practice of Yibbum in the Parsha of Ki Setzei
(Devarim 25:5,7,9):

“If there are brothers, and one of them dies without children, the
wife of the deceased man may not marry out to another man. Her brother-
in-law (her deceased husband’s brother) must marry her and thus
perform Yibbum on her … If the man does not want to marry her, she
shall approach the elders and declare ‘My brother-in-law refuses to
establish his brother’s name in Israel; he does not consent to perform
Yibbum on me’

… Then she shall approach him in the presence of the elders and remove
his shoe from his foot, and spit in front of him and proclaim “Such
should be done to a man who would not build up his brother’s house!”

Yibbum is a Halachic rite which must be performed when a man who has a
living brother dies childless. If this uncommon situation occurs, the
widow must not remarry unless one of two actions are taken – either
she must marry the brother of the deceased or she must be released
from the obligation of marrying her brother-in-law by having him
perform the Chalitzah (“removing” of the shoe) ceremony.

It is obviously uncomfortable for a woman to be trapped in this
situation, wherein she would be subject to the will of another man.
Her brother-in-law may not be locatable, compliant or appealing.

There are several fundamental laws concerning the childless nature of
the deceased and the age of the bother that control whether Yibbum
applies:

LAWS CONCERNING THE CHILDLESS NATURE OF THE DECEASED
1. Rule #1: The man must die childless. According to the Talmud
Yevamos 87b, Dying childless includes instances where a man once had
children, but these children were already dead at the time of his own
death.
2. Rule #2: Grandchildren: According to the Talmud Yevamos 70a, if the
deceased man has no living children but he does have living
grandchildren, he is not considered to be childless, and therefore,
there is no Yibbum obligation.
3. Rule #3: Offspring: According to Talmud Yevamos 11 lb and Shabbos
136a, if the deceased left behind any offspring at all, there is no
Yibbum – even if the offspring is only one day old. Even if the
offspring is still a viable fetus at the time of the husband’s death,
its mother is exempted from being bound to the living brother. If the
fetus is a stillborn or is aborted, or dies, or is killed before it
lived for thirty days, it is not considered to have ever been a viable
offspring, and Yibbum would be required.
LAWS CONCERNING THE AGE OF THE DECEASED’S BROTHER
4. Rule #4: Brother-In-Law: According to the Talmud Yevamos 17b, the
widow is obligated to marry her deceased husband’s brother. If the
deceased husband does not leave a living brother, his wife is free to
marry whoever she pleases.
5. Rule #5: Minor: According to the Talmud Yevamos 1 05b, if the
brother of the deceased is a minor, the widow is still bound to him,
and does not have the option of freeing herself through Chalitzah
since a minor lacks capacity to perform the ceremony. Instead she must
wait until the brother reaches the age of majority (Bar Mitzvah 13) in
order for him to render Chalitzah at that time. Only then may she
remarry. According to the Talmud Niddah 45a if she wants to marry him,
she must wait until he reaches 9 years of age.

APPLICATION & CONCLUSION
We now return to King Solomon’s judgment.

The Midrash (Koheles Rabah 10:16) tells us that the reason both of
these women were so desperate to have the living child declared theirs
was that they were both potential Yevamos (widows subject to Yibbum).
Neither of the two had any other offspring. Whoever would be judged to
be the childless woman would not only lose the infant, but would also
be trapped in the unpleasant status of Yevamah, being dependent upon
her brother-in-law’s good will.

The Midrash (Yalknt Shimoni 2:175) asserts that the husbands of the
two women were father and son, making the two women, mother-in-law and
daughter-in-law to each other.

According to the Meiri in his commentary to Yevamos 17a, the two
Midrashim may be complementing each other – thanks to our 5-rule
Yibbum analysis.

The two women – mother-in-law and daughter-in-law – had just lost
their husbands, and needed a live child to exempt them from the status
of a Yevamah. Both women gave birth to babies. However, these two
babies were still less than 30 days old at the time that one of them
died. The mother of the dead child would therefore be subject to the
laws of Yibbum (Rule #3). This was the lying mother’s motivation for
taking the other woman’s child.

If it were the mother-in-law’s child who had died, she would have no
incentive to kidnap her daughter-in-law’s child. Even though her son
(the deceased husband of her daughter-in-law) had passed away before
her own husband had, and therefore he would not exempt her from Yibbum
(Rule #1), nevertheless, she would be exempt from Yibbum for another
reason. The living child was her son’s child, and a grandchild exempts
one from Yibbum (Rule #2).

Only the daughter-in-law had the motive to lie and try to claim that
the child was hers. If it was her baby who had died within 30 days of
its birth, leaving her childless, she would have been bound to her
husband’s brother as a Yevamah (Rule #4) – and that brother would have
been -none other than the living baby (who was in fact her mother-in-
law’s child – i.e., her deceased husband’s bother)! Since her brother-
in-law was a newborn, the daughter-in-law would have had to wait 13
years before this baby would be able to perform Chalitzah on her and
free her to remarry (Rule #5).

King Solomon realized all of this and suspected that since the only
one with a strong motive to lie was the daughter-in-law, the child
must really belong to the mother-in-law.

Perhaps this also explains why King Solomon ordered that the child be
cut in half.

If the remaining child were to be killed, this too would free the
daughter-in-law from her Yevamah status – since the living baby was
her only brother-in-law (Rule #3). From the daughter-in-law’s
perspective, in fact, killing the child would result in a better
solution for her. By just kidnaping the child she might have convinced
the earthly court that she was not a Yevamah. However, she herself
would know that the child was not really hers and that she really was
not permitted to remarry, until Chalitzah was performed. By having the
baby killed, though, she would truthfully be released from the bonds
of Yibbum.

This is the reason the daughter-in-law suddenly lost interest in
keeping the child when she saw that King Solomon was ready to cut the
child in half. This would serve her interests even more if she took
the child for herself. Therefore she insisted: “Cut!”

Young King Solomon guessed that this would be the woman’s reaction. By
tricking her into making a seemingly ludicrous statement, he revealed
her true motives and that she was lying.

This is why, “All of Israel heard the judgment that the King had
judged. They had great awe for the King, for they saw that the wisdom
of God was within him to do justice.”

Respectfully,
BARUCH C. COHEN

FOOTNOTES
Baruch C. Cohen’s practice includes all aspects of creditors’ and
debtors’ rights, corporate reorganizations, personal bankruptcies, and
all types of bankruptcy litigation in state, federal and bankruptcy
courts.

Copyright © 1997-2008 by Ira Kasdan. All rights reserved.

…and I am Sid Harth

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

•Evidence for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: BB Lal
•Test of India Verdict Will Lie in Public Reaction

News, Views and Reviews

30/09/2010

« Ayodhya Verdict
cogitoergosum
2010-09-30 16:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Ayodhya Verdict Update: Thursday, September 30, 2010 18:46 PM IST
11:55 EST USA
http://cogitoergosum.co.cc/2010/09/30/ayodhya-verdict-update-thursday-september-30-2010-1846-pm-ist-1155-est-usa/

Panel of Judges Allahabad
Live! Judgment delivered in Ayodhya case
18:46: UP, rest of India calm after verdict
Three hours after the Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict in
the Ayodhya title suit, not a single instance of violence has been
reported in the country. Security in Uttar Pradesh and the rest of the
country was raised to an unprecedented level, but so far, no untoward
incident, post-verdict, was reported anywhere. UP will continue to
remain on high alert.

——————————————————————————–
18:41: Cong leaders meet PM, BJP meets Advani
The meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, which met after the
Ayodhya title suit verdict ends with senior Congress leaders meeting
at PM Manmohan Singh’s residence at 7 Racecourse Road. Meanwhile, the
BJP Core Group is meeting at L K Advani’s residence.

——————————————————————————–
18:28: Reel Ram has his moment in the sun
The person who enlivened Lord Ram’s character on the small screen,
Arun Govil, feels a final decision in the Ram Janmbhoomi and Babri
Masjid should be adhered to by all the parties. “It is difficult to
comment on the issue as of now as one party seems to be going to
Supreme Court… But one thing is there; once the case is decided by
Supreme Court, all parties should move forward accordingly,” Govil
said. Govil who played Lord Ram in the traffic-stopper TV serial
Ramayan in late 1980s, refused to take any stand on the issue saying
making any concluding comments on the complex issue will be far-
fetched.

——————————————————————————–
18:24: Ram Janmabhoomi Trust to move SC
Chairman of Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Trust, Nritya Gopal Das today welcomed
the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya title suit, but said
they would challenge the decision to provide one third of the disputed
land to Sunni Central Waqf Board, in the Supreme Court. “We welcome
the verdict, but will challenge the decision to give one third land to
the Sunni Central Waqf Board in the apex court,” Das said reacting to
the verdict on the issue. He said he was not able to understand why
one-third land was given to the board. The Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court today ruled by a majority verdict that the
disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among
Hindus and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of
Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus. Das said the Hindus should not get
overexcited as the verdict will finally be challenged in the Supreme
Court.

——————————————————————————–
18:18: Twitter on fire after verdict
Some of the tweets on the Ayodhya verdict:
Mohak: Indian wins big outsourcing contract! Jerusalem, Palestine,
Israel issue to be resolved by Allahabad High Court!!!!
Puneetnaik: what if these Nirmohi Akhara guys sell their land to some
Catholics. We will have a Amar, Akbar, Anthony moment there.
itravel81: I think that dividing the land, one third a piece is an
excellent and sustainable solution by the Allahabad High Court
goldenarcher: This moment belongs to Nirmohi Akhara. After Allahabad
High Court, tweeple are now making it the top global trend.
BeingSamee: Verdict on the Ayodhya Issue is What I call a Threesome!
Drszaman: hey guys!! bring on kalmadi. we should book all TT and make
a record.
Shivya: Today will go down in history as the day the existence of God
was proved in Allahabad High Court. Tanmaykwal: Nirmohi Akhara
whatitees???
Sengupta: I bet all this is a massive conspiracy theory. The govt is
trying to PWN us. There isn’t even a Wikipedia page on Nirmohi Akhara.

——————————————————————————–
17:31: Final decision may be delayed years: Waqf Board
Zaffaryab Jilani, the lawyer representing the Waqf Board said he would
appeal the verdict, which could delay a final decision in the case for
years. “It’s not a victory or defeat for any party. It’s a step
forward. We hope this matter will be resolved,” he said.

——————————————————————————–
17:21: VHP welcomes judgment
The VHP today welcomed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya
title issue saying the faith of Hindus has been endorsed by the
judiciary. “We welcome the judgement. The faith of one billion Hindus
that Lord Ram was born here has been endorsed by the judiciary”, VHP
international general secretary Pravin Togadia said today. He said the
judgement would now pave the way for construction of Ram temple at the
disputed site.

——————————————————————————–
17:18: Summary of the Ayodhya title suit judgment…
Summary of the Ayodhya title dispute judgement delivered by Allahabad
High Court today.
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a
juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of
divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to
invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and
it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By
whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not
certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot
have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure
after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has
proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of
December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in
the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow
and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of
1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and
others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer
courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi
of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship
Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed
upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have
been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place
as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right
since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed
structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed
structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard
was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they
were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed
structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence
against the tenets of Islam.

——————————————————————————–
17:10: Verdict is not victory, defeat for anybody: RSS
Addressing the press after the the Allahabad High Court verdict on the
Ayodhya verdict, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said the verdict should not
be seen as anybody’s victory or defeat and theefore is not a win or
loss for anybody. He said he invited everybody, including Muslims, to
help build the temple.

——————————————————————————–
16:57: What the judges said today…
The gist of the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya
title suit delivered today.

——————————————————————————–
16:52: What the verdict says
The Allahabad High Court accepts the land under the central dome is
Ram Janmasthan. The disputed Ayodhya land to be distributed into three
parts. One part to Waqf Board, one to Ram Lalla and one to Nirmohi
Akhara. Land goes 1/3 to Muslims and 1/3 to Hindus. Title suit of
Sunni Wakf board and Nirmohi Akhara rejected Status quo for next three
months

——————————————————————————–
16:45: Babri Masjid Committee will move SC
The Babri Masjid committed said it was disappointed with the verdict
and would move the Supreme Court. Meanwhile K N Bhatt lawyer of Ram
Lalla said there was no time limit for passing a final decree. The
Allahabad HC has decreed that status quo will be maintained at the
disputed site for the next three months.

——————————————————————————–
16:31: Ram idols existed on site: Allahabad HC
Lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of ‘Ram Lalla’
decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus. The Allahabad High Court
ruled today that the Ayodhya land is to be divided into three parts —
one part goes to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to the Babri Committee and
the other to the Ram Janmasthan (the central dome). The title suit of
the Sunni Waqf board has been rejected. The HC also ruled that idols
of Ram existed in the site.

——————————————————————————–
16:24: Disputed land split into 3 parts
The Allahabad High Court rules by majority that the disputed land in
Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni
Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for ‘Ram Lalla’, say lawyers.

——————————————————————————–
16:22: HC dismisses Waqf Board title suit
Delivering their verdict that all of India has remained glued to, the
three-judge special bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising
Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma, today declared that
the title suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board has been dismissed. Two
of the three judges – Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma –
concurred in the judgment, while Justice S U Khan differed with the
majority view. The judgment runs into 8000 pages. Further details are
awaited. Meanwhile, the status quo will continue on the land for three
more months.

——————————————————————————–
16:16: Judgment delivered in the Ayodhya suit
The three-judge special bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising
Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma have delivered the
verdict in the Ayodhya title suit. The judgment runs into 8000 pages.
Further details are awaited.

——————————————————————————–
16:05: BJP core group to meet Advani post verdict
The BJP core group will meet at senior leader L K Advani’s residence
this evening following the Ayodhya title suit judgement, immediately
after the arrival of party President Nitin Gadkari from Mumbai. The
meeting will be attended by Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma
Swaraj and her counterpart in Upper House Arun Jaitely among others
and is expected to chalk out the future course of action on the issue
after the court verdict. Advani had asked partymen to refrain from
commenting on the issue till the verdict was out.

——————————————————————————–
15:50: Hectic meetings in New Delhi post verdict
A series of meetings have been slotted post the delivery of the
Ayodhya title suit verdict expected at around 4 pm. To begin with,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will chair a Cabinet committee on
Security meeting at 5 pm. Senior BJP leader LK Advani will chair a
meeting at 6.30 pm at his house, while Mohan Bhagwat RSS Chief will
meet his party at 6.30 pm at Jhandewalan. At the North Block, Union
Home Secretary GK Pillai will meet with senior IAS officers.

——————————————————————————–
15:41: One Ayodhya verdict, 28 issues answered
The first suit in the matter was filed on January 19, 1885. It sought
to gain the right over the chabootra (raised platform) for the
plaintiff, Raghubar Das. The plantiff, who described himself as the
Janmasthan mahant, sought permission to erect a temple on the
chabootra, which was then popularly accepted as the birthplace of Lord
Ram. All your questions answered…

——————————————————————————–
15:37: ‘Judgment will reflect rule of law in India’
Zafaryab Jilani, Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi and Syed Irfan Ahmad, advocates
who represent the parties seeking the construction of a mosque in the
Ayodhya title suit, have appealed to the people to accept the judgment
by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court as the vindication of
the rule of law. Vicky Nanjappa reports.

——————————————————————————–
15:33: RSS top leadership to meet for victory celebration
The RSS’s top leadership will meet post-verdict at 6 pm under
idealogue Mohan Bhagwat, to issue a statement that is likely to say
that the judgment is a celebration of India and the nation has won.

——————————————————————————–
15:30: Cabinet Committee on Security to meet post verdict
A Cabinet Committee on Security is likely to meet in the evening to
consider the Allahabad High Court judgement in the Ramjanambhoomi-
Babri Masjid dispute.

——————————————————————————–
15:27: Proceedings begin in Ayodhya title suit case
Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma start
the proceedings to pronounce the judgement in the Ayodhya title suit.
The litigants have reached Court No. 21 of the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. Barricades have been erected about 100 metres
from the court room and no one other than those connected with the
case are being allowed anywhere near the court room.

——————————————————————————–
15:26: Rivals turn peaceniks before verdict
As the countdown begins for the Ayodhya title suit verdict, Mohammad
Habib of a nondescript village in Jaunpur district is reciting the
Ramayan while locals in a village in Maharajganj district have decided
to build a temple and mazaar on a small piece of land to send out a
message of social harmony. Is there peace ahead?

——————————————————————————–
15:24: Why Ayodhya verdict makes people nervous
Sheela Bhatt explains why the judgment in the title suit in the
Ayodhya case — despite a delay of over half a century — still comes at
the wrong time for the Centre and several state governments. Read
more.

——————————————————————————–
15:23: Has Ayodhya moved on?
In the primarily northern pilgrim town of Ayodhya, VN Arora is a
teacher in the only college. This is the town where the Babri masjid
was torn down, a move that triggered off nationwide riots nearly 20
years ago. But Arora does not teach the scriptures or Hindu mythology
for that matter. Instead, he lectures students on defence and
strategic studies at Saket College, which has over 18,000 students on
its rolls. Read the story of a town in transition. Soutik Biswas
reports for bbc.co.uk

——————————————————————————–
15:21: Peace will prevail after verdict, say locals
Jabi Mohammad, who had witnessed mob frenzy post demolition of the
mosque in 1992, feels there will be no breach of peace after the
Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute today as the
situation has changed over the years and people want to live in
harmony. “I am not at all afraid or worried. It is my city and
everything is fine here,” says Mohammad, a resident of Dorahi Kuan
locality, which is in close to the disputed site here.

——————————————————————————–
15:19: UP is up and running on V-day, but…
Schools, offices and markets remained open in Uttar Pradesh today but
the low turnout indicated the underlying fear and apprehension among
the people as they await the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on
the Ayodhya title suit case. Though schools opened as usual in all the
districts, the respective administrations preponed the timings.
Markets were also open but business was affected with lesser number of
people flocking the streets. In Faizabad and Ayodhya which means
‘where no battle has been fought’, people were waiting with bated
breath the pronouncement of the verdict.

——————————————————————————–
15:16: 3000 trouble-makers in Mumbai detained
The Mumbai Police has rounded up nearly 3000 troublemakers in the city
since last night, taking the total number of preventive arrests in
view of the Ayodhya verdict to 7000. Till yesterday, over 4000
troublemakers were apprehended under preventive measures to avert any
eventuality in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court verdict,
police said. “Since last night, nearly 3000 more were picked up. We
are leaving no stone unturned to maintain peace and harmony. All those
picked up were categorised as troublemakers who may have caused law
and order problem after the verdict,” Deputy Police Commissioner
(Operations) Rajkumar Vhatkar said. The city had witnessed large-scale
riots post-Babri Masjid demolition in 1992. Students in educational
institutions and staff in private firms were allowed to go home
early.

——————————————————————————–
15:12: How secure is UP really?
As the countdown began for the Ayodhya title suit verdict, security
was on Wednesday beefed up throughout the country and reinforcements
tightened in and around the disputed site in Uttar Pradesh, which has
been placed under high alert. So, how secure is UP? Find out.

——————————————————————————–
15:08: Unprecedented security for 3 Ayodhya judges
The security of the three judges of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad
High Court, who would be pronouncing the verdict has been increased
and one platoon of PAC (about 20 personnel), five CRPF personnel have
been deployed at their respective residences, besides an escort and
pilot car and one PSO each have also been provided to them. A deputy
SP rank officer has been made in-charge of the judges security, the
sources said. . Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S U Khan and Dharam Veer
Sharma will deliver the verdict today. Ayodhya turns into fortress.

——————————————————————————–
15:05: Muslim personal board to meet post verdict
The executive committee of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
(AIMPLB) will meet after the pronouncement of the Ayodhya title suit
verdict to deliberate over it and decide its future course of action.
The 51-member executive body will hold a meeting, most likely in
Lucknow, the date for which will be decided shortly to deliberate over
the judgement and decide the future course of action, member of the
board, Khalid Rasheed Firangimahli said. When the verdict was to be
pronounced on September 24, this meeting was scheduled for October 2
in Lucknow but now a fresh date will be fixed shortly, he said.
Firangimahli said that as per an earlier decision taken by the board,
it will abide by the court verdict and follow the judicial process
and, if required, go to the Supreme Court.

——————————————————————————–
15:01: Synopses of judgments to be given to media
Lucknow District Magistrate Anil Kumar Sagar said that three synopses
of the judgement of three judges will be given to the media
immediately after the pronouncement of the verdict. It will also be
put on the website of the court on the internet. Meanwhile, an RSS
statement post-verdict is likely to say that the judgment is a
celebration of India — the nation has won.

——————————————————————————–
14:59: ‘Three judges likely to give separate judgements’
The three judges of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court are
likely to give separate judgements in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid
case at 3.30 pm today, Ayodhya district magistrate said. Justices
Sudhir Agarwal, S U Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma will deliver the
verdict today.

——————————————————————————–
14:53: Three men who will make history today
Their names have been splashed across the media in the last two weeks,
and an entire nation is waiting with bated breath for their decision
in the Ayodhya title suit. And the three judges of the Lucknow bench
of the Allahabad high court will walk into court hall number 21 at
3.30 pm on Thursday to pronounce their verdict in the historic case
will finally tell the nation who the disputed site belongs to.
Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S U Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma will deliver
the verdict today. Who are they? Read the report by Vicky Nanjappa.

——————————————————————————–
14:45: 60 years on, Ayodhya verdict today
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will on Thursday
pronounce the verdict on the 60-year-old Ayodhya title suit amidst
tight security. The three-judge special bench comprising Justice S U
Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma will pronounce the verdict on
September 30 at 3.30 pm. The only hurdle in the pronouncement of the
verdict was cleared by the Supreme Court on September 28 when it
dismissed the petition by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
for deferment of the keenly-awaited judgment. Read more

Meet the judges who will deliver the Ayodhya verdict
Last updated on: September 30, 2010 13:55 IST

Tags: Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal, Supreme Court, Allahabad,
LLB

Their names have been splashed across the media in the last two weeks,
and an entire nation is waiting with bated breath for their decision
in the Ayodhya title suit. And the three judges of the Lucknow
[ Images ] bench of the Allahabad high court will walk into court hall
number 21 at 3.30 pm on Thursday to pronounce their verdict in the
historic case.

Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S U Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma will finally
tell the nation who the disputed site belongs to.

Amid tight security at the high court, the three judges have been busy
giving the finishing touches to the final order. Legal experts point
out that they will ink the operative and final portion of the judgment
on September 30 considering the sensitive nature of the issue.

The bench will read out the operative portion of the verdict at 3.30
pm in front of lawyers representing the parties to the suit. Once the
judgment is read out, the aggrieved party can seek time to move the
Supreme Court for a stay or could just abide by it and approach the
apex court at a later date.

The Supreme Court can be approached as early as Friday, even if it
means the litigants can access only the operative portion of the
verdict. A new law states that a party can approach the Supreme Court
with the operative portion instead of waiting for the complete
certified copy of the verdict in matters of urgency.

This verdict, which is bound to go down in history just as the same
court’s verdict in 1974 unseating Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
[ Images ] did, will be the last one for Justice D V Sharma, as the
judge, who had passed the dissenting verdict in the deferment plea,
will retire on October 1. An expert in civil laws, Justice Sharma is
known to be a very religious person. Lawyers in Lucknow say that he is
a simple man and even cooks his own food at home. After graduating in
arts, he passed his LLB in 1970 and served as the chief law officer
for the Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] financial corporation. Prior to being
promoted as a district and sessions judge in 2002, he served as
principal secretary in the parliamentary affairs department. He was
appointed a judge of the Allahabad high court in 2005 and became a
permanent judge in 2007.

Justice Khan, who was appointed as high court judge in 2002, graduated
from the Aligarh Muslim University with a science degree in 1971. In
1975, he received his law degree and started his practice in the
Aligarh civil court and later began his practice in the Allahabad high
court before being promoted as a judge.

Justice Agarwal graduated in law from Meerut University in 1980 and
commenced practice in the Allahabad high court immediately after. He
was elevated in 2005 after serving as the additional advocate general
in 2003. Justice Agarwal joined the bench comprising Justices Khan and
Sharma in 2008. He specialised in taxation issues but was moved to
civil cases later. Justices Khan and Sharma have been on this special
bench since 2005.

Sharat Pradhan adds from Luchnow: As many as 18 judges have heard the
Ayodhya case during its pendency of 21 years. Interestingly, as many
as 15 judges who heard the case, retired during its pendency,
following which it had to pass through 13 benches .

Image: (from left) Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer
Sharma

Vicky Nanjappa

Discussion Board

Showing 1-10 of total 76 messages

…and I am Sid Harth

Conflict, Hindu Society, History, Hot Off The Presses, Indian society,
News, Views and Reviews, Religious fundamentalism, Terrorism

30/09/2010

« Portrait of a Hindu Hoodlum VII
Mirza Ghalib
2010-09-30 19:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by cogitoergosum
Ayodhya Verdict Update: Thursday, September 30, 2010 18:46 PM IST
11:55 EST USAhttp://cogitoergosum.co.cc/2010/09/30/ayodhya-verdict-update-thursday...
Panel of Judges Allahabad
Live! Judgment delivered in Ayodhya case
18:46: UP, rest of India calm after verdict
Three hours after the Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict in
the Ayodhya title suit, not a single instance of violence has been
reported in the country. Security in Uttar Pradesh and the rest of the
country was raised to an unprecedented level, but so far, no untoward
incident, post-verdict, was reported anywhere. UP will continue to
remain on high alert.
——————————————————————————–
18:41: Cong leaders meet PM, BJP meets Advani
The meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, which met after the
Ayodhya title suit verdict ends with senior Congress leaders meeting
at PM Manmohan Singh’s residence at 7 Racecourse Road. Meanwhile, the
BJP Core Group is meeting at L K Advani’s residence.
——————————————————————————–
WOOF ! WOOF !! WOOF!!!
cogitoergosum
2010-10-01 02:30:13 UTC
Permalink
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/
index.html">Obama signs hate crimes bill into law</a>

October 28, 2009 7:39 p.m. EDT

President Obama signs the $680 billion defense spending bill that
includes the hate crimes law.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Law is attached to $680 billion defense authorization bill

It is named for Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., both killed in
1998
Shepard was gay, Byrd was African-American

Former President Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama on Wednesday signed a law that
makes it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or
her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law, hailed by supporters as the
first major federal gay rights legislation, was added to a $680
billion defense authorization bill that Obama signed at a packed White
House ceremony.

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming
teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October
1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in
Texas the same year.

Shepard's mother, Judy, was among those at the ceremony that also
included Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates,
Attorney General Eric Holder and leading members of Congress and the
Pentagon, who were on hand for the appropriations bill signing.

To loud applause, Obama hailed the hate crimes measure in the bill as
a step toward change to "help protect our citizens from violence based
on what they look like, who they love, how they pray."

Video: Obama signs hate crime bill

RELATED TOPICS

Hate Crimes
Military and Defense Policy
Barack Obama

He cited the work of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and
others "to make this day possible."

Later Wednesday, Obama stood with Shepard's parents and relatives of
Byrd at a separate White House event honoring passage of the expanded
hate crimes law.

Noting reports of 12,000 crimes based on sexual orientation over the
past 10 years, Obama called the bill another step in the continuing
struggle for protecting human rights.

"Because of the efforts of the folks in this room, particularly those
family members standing behind me, the bell rings even louder now,"
Obama said. When he finished his remarks, he hugged the weeping
relatives as the audience applauded.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law
could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects
such as abortion or homosexuality. However, Holder has said that any
federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts
based on bias, not to prosecute speech based on controversial racial
or religious beliefs.

Former President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar
measure, but Obama brought a reversal of that policy to the White
House.

When the bill won final congressional approval last week, Human Rights
Campaign president Joe Solmonese called the hate crimes measure "our
nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people."

Earlier this month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the
country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to
make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and
hearts to open," he said in an address at the group's annual dinner.
"This fight continues now and I'm here with the simple message: I'm
here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays
serving openly in the military -- the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and
pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as
a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to
recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and
Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to
heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

However, some advocates for stronger rights for the lesbian-gay-
bisexual-transgender community have complained that Obama's
administration is moving too slowly on his legislative promises.

Opponents of the expanded hate crimes bill challenged the need to
specify one particular community in federal legislation. They
contended that existing federal hate crimes laws were sufficient to
protect the rights of people based on sexual orientation and gender
identity.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between
1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day
over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee
in June.

At Wednesday's signing, Obama also praised what he called a bipartisan
effort to start changing the culture of military spending through the
annual appropriations bill. He noted that Gates had worked with
congressional leaders to end what Obama called wasteful projects like
the F-22 fighter bomber and a new presidential helicopter that would
have cost "almost as much as Air Force One."

"I won't be flying on that," the president said.

Noting that cost overruns in military projects total tens of billions
of dollars, Obama called for further "fundamental" reforms in how the
government and Pentagon do business.

"We all know where this kind of waste comes from," he said, citing
"indefensible" no-bid contracts and special interests pushing unneeded
weapons systems.

Such actions are "inexcusable", "unconscionable" and an "affront to
the American people" as the nation faces two wars and an economic
recession, Obama said.

"Today I'm pleased to say that we have proved that change is
possible," he said.

Watch Video:

Added On October 28, 2009

President Obama signed legislation that makes it a federal crime to
assault someone because of sexual orientation.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2009/10/28/obama.signs.hate.crime.bill.cnn.html

...and I am Sid Harth
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2010-10-01 03:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Ayodhya verdict: nearly 3000 people detained in Mumbai

Press Trust Of India
The Hindustan Times
Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.

The Mumbai Police has rounded up nearly 3000 troublemakers in the
city since last night, taking the total number of preventive arrests
in view of the Ayodhya verdict to 7000. Till yesterday, over 4000
troublemakers were apprehended under preventive measures to avert any
eventuality in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court verdict,
police said.

"Since last night, nearly 3000 more were picked up. We are leaving no
stone unturned to maintain peace and harmony. All those picked up
were categorised as troublemakers who may have caused law and order
problem after the verdict," Deputy Police Commissioner (Operations)
Rajkumar Vhatkar said.

The city had witnessed large-scale riots post-Babri Masjid demolition
in 1992.

Elaborate security arrangements have been made here with security
personnel equipped with guns, lathis and riot control equipment
keeping a strict vigil across the city.

Besides city police force, State Reserve Police Force, Rapid Action
Force and Riot Control Force will be on the job to control the
situation in case of any untoward incident, he said, adding elite
forces such as the state's terror response teams Force One and Quick
Response Teams have been kept on standby.

More at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ayodhya-verdict-nearly-3000-people-detained-in-Mumbai/Article1-606421.aspx

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
cogitoergosum
2010-10-01 03:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Philip Roth and I
A conversation with Philip Roth

The writer ruminates on God, his penchant for imagined hells, the
nature of imagination and the origins of his stories. His latest
novel, “Nemesis,” involves a polio epidemic in 1944 Newark.

Author Philip Roth, author of the book “Nemesis” published by Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. (Nancy Crampton / September 24, 2010)

By David L. Ulin

Los Angeles Times Book Critic

October 3, 2010
la-ca-philip-roth-20101003

Reporting from New York — Perhaps one of the keys to aging as a
writer, Philip Roth is saying, is how one engages with calamity.
Certainly, that’s an issue in his latest novel, “Nemesis” (Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt: 280 pp., $26), which involves a polio epidemic in
the Jewish Weequahic neighborhood of Newark, N.J., in the summer of
1944. “I was making a list of subjects I had lived through that I’ve
never written about,” the author explains, sitting in a small
conference room at the Manhattan offices of his publisher, long
fingers steepled before him, voice smooth and understated as if worn
down a little bit by time. “There were quite a few, and when I thought
polio, I began to wonder how to treat it. I was born in 1933, so I
lived through the polio scare for many years.”

At 77, Roth has spent much of his career considering various menaces,
of both the individual and the collective sort. His 2004 novel “The
Plot Against America” posits an alternate history in which Charles
Lindbergh wins the 1940 presidential election, ushering in an oddly
nativist form of fascism; the American trilogy (“American Pastoral,”
“I Married a Communist,” “The Human Stain”) identifies a more elusive
danger: the strident sanctimony that, since at least the Red scare of
the 1950s, has been a dominant thread in the fabric of our public
life.

“Nemesis” has more than a little in common with such efforts, both
because of its Newark setting — Newark is to Roth what Dublin is to
Joyce, a landscape to which his imagination has consistently returned
since the publication of his first book, “Goodbye, Columbus,” in 1959
— and also because of the atmosphere of barely controlled panic, of
“vile accusation and intemperate hatred,” that runs throughout the
book. The story of Bucky Cantor, a 23-year-old playground director who
is forced to choose between the kids under his care and his devotion
to the young woman he wants to marry, becomes a nearly biblical
inquiry into conscience and responsibility, as well as the ongoing and
irresolvable conflict between humanity and God.

“Doesn’t God have a conscience?” Bucky wonders as he struggles to deal
with the sweep of the disease across his community. “Where’s His
responsibility?” The moment is reminiscent of the scene in “The Human
Stain” in which, as he confronts the “ceaseless perishing … [t]he
stupendous decimation that is death,” Roth’s alter ego, Nathan
Zuckerman, rages: “What an idea! What maniac conceived it?”

In Roth’s view, of course, this has everything to do with writing. “I
have no argument with God,” he says, “because I don’t believe in God.”
Nonetheless, it’s hard to read “Nemesis” without a sense of if not
theology then theodicy, the question of, as Roth puts it, “how God’s
goodness can exist in the face of all these catastrophes.” To Bucky,
this becomes the substance of a moral crisis; to Roth, it is yet
another iteration of the themes that mark his late novels, going back
to 2006′s “Everyman.”

These are dark books, concerned with tragic, even last things: the
death of the protagonist in “Everyman”; the series of “small,
ridiculous” mistakes that prove disastrous for the narrator of
“Indignation” (2008); the loss of acuity that afflicts the aging actor
at the center of “The Humbling” (2009). Taken together, they form a
suite of sorts — “Nemeses: Short Novels,” as Roth has taken to calling
them, “a sequence of thinking on my part about cataclysm.” Yet here
again, Roth raises a compelling set of distinctions, between the
writer and the character, between the author and his work. For all his
interest in collapse or ruination, he is refreshingly light-hearted
about it; at one point, he jokes, “I’m on a cataclysm kick.” And for
all that we may read the books as autobiographical — an older writer
putting his own concerns or worries into his fiction — Roth is adamant
that what he’s about is, as it has always been, the art of
storytelling, that to read him otherwise is to misunderstand the way
literature works.

That’s a complicated argument, considering that so many of Roth’s
books have appropriated the substance of his life as a starting point.
It’s not just Newark, where he was born and raised, but also his
struggle with Jewish middle-class conformity, as well as his
fascination with a certain unfettered sexuality, as embodied in novels
such as “Sabbath’s Theater” and “Portnoy’s Complaint.” The latter
book, in particular — a rabid confession from the psychotherapist’s
couch that made Roth a superstar when it appeared in 1969 — has long
been regarded as a thinly veiled personal statement, an illusion Roth
encouraged when he created Zuckerman, a writer who becomes infamous
for a novel, “Carnovsky,” which has something of the same effect.

And yet, if Roth is willing to acknowledge the connection, he is
insistent that such readings “fail to understand the nature of
imagination, which is what the writer has. People think that when a
character is angry, the writer is angry. But it’s not as simple as
that. The writer is delighted to have found the character’s anger. Or
his obstinacy. Or his unpredictability. It isn’t that I’m
unpredictable and obstinate. I’m just delighted that he is.”

Perhaps the most useful way to think about it, Roth continues, is as a
performance, in which he requires certain details, certain props, with
which to work. One element feeds another, until the story reveals
itself. “I don’t know very much,” he says about how he begins a novel.
“I write my way into my knowledge. Then, if I’m lucky, I get a break.
That’s why it’s so important to get started. Because however awful
starting is — and it is absolutely awful — when you get into it, when
you’ve got 10 pages, which may take two weeks, then you can begin to
build.” In the case of “Nemesis,” it was Bucky’s girlfriend who
provided the breakthrough, with her desire to keep him safe. At other
times, one novel has functioned as the fulcrum for another, shifting
his entire body of work. This is what happened with “The Ghost
Writer” (1979) and “The Counterlife” (1986), both of which represent
significant turning points. “‘The Counterlife’ especially,” Roth
recalls, “jettisoned me into ‘Operation Shylock’ and ‘Sabbath’s
Theater,’ and then I was cooking on all burners and stuff was just
coming out of me.”

By his own admission, Roth isn’t writing like that anymore; as he
says, “I don’t have that kind of energy now.” Yet with “Nemesis,” as
with “Everyman” and “Indignation” before it, he is talking through
himself to himself, across the arc of his career. Among the most
striking aspects of the novel is how much it reflects books such as
“Goodbye, Columbus” and “The Plot Against America,” in not just
narrative but theme too. Like the former, it involves a working-class
boy in love with both an upper-middle-class girl and the seeming
safety of her family. Like the latter, it evokes a fictional disaster
— there was no polio epidemic in Newark in 1944, any more than there
was a Lindbergh presidency — as a cautionary measurement, an
expression of how fortunate we were.

“I don’t know what causes me to want to imagine some hell that didn’t
happen,” Roth says, his voice quietly expressive, “but I think in a
way it’s a tribute to our luck.” As for the echoes, he suggests: “It’s
bound to happen, because things will come back disguised or in new
forms. You only have your dozen love letters to write, you know?”

***@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Philip Roth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the author. For the cellist, see Philipp Roth.

Philip Roth

Born Philip Milton Roth
March 19, 1933 (1933-03-19) (age 77)
Newark, New Jersey, U.S.
Occupation Novelist
Nationality American
Period 1959–present
Genres Literary fiction

Influences

Henry James, Franz Kafka, Saul Bellow, J.D. Salinger, Milan Kundera,
Charlotte Brontë, Emily Brontë, Henry Miller, Louis-Ferdinand Céline,
James Joyce, Joseph Conrad, William Faulkner, Fyodor Dostoyevsky,
Ernest Hemingway, Gustave Flaubert, Leo Tolstoy, Bernard Malamud,
Nikolai Gogol, Mark Twain, Sherwood Anderson, Primo Levi, John Updike,
Albert Camus

Influenced

Jonathan Lethem, Michael Chabon, Jonathan Franzen

Philip Milton Roth (born March 19, 1933)[1] is an American novelist.
He gained fame with the 1959 novella Goodbye, Columbus, an irreverent
and humorous portrait of Jewish-American life that earned him a
National Book Award,[2] and became a major celebrity with the
publication, in 1969, of the storm-provoking Portnoy’s Complaint, the
humorous psychoanalytical monologue of “a lust-ridden, mother-addicted
young Jewish bachelor,” filled with “intimate, shameful detail, and
coarse, abusive language.”[2][3]

Roth has since become one of the most honored authors of his
generation: his books have twice been awarded the National Book Award,
twice the National Book Critics Circle award, and three times the PEN/
Faulkner Award. He received a Pulitzer Prize for his 1997 novel,
American Pastoral, which featured his best known character, Nathan
Zuckerman, the subject of many other of Roth’s novels. His 2001 novel
The Human Stain, another Zuckerman novel, was awarded the United
Kingdom’s WH Smith Literary Award for the best book of the year. His
fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its
intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally
blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its “supple,
ingenious style,” and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and
American identity.[4]

Life

Philip Roth grew up in the Weequahic neighborhood of Newark, New
Jersey, as the second child of first-generation American parents, Jews
of Galician descent, and graduated from Newark’s Weequahic High School
in 1950.[5] Roth attended Bucknell University, earning a degree in
English. He then pursued graduate studies at the University of
Chicago, where he received an M.A. in English literature and worked
briefly as an instructor in the university’s writing program. Roth
then taught creative writing at the University of Iowa and Princeton
University. He continued his academic career at the University of
Pennsylvania, where he taught comparative literature before retiring
from teaching in 1991.

While at Chicago, Roth met the novelist Saul Bellow, as well as
Margaret Martinson, who became his first wife. Their separation in
1963, along with Martinson’s death in a car crash in 1968, left a
lasting mark on Roth’s literary output. Specifically, Martinson was
the inspiration for female characters in several of Roth’s novels,
including Lucy Nelson in When She Was Good, and Maureen Tarnopol in My
Life As a Man.[6] Between the end of his studies and the publication
of his first book in 1959, Roth served two years in the United States
Army and then wrote short fiction and criticism for various magazines,
including movie reviews for The New Republic. Events in Roth’s
personal life have occasionally been the subject of media scrutiny.
According to his pseudo-confessional novel Operation Shylock (1993),
Roth suffered a nervous breakdown in the late 1980s. In 1990, he
married his long-time companion, English actress Claire Bloom. In 1994
they separated, and in 1996 Bloom published a memoir, Leaving a Doll’s
House, which described the couple’s marriage in detail, much of which
was unflattering to Roth. Certain aspects of I Married a Communist
have been regarded by critics as veiled rebuttals to accusations put
forth in Bloom’s memoir.

Career

Roth’s first book, Goodbye, Columbus, a novella and five short
stories, won the National Book Award in 1960, and afterwards he
published two novels, Letting Go and When She Was Good. However, it
was not until the publication of his third novel, Portnoy’s Complaint,
in 1969 that Roth enjoyed widespread commercial and critical success.
During the 1970s Roth experimented in various modes, from the
political satire Our Gang to the Kafkaesque The Breast. By the end of
the decade Roth had created his alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. In a
series of highly self-referential novels and novellas that followed
between 1979 and 1986, Zuckerman appeared as either the main character
or an interlocutor.

Sabbath’s Theater (1995) has perhaps Roth’s most lecherous
protagonist, Mickey Sabbath, a disgraced former puppeteer. In complete
contrast, the first volume of Roth’s second Zuckerman trilogy, 1997′s
American Pastoral, focuses on the life of virtuous Newark athletics
star Swede Levov and the tragedy that befalls him when his teenage
daughter transforms into a domestic terrorist during the late 1960s. I
Married a Communist (1998) focuses on the McCarthy era. The Human
Stain examines identity politics in 1990s America. The Dying Animal
(2001) is a short novel about eros and death that revisits literary
professor David Kepesh, protagonist of two 1970s works, The Breast and
The Professor of Desire. In The Plot Against America (2004), Roth
imagines an alternate American history in which Charles Lindbergh,
aviator hero and isolationist, is elected U.S. president in 1940, and
the U.S. negotiates an understanding with Hitler’s Nazi Germany and
embarks on its own program of anti-Semitism.

Roth’s novel Everyman, a meditation on illness, aging, desire, and
death, was published in May 2006. For Everyman Roth won his third PEN/
Faulkner Award, making him the only person so honored. Exit Ghost,
which again features Nathan Zuckerman, was released in October 2007.
According to the book’s publisher, it is the last Zuckerman novel.[7]
Indignation, Roth’s 29th book, was published on September 16, 2008.
Set in 1951, during the Korean War, it follows Marcus Messner’s
departure from Newark to Ohio’s Winesburg College, where he begins his
sophomore year. In 2009, Roth’s 30th book The Humbling was published,
which told the story of the last performances of Simon Axler, a
celebrated stage actor. The announced title of Roth’s 31st book is
Nemesis.

In October 2009, during an interview with Tina Brown of The Daily
Beast website to promote The Humbling, Roth considered the future of
literature and its place in society, stating his belief that within 25
years the reading of novels will be regarded as a “cultic” activity:

I was being optimistic about 25 years really. I think it’s going to be
cultic. I think always people will be reading them but it will be a
small group of people. Maybe more people than now read Latin poetry,
but somewhere in that range… To read a novel requires a certain amount
of concentration, focus, devotion to the reading. If you read a novel
in more than two weeks you don’t read the novel really. So I think
that kind of concentration and focus and attentiveness is hard to come
by — it’s hard to find huge numbers of people, large numbers of
people, significant numbers of people, who have those qualities[.][8]

When asked his opinion on the emergence of digital books and e-books
as possibly replacing printed copy, Roth was equally as negative and
downbeat about the prospect:

The book can’t compete with the screen. It couldn’t compete [in the]
beginning with the movie screen. It couldn’t compete with the
television screen, and it can’t compete with the computer screen… Now
we have all those screens, so against all those screens a book
couldn’t measure up.[9]

This interview is not the first time that Roth has expressed pessimism
over the future of the novel and its significance in recent years.
Talking to the Observer’s Robert McCrum in 2001, he said that “I’m not
good at finding ‘encouraging’ features in American culture. I doubt
that aesthetic literacy has much of a future here.”[8]

Influences and themes

Much of Roth’s fiction revolves around semi-autobiographical themes,
while self-consciously and playfully addressing the perils of
establishing connections between the author Philip Roth and his
fictional lives and voices,[citation needed] including narrators and
protagonists such as David Kepesh and Nathan Zuckerman or even the
character “Philip Roth”, of which there are two in Operation Shylock.
In Roth’s fiction, the question of authorship[citation needed] is
intertwined with the theme of the idealistic,[citation needed] secular
Jewish-American son who attempts to distance himself from Jewish
customs and traditions, and from what he perceives as the at times
suffocating influence of parents, rabbis, and other community leaders.
Jewish sons such as most infamously Alexander Portnoy and later Nathan
Zuckerman rebel by denouncing Judaism, while at the same time
remaining attached to a sense of Jewish identity.[citation needed]
Roth’s fiction has been described by critics as pervaded by “a kind of
alienation that is enlivened and exacerbated by what binds it”.[10]

Roth’s first work, Goodbye, Columbus, for his irreverent humor of the
life of middle-class Jewish Americans, was controversial among
reviewers, which were highly polarized in their judgments;[2] a
reviewer criticized it as infused with a sense of self-loathing. In
response, Roth, in his 1963 essay “Writing About Jews” (collected in
Reading Myself and Others), maintained that he wanted to explore the
conflict between the call to Jewish solidarity and his desire to be
free to question the values and morals of middle-class Jewish-
Americans uncertain of their identities in an era of cultural
assimilation and upward social mobility:

The cry “Watch out for the goyim!” at times seems more the expression
of an unconscious wish than of a warning: Oh that they were out there,
so that we could be together here! A rumor of persecution, a taste of
exile, might even bring with it the old world of feelings and habits —
something to replace the new world of social accessibility and moral
indifference, the world which tempts all our promiscuous instincts,
and where one cannot always figure out what a Jew is that a Christian
is not.[11]

In Roth’s fiction, the exploration of “promiscuous instincts” within
the context of Jewish-American lives, mainly from a male viewpoint,
plays an important role. In the words of critic Hermione Lee:

Philip Roth’s fiction strains to shed the burden of Jewish traditions
and proscriptions. … The liberated Jewish consciousness, let loose
into the disintegration of the American Dream, finds itself
deracinated and homeless. American society and politics, by the late
sixties, are a grotesque travesty of what Jewish immigrants had
traveled towards: liberty, peace, security, a decent liberal democracy.
[12]

While Roth’s fiction has strong autobiographical influences, it has
also incorporated social commentary and political satire, most
obviously in Our Gang and Operation Shylock. Since the 1990s, Roth’s
fiction has often combined autobiographical elements with
retrospective dramatizations of postwar American life. Roth has
described American Pastoral and the two following novels as a loosely
connected “American trilogy”. All these novels deal with aspects of
the postwar era against the backdrop of the nostalgically remembered
Jewish-American childhood of Nathan Zuckerman, in which the experience
of life on the American home front during the Second World War
features prominently.[citation needed]

In much of Roth’s fiction, the 1940s, comprising Roth’s and
Zuckerman’s childhood, mark a high point of American idealism and
social cohesion. A more satirical treatment of the patriotism and
idealism of the war years is evident in Roth’s more comic novels, such
as Portnoy’s Complaint and Sabbath’s Theater. In The Plot Against
America, the alternate history of the war years dramatizes the
prevalence of anti-Semitism and racism in America during the war
years, despite the promotion of increasingly influential anti-racist
ideals in wartime. Nonetheless, the 1940s, and the New Deal era of the
1930s that preceded it, are portrayed in much of Roth’s recent fiction
as a heroic phase in American history. A sense of frustration with
social and political developments in the US since the 1940s is
palpable in the American trilogy and Exit Ghost, but had already been
present in Roth’s earlier works that contained political and social
satire, such as Our Gang and The Great American Novel. Writing about
the latter novel, Hermione Lee points to the sense disillusionment
with “the American Dream” in Roth’s fiction: “The mythic words on
which Roth’s generation was brought up — winning, patriotism,
gamesmanship — are desanctified; greed, fear, racism, and political
ambition are disclosed as the motive forces behind the ‘all-American
ideals’.”[12]

Awards and honors

Two of Roth’s works of fiction have won the National Book Award; two
others were finalists. Two have won National Book Critics Circle
awards; again, another two were finalists. He has also won three PEN/
Faulkner Awards (Operation Shylock, The Human Stain, and Everyman) and
a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his 1997 novel, American Pastoral. In
2001, The Human Stain was awarded the United Kingdom’s WH Smith
Literary Award for the best book of the year. In 2002, he was awarded
the National Book Foundation’s Award for Distinguished Contribution to
American Letters. Literary critic Harold Bloom has named him as one of
the four major American novelists still at work, along with Thomas
Pynchon, Don DeLillo, and Cormac McCarthy.[13] His 2004 novel The Plot
Against America won the Sidewise Award for Alternate History in 2005
as well as the Society of American Historians’ James Fenimore Cooper
Prize for Best Historical Fiction. Roth was also awarded the United
Kingdom’s WH Smith Literary Award for the best book of the year, an
award Roth has received twice.[14] He was honored in his hometown in
October 2005 when then-mayor Sharpe James presided over the unveiling
of a street sign in Roth’s name on the corner of Summit and Keer
Avenues where Roth lived for much of his childhood, a setting
prominent in The Plot Against America. A plaque on the house where the
Roths lived was also unveiled. In May 2006, he was given the PEN/
Nabokov Award, and in 2007 he was awarded the PEN/Faulkner award for
Everyman, making him the award’s only three-time winner. In April
2007, he was chosen as the recipient of the first PEN/Saul Bellow
Award for Achievement in American Fiction.[15]

The May 21, 2006 issue of The New York Times Book Review announced the
results of a letter that was sent to what the publication described as
“a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other
literary sages, asking them to please identify ‘the single best work
of American fiction published in the last 25 years.’” Six of Roth’s
novels were in the 22 selected: American Pastoral, The Counterlife,
Operation Shylock, Sabbath’s Theater, The Human Stain, and The Plot
Against America.[16] The accompanying essay, written by critic A.O.
Scott, stated, “If we had asked for the single best writer of fiction
of the past 25 years, [Roth] would have won.”[17]

Films

Four of Philip Roth’s novels and short stories have been made into
films: Goodbye, Columbus; Portnoy’s Complaint; The Human Stain; and
The Dying Animal which was made into the movie Elegy.

Bibliography

Main article: Bibliography of Philip Roth

Zuckerman novels

•The Ghost Writer (1979)
•Zuckerman Unbound (1981)
•The Anatomy Lesson (1983)
•The Prague Orgy (1985)

(The above four books are collected as Zuckerman Bound)

•The Counterlife (1986)
•American Pastoral (1997)
•I Married a Communist (1998)
•The Human Stain (2000)
•Exit Ghost (2007)
[edit] Roth novels
•Deception: A Novel (1990)
•Operation Shylock: A Confession (1993)
•The Plot Against America (2004)
[edit] Kepesh novels
•The Breast (1972)
•The Professor of Desire (1977)
•The Dying Animal (2001)
[edit] Other novels
•Goodbye, Columbus (1959)
•Letting Go (1962)
•When She Was Good (1967)
•Portnoy’s Complaint (1969)
•Our Gang (1971)
•The Great American Novel (1973)
•My Life As a Man (1974)
•Sabbath’s Theater (1995)
•Everyman (2006)
•Indignation (2008)
•The Humbling (2009)
•Nemesis (2010)

Nonfiction

•The Facts: A Novelist’s Autobiography (1988)
•Patrimony: A True Story (1991)

Collections

•Reading Myself and Others (1976)
•A Philip Roth Reader (1980, revised edition 1993)
•Shop Talk (2001)

Library of America Editions

Main article: The Library of America’s definitive edition of Philip
Roth’s collected works
Edited by Ross Miller

•Novels and Stories 1959-1962 (2005) ISBN 978-1-93108279-2
•Novels 1967-1972 (2005) ISBN 978-1-93108280-8
•Novels 1973-1977 (2006) ISBN 978-1-93108296-9
•Zuckerman Bound: A Trilogy and Epilogue 1979-1985 (2007) ISBN
978-1-59853-011-7
•Novels and Other Narratives 1986-1991 (2008) ISBN 978-1-59853-030-8
•Novels 1993–1995 (2010) ISBN 978-1-59853-078-0
[edit] List of awards
•1960 National Book Award for Goodbye, Columbus
•1986 National Book Critics Circle Award for The Counterlife
•1991 National Book Critics Circle Award for Patrimony
•1994 PEN/Faulkner Award for Operation Shylock
•1995 National Book Award for Sabbath’s Theater
•1998 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for American Pastoral
•1998 Ambassador Book Award of the English-Speaking Union for I
Married a Communist
•1998 National Medal of Arts
•2000 Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger (France) for American Pastoral
•2001 PEN/Faulkner Award for The Human Stain
•2001 Gold Medal In Fiction from The American Academy of Arts and
Letters
•2001 WH Smith Literary Award for The Human Stain
•2002 National Book Foundation‘s Award for Distinguished Contribution
to American Letters
•2002 Prix Médicis Étranger (France) for The Human Stain
•2003 Honorary Doctor of Letters degree from Harvard University
•2005 Sidewise Award for Alternate History for The Plot Against
America
•2005 James Fenimore Cooper Prize for Best Historical Fiction for The
Plot Against America
•2006 PEN/Nabokov Award for lifetime achievement
•2007 PEN/Faulkner Award for Everyman
•2007 PEN/Saul Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction
•2010 Paris Review’s Hadada Prize

Notes

1.^ Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of American Writers. 2001. p. 350.
ISBN 9780877790228.
2.^ a b c Brauner (2005), pp.43-7
3.^ Saxton (1974)
4.^ U.S. Department of State, U.S. Life, “American Prose, 1945-1990:
Realism and Experimentation”
5.^ Lubasch, Arnold H. “Philip Roth Shakes Weequahic High”, The New
York Times, February 28, 1969. Accessed September 8, 2007. “It has
provided the focus for the fiction of Philip Roth, the novelist who
evokes his era at Weequahic High School in the highly acclaimed
Portnoy’s Complaint.… Besides identifying Weequahic High School by
name, the novel specifies such sites as the Empire Burlesque, the
Weequahic Diner, the Newark Museum and Irvington Park, all local
landmarks that helped shape the youth of the real Roth and the
fictional Portnoy, both graduates of Weequahic class of ’50.”
6.^ Roth, Philip. The Facts: A Novelist’s Autobiography. New York,
1988. Roth discusses Martinson’s portrait in this memoir. He calls her
“Josie” in When She Was Good on pp. 149 and 175. He discusses her as
an inspiration for My Life As a Man throughout the book’s second half,
most completely in the chapter “Girl of My Dreams,” which includes
this on p. 110: “Why should I have tried to make up anything better?
How could I?” Her influence upon Portnoy’s Complaint is seen in The
Facts as more diffuse, a kind of loosening-up for the author: “It took
time and it took blood, and not, really, until I began Portnoy’s
Complaint would I be able to cut loose with anything approaching her
gift for flabbergasting boldness.” (p. 149)
7.^ “Zuckerman’s Last Hurrah.” New York Times. November 30, 2006.
8.^ a b Flood, Alison (26 October 2009). “Philip Roth predicts novel
will be minority cult within 25 years”. The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/oct/26/philip-roth-novel-minority-cult.
9.^ Brown, Tina (October 21, 2009). “Philip Roth Unbound: The Full
Interview”. The Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-21/philip-roth-unbound-the-full-interview.
Retrieved March 2, 2010.
10.^ Greenberg (1997), p.11
11.^ Roth, Philip (December 1963). “Writing About Jews”. Commentary.
12.^ a b Lee, Hermione (1982). Philip Roth. New York: Methuen & Co.,
1982.
13.^ Bloom, Harold. “Dumbing down American readers”. The Boston Globe.
September 24, 2003.
14.^ WH Smith Award
15.^ PEN American Center. “Philip Roth Wins Inaugural PEN/Saul Bellow
Award”. April 2, 2007.
16.^ The New York Times Book Review. “What Is the Best Work of
American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?”. May 21, 2006.
17.^ Scott, A.O. “In Search of the Best”. The New York Times. May 21,
2006.

References

•Brauner, David (1969) Getting in Your Retaliation First: Narrative
Strategies in Portnoy’s Complaint in Royal, Derek Parker (2005) Philip
Roth: new perspectives on an American author, chapter 3
•Greenberg, Robert (Winter 1997). “Trangression in the Fiction of
Philip Roth”. Twentieth Century Literature (Hofstra University) 43
(4): 487. doi:10.2307/441747. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_n4_v43/ai_20614549.
•Saxton, Martha (1974) Philip Roth Talks about His Own Work Literary
Guild June 1974, n.2. Also published in in Philip Roth, George John
Searles (1992) Conversations with Philip Roth p. 78
[edit] Further reading and literary criticism
•Bloom, Harold and Welsch, Gabe, eds., Modern Critical Interpretations
of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint, Chelsea House, 2003.
•Bloom, Harold, ed., Modern Critical Views of Philip Roth, Chelsea
House, New York, 2003.
•Cooper, Alan, Philip Roth and the Jews (SUNY Series in Modern Jewish
Literature and Culture), SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 1996.
•Kinzel, Till, Die Tragödie und Komödie des amerikanischen Lebens.
Eine Studie zu Zuckermans Amerika in Philip Roths Amerika-Trilogie
(American Studies Monograph Series), Heidelberg: Winter, 2006.
•Milowitz, Steven, Philip Roth Considered: The Concentrationary
Universe of the American Writer, Routledge, New York, 2000.
•Morley, Catherine, The Quest for Epic in Contemporary American
Literature, Routledge, New York, 2008.
•Parrish, Timothy, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philip Roth,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
•Podhoretz, Norman, “The Adventures of Philip Roth,” Commentary
(October 1998), reprinted as “Philip Roth, Then and Now” in The Norman
Podhoretz Reader, 2004.
•Posnock, Ross, Philip Roth’s Rude Truth: The Art of Immaturity,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2006.
•Royal, Derek Parker, Philip Roth: New Perspectives on an American
Author, Praeger Publishers, Santa Barbara, CA, 2005.
•Safer, Elaine B., Mocking the Age: The Later Novels of Philip Roth
(SUNY Series in Modern Jewish Literature and Culture), SUNY Press,
Albany, NY, 2006.
•Searles, George J., ed., Conversations With Philip Roth, University
of Mississippi Press, Jackson, Mississippi, 1992.
•Searles, George J., The Fiction of Philip Roth and John Updike,
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois, 1984.
•Shostak, Debra B., Philip Roth: Countertexts, Counterlives,
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, 2004.
•Simic, Charles, “The Nicest Boy in the World,” The New York Review of
Books, Vol. LV, No. 15, 9 October 2008.
•Wöltje, Wiebke-Maria, My finger on the pulse of the nation.
Intellektuelle Protagonisten im Romanwerk Philip Roths (Mosaic, 26),
Trier: WVT, 2006.

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Philip Roth

Informational

•Literary Encyclopedia biography
•The Philip Roth Society
•Philip Roth looks back on a legendary career, and forward to his
final act
•Works by Philip Roth on Open Library at the Internet Archive

Interviews

•Roth interview – from NPR‘s “Fresh Air“, September 2005
•Roth interview – from The Guardian, December 2005
•Roth interview – from Open Source
•Roth interview – from Der Spiegel, February 2008
•Roth interview – from the London Times, October 17, 2009
•Roth interview – from CBC‘s Writers and Company. Aired 2009-11-01

v • d • e

Works by Philip Roth

Fiction Goodbye, Columbus · Letting Go · When She Was Good ·
Portnoy’s Complaint · Our Gang · The Great American Novel · My Life As
a Man · Sabbath’s Theater · Everyman · Indignation · The Humbling ·
Nemesis

Kepesh Novels The Breast · The Professor of Desire · The Dying Animal

Zuckerman Novels The Ghost Writer · Zuckerman Unbound · The Anatomy
Lesson · The Prague Orgy · The Counterlife · American Pastoral · I
Married a Communist · The Human Stain · Exit Ghost

Roth Novels Deception · Operation Shylock · The Plot Against America

Short Stories “The Conversion of the Jews” · “Defender of the Faith” ·
“The Kind of Person I am” · “Epstein” · “You Can’t Tell a Man by the
Song He Sings” · “Eli, the Fanatic” · “Philosophy, or Something Like
That” · “The Box of Truths” · “The Fence” · “Armando and the Frauds” ·
“The Final Delivery of Mr. Thorn” · “The Day It Snowed” · “The Contest
for Aaron Gold” · “Heard Melodies Are Sweeter” · “Expect the Vandals”
· “The Love Vessel” · “The Good Girl” · “The Mistaken” · “Novotny’s
Pain” · “Psychoanalytic Special” · “An Actor’s Life for Me” · “On the
Air” · “His Mistress’s Voice” · “Smart Money” · “The Ultimatum” ·
“Drenka’s Men” · “Communist”


Collections Zuckerman Bound · A Philip Roth Reader · Library of
America series

Non-fiction Memoirs The Facts · Patrimony

On Writing Reading Myself and Others · Shop Talk

Adaptations Films Goodbye, Columbus · Portnoy’s Complaint · The Human
Stain · Elegy

Philip Roth bibliography

Persondata

NAME Roth, Philip
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Roth, Philip Milton (full name)
SHORT DESCRIPTION Novelist
DATE OF BIRTH March 19, 1933
PLACE OF BIRTH Newark, New Jersey, United States
DATE OF DEATH
PLACE OF DEATH

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Roth“
Categories: 1933 births | Living people | American novelists |
American short story writers | American atheists | Jewish atheists |
Bucknell University alumni | Jewish American writers | Jewish
novelists | Members of the American Academy of Arts and Letters |
United States National Medal of Arts recipients | People from Newark,
New Jersey | National Book Award winners | Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
winners | Sidewise Award winning authors | University of Chicago
alumni | University of Iowa faculty | Princeton University faculty |
University of Pennsylvania faculty | Writers from New Jersey | Iowa
Writers’ Workshop faculty | American Jews | Galician Jews | Guggenheim
Fellows | Jewish American military personnel | Prix Médicis étranger
winners

•This page was last modified on 30 September 2010 at 21:50.

•Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License;

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.

…and I am Sid Harth

Hot Off The Presses, News, Views and Reviews

30/09/2010

« Portrait of A Hindu Hoodlum, Dharun Vir of Rutgers U VIII

Mirza Ghalib
2010-09-30 19:32:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 30, 6:08 am, cogitoergosum <navanavo

KEEP ON BARKING.
Loading...