Book 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' by John Boyne

The Holocaust is one subject which has been written about, talked about and filmed about enough number of times to cover every possible aspect, one would think.  And yet, once in a while comes a work which throws a curveball, which opens our eyes to the tragedy from a still different angle.  'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' is that kind of a book.

The book, written almost entirely from the perspective of a 9-year old boy, the son of a German army officer, drawn one in slowly.  The early parts, as seen in the sporadic flashbacks of Bruno, the principal character, seem quite humdrum, what with his rivalry with his 12-year old sister (the 'Hopeless Case'!), his 'friendships for life' with other school boys, the Christmas plays directed by his grandmother (an ageing thespian), and so on.  But here too the portends of the sinister happenings all around are palpable, if only as snippets of Bruno's narration - the 'history' lessons with 'injustices' mentioned, the visit of 'Fury' to their home, the distaste displayed by his grandmother to the Nazi actions and her son being part of all that, and so on.  Some parts of the narration may look contrived, with modern expressions slipped into 1940s conversations, but that's probably a necessary device to relate to contemporary readers.

Then the narrative moves to 'Out-With' where Bruno's father is posted, ostensibly as the jailor, and to where the family moves despite tearful rebellion by Bruno and protests by his mother.  And it's here that Bruno's character is etched out in all its aspects.  From his noticing the prisoners in 'striped pyjamas' across the big fence, his puzzlement at the lack of interaction between those living on the two sides of the fence, his noticing the plight of a Jew doctor prisoner serving as a waiter, to the in your face anti-Semitism of a young sergeant, and so on.  Bruno's father's character is also etched out with due complexity, avoiding black and white judgments, pointing at how patriotism has the potential to evolve into jingoism with more sinister manifestations, even in inherently decent people (after all, he had taken an ostensibly Jewish maid under his wings).

The high point of the narrative comes with Bruno's chance meeting with 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' across the fence, while roaming far and wide as 'exploration'.  The way the relationship of the two boys, one German and the other Polish, born on the same day, on two sides of the 'fence' (physical but also metaphorical), develops, the reader gets totally absorbed in the story.  Their innocent conversations on earlier and current lifestyles and treatment, also illustrated when Shmuel is brought to Bruno's house to clean glasses, and the physical deprivation of the prisoners, are touching, not the least because of the children's perspectives, bereft of the usual 'adult' understanding and rationalizations.  Initially, Bruno almost comes across as a privileged boy with an entitlement syndrome, but his innate humanism comes across not only in his trying to help Shmuel with food and other things, but also in the sensitive way in which he talks (or avoids talking) about certain things.

The reader gets so invested in the two boys that, towards the end, when one realizes what's going to happen, the reaction is like "Don't go there... Just walk away... Plan for another day!".  But it's like watching someone dear go to his doom, and not being able to do anything about it!  It's heart-rending to see how, in innocent 'exploration', Bruno dons the prisoner's garb and slips inside the camp, only to be swept away along with a crowd of prisoners into a gas chamber.  The climax plays out within such a short span of time that it's almost traumatic, giving no time to the reader to even note Bruno's eventual discovery of the squalid lives lived by the prisoners, something of a revelation to him.

The father's subsequent discovery of what had happened almost tempts one to say 'Serves him right'. But then, the loss of even one precious life, what to say about the millions who perished there, is an occasion not for gloating, but for mourning, and for internalizing the lesson that 'it could happen anywhere and any time'.  So constant vigil against such tendencies is the price of freedom and justice for all.

Book review: 'Netaji - Living Dangerously'

I don't usually buy books from airport bookstalls - browsing at those stores and ordering online saves quite a packet!  But this slim volume, by a TOI journalist no less, seemed a good way to fill up the couple of hours flight, and I was not disappointed!

Many in my generation, especially Bengalis, may be aware of at least the bare facts about Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.  The same cannot definitively be said, however, about the next generation, who may be ignorant of the facts or (especially for the millennials and after) just couldn't care.  For the latter readers, this book may be a revelation.

But it's no less fascinating for older readers like myself to read about the happenings in the pre-independence era and shortly thereafter.  Suffice to say, the book doesn't show any of the leading lights of the era in great light, showing them up for the mere mortals that they were instead of the saints they were sometimes made out to be, out of political compulsions and to mobilize the multitudes.  It's especially galling to learn about the role of leading lights of Congress party in the pre-independence era (not mere conjectures but supported by exhaustive references to historical documents), including certain gentlemen named MK Gandhi and JN Nehru amongst a host of others, in thwarting the moves of Bose who had been democratically elected by Congress workers as its president.  How Bose, despite being an astute political leader of the masses and a superb administrator, was gradually sidelined from Congress is a study in perfidy!

The portions of the book dealing with Netaji's efforts to meet world leaders including Hitler, his military campaigns and eventual defeat by British Indian forces in North East India are probably more well-known.  The extent to which he was chummy with certain Japanese ministers and generals, though, is a bit surprising.  His apparent decision to 'surrender' to Soviet Union forces by entering Russia seems to have been based on a kind of miscalculation, probably leading to his long incarceration in Gulags as the book imputes.

The conduct of Nehru, other leaders and 'loyal' bureaucrats post-independence towards finding out and suppressing from public eyes any bit of news about Netaji again reek of utter paranoia, across decades.  Even the 'philosopher' Radhakrishnan, later to become the second President of India, doesn't seem to absolve himself too well, as he seems to have actively participated in the suppression efforts.  Again, all this is based on official correspondence and the like, thus imparting a modicum of authenticity to the author's narrative.  Besides proceedings of the two Commissions of Enquiry, the conduct of some former INA leading lights (apparently ingratiated with governmental efforts, for personal gain) is called into question.

Whether Netaji returned to India (and how), and whether he stayed near Ayodhya as Gumnami Baba, may unfortunately never be known, even if the handwritten notes left behind by the Baba are scrutinized in great detail.  And govt. officials still seem to be stonewalling any efforts to make public certain important papers in govt. possession, on grounds of international relations (besides discouraging, much less supporting, any efforts by individuals or societies to access Russian KGB records to throw more light on Netaji's supposed stay in then USSR).

A lament for a great patriot treated most unfairly by petty-minded politicians all through - an apt lesson on the price to be paid for uprightness!

Movie review - 'Patakha'

Watched 'Patakha' on Prime recently.  Vishal Bhardwaj has come up with another authentic vignette based in rural India, perhaps somewhere in Western UP.   A thoroughly enjoyable comedy with emotional overtones, if one disregards the slight difficulty, even for some in North India, in understanding the local dialect in which most dialogues are spoken (lending added authenticity to the movie) and the occasional strong language used, a hallmark of many Bhardwaj movies.

The movie depicts the hate-hate relationship of two sisters brought up by a single parent, the mine-operator dad struggling with corrupt bureaucracy (his 'selling' of a daughter, both of whom he adores, to a widower moneylender, to raise bribe money, forms the crux of the first half).  The second half then goes on to the struggles of the two sisters, both of whom elope and marry their boyfriends (two brothers) to adjust to their married life, to fulfil their dreams (by fomenting a division of property), success in life, their continued obsession with each other even while living apart, and eventual reconciliation with a final physical fight (while their father pretends to be dead!), this one much milder than the 'cat and dog' rumpus they indulge in throughout the movie.

As usual, Bhardwaj manages to bring to the audience a total view of village life, warts and all, without any overt comment.  Gender disparity, Panchayat rule, 'selling' of daughters (with a public toss to decide which one!), etc. are all there.  But the changing social landscape of rural India is also showcased in a gentle manner - women standing up for their rights and dreams, inter-mixing of communities, non-interfering in-laws, women entrepreneurship, etc. are also there, all told in a gentle, humorous tone and matter of fact way.

While the two protagonists shine in their roles, Sunil Grover is outstanding as the village busybody who understands and helps the sisters at every step to the end, while Vijay Raaz plays well the hassled single parent always struggling to make peace between his two daughters.

An entertaining movie which should also be seen as a window to the changing social landscape of rural India.

Thoughts across eras - in books

It's surprising how certain ideas and concepts seem to be transmitted across eras and writers. I was reading a chapter of the book/collection of columns of Capt. Raghu Raman 'Everyman's War' titled "Surviving a Perfect Storm".

Coincidentally, I'm also (re)reading these days the Leo Tolstoy magnum opus 'War and Peace':

Raghu Raman's piece starts with "No plan survives first contact with the enemy”—Carl Von Clausewitz’s aphorism —seems prophetic in current volatile times", and then goes on to describe a process which "allows officers to know the extent of leeway they have when situation is not going according to plans and they can assume orders when communications break down—a very frequent occurrence during combat."

This passage took me back Chapter 33 of 'War and Peace', the following passage:

It'd seem certain ideas in certain domains, for instance battle combat, have eternal validity.  Time for us all to start reading Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'...

TV movie - Haven (2001)

With the US, many countries in Europe and elsewhere wracked by anti-immigrant sentiments, it's instructive to go back to a time when similar sentiments against 'the other' were at their peak and resulted in a ghastly tragedy of unparalelled proportions.  So this (TV) movie by John Gray chooses to go back a full seven decades, to a Europe and America in the throes of World War II and its aftermath.

It's a true story based on real events and characters, which makes us reassess our commitment to certain values, especially in the face of adversity.  An American journalist, Ruth Gruber (Natasha Richardson) working for the Dept. of Interior, voluntarily takes on the dangerous responsibility of escorting nearly a thousand of the refugees fleeing a Nazi onslaught and granted asylum by US Govt. Gruber, of Polish ancestry and Jewish faith, volunteers for the assignment over the objections of her parents (Anne Bancroft and Martin Landau).  Supported by Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (Hal Holbrook), she travels to Europe aboard an Air Force plane, which comes under fire but lands safely. She helps the refugees board the US ship escorted by warships.  She's discouraged to see the many refugees rejected by US troops, mainly because of lack of space but some on spurious criteria laid down by Govt.

On the transatlantic journey, especially during the air raids and submarine chases, Gruber feels the latent hostility among the wounded US soldiers, also travelling on the ship, towards the Jew refugees, though the situation eases a bit by the time they reach US.  Gruber's despatches to US from the ship, with the horrific stories recounted by individual refugees, melt the hearts of even some of the soldiers like the communication man.  Stories lIke that of the claustrophobic Mordechai (Daniel Kash) who had been buried alive by Nazis after his family and friends were shot.  However, these stories are suppressed by bureaucrats, just like earlier stories emanating from European missions about concentration camps, as narrated to Gruber by a sympathetic bureaucrat later.  He also tells her that Jewish immigration applications from Europe had been deliberately blocked by bureaucracy, as she suspected when her German Jew friends Beata Stern (Sharon Bernbaum) and her Papa (Yank Azman) had been denied US visa before the War even after repeated attempts.

Then the Govt. declares, upon the refugees' arrival, that all the refugees are to be housed in a camp in Oswego, New York, even those having families willing to house them. Gruber realizes her work with the refugees is far from done, and she bravely battles against both bureaucracy and racial prejudice to win both dignity and fair treatment for the new settlers.

Intially, the town residents are hostile towards the refugees, some on the ground that their sons have to fight (and, for some, die) defending distant Europeans, some in the fear that the refugees would take away their jobs.  But slowly the refugees are accepted by the residents, with shared experiences like Thanksgiving meals.  The incident of a runaway refugee girl Manya (Tamara Gorsky) poignantly brings such integration to the fore, when the town residents join the refugees in searching for her amidst a snowy night.  Thus, a whole lot of people are forced to confront their own prejudices and overcome them with their innate humanity.

There are emotional moments in the film which bring out the personal nature of the characters.  Like Gruber's touching relation with her father (who passes away towards the end) and mother.  Like when two of the refugees Manya and Ernst (Henry Czerny) develop a chemistry, rising above their brutalized past, and eventually marry, helped along by Gruber.  Like the dead soldier's father, Myles Billingsley (Bruce Greenwood) who develops a friendship with a refugee Bruno (Colm Feore) who recounts how his own son was shot by Nazis in front of him.  Gruber also helps some young refugees to go to college, taking advantage of a bureaucratic loophole, where they're initially resented by some of the other students but eventually do well (one even gets an admission opportunity for Harvard).

The movie is interspersed with Gruber's own recollections of her pre-War time in Europe earlier, especially with her German boyfriend Johan (Sebastian Roche) who she had to disavow before she left Germany, after he was revealed to be a member of the Nazi party.

It's when the War ends and, despite Gruber's efforts, the refugees are ordered to be sent back to Europe, that things come to a head.  In a moving sequence, local residents are seen to step in before the refugees, asking Govt. officials to send them also back to Europe as they also hail from various European countries originally - one even points out that a Govt. officer processing the refugees himself hails from Europe!  This sequence powerfully illustrates the fact that (relatively) earlier 'settlers' at a place start 'owning' it and tend to deny the same opportunity to others later.

Eventually, once Gruber approaches the new President Harry Truman, and actual stories of the Holocaust come out, the refugees are granted leave to stay in US.  A happy ending, but the film leaves the viewer with deep questions about attitudes toward 'the other', latent prejudices which surface especially during times of hardship, and the innate dignity of all humans.  Worth spending the 3 hours (it was released as a two-part feature).

Movie 'Amistad' (1997)

There are movies made with a high degree of cinematic finesse, with or (sometimes) without a substantial story or content, which cater to the very pleasure of movie watching.  And then there are movies which, while made with at least some degree of that finesse (without which they could be well nigh unwatchable), rest on a compelling story which forces us to reassess our own beliefs while learning about things anew.

Steven Spielberg's 'Amistad' (1997) is the latter kind of movie.  Helmed by a master craftsman, the movie's star cast itself is alluring, what with stellar performances by the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Matthew McConaughey and the redoubtable Nigel Hawthorne (Sir Humphrey of the legendary 'Yes Minister' fame) among others, playing characters as distinguished as US President John Quincy Adams and the abolitionist Theodore Joadson.

But it's the historical significance of the movie's story which compels us to give it the due importance.  It depicts an incident which caused an international dispute with another country (Spain) while bringing another great power (Britain) into play, brought an ex-President (John Quincy Adams) out of quasi-retirement to argue the case, and forced (at least a part of) America to crystalize its attitude to black slavery, perhaps also contributing to quickening the way to US Civil War in the bargain.  All with one single 'commercial' dispute.

The story is simple enough.  A shipful of African slaves mutiny aboard Spanish-owned ship Amistad near Cuba, killing their captors except two navigators to help chart the way back to Africa, are later overpowered by US forces and put on trial in US.  They're supported during trial by the abolitionists Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Freeman), a former slave himself who plays no small part in convincing Adams (Hopkins) to argue the case, leading to the slaves being set free eventually by US Supreme Court.

We (especially those outside US) have been brought up to believe that it was the US Civil War which in the 1860s arose out of decisive efforts to stop black slavery, and that Martin Luther King a century later succeeded in bringing things to a head.  Hence it's illuminating to learn that half a century back in early 19th century slavery had already been outlawed in (at least parts of) US, and prohibited by Great Britain, with treaties signed between the then great powers to that effect (though Spain and Portugal supposedly continued with illegal slavery on the sly).

It's the courtroom drama and the happenings around it which bring out the motivations and proclivities of different persona and groups of the day.  The arguments extended on behalf of US prosecutors, Spanish and English lawyers, and the defence attorneys deal with such astounding aspects as whether the slaves were 'property' or human beings!  And whether they were born in Africa (which apparently granted them full human rights) or on plantations (whereupon they became 'property')!  The movie also depicts how, despite signing treaties covering slavery abolition, some powers like Spain and Portugal supported the abhorrent practice on economic grounds, with the then pre-teen Queen Isabella II of Spain even writing to the US President on the case.  And how the then US President Martin Van Buren (Hawthorne), then running for re-election and dreading loss of Southern support, authorized filing of an appeal in US Supreme Court against the District Court judgment freeing the Africans, ironically delivered by a judge (Judge Coglin, played by Jeremy Northam) hand-picked by the Govt. after replacing the previous one during the trial.

As for the trial itself, Roger Baldwin (McConaughy) is shown to have argued the case very competently at District Court, even sleuthing around the ship La Amistad and finding evidence that the slaves were brought from Africa on Portuguese ship Tecora.  But it's Adam's concluding speech to the SC bench, touching upon the division between Executive and Judiciary and upon the essence of US Constitution, which delivers the final blow in favour of the Africans.  Before that, though, the legal questions posed to Adams during trial preparation by the Africans' putative leader Cinque (played by Djimon Housou, in a passionate and authentic performance) bring out the fact that intelligence and a sense of justice is innate in almost every human being, regardless of origin.

The story of the Africans' abduction (probably in Sierra Leone) and torture aboard Tecora on the transatlantic journey, including 50 slaves thrown overboard when provisions ran scarce, as recounted by Cinque, is heartrending, and evokes rightful revulsion against the abominable practice of slavery.  As I'm currently reading the book 'Roots' (by Alex Haley) which also describes intolerable cruelty by slave masters, this movie brings the travails of slavery into sharp relief.

This is not a 'feel good' movie to be watched casually.  While a treat to watch anyway, it evokes a degree of passionate reaction in the viewer as well.  It's a chronicle of a saga, at a point in history.

Book review - 'My Autobiography' by Charles Chaplin

This must be the second most... ummm... fulfilling book I've read in recent times ('War and Peace' is a perennial favourite - now going through a second reading after decades - and 'A Man Called Ove' & 'When Breath Becomes Air' would probably take 3rd and 4th spots, though not comparable to no. 1 and 2 in terms of the vast span of time and characters covered).

Who of my generation (and probably the next too) doesn't know Charlie Chaplin? We've grown up laughing uproariously at the antics of Charlie (and probably of Lucy too). But who knew that behind Charlie's silent slapstick was such a poignant story of abject childhood poverty, deprivation and parental tragedy!

It's remarkable that Chaplin manages to keep the narrative on an even keel, even deadpan, and not bubbling with too much pathos, at least when dealing with his own story - his mother's repeated trysts with mental asylum, staying in Govt. orphanages, abandonment by his father, the works. Perhaps the most poignant episode is where his mother, after they come back from his father's funeral, has to sell household furniture so that the threesome (including Charlie's brother) can eat! But all this is narrated in a rather matter of fact way.

It's when he starts describing his rise in the show business that Chaplin's voice seems to get a new-found confidence, quite naturally. But even here, while an independent observer would marvel, mouth agape, at his meteoric progress from a pauper to a millionaire, Chaplin chooses to describe the minutiae rather than indulge in hyperbole. His initial struggles to make his own mark in Hollywood, struggling against restrictive studio contracts, and then coming into his own and starting his own studio and production ventures, are singularly instructive for an artiste as well as a shrewd businessman.

Chaplin maintains the matter-of-fact tone even while describing his interactions with the creme de la creme, from heads of state/government (like German Kaiser and Chrchill) to the most eminent personalities of his time like Tolstoy, Sartre, et al.  So it doesn't feel at all like he's bragging - it's just that he himself was great enough to move in those circles.

While Chaplin doesn't flinch from referring to his various flings and failed marriages, he states upfront that he'd not 'tell all' and would choose what to reveal, a blow for the concept of privacy which's become the in thing only now. And once he finds Oona, with whom his marriage lasts till the end, he also doesn't hold back from expressing in writing the extent of his love for her.

The last part of the book is quite heartbreaking, where Chaplin describes the events leading up to what was virtually his exile from the United States, then reeling under a strong anti-Communist hysteria post WW II. Charlie suffered for supporting the cause of Communists in fighting Hitler, against whom he campaigned personally apart from through 'The Great Dictator' (among the few of his talkies), but he steadfastly refused to back down from the cause even when intimidated by the Govt. agencies and the US media. He gets satisfaction, though, from being feted across Europe after he leaves US and settles in Switzerland.

An incomparable actor, director, composer and script-writer: Chaplin was all that. But most of all, he was a genuine, warmhearted (though not gullible) and courageous human being who rose beyond his circumstances and (much beyond the cliche) left his footprints on the sands of time...

Movie - 'It's A Wonderful Life' (1946)

There's a certain charm about olden movies which, while telling a jolly good story, manage to take in a lot about a span of time and a range of topics, describing a whole way of life prevailing at a certain time.  Hindi movies of 1950s like the Dilip Kumar-Vyjayanthimala starrer 'Naya Daur' come to mind.  This style of storytelling is quite different from modern movies which look at so many different aspects of the same thing, be it love or depression, sometimes sacrificing the charm of a good story itself in doing so.

Frank Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life' (starring James Stewart and Donna Reed) is that kind of a movie.  It's ostensibly about a do-gooder George Bailey in an American small town who gives up his aspirations to help his family (shades of Rakhee's character in 'Tapasya', though George marries and settles down unlike in that movie) and the larger community, is on the verge of suicide at one point (no thanks to skulduggery by a villainous character), is saved by a guardian angel from heaven, and is then helped to his feet by his friends and family.  The angel actually makes him realize how things would've turned out if he was not born at all (as George, in a moment of despair, wishes) - much worse, as it turns out - since our individual lives are connected to so many other lives in so many different ways.  Typical Christmas eve feel good fare.

But within this span, the movie looks at and comments on many American phenomena between the two Wars: the housing crunch (and the beneficial role of S&Ls), the Great Depression and runs on the banks (even a simplistic primer on the mechanics of banking industry), the American campaign in WW-II, et al.  Interestingly, the angel here walks around with a copy of a Mark Twain book - allusions to the post Depression 'New Deal'?

Given that modern life has perhaps grown too complex to be explained with the help of simple stories (though that's a doubtful premise!), it's sometimes good to hark back to simpler times with such movies from a bygone era.

Book review - 'The Scapegoat' by Daphne du Maurier

Many (most?) of us may've wondered, at some point or other, how our life would've been if we were actually living not our own life but the life of another, known or unknown, person.  We've just a hazy idea of such a 'substitute' life, usually focusing on the more rosy aspects, and either totally ignoring (or ignorant of) the travails, or (consciously or unconsciously) glossing over such potentially unpleasant aspects to keep the 'desirable' quality intact.  This 'what would've happened' question is what Daphne du Maurier, more famous as the author or the legendary 'Rebecca' and 'Birds', sets our to investigate in this complex novel.

The story starts with a suspenseful move, as a rakish French landed aristocrat Jean meets his doppelganger, an English teacher John touring France and, after peddling John copious amounts of alcohol, scrams with John's 'identity', leaving him sleeping in his hotel room.  Then starts the 'will he, won't he' game, to guess the point upto which the humble John will carry forward the deception, either willingly or by force of circumstances, or give up and (at least try to) go home. 

As things start to happen rapidly in the week or so over which the story unfolds, John goes about the charade first reluctantly and then with a sense of mission to 'heal' the inhabitants of Jean's chateau, the family members, each of whom Jean seems to have treated badly in different ways.  Initially, John seems more a victim of the circumstances than a willing imposter, just going along with things to keep up the pretenses so as not to hurt the family members.  But by and by he starts to take a more active role to 'set things right' as he - sometimes misguidedly it seems - deems best.  He does flinch away from some hard decisions at first, giving morphine to the old mother, and negotiating a hugely disadvantageous contract with the main customer of the family's glassworks just to keep it afloat.

It's only after Jean's pregnant wife commits suicide, after his pre-teen daughter has run away from home (though later found at the glassworks), that John resolves to take things into his own hands and takes some decisions to the decisive benefit of all family members.  At that point, inevitably, Jean comes back and John, after failing to bump him off, is forced to make his exit from the scene, after saying goodbyes to Jean's mistress Bela who had probably seen through him anyway.

While the story itself is pretty interesting, almost a page turner, the underlying philosophical aspects are what impart it a certain unique quality.  Looking deeper, it seems that, rather than a story of two characters with diametrically opposite nature and behaviours, it's actually about the different personalities hidden within us all.  And how we choose to bring one or the other - sometimes parts of both - to the surface, sometimes to deal with different people or circumstances and sometimes on a whim.  John cannot always get away with being the 'goody-goody' benefactor to all, sometimes - for instance during the bird shoot - coming across to others (notably to Jean's younger brother Paul, almost all the time) as a bumbling idiot or worse, as an insensitive prick, mostly for no fault of his!  This dichotomy is brought out well towards the end - when John condemns Jean as evil, Bela tries to impress upon him that Jean also has some good qualities and does love his family after all.

And these are the two axes - the futility of aspiring for 'a different life', and the co-existence of both good an evil within a person - on which this excellent novel spins.  Good as an engaging story, and great as a 'look within' tale.

Book review - 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan

#cosmos  #carlsagan

(Just my personal perspectives on the book - it'd be pretentious on my part to 'review' a stupendous work like Cosmos!)

For those with a taste for knowledge on the human endeavour of all hues, this book may leave them speechless! It's anyway a well-known work of epic proportions, but probably more well-known to people of a certain generation, who grew up watching Sagan, in his TV series of the same name, explaining it all back in the 80s.

The book is divided into 13 chapters (perhaps as a protest against the stigma and superstition attached to that number?, but more probably to fit in with a 13-week TV schedule). And it covers a mesmerizing array of human knowledge - from astronomy (of course!), to history (esp. of science), to anthropology, to mathematics, to logic, to physics and biology! Sagan takes us on a whirlwind tour of the cosmos itself, from the time when it was evolving out of the big bang to the birth of galaxies, stars and planets, from the primordial gases which arose first. Dropping down to the solar system, he traces its (short, in cosmological terms!) history, and then the evolution and stabilization of planets including earth.

While laying out the process of evolution of lfie on earth, Sagan keeps going back to the cosmos to prove that 'we're all made of stardust'. In between, he describes in fascinating detail how early scientists of millennia ago persisted in their pursuit of scientific knowledge, including the hardships (and sometimes bodily harm) they faced.

But beyond the rich scientific knowledge, most of all Sagan's book is an impassioned humanist plea. Woven throughout the book are his firm convictions on the unity of human race and the overarching need for tolerance and comity among nations, that the resources being wasted in a mindless nuclear arms race could be so profitably used in endeavours to know the cosmos better and thus benefit the human race as a whole.

As Sagan says towards the end, in the last chapter 'Who speaks for earth?': "We are a rare as well as an endangered species. Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another"!

This is a compulsory read for anyone with a passing interest in science and the human endeavour.