Thanks for sharing this. It’s an interesting interview with a very thoughtful man. I wish more people viewed Anglo-Indian relations in a similar way to V. S. Naipaul. British India had its failures, but it also had its successes. Kartar Lalvani’s book ‘India: The Untold Story of British Enterprise’ is worth a read if anyone is interested in British India. 🇬🇧🇮🇳
@@fc1984fc Thanks for the advice. I assume you’re referring to my use of “it’s” and “its”? I’m always making that mistake! I think I’ve corrected it now. 👍🏻
The Chinese and Japanese have outpaced India by a significant distance over the last 50 years - neither of these countries had to be colonized to have railways - or for that matter democracy, justice, truth and air conditioning in some form. It is sad to hear such obsequiousness from a distinguished writer - I suppose one needs to separate the art from the boot licking writer.
Thanks for the comment. Indeed, you make a very good observation in 'I suppose one needs to separate the art from the boot licking writer.' He had his flaws as a professional, both in the colonial prejudices, and in his constant use of provocation as a means to gaining limelight. But the art stands on its own.
@@KSNDXFW534D3FW3 Naipul was an intelligent person - I am sure he used his intelligence to reach his stupid colonial conclusions. It is a fact that Indian GDP was just below 30% of world GDP and Britain was around 2 -> 3% when the colonial project started - at the time of Indian independence Britain was at 30% and India was at around 2% of world GDP due to the trillions repatriated to the mother country. Each mile of rail line cost the Indian tax payer 200% of what it cost to build in Birmingham - nothing was given for free!!. The colonies (primarily India) supplied approximately 3 and a half million people to fight and support Britain in the First World War - including the munitions - pack horse mules - uniforms - and the food that was diverted from India into the British stockpiles at the time of the Second World War by Churchill that led directly to the Bengal famine where 3 -> 4 million Indians starved to death - Churchills response to the Bengal Famine was to call the Indians "a beastly race that should not breed like rabbits" and ask "Why isn't Gandhi dead yet?" - etc. etc. debts and wrongs that Britain has never acknowledged or repaid - in-fact Churchills past actions and views are never discussed as part of the history curriculum in British or Indian schools - without the colonial effort the mother tongue of the British would be German today. Naipul fails to mention any of the above when he talks of the benevolence that Britain bestowed upon India and the colonies - neither for that matter do the British - lest the inconvenient evil acts of the colonial period pollute their picture of munificence - I could go on but I will stop here - shame on you for being ignorant of these facts but nevertheless joining this discussion in the way you have. One of the key things I pick up from Naipul's writing is that he looked down on his own kith and kin - there is no denying that he wrote wonderfully and that he has produced a prodigious body of work - I go back to what I said in my first comment - separate the boot licker from his work.
Naipaul is a native of Trinidad- that is where his anti-Indian (and anti-African) worldview comes from. Sad that Oxford could not potty train him better
The truth is not anti anything. There is ample evidences, including his novels, non-fictions and interviews that he had a deep love and passion for India. I would even submit that his understanding and analysis of India is unparalleled. He undoubtably is the ideologue of modern India, and you see the new awakening, a society in flash eager to assert
@@TridivBorah-nh4un Shouting racial slurs over trivial incidents is, however. Naipaul’s constant bullying of hotel staff, secretaries, students and other people not in a position to answer him back suggests a deep-seated cowardice. Beating his mistress for pleasure and cheating on his wife with prostitutes for decades was even more loathsome. I wonder how someone fancies this defensible behaviour.
@@jonharrison9222 compared to what? I mean do you judge his person life or his writing? If you judge his life is it merely his life and then everything else we ignore? The times. The nations who practiced every sort of horrors? Why do we judge individuals harshly and then ignore nations? VS Naipaul's personal life might be horrid but then we cannot be cowards and not judge the world around him. Lets judge everyone and everything with one standard.
I travelled in India for six months after I read 'A House for Mr. Biswas'. It changed me.
Hate to burst your bubble but Mr. Biswas was based on Naipaul's dad. The setting was Trinidad (Not India)
A house for mr biswas change you ? Nice but the story is based on his dad in TRINIDAD not india
Excellent questions and answers.
I bought his book 'A house for mr Biswas'. And I began with it.
This is the first time I've heard him speak.
Isn’t he Wonderful?
@@jb8408 Better than his writing i would say
4:45 “The better the writer the more he sinks into his material..”
Insightful and based AF
I love his line, "A writer reveals herself in her writing". He's not talking about being queer, but about putting yourself in other peoples shoes.
Thanks for sharing this. It’s an interesting interview with a very thoughtful man. I wish more people viewed Anglo-Indian relations in a similar way to V. S. Naipaul. British India had its failures, but it also had its successes. Kartar Lalvani’s book ‘India: The Untold Story of British Enterprise’ is worth a read if anyone is interested in British India. 🇬🇧🇮🇳
Thanks, seems interesting will check it.
Careful how you spell words. They detract from the beauty of your message.
*its
@@fc1984fc Thanks for the advice. I assume you’re referring to my use of “it’s” and “its”? I’m always making that mistake! I think I’ve corrected it now. 👍🏻
@@Maggikhor963 Thanks! I’ve corrected it now.
Brilliant stuff.
You don't interview Naipaul, Naipaul interviews you.
This is Sad
The Chinese and Japanese have outpaced India by a significant distance over the last 50 years - neither of these countries had to be colonized to have railways - or for that matter democracy, justice, truth and air conditioning in some form. It is sad to hear such obsequiousness from a distinguished writer - I suppose one needs to separate the art from the boot licking writer.
Thanks for the comment. Indeed, you make a very good observation in 'I suppose one needs to separate the art from the boot licking writer.' He had his flaws as a professional, both in the colonial prejudices, and in his constant use of provocation as a means to gaining limelight. But the art stands on its own.
Just because he has a different conclusion, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a boot licker; it's also possible for him to be just wrong.
@@KSNDXFW534D3FW3 Naipul was an intelligent person - I am sure he used his intelligence to reach his stupid colonial conclusions.
It is a fact that Indian GDP was just below 30% of world GDP and Britain was around 2 -> 3% when the colonial project started - at the time of Indian independence Britain was at 30% and India was at around 2% of world GDP due to the trillions repatriated to the mother country.
Each mile of rail line cost the Indian tax payer 200% of what it cost to build in Birmingham - nothing was given for free!!.
The colonies (primarily India) supplied approximately 3 and a half million people to fight and support Britain in the First World War - including the munitions - pack horse mules - uniforms - and the food that was diverted from India into the British stockpiles at the time of the Second World War by Churchill that led directly to the Bengal famine where 3 -> 4 million Indians starved to death - Churchills response to the Bengal Famine was to call the Indians "a beastly race that should not breed like rabbits" and ask "Why isn't Gandhi dead yet?" - etc. etc. debts and wrongs that Britain has never acknowledged or repaid - in-fact Churchills past actions and views are never discussed as part of the history curriculum in British or Indian schools - without the colonial effort the mother tongue of the British would be German today.
Naipul fails to mention any of the above when he talks of the benevolence that Britain bestowed upon India and the colonies - neither for that matter do the British - lest the inconvenient evil acts of the colonial period pollute their picture of munificence - I could go on but I will stop here - shame on you for being ignorant of these facts but nevertheless joining this discussion in the way you have.
One of the key things I pick up from Naipul's writing is that he looked down on his own kith and kin - there is no denying that he wrote wonderfully and that he has produced a prodigious body of work - I go back to what I said in my first comment - separate the boot licker from his work.
@@MoMo-vi3go Britain's great increase in wealth during the 18th Century was due to industrialisation not imperialism...
Naipaul is a native of Trinidad- that is where his anti-Indian (and anti-African) worldview comes from. Sad that Oxford could not potty train him better
He's entitled to his own opinions. I'd say he knew those places far better than those sanctimoniously criticising him.
The truth is not anti anything. There is ample evidences, including his novels, non-fictions and interviews that he had a deep love and passion for India. I would even submit that his understanding and analysis of India is unparalleled. He undoubtably is the ideologue of modern India, and you see the new awakening, a society in flash eager to assert
@@TridivBorah-nh4un
Shouting racial slurs over trivial incidents is, however.
Naipaul’s constant bullying of hotel staff, secretaries, students and other people not in a position to answer him back suggests a deep-seated cowardice.
Beating his mistress for pleasure and cheating on his wife with prostitutes for decades was even more loathsome. I wonder how someone fancies this defensible behaviour.
@user-xo9ig8kc3u And people are entitled to criticize him.
@@jonharrison9222 compared to what? I mean do you judge his person life or his writing? If you judge his life is it merely his life and then everything else we ignore? The times. The nations who practiced every sort of horrors? Why do we judge individuals harshly and then ignore nations? VS Naipaul's personal life might be horrid but then we cannot be cowards and not judge the world around him. Lets judge everyone and everything with one standard.