> The media just this week faithfully informed me about Aishwarya Rai's > extra pounds, Eduardo Saverin's supposed tax dodge and Tendulkar's > upper house entry complications. I don't see too much time spent on > the poor and marginalized.
Oh the media doesn't spend time on most "important" things either. Like our soldiers dying in Kashmir or people being killed mercilessly by the same maoists that Ms. Roy glorifies, or the travails of people in the north east, or in general anything that is less than sensational. That is a worldwide phenomenon, though in India there seems to be a much greater apathy than elsewhere (just saying). We sometimes don't care about the rich either - going by the lack of outrage against the new IT rules or whatever it is that Sibal-saab brought about; there are just not enough Indians that give a rat's ass. I would still say Roy and Sainath are just shrill, and just too blinkered. They also often ignore (or maliciously omit?) statistics that work against their theories, which is just as bad as the government. > The year 1857 holds special importance for all Indians, the year India > fought back, the year when 2000 Indians were killed for every British > officer killed, and yet when you search online for '1857 massacre' the > more cited and quoted reports are about a Mormon massacre in USA > involving about 120 dead. The rich have always written history. Interestingly, a friend from the UK told me that when he went around looking for material (in Bangalore bookstores etc.) about the "1857 mutiny", he didn't get much until he found it was called the "the first Indian war of independence" or "uprising" such. It was not what he was taught in the UK, so the whole narrative came as a surprise. The 1857 revolution is second on the google list of "1857 massacre". But it wasn't just one massacre, was it - it was more a revolt, a rebellion, a struggle for freedom etc. That brings in a lot more google results, but it doesn't prove that history was written by the poor :)
