Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sriram information
Sriram information
Sriram information
Sriram information
Sriram information
Sriram information
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Sriram information


Published on

Published in: Education, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Munshi PremchandMunshi Premchand (Born July 31, 1880– Died October 8, 1936) was a famous Hindi Novelist andStory writer of modern Hindi-Urdu literature.Premchand was born on July 31, 1880 in the village Lamhi, near Varanasi. His Fathers name wasMunshi Ajaib Lal, who was a clerk in the post office, and his mothers name was Anandi. She was ahousewife.His childhood name was Dhanpat Rai ("master of wealth") while his uncle, Shree Mahabir, a richlandowner, used to call him Nawab (Prince). His early education was at a local madarsa (a muslimschool) under a maulvi, where Premchand studied Urdu. Premchands parents died in his young age- his mother died when he was seven and his father also died while he was sixteen or seventeenand was still a student. now only he was left responsible for his stepmother and step-siblings.Premchand was married early, at the age of fifteen, to a girl from a neighboring village but themarriage was completely a failure and, when he left the village in 1899, the girl returned to hervillage. Several years later, in the year 1906, in response to an advertisement in a local paper from aman who wanted to marry off his child-widow daughter, Premchand married a second time toShivrani Devi. She was a decent lady.Now we should talk about Premchands Writing. The main beauty of Premchands writings is hisinteresting story-telling and use of a very simple language. His novels presents the problems of therural peasant classes very Handsomely. Premchand avoided the use of highly Sanskritized Hindi (asit was the common practice in those days among Popular Hindi writers), but rather he used thedialect of the common people (the aam aadmi of India).Example of His Writing :"Maasik vetan to purnamasi ka chand hai.......Upri aay behta hua srot hai jisse sadev pyas bujhti hai..........Ladkiyan hai ki ghaas foos ki tarah badhti jaati hai.......main to kagare ka vriksh hun jaane kab gir padoon. -"Namak ka Daroga" (Premchand)He wrote about 300 short stories and several novels(Upanyas) as well as manyessays(Nibandh) and letters(Patra). He also wrote some great plays(Naatak) and did sometranslations(Anuvaad). Later, Many of Premchands stories have been translated into English andRussian Languages.Famous stories of Munshi Premchand (Unordered List):IIdgaahBoodhi KakiBade Ghar ki BetiIshvariy NyayDo Belon ki katha
  • 2. Panch ParmeshwarKafanNamak ka DarogaPoos ki RaatBade BabuGodaan , His last novel, is considered one of the finest Hindi novels of all time.The protagonist, Hori,is a poor peasant, and desperately longs for a cow, a symbol of wealth and prestige in the ruralIndia. The story of godaan depicts the human beings deep-rooted beliefs, and their ability to surviveand uphold these beliefs despite great misery.Eureopean writerJulio Cortázar > Quotes > Quotable Quote“All European writers are „slaves of their baptism,‟ if I may paraphrase Rimbaud; like it or not, theirwriting carries baggage from an immense and almost frightening tradition; they accept that traditionor they fight against it, it inhabits them, it is their familiar and their succubus. Why write, ifeverything has, in a way, already been said? Gide observed sardonically that since nobody listened,everything has to be said again, yet a suspicion of guilt and superfluity leads the European
  • 3. intellectual to the most extreme refinements of his trade and tools, the only way to avoid paths toomuch traveled. Thus the enthusiasm that greets novelties, the uproar when a writer has succeeded ingiving substance to a new slice of the invisible; merely recall symbolism, surrealism, the „nouveauroman‟: finally something truly new that neither Ronsard, nor Stendahl , nor Proust imagined. For amoment we can put aside our guilt; even the epigones begin too believe they are doing somethingnew. Afterwards, slowly, they begin to feel European again and each writer still has his albatrossaround his neck.”LOUDSPEAKERHARI KUNZRU: ADDRESS TO THE EUROPEAN WRITERS PARLIAMENTAuthor Editorial teamPosted on 11 March 2011This is the first of what will become regular cross-posts from international writers or journals with similar political or aestheticsensibilities to Overland.Over the last few years, the Overland blog has built a small but flourishing community of writers debating politics and culturefrom a largely Australian perspective. The new cross-posts aim to build on those discussions, and forge some links withlikeminded people overseas. Hari Kunzru is the author of the novels The Impressionist (2002), Transmission (2004) and MyRevolutions (2007), as well as a short story collection,Noise (2006). His work has been translated into twenty-one languages andwon him prizes including the Somerset Maugham award, the Betty Trask prize of the Society of Authors and a British BookAward. In 2003Granta named him one of its twenty best young British novelists. Lire magazine named him one of its 50‘écrivains pour demain’. He is Deputy President of English PEN, a patron of the Refugee Council and a member of the editorialboard of Mute magazine. His short stories and journalism have appeared in diverse publications including The New York
  • 4. Times, Guardian, New Yorker, Washington Post, Times of India, Wired and New Statesman. His fourth novel, Gods Without Men,will be published in August 2011. He lives in New York City.25 November 2010What are we doing here?I’ve been imagining other parliaments, parallel to this one – parliaments of doctors firemen and painters – dedicated to discussingthe European problems proper to their professions. Perhaps I’m missing the point. If such events aren’t being organised then it isbecause we, as writers, are expected to fulfil a function that doctors and firemen and painters cannot.You have accepted this invitation, presumably because like me, and you have a particular sense of the role of the writer. I don’tbelieve the writer is merely an entertainer, though we certainly shouldn’t be above entertainment, above giving pleasure. Nor arewe just journalists, recorders of the doings of the world, or apolitical bohemians, dedicated to aesthetic shock. We may be any ofthese things, but this is not all we are. As lovers of language, as people who are dedicated to it and who value it very highly, weare – whether we like it or not – always already engaged in the political struggles of our day, many of which take place on theterrain of language – its use to produce social and national identity, its use to frame laws and norms, its use to define what itmeans to be a human, to lead a good or just or valuable life.There’s a saying that culture is something that is done to us, but art is something we do to culture. We’re here in the 2010 City ofCulture – an accolade it seems slightly superfluous to bestow on Istanbul, which is so visibly the product of millennia ofEuropean civilization. But we should be here to do something to culture, to set some terms for the future. There are many thingswe could spend the next few days discussing but I’d like to propose three areas where I think we can do useful work.The first is in what I would call the space of literature. New technologies of communication and distribution of information havealready changed the space in which we, as writers, live and work. The transnational networks are now the place in which wemake our writing, where we research, where our work is archived and where we reach our readers. They are not, it goes withoutsaying, a natural space, but one whose protocols and conventions are set – by engineers, by administrators, and by the companieswho own the infrastructure and make the equipment we use to access it. It’s already the case that without access to the internet,people are denied participation in much of world culture. I think the production of this new space is too important to be left toengineers, administrators and corporate executives. We, as writers ought to help set the terms. Of those three groups, our naturalallies are the engineers. We should be talking to them. What kind of information space do we, as writers, want to occupy? Wheredo we want to live and work? What values should be embedded in that space, what protections, what sanctions?Issues such as net neutrality (the equality of all information traffic), censorship, data collection, personal privacy, and the lack ofa persistent archive are of great importance to us. But there are two major tendencies emerging, both of which are having aprofound impact.The first is the emergence of open and collaborative ways of producing and sharing information. The highest profile example ofthis is Wikipedia. We should support an ethic of openness. However, in this world of sharing and infinite reproducibility, thevalue of our labor is being driven down
  • 5. Boris Kelly on 11 March 2011 at 4.53 pm said:Thanks Hari for agreeing to be the first of our international guest posts on the Overland blog.A few weeks ago I was asked by the Overland editors to go forth, beyond our virtual shores and findwriting that spoke to the interests and concerns of our readers. I chose Hari’s address to the EuropeanWriters’ Parliament because it raises a number of important challenges facing writers all aroundthe world.There is so much to comment on in the address but I was especially struck by Hari’s first two points.The notion of a ‘space of literature’ is a powerful one underpinned as it is by the velocity and scope ofinformation technology. Hari’s points out that…the production of this new space is too important to be left to engineers, administrators and corporateexecutives. We, as writers ought to help set the terms. Of those three groups, our natural allies are theengineers. We should be talking to them. What kind of information space do we, as writers, want tooccupy? Where do we want to live and work? What values should be embedded in that space, whatprotections, what sanctions?In the light of internet kill switch deployments, corporate collaboration in the shutting down of freespeech (e.g. Amazon, PayPal in the Wikileaks case) and, yes, the mooted internet filter here in Australia,writers need to be vigilant in their protection of a democratic, open space for writing; a kind of virtualTahrir Square in which technology is used to promote rather than control debate, intellectual exchangeand collaboration. Indeed, this space should not be left to governments and corporate business to dictatehow it should be used and by whom.The second point of particular interest to me in Hari’s address is related to the first. The ‘privatisation ofpublic space’ leads to an undervaluing of the work of the writer. Witness the recent sale of the HuffingtonPost, a publication dependent in large part on a swarm of underpaid writers who have certainly addedvalue to the company by providing content but leave empty handed when the boss flogs the company.Indeed, what is the value of the writer’s work? In particular, how do we balance commercial imperativeswith the urgency of the times and the role we have to play in creating a viable future? How do we putwriters at the centre of the global publishing business model? Or do we desert it and find new ways ofowning the process of distribution?