You are going to block this site. This will do the following:
- You will no longer see this site in searches.
- Site will no longer see your site in searches.
- Site will not be able to comment on your site profile.
- Any comments this site has posted to your profile will not be displayed.
Are you sure you want to do this?
The criticism falls flat. Adiga is by no means the first Indian writer to talk about corruption in India (Upamanyu Chatterjee comes to mind on top of my head) and everyone knows about it anyway. What do they want him to write, propaganda?
It seemed to me that criticisms were based on national pride, or questioning events in the book based on specific knowledge and experience. I thought the book captured the problem of how the poor overcome their traditional and systemic disadvantages. Balram's example is extreme, but Adiga is writing satire, and the extremity of his actions highlights the difficulty of social and economic mobility.
I haven't been to India, but I witnessed poverty in the Philippines years ago with people living on the streets, even communities of people living along rail lines, having to dodge trains when they came through. That's what I thought of as I read this book.
And yes, the question of corruption seems evident. But because this book won the Booker, there are obviously a bunch of reviews out there with a wide range of opinions, as I suggested.
Yup, and the Indian government is very sensitive to criticism. National pride, whilst no doubt useful in some ways, should not be misused to gloss over issues. Anyway, sounds like an interesting read.