NEW ADDITIONS -AN EXCLUSIVE PACKAGE FOR REVISION IN 12 ...PLS SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO TO NEW READERS........To read notes on a particular topic ,type the word(s) in the seach page window on the LHS OR GO TO THE INDEXED BLOG LINK IS AVAILABLE ON THE RHS.Happy blogging to all.PLS SEND YOUR ARTICLES TO 12000 views on the two days before the first term exam on 21/08 /2017.Proud to be part of a useful project.updated as on 1/12/2017;DEAR READERS ,ALL THE BEST FOR A COOL EXAM IN 12 ENGLISH-18/03/2018 - CKR

Sunday, July 26, 2015



1. What is a “horegallu”? What is its purpose?
2. What are the special memories the author associates with “horegallu”?
3. How does the grandfather refresh the travellers?
4. Is “horegallu” essential in a journey? Why?
5. “Horegallu” gives everyone the opportunity to regain their strength. What does the author try to indicate here?
6. Bring out the symbolic significance of the word “burden”.
7. Comment on the expression “infectious cheerfulness.”
8. What does Ratna do during lunch hours?
9. What is Ratna’s simplistic outlook?
10. The author wishes there were many more of “horegallus” in the world. Comment.

A Speech for India against Colonialism

Shashi Tharoor debating for the motion that Britain owes India reparations.SCRIPT BELOW>>>>>>
*can be used to introduce THEN GANDHI CAME-PLUS ONE ENGLISH
for more speeches like this click
Madam President and gentlemen, ladies of the house
I standing here with eight minutes in my hands in this venerable and rather magnificent institution, I was going to assure you that I belong to the Henry VIII School of public speaking - that as Henry VIII said to his wives 'I shall not keep you long'. But now finding myself the seventh speaker out of eight in what must already seem a rather long evening to you I rather feel like Henry VIII's the last wife. I know more or less of what expected of me but I am not sure how to do it any differently.
''എട്ടു മിനിറ്റാണ് എനിക്കു സംസാരിക്കാൻ തന്നിരിക്കുന്നത്. ‘ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ പബ്ലിക് സ്പീക്കിങ് സ്കൂളി’ൽ പെട്ടയാളാണു ഞാൻ. ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ ഭാര്യമാരോടു പറഞ്ഞതുപോലെ ‘ ഞാൻ നിങ്ങളെ കൂടുതൽ സമയം ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടിക്കില്ല’– (സദസ്സിൽ നിന്നു നിറഞ്ഞ കയ്യടി. ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ രാജാവ് ആറു തവണ വിവാഹം കഴിച്ചിരുന്നു.) ഏഴാമത്തെ പ്രസംഗകനാണ് ഞാൻ. ഞാനിപ്പോൾ എന്നെ കാണുന്നത് ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമന്റെ അവസാനത്തെ ഭാര്യയെപ്പോലെയാണ്. നിങ്ങൾ എന്നിൽ നിന്നു പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നതെന്താണെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയാം. അത് വ്യത്യസ്തയോടെ ചെയ്യാനാവുമോ എന്നെനിക്കുറപ്പില്ല.
ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഇന്ത്യയിലെത്തിയപ്പോൾ ലോക സമ്പദ്‌വ്യവസ്ഥയിൽ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പങ്ക് 23 ശതമാനമായിരുന്നു. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ പോയപ്പോഴേക്കും അത് നാലു ശതമാനത്തിൽ കുറവായി. ഇന്ത്യയെ കൊള്ളയടിച്ചത് ഉപയോഗിച്ചാണ് രണ്ടു നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേറെ കാലം കൊണ്ട് ബ്രിട്ടൻ വളർന്നത്. ബ്രിട്ടനിലെ വ്യവസായവൽക്കരണം ഉണ്ടായത് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ വ്യവസായ നശീകരണത്തിൽ നിന്നാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാരുടെ കാര്യം തന്നെ എടുക്കാം. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ വരും മുൻപ് മസ്‌ലിൻ പോലെ മികച്ച തുണി ഉൽപാദിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നവരാണ് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാർ. ലോകമെങ്ങും പ്രശസ്തി നേടിയവർ. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ എത്തി അവരുടെ കൈകൾ തല്ലിയൊടിച്ചു, തറികൾ തകർത്തു, നികുതികൾ ഏർപ്പെടുത്തി, അസംസ്കൃത വസ്തുക്കൾ ബ്രിട്ടനിലേക്കു കടത്തി. അവിടെ നിന്ന് ലോകമെമ്പാടും തുണി കയറ്റിയയച്ചു. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാർ പിച്ചക്കാരായി. ലോക വ്യാപാരത്തിൽ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പങ്ക് 27 ശതമാനത്തിൽ നിന്ന് രണ്ടു ശതമാനത്തിൽ താഴെ കുറഞ്ഞു. അതേസമയം റോബർട്ട് ക്ലൈവിനെപ്പോലെയുളള കൊളോണിയലിസ്റ്റുകൾ ഹിന്ദിയിലെ ലൂട്ട് എന്ന വാക്ക് അവരുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തെപ്പോലെ തന്നെ ഇംഗ്ലിഷ് നിഘണ്ടുവിലേക്കു കൊണ്ടുപോയി (കയ്യടി). ക്ലൈവ് ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ എന്നു ബ്രിട്ടൻ വിളിച്ചു. ഇന്ത്യ മുഴുവൻ അയാളുടെയാണെന്ന പോലെ. (കയ്യടി). 19–ാം നൂറ്റാണ്ട് കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോഴേക്കും ഇന്ത്യ ബ്രിട്ടന്റെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ കറവപ്പശുവായി മാറിയിരുന്നു. ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഉണ്ടാക്കിവിടുന്ന സാധനങ്ങൾ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ വാങ്ങുന്ന രാജ്യം, ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർക്ക് നല്ല ശമ്പളമുള്ള ജോലി ലഭിക്കുന്ന രാജ്യം. ഞങ്ങളെ അടിച്ചമർത്തിയതിന് ഞങ്ങൾ അങ്ങോട്ടു പണം കൊടുക്കേണ്ടിവന്നു. ( for more in the post completely)

Perhaps what I should do is really try and pay attention to the arguments that have advanced by the Opposition today. We had for example Sir Richard Ottaway suggesting - challenging the very idea that it could be argued that the economic situation of the colonies was actually worsened by the experience of British colonialism.
Well I stand to offer you the Indian example, Sir Richard. India share of the world economy when Britain arrived on it's shores was 23 per cent, by the time the British left it was down to below 4 per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain.
Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by it's depredations in India. In fact Britain's industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India.
The handloom weaver's for example famed across the world whose products were exported around the world, Britain came right in. There were actually these weaver's making fine muslin as light as woven wear, it was said, and Britain came right in, smashed their thumbs, broke their looms, imposed tariffs and duties on their cloth and products and started, of course, taking their raw material from India and shipping back manufactured cloth flooding the world's markets with what became the products of the dark and satanic mills of the Victoria in England
That meant that the weavers in India became beggars and India went from being a world famous exporter of finished cloth into an importer when from having 27 per cent of the world trade to less than 2 per cent.
Meanwhile, colonialists like Robert Clive brought their rotten boroughs in England on the proceeds of their loot in India while taking the Hindi word loot into their dictionary as well as their habits.
And the British had the gall to call him Clive of India as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to ensure that much of the country belonged to him.
By the end of 19th century, the fact is that India was already Britain's biggest cash cow, the world's biggest purchaser of British goods and exports and the source for highly paid employment for British civil servants. We literally paid for our own oppression. And as has been pointed out, the worthy British Victorian families that made their money out of the slave economy, one fifth of the elites of the wealthy class in Britain in 19th century owed their money to transporting 3 million Africans across the waters. And in fact in 1833 when slavery was abolished and what happened was a compensation of 20 million pounds was paid not as reparations to those who had lost their lives or who had suffered or been oppressed by slavery but to those who had lost their property.
I was struck by the fact that your Wi-Fi password at this Union commemorates the name of Mr Gladstone - the great liberal hero. Well, I am very sorry his family was one of those who benefited from this compensation.
Staying with India between 15-29 million Indians died of starvation in British induced famines. The most famous example was, of course, was the great Bengal famine during the World War II when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill deliberately as a matter of written policy proceeded to divert essential supplies from civilians in Bengal to sturdy tummies and Europeans as reserve stockpiles.
He said that the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks' - Churchill's actual quote. And when conscious stricken British officials wrote to him pointing out that people were dying because of this decision, he peevishly wrote in the margins of file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?"
So, all notions that the British were trying to do their colonial enterprise out of enlightened despotism to try and bring the benefits of colonialism and civilisation to the benighted. Even I am sorry - Churchill's conduct in 1943 is simply one example of many that gave light to this myth.
As others have said on the proposition - violence and racism were the reality of the colonial experience. And no wonder that the sun never set on the British empire because even god couldn’t trust the English in the dark.
Let me take the World War I as a very concrete example since the first speaker Mr. Lee suggested these couldn't be quantified. Let me quantify World War I for you. Again I am sorry from an Indian perspective as others have spoken abut the countries. One-sixth of all the British forces that fought in the war were Indian - 54 000 Indians actually lost their lives in that war, 65 000 were wounded and another 4000 remained missing or in prison.
Indian taxpayers had to cough up a 100 million pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition, 6,00,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war. I know all this because the commemoration of the centenary has just taken place.
But not just that, India had to supply 173,000 animals 370 million tonnes of supplies and in the end the total value of everything that was taken out of India and India by the way was suffering from recession at that time and poverty and hunger, was in today's money 8 billion pounds. You want quantification, it’s available.
World War II, it was was even worse - 2.5 million Indians in uniform. I won't believe it to the point but Britain's total war debt of 3 billion pounds in 1945 money, 1.25 billion was owed to India and never actually paid.
Somebody mentioned Scotland, well the fact is that colonialism actually cemented your union with Scotland. The Scots had actually tried to send colonies out before 1707, they had all failed, I am sorry to say. But, then of course, came union and India was available and there you had a disproportionate employment of Scots, I am sorry but Mr Mckinsey had to speak after me, engaged in this colonial enterprise as soldiers, as merchants, as agents, as employees and their earnings from India is what brought prosperity to Scotland, even pulled Scotland out of poverty.
Now that India is no longer there, no wonder the bonds are loosening. Now we have heard other arguments on this side and there has been a mention of railways. Well let me tell you first of all as my colleague the Jamaican High Commissioner has pointed out, the railways and roads were really built to serve British interests and not those of the local people but I might add that many countries have built railways and roads without having had to be colonalised in order to do so.
They were designed to carry raw materials from the hinterland into the ports to be shipped to Britain. And the fact is that the Indian or Jamaican or other colonial public - their needs were incidental. Transportation - there was no attempt made to match supply from demand from as transports, none what so ever.
Instead in fact the Indian railways were built with massive incentives offered by Britain to British investors, guaranteed out of Indian taxes paid by Indians with the result that you actually had one mile of Indian railway costing twice what it cost to built the same mile in Canada or Australia because there was so much money being paid in extravagant returns.
Britain made all the profits, controlled the technology, supplied all the equipment and absolutely all these benefits came as British private enterprise at Indian public risk. That was the railways as an accomplishment.
We are hearing about aid, I think it was Sir Richard Ottaway mentioned British aid to India. Well let me just point out that the British aid to India is about 0.4 per cent of India's GDP. The government of India actually spends more on fertiliser subsidies which might be an appropriate metaphor for that argument.
If I may point out as well that as my fellow speakers from the proposition have pointed out there have been incidents of racial violence, of loot, of massacres, of blood shed, of transportation and in India's case even one of our last Mughal emperors. Yes, may be today's Britains are not responsible for some of these reparations but the same speakers have pointed with pride to their foreign aid - you are not responsible for the people starving in Somalia but you give them aid surely the principle of reparation for what is the wrongs that have done cannot be denied.
It's been pointed out that for the example dehumanisation of Africans in the Caribbean, the massive psychological damage that has been done, the undermining of social traditions, of the property rights, of the authority structures of the societies - all in the interest of British colonialism and the fact remains that many of today's problems in these countries including the persistence and in some cases the creation of racial, of ethnic, of religious tensions were the direct result of colonialism. So there is a moral debt that needs to be paid.
Someone challenged reparations elsewhere. Well I am sorry Germany doesn't just give reparations to Israel, it also gives reparations to Poland perhaps some of the speakers here are too young to remember the dramatic picture of Charles William Brunt on his knees in the Walter Gaiter in 1970.
There are other examples, there is Italy's reparations to Libya, there is Japan's to Korea even Britain has paid reparations to the New Zealand Maoris. So it is not as if this is something that is unprecedented or unheard of that somehow opens some sort of nasty Pandora box.
No wonder professor Louis reminded us that he is from Texas. There is a wonderful expression in Texas that summarises the arguments of the opposition 'All hat and no cattle'.
Now, If I can just quickly look through the other notes that I was scribbling while they were speaking, there was a reference to democracy and rule of law. Let me say with the greatest possible respect, you cannot to be rich to oppress, enslave, kill, maim, torture people for 200 years and then celebrate the fact that they are democratic at the end of it.
We were denied democracy so we had to snatch it, seize it from you with the greatest of reluctance it was considered in India's case after 150 years of British rule and that too with limited franchise.
If I may just point out the arguments made by a couple of speakers. The first speaker Mr. Lee in particular conceded all the evil atrocities of the colonialism but essentially suggested that reparations won't really help, they won't help the right people, they would be use of propaganda tools, they will embolden people like Mr Mugabe. So, it's nice how in the old days, I am sorry to say that either people of the Caribbean used to frighten their children into behaving and sleeping by saying some Francis Drake would come up after them that was the legacy, now Mugabe will be there - the new sort of Francis Drake of our time.
The fact is very simply said, that we are not talking about reparations as a tool to empower anybody, they are a tool for you to atone, for the wrongs that have been done and I am quite prepared to accept the proposition that you can't evaluate, put a monetary sum to the kinds of horrors people have suffered. Certainly no amount of money can expedite the loss of a loved one as somebody pointed out there. You are not going to figure out the exact amount but the principle is what matters.
The fact is that to speak blithely of sacrifices on both sides as an analogy was used here - a burglar comes into your house and sacks the place but stubs his toe and you say that there was sacrifice on both sides that I am sorry to say is not an acceptable argument. The truth is that we are not arguing specifically that vast sums of money needs to be paid. The proposition before this house is the principle of owing reparations, not the fine points of how much is owed, to whom it should be paid. The question is, is there a debt, does Britain owe reparations?
As far as I am concerned, the ability to acknowledge your wrong that has been done, to simply say sorry will go a far far far longer way than some percentage of GDP in the form of aid.
What is required it seems to me is accepting the principle that reparations are owed. Personally, I will be quiet happy if it was one pound a year for the next 200 years after the last 200 years of Britain in India.
Thank you very much madam President.
Sasi Tharur-Education
Tharoor was born in London to Lily and Chandran Tharoor of Palakkad, Kerala. His father worked in various positions in London, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi, including a 25-year career (culminating as Group Advertising Manager) for The Statesman. His paternal uncle was T. Parameshwar, the founder of Readers Digest in India, through whom Tharoor is also related to the artist Anjolie Ela Menon. After his parents returned to India, Tharoor boarded at Montfort School in Yercaud (1962), subsequently moving to Bombay(now Mumbai) and studying at the Campion School (1963–68).[4] He spent his high school years at St Xavier's Collegiate in Kolkata (1969–71). He then went on to graduate with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History from St Stephen's College, Delhi,(1972–75), where his contemporaries included the politician Salman Khurshid, the documentary film-maker Rajiv Mehrotra, the quizmaster Siddhartha Basu, the novelists Amitav Ghosh, Rukun Advani and Anurag Mathur, the theatre impresario Amir Raza Husain, the editor and politicianChandan Mitra, the columnist Swapan Dasgupta, the economist and media crusader Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, the IAS officer-turned social activist Harsh Mander, the television personality Sunil Sethi, the diplomats Jayant Prasad, the World Trade Organization executive Harsh Vardhan Singh and the advertising guru Piyush Pandey.
In 1975 he moved to the United States to pursue graduate studies at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University,[5]where he obtained his MA and MALD winning the Robert B Stewart Prize for Best Student and completed his Ph.D at the age of 22. At Fletcher he also helped found and was the first Editor of the Fletcher Forum of International Affairs (now in its 35th year). He has also been awarded an honorary D.Litt by the University of Puget Sound and a Doctorate Honoris Causa in History by the University of Bucharest.[6]
Tharoor has two sons from his first marriage, both graduates of Yale University, residing in New York, Ishaan and Kanishk Tharoor. Tharoor has two sisters, Shobha Tharoor-Srinivasan, who lives in the United States, and Smita Tharoor, who is based in London.
ലണ്ടനിൽ ശശി തരൂർ നടത്തിയ 'ബ്രിട്ടീഷ് വിരുദ്ധ പ്രസംഗം'..!
''എട്ടു മിനിറ്റാണ് എനിക്കു സംസാരിക്കാൻ തന്നിരിക്കുന്നത്. ‘ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ പബ്ലിക് സ്പീക്കിങ് സ്കൂളി’ൽ പെട്ടയാളാണു ഞാൻ. ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ ഭാര്യമാരോടു പറഞ്ഞതുപോലെ ‘ ഞാൻ നിങ്ങളെ കൂടുതൽ സമയം ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടിക്കില്ല’– (സദസ്സിൽ നിന്നു നിറഞ്ഞ കയ്യടി. ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമൻ രാജാവ് ആറു തവണ വിവാഹം കഴിച്ചിരുന്നു.) ഏഴാമത്തെ പ്രസംഗകനാണ് ഞാൻ. ഞാനിപ്പോൾ എന്നെ കാണുന്നത് ഹെൻറി എട്ടാമന്റെ അവസാനത്തെ ഭാര്യയെപ്പോലെയാണ്. നിങ്ങൾ എന്നിൽ നിന്നു പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കുന്നതെന്താണെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയാം. അത് വ്യത്യസ്തയോടെ ചെയ്യാനാവുമോ എന്നെനിക്കുറപ്പില്ല.
ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഇന്ത്യയിലെത്തിയപ്പോൾ ലോക സമ്പദ്‌വ്യവസ്ഥയിൽ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പങ്ക് 23 ശതമാനമായിരുന്നു. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ പോയപ്പോഴേക്കും അത് നാലു ശതമാനത്തിൽ കുറവായി. ഇന്ത്യയെ കൊള്ളയടിച്ചത് ഉപയോഗിച്ചാണ് രണ്ടു നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേറെ കാലം കൊണ്ട് ബ്രിട്ടൻ വളർന്നത്. ബ്രിട്ടനിലെ വ്യവസായവൽക്കരണം ഉണ്ടായത് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ വ്യവസായ നശീകരണത്തിൽ നിന്നാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാരുടെ കാര്യം തന്നെ എടുക്കാം. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ വരും മുൻപ് മസ്‌ലിൻ പോലെ മികച്ച തുണി ഉൽപാദിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നവരാണ് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാർ. ലോകമെങ്ങും പ്രശസ്തി നേടിയവർ. ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ എത്തി അവരുടെ കൈകൾ തല്ലിയൊടിച്ചു, തറികൾ തകർത്തു, നികുതികൾ ഏർപ്പെടുത്തി, അസംസ്കൃത വസ്തുക്കൾ ബ്രിട്ടനിലേക്കു കടത്തി. അവിടെ നിന്ന് ലോകമെമ്പാടും തുണി കയറ്റിയയച്ചു. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നെയ്ത്തുകാർ പിച്ചക്കാരായി. ലോക വ്യാപാരത്തിൽ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പങ്ക് 27 ശതമാനത്തിൽ നിന്ന് രണ്ടു ശതമാനത്തിൽ താഴെ കുറഞ്ഞു. അതേസമയം റോബർട്ട് ക്ലൈവിനെപ്പോലെയുളള കൊളോണിയലിസ്റ്റുകൾ ഹിന്ദിയിലെ ലൂട്ട് എന്ന വാക്ക് അവരുടെ സ്വഭാവത്തെപ്പോലെ തന്നെ ഇംഗ്ലിഷ് നിഘണ്ടുവിലേക്കു കൊണ്ടുപോയി (കയ്യടി). ക്ലൈവ് ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ എന്നു ബ്രിട്ടൻ വിളിച്ചു. ഇന്ത്യ മുഴുവൻ അയാളുടെയാണെന്ന പോലെ. (കയ്യടി). 19–ാം നൂറ്റാണ്ട് കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോഴേക്കും ഇന്ത്യ ബ്രിട്ടന്റെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ കറവപ്പശുവായി മാറിയിരുന്നു. ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഉണ്ടാക്കിവിടുന്ന സാധനങ്ങൾ ഏറ്റവും കൂടുതൽ വാങ്ങുന്ന രാജ്യം, ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർക്ക് നല്ല ശമ്പളമുള്ള ജോലി ലഭിക്കുന്ന രാജ്യം. ഞങ്ങളെ അടിച്ചമർത്തിയതിന് ഞങ്ങൾ അങ്ങോട്ടു പണം കൊടുക്കേണ്ടിവന്നു.
19–ാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിന്റെ പണക്കാരായ ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാരിൽ അഞ്ചിലൊരുഭാഗം 30 ലക്ഷം ആഫ്രിക്കൻ അടിമകളെ കടത്തിയാണു പണമുണ്ടാക്കിയത്. 1833ൽ അടിമത്തം അവസാനിപ്പിച്ചപ്പോൾ 20 ദശലക്ഷം പൗണ്ടാണ് നൽകിയത്– ജീവൻ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടവർക്കുള്ള നഷ്ടപരിഹാരമായല്ല അതു നൽകിയത്, മറിച്ച് ഭൂമി നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടവർക്കാണ് അതു നൽകിയത്.
ഇന്ത്യയെക്കുറിച്ചു പറയാം. പതിനഞ്ചു ദശലക്ഷത്തിനും 20 ദശലക്ഷത്തിനും ഇടയിൽ ഇന്ത്യക്കാർ ബ്രിട്ടിഷ് ഭരണകാലത്തു പട്ടിണി മൂലം മരിച്ചു. രണ്ടാം ലോകമഹായുദ്ധകാലത്ത് നാലു ദശലക്ഷം പേർ പട്ടിണി മൂലം മരിച്ച ബംഗാൾ ഏറ്റവും നല്ല ഉദാഹരണം. ബംഗാളിലെ ജനങ്ങൾക്കു കിട്ടേണ്ട ഭക്ഷണം മനപ്പൂർവം നൽകാതെ, ബ്രിട്ടനു ഭാവിയിൽ ഉപയോഗിക്കാൻ മാറ്റിവച്ചത് വിൻസ്റ്റൻ ചർച്ചിലാണ്. ഇതു ശരിയല്ലെന്നു ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ തന്നെ ചർച്ചിലിനോടു ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടിയപ്പോൾ ചർച്ചിൽ ഫയലിന്റെ മാർജിനിൽ എഴുതി–‘‘എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഇതുവരെ ഗാന്ധിജി മരിക്കാത്തത്?’’ 1943ൽ ചർച്ചിൽ ചെയ്തത് ഒരു ഉദാഹരണം മാത്രം. എത്രയോ ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാർ ഇന്ത്യയോട് അതേ രീതിയിൽ പെരുമാറി. ബ്രിട്ടിഷ് സാമ്രാജ്യത്തിൽ സൂര്യനസ്തമിക്കാതിരുന്നതിൽ അദ്ഭുതമില്ല. കാരണം, ദൈവത്തിനു പോലും ഇരുട്ടത്ത് ബ്രിട്ടിഷുകാരെ വിശ്വാസമില്ലായിരുന്നു (കയ്യടി). ഒന്നാം ലോകമഹായുദ്ധത്തിന്റെ കാര്യമെടുക്കാം. ബ്രിട്ടിഷ് സൈന്യത്തിൽ യുദ്ധം ചെയ്തവരിൽ ആറിലൊരു ഭാഗം ഇന്ത്യക്കാരായിരുന്നു. 54,000 ഇന്ത്യക്കാർക്ക് ആ യുദ്ധത്തിൽ ജീവൻ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു. 65,000 ഇന്ത്യക്കാർക്കു പരുക്കേറ്റു. 4000 ഇന്ത്യക്കാരെ കാണാതാവുകയോ അവർ ജയിലിലടയ്ക്കപ്പെടുകയോ ചെയ്തു. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ നികുതിദായകർ 100 ദശലക്ഷം പൗണ്ട് (അക്കാലത്തെ മൂല്യം) നികുതിയടയ്ക്കേണ്ടിവന്നു. ഇന്ത്യ ആറു ലക്ഷം തോക്കുകൾ നൽകി, 40 ദശലക്ഷം വസ്ത്രങ്ങൾ ഇന്ത്യയിൽ നിർമിച്ചു തയ്ച്ച് പുറത്തേക്കു കൊണ്ടുപോയി. ഇന്ത്യയിൽ നിന്ന് അക്കാലത്തു കൊണ്ടുപോയ വസ്തുക്കളുടെ മൂല്യം ഇന്നത്തെ മൂല്യമനുസരിച്ചു കണക്കാക്കിയാൽ 800 കോടി പൗണ്ട് ആണ്. ഇന്ത്യ പട്ടിണി അനുഭവിക്കുന്ന സമയത്തായിരുന്നു ഇതെന്ന് ഓർക്കണം.
രണ്ടാം ലോക മഹായുദ്ധകാലത്തെക്കുറിച്ചു പറയാം. അത് കൂടുതൽ മോശമാണ്. 25 ലക്ഷം ഇന്ത്യക്കാരാണ് ബ്രിട്ടനുവേണ്ടി പൊരുതിയത്. 1945ലെ ബ്രിട്ടന്റെ യുദ്ധക്കടം 300 കോടി പൗണ്ട് ആയിരുന്നു. അതിൽ 125 കോടി പൗണ്ട് ഇന്ത്യയുടേതാണ്. ഈ പണം ഇതുവരെ തിരിച്ചുതന്നിട്ടില്ല.
സ്കോട്‌ലൻഡിനെപ്പറ്റി ഇവിടെയാരോ പറഞ്ഞു. കോളനിവൽക്കരണമാണ് സ്കോട്‌ലൻഡുമായുള്ള നിങ്ങളുടെ ബന്ധം അരക്കിട്ടുറപ്പിച്ചത്. ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ഇഷ്ടം പോലെ സ്കോട്‌ലൻഡുകാർക്കു ജോലി കിട്ടുമെന്ന നില വന്നു. കച്ചവടക്കാരായും സൈനികരായും ഏജന്റുമാരായുമൊക്കെ ഇഷ്ടം പോലെ ജോലി. ഇത് സ്കോട്‌ലൻഡിനെ പട്ടിണിയിൽ നിന്നു കരകയറ്റി. ഇപ്പോൾ അതിന് ഇന്ത്യയില്ലല്ലോ. എല്ലുകൾ അയഞ്ഞുതുടങ്ങുന്നതിൽ അദ്ഭുതമില്ല. (സദസിൽ നിന്നു ചിരി).
റയിൽവേയെപ്പറ്റി ആരോ ഇവിടെ പറഞ്ഞു. ബ്രിട്ടനുവേണ്ടിയാണ് റയിൽവേയും റോഡും ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതെന്ന് ജമൈക്കൻ ഹൈമ്മിഷനർ പറഞ്ഞല്ലോ. ബ്രിട്ടനിലെ നിക്ഷേപകർക്ക് വലിയ ലാഭം ഉറപ്പുകൊടുത്താണ് ഇന്ത്യയിൽ റയിൽവേ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്. ഇന്ത്യയിൽ നിന്നുള്ള നികുതിയിൽ നിന്ന് വൻ ലാഭം ബ്രിട്ടൻ അവർക്ക് ഉറപ്പുകൊടുത്തു. അതുകൊണ്ട് എന്തുണ്ടായി? കാനഡയിലോ ഓസ്ട്രേലിയയിലോ ഒരു മൈൽ റയിൽവേ ലൈൻ ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതിന്റെ ഇരട്ടി തുക ചെലവാക്കിയാണ് ഇന്ത്യയിൽ ഒരു മൈൽ റയിൽവേ ലൈൻ നിർമിച്ചത്. കൂടുതൽ പണം നിക്ഷേപകർ തന്നതിനാലാണിത്. ലാഭമെല്ലാം ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഉണ്ടാക്കി.
ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്ക് ബ്രിട്ടൻ നൽകിയ ധനസഹായത്തെപ്പറ്റി ഒരാൾ പറഞ്ഞു. ഇന്ത്യയുടെ മൊത്ത ആഭ്യന്തര ഉത്പാദനത്തിന്റെ 0.4 % മാത്രമാണ് ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്കു നൽകിയ ധനസഹായം. ഇതിൽ കൂടുതൽ ഇന്ത്യൻ സർക്കാർ വളം സബ്സിഡിയായി നൽകുന്നുണ്ട് (സദസിൽ നിന്നു ചിരി).
ബ്രിട്ടിഷ് കോളനികളായിരുന്ന രാജ്യങ്ങളിലെ ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ പല പ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്കും കാരണം കോളനിവാഴ്ചയാണ്. രാജ്യങ്ങൾക്കു നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകിയ ചരിത്രമുണ്ടോ എന്നൊരാൾ ചോദിച്ചു. ഇസ്രയേൽ, പോളണ്ട് തുടങ്ങിയ രാജ്യങ്ങൾക്കു നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇറ്റലി ലിബിയയ്ക്കു നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകി. ജപ്പാൻ കൊറിയയ്ക്കു നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകി. ബ്രിട്ടനും നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകിയ ചരിത്രമുണ്ട്–ന്യൂസീലൻഡിന്. എതിർപക്ഷത്തെ വാദങ്ങളുടെ സംക്ഷിപ്തമായി ടെക്സസിലെ പ്രയോഗം എടുത്തുപറയാം– ‘ഓൾ ഹാറ്റ് ആൻഡ് നേ‌ാ കാറ്റിൽ’ (വെറും പുറംപൂച്ചു മാത്രം, കഴമ്പില്ല.)
ജനാധിപത്യത്തെപ്പറ്റി ഇപ്പോൾ നിങ്ങൾ പറയുന്നു. നിങ്ങൾ ജനങ്ങളെ കൊല്ലുകയും കൊല്ലാക്കൊല ചെയ്യുകയും ചെയ്ത് 200 വർഷം ഭരിച്ചിട്ട് അവസാനം ജനാധിപത്യം വന്നെന്നു പറഞ്ഞ് ആഘോഷിക്കുന്നു (കയ്യടി). ഞങ്ങൾക്കു ജനാധിപത്യം തന്നില്ല. ഞങ്ങൾക്കതു നിങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നു തട്ടിപ്പറിക്കേണ്ടിവന്നു.
ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്കു നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം തരണമെന്നു പറയുമ്പോൾ എത്ര തുക വേണമെന്നു തീരുമാനിക്കുക ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടാണ്. ഉണ്ടായ നഷ്ടത്തിനൊക്കെ വിലയിടാനാവില്ല. എന്നാൽ നഷ്ടപരിഹാരം നൽകുകയെന്ന തത്വമാണിവിടെ പ്രധാനം. തരാനുണ്ടെന്നു തത്വത്തിൽ സമ്മതിക്കുക. ഒരു ‘സോറി’ പറഞ്ഞാൽ അതു വലിയ കാര്യമാണ്. അടുത്ത 200 വർഷത്തേക്ക് ബ്രിട്ടൻ ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്ക് പ്രതിവർഷം നഷ്ടപരിഹാരമായി ഒരു പൗണ്ട് തരാൻ തീരുമാനിച്ചാലും ഞാൻ സന്തോഷവാനാണ്. എല്ലാവർക്കും നന്ദി.''
  1. the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged.
    "the courts required a convicted offender to make financial reparation to his victim"
    • the compensation for war damage paid by a defeated state.
      plural noun: reparations
      "the Treaty of Versailles imposed heavy reparations and restrictions on Germany"

Saturday, July 25, 2015


Title: 'AMIGO' Spanish word means friend. So it means friends like brothers, It is taken from “Stories from El Barrio' (1978) by Piri Thomas.

About the Writer: Piri Thomas (1928- 2011), spent 7 years in jail due to some criminal
activities – reflected on the teachings of his parents – started dreaming positive –
decided to use his street and prison experience to help the youth to avoid such a life of crime – travelled all over the world, giving lectures and workshops – wrote stories and poems - For him, writing became a tool to discover who he really was and to portray his Puerto Rican and African-American heritage - Thomas’s writings are all set where he grew up, in New York City. He writes about neighbourhoods that are heavily populated with Puerto Ricans and African Americans, such as Spanish Harlem and the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Thomas’s writing celebrates the strength and determination of the people in his community. - Best seller “Down These Mean Streets”, a memoir.

 Characters: Antonio Criux & Felix Vargas - Common points: –two guys of 17years old – like brothers – live in the same place, from lower East Side of Manhattan.
Physical features: Two entirely different
Antonio:- Fair, Lean, and lanky (thin and bony)

Felix:- Dark, short and Husky (big and strong)

Plot: A story of two friends who felt like brothers, Antonio Criux & Felix Vargas -best boxers of their club but only one can represent Golden Gloves Championship Tournament – a question of friendship or championship – only one winner - decide to fight but not ready to harm the other - to be friends but to fight – they split and work to get together after fight – Antonio with Aunt Lucy in the Bronx - fight their hardest in 3 rounds - equal – go out of the ring after the fight without waiting for the announcement of the name of the winner - “No matter what the decision, they knew they would always be champions to each other.”

Message: True friendship lasts for ever, even after a great fight.




The second unit mainly deals with some important qualities and principles that we should keep in our social relationship. As an individual, we should try our best to co-exist with others. It will help us reach the heights of harmony.


 Percival Wild’s play, “The Hour of Truth” is an intense psychological study on the corrupting influence of money on people. The plot of this play analyses the bad trait, ‘greed’ from different points of view. This play shows how easily people forget their morals and values before fortune. This story promotes the theme that the good get rewarded and the bad get punished.

The two main characters in this play are Robert Baldwin, the secretary of a powerful bank and his boss Mr.John Gresham, the bank President. Mr.Baldwin represents an everyday American man who works for a living. But his salary is really insufficient to support his family. All of them hold their views on morality and express hope for the American Dream. The play helps us to think positively when the bad get punished and the good get rewarded. The entire course of the play changes , when we find out that Mr. Gresham, Robert’s boss is accused of appropriating the bank’s money. This becomes a serious issue and it hurts the clients of the bank. When Mr. Gresham is arrested, we immediately lose confidence in his character. Actually Mr.Gresham was a good boss to Mr. Baldwin.

After this incident, readers lose all their love and respect towards Mr. Gresham. They also comprehend the truth how badly money can influence people. Gresham becomes aware of the seriousness of his crime. For the first time in his life, he thinks crooked ways to escape from this situation. He begs Mr.Baldwin to say three words “I don’t remember” during his examination on trial. As a reward, he offered him one hundred thousand dollars. It was really an amazing amount of money at the time of the story. It is to be noted that money changes everything except the mind of Mr.Baldwin. It’s surprising to see that even his family changes from being virtuous and respectable. They tempt him and compel him to say just those three words. Yet it is Robert who brings the hope back into the story. He goes above the temptation and and admits courageously he can not accept a bribe. Mr.Gresham was ashamed by Robert’s action.

The end of the story is positive because of Baldwin’s honesty and integrity of character. This helped him to get a better job in another bank. Mr.Gresham spread out Baldwin’s reputation as a decent and dignified man. He also realized that Robert Baldwin was really a good man. It is interesting to note that the readers become aware of the evil effects of money. Above all this play highlights the isolation, punishment, deception, frustration and the possibility of endless shame caused by money. The integrity of character makes our relationship different and that makes all the difference.


Monday, July 20, 2015

A Worksheet to Write the Review of Matchbox

A review of MATCHBOX( 12/CH1/L3)

1. Plan
2. Worksheet for group work
3. A model of a review

Realistic situations filled with action- reading letter, discovery, questioning, setting fire, dowsing ,peeking in ,pinching with

sharp words  in the kitchen, peeling potatoes make it lively.

The style of presentation giving no importance to physical features of the characters  is analytical with the format of an essay and

rich with visuals. The story enfolds like a movie with the help of word pictures and  a cleft use of conversations rich with Bengali

proverbs .The touch of humour as seen while..............................
click here to down load the file

Saturday, July 18, 2015


1.Sketch the character of Nomita. (You may analyse the sentences
given below.)
Nomita , a Spirited Character(Essay)

Nomita is a spirited character ready to fight against male supremacy and inequality. A fire starts raging inside her when she discovers that her husband has once again opened a letter addressed to her and spoiled it without even telling her about it. It was a usual letter from her mother requesting them for financial help. Her thought “Why, why, does she keep on begging like this?” tells a lot about her character. Her mother always requests them for money.Nomita does not like it. Nomita does not want her mother to be dependent on her husband.She appears proud and wants to be self-reliant .Her retort to her husband, "Stop it! What a common, vulgar man you are!" is revealing.Nomita has decided to question the ugly behavior of her husband. His explanation is that some one would have been passing her love letters secretly. It is the duty and right of the husband to stop this happening. It was more than Nomita could bear, She does not hesitate to call her husband a vulgar person when her husband doubts her integrity in a baseless manner.

The man goes on revealing his cheap thoughts , calling her a dung picker’s daughter and her mother a beggar. Nomita decides to teach him a lesson and that’s how she foolishly sets fire to her own clothes. But this frightens the man who starts running to dowse the fire to save the pride of the family.

She reaches downstairs and tries to create a discussion in the family on the uglybehavior of her husband by pointing out that their talk had been angry talk .But no one in there is wise enough to understand her. Instead every one thinks like the Mejo wife that it has been love talk all day in their cozy room. Nomita laughs at the foolishness of her relatives who know nothing about of the fire burning inside her. Nomita laughs a laugh that can bring an attractive flush to a white face. This way she controls herself and acts like a meek and obedient bride in a joint family. Even while submitting to her unfortunate destiny in the family , she is thinking about how she might be able to send her mother some money ! Happiness seems to allude her.Instead she remains emotionally upset in the story from the beginning to the end.The woman , as Ashapoorna Debi analyses, is only a matchbox. She will never get a chance to expose the cheap male supremacy of her husband in the closed structure of a joint family. She has no space to express herself. Nomita is a typical emotional Indian woman-proud,loving,kind, hardworking ,busy and energetic. But she is always treated as a commodity by the male counterpart. She has the materials within her to set off many fires against injustice,discrimination and inequality. What she lacks is the right approach. She is hissing like a snake.She speaks her mind. She flares up in anger. She acts well. But it is not enough. Emotional outbursts or meek submission are not the required responses here. A woman will have to fight it out through calm and calculated moves. It will be possible only through education and empowerment.

2.Do you think there is a set pattern for exhibiting a woman's
emotions? Is she always emotionally under stress? Justify your

3.Prepare a write-up discussing the space of women in a family.

4. How does the author substantiate the comparison between a woman and a matchbox?


Friday, July 17, 2015

Teacher Planner to discuss Match Box with full notes( 12 eng /unit 1 / L3 )

Matchbox- Summary

"Matchbox" tells the story of a married couple. The man ---------------

Teacher  Planner to discuss Match Box 

1.Introducing the text:


Points for discussion:


Discuss the quotation given at the beginning.

You may use more quotes on women. For example :

“------------------------------------ Helen Keller

“We must ---------------------------------------.”- Marie Curie

2.Read the text
4.Answers to the 14 questions given in the text......

click here to download the file

Thursday, July 16, 2015

A Comparison Between the Poems `Toys` and `Any Woman`by Smitha K, GHSS Kattoor, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur

A Comparison Between the Poems `Toys` and `Any Woman`
A reading of the poem 'Toys'definitely makes me think of the poem 'Any Woman'by Katharine Tynan. Why I feel so is because of the theme dealt within both poems and of course for some other aspects found. There are similarities as well as differences between them. For instance while analysing the theme /content, the poem 'Any Woman'projects the importance of woman/mother in a house. Thoughts strike to realise how important is her presence for a  healthy and balanced state of family. She is the pillars, keystone, roof, walls and the fire upon the hearth. 'The woman' is felt in the poem as a living energy in everything whereas in the poem 'Toys'we hear about 'the mother' who is no more. The father and the son in 'Toys'are affected in the absence of the mother. Had there been the mother alive, things would have been easier for them. It is the mother who makes a house a home. In that sense, both poems are two ways of praising motherhood.
The poem 'Any Woman' is read as a universal prayer to god while the poem 'Toys'is in the form of a complaint and confession. In 'Any Woman'the mother/woman is the persona/speaker whereas in 'Toys'it is the father figure. The woman in 'Any Woman'suffers for the sake of her loving ones. She does never complain. But the father in 'Toys'finds it hard without his son's mother. If we see a patient woman accepting all pains silently in 'Any Woman', in 'Toys'we see a man weeping out of extreme grief /pain. He is rather impatient  and struggles to deal with situations. It makes one wonder how can a man be so emotional! Both poems have biblical allusions. For example we have the picture of Holy Mother laying little Jesus in manger in 'Any Woman'. And in 'Toys', numbers six and seven mentioned, the idea of man's creation out of clay, the indication of merciful creator God/Father. Even though 'Toys'praises the unconditional love and care of God/Universal Father, it deals with the conditional or changing love of man/father. But in 'Any Woman'the love and protective powers of woman/mother is unconditional and it is even equal to that of God.
There are concrete images coming in both poems. 'Any Woman'contains visual (the hearth, the house), and tactile (heat and cold) images. 'Toys'contains visual (lashes, blue bells...),auditory (spoke, sobbing), and kinesthetic (dismissed- the related movement in poem) images. Analysing the rhyme scheme 'Any Woman'follows  abab pattern except for the first stanza. But 'Toys'sets an irregular pattern.
To sum up the analysis, 'Any Woman'thinks of the possible ways of treating emotions in a very controlled way whereas 'Toys'tries to liberate emotions.

-Prepared by Smitha K, GHSS Kattoor, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Tagore’s wall is something abstract, not a physical structure- Sreekanth C ; HSST;GHSS KAMBALLUR ( 12 ENGLISH / UNIT 2 / L1 )


Certain guide writers have already misinterpreted the wall !

 Sreekanth C makes a study on that part of Gitanjali .

A study on the extract from Gitanjali-SREEKANTH C,HSST,GHSS KAMBALLUR

Like Frost’s “Mending Wall”, Tagore’s Gitanjali too speaks about a wall. However, the Tagore’s wall is not a physical structure which separates one’s property from that of others. It is, on the contrary, something abstract—for instance, one’s prejudices, false notions, pretentions, and self-images—which
can function like a barrier against understanding oneself. It restricts.....

click here for the file

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Comparing the two poems-ANY WOMAN AND THE TOYS(UNIT1/L2)




Wednesday, July 8, 2015


THE TALE OF A STAR-a poem by NAYANA GOVIND based on Any Woman

Every one says I am a star,
The sky is so high above me,
But I,the star, is so low
Bound in the four walls of the house.

A star is free there ,upon the sky !
I am also free,the laws say !
But chained is I am by traditions.
How can they say I am a star
That twinkles high upon the sky !

I also twinkle ,nowhere else
Within the four walls of my house .
The kitchen is ,perhaps, my sky !

As promised,we are uploading a power point presentation on A REVIEW-ANY WOMAN,

Tuesday, July 7, 2015



Let us appreciate


  for this presentation.

We also thank Delta Thrissur for contributing this resource.-CKR

Monday, July 6, 2015

comfort zone meaning

comfort zone(from The 3 L s of Empowerment )
  1. a situation where one feels safe or at ease.
    "the trip is an attempt to take the students out of their comfort zone"
    • a settled method of working that requires little effort and yields only barely acceptable results.
      "if you stay within your comfort zone you will never improve"

    • from wikipaedia

    • The comfort zone is a psychological state in which a person feels familiar, at ease, in control and experiences low anxiety and stress. In the zone a steady level of performance is possible.[1]
      Bardwick defines the term as "a behavioral state where a person operates in an anxiety-neutral position."[2] Brown describes it as "Where our uncertainty, scarcity and vulnerability are minimized — where we believe we’ll have access to enough love, food, talent, time, admiration. Where we feel we have some control."[3]

      Performance management[edit]

      Stepping out of the comfort zone raises anxiety and generates a stress response. This results in an enhanced level of concentration and focus.
      White (2009) refers to the "optimal performance zone", in which performance can be enhanced by some amount of stress.[4] Yerkes (1907) who reported, "Anxiety improves performance until a certain optimum level of arousal has been reached. Beyond that point, performance deteriorates as higher levels of anxiety are attained."[5] Beyond the optimum performance zone, lies the "danger zone" in which performance declines rapidly under the influence of greater anxiety.
      Optimal performance management requires maximizing time in the optimum performance zone.

Friday, July 3, 2015





“Mending Wall”
Robert Frost
“Mending Wall” is written by Robert Frost, the most admired and highly honoured American poet of the 20th century who was famous for his depictions of rural life in New England. He was noted for his command of colloquial speech and his realistic poems portraying ordinary people in everyday situations. His major collections of poetry include: North of Boston, A Boy’s Will, Steeple Bush, In the Clearing, etc. “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”, “The Road Not Taken”, “Birches”, and “Mending wall” are some of the most anthologized poems in English literature.
Central idea of the poem
Frost’s “Mending Wall” raises the question whether a wall or barrier of any kind is necessary to make good neighbours. The poet presents two contrasting views in the poem through two persons- the speaker and his tradition-bound neighbour. The speaker is quite suspicious about the necessity of the wall between his and his neighbour’s properties. He begins by saying that there is something nameless in nature which by its mysterious workings tears down walls. Hunters, in search of rabbits, too destroy walls. He says that he has followed these hunters and mended the wall quite often. Still, at spring mending time, there appears gaps in the wall puzzlingly. Though he informs his neighbour and takes part in the mending of the wall, he questions the necessity of such a wall between their properties. He makes several arguments to convince his neighbour: they have no cows to trespass on to another’s land and destroy the crops. He also remarks that the apple trees of his orchard will never get across and eat his neighbour’s pine cones. Though the open-minded speaker tries to persuade his neighbour that the wall is quite unnecessary, the latter sticks to the traditional view that “Good fences make good neighbours”. We get the impression that the speaker’s neighbour is an orthodox person who lives in ignorance (“moves in darkness”) and who is unwilling to examine the traditional views of his previous generation. (“He will not go behind his father’s saying”).
Symbolic meaning of the poem
A significant feature of Frost’s poem is its ability to produce diverse levels of meaning, some of which are contradictory. To say that Frost, the poet, is with the speaker or the neighbour is crude reductionism. Frost, here, presents a situation drawn from everyday life of a common man and looks at it from different angles. Literally, the poem is about the process of mending a wall and two different attitudes towards it, represented by the speaker and his neighbour. But symbolically, the poem is about mending human relationships, the qualities needed to live harmoniously in a society, etc. Some of the possible meanings are the following:
Ø  The speaker and his neighbour hold totally different views about the wall, the latter holds the traditional view that walls and fences are needed to make good neighbours, whereas the former is doubtful about it. In spite of their contrasting views, they are willing to work together, and co-operate. Through the example of the speaker and his neighbour, the poet stresses the need for co-operation for a society to be harmonious.
Ø  The term “Wall” may signify “barrier” or “restriction”. The original purpose of a wall is to prevent somebody or something from entering one’s property. However, here, interestingly, it is the wall or more precisely, the annual repairing of the wall, is what brings the speaker and neighbour together. The poet leaves several textual clues as to it. [For instance, if the speaker is against the wall, why does he inform his neighbour that the wall needs repair!] We can say that for the speaker, repairing the wall becomes “RE-PAIRING” (meeting again) with his neighbour.
Ø  Though the speaker co-operates with his neighbour, he registers his difference. Through the example of the neighbour, the poet emphasizes the need for re-examining some of the traditional views which are held to be true always.
Ø  The speaker is more interested in the “process” of mending the wall than in the wall itself. For the speaker, it is like an “outdoor game”, meaning that he derives pleasure out of it. Whereas for his neighbour, it is a “necessity” dictated by tradition. It seems that he does not enjoy it. It is simply a “work” for him.
Poetic devices
Alliteration: Alliteration is the repetition of consonant sounds. The opening line of the poem, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall”, is an example. Here, the initial sounds /s, t, d, l/ and /l/ are all consonants. (In this line, the "t," or "th," sound in "there" and "that" is repeated.-moderator)Other examples:  “We keep the wall between us as we go”.
Simile: Simile is a comparison of two things using words like – like and as. In the second stanza of the poem, the speaker compares his neighbour to a caveman: His neighbour appears “like an old-stone savage armed”
Hyperbole: The term hyperbole means an “over-statement”. The speaker, in order to convince his neighbour that the wall is unnecessary, remarks: “My apple trees will never get across/ And eat the cones under his pines . . .”
Symbol: The poet uses many symbols in “Mending Wall”. The prominent among them is the wall itself. The wall is symbolic of barrier, or confinement. It is not merely a physical structure. Anything that limit free human activity can be called a wall. Hence, walls can be invisible too. For instance, laws and regulations. Another symbol is “darkness”. The speaker says that his neighbour “. . . moves in darkness as it seems to me, / Not of woods only and shade of trees”. Here “darkness” means ignorance or blind subservience to tradition.
Ø  The poet uses simple and clear language.
Ø  He does not use any archaic or difficult expressions.
Ø  He employs colloquial style, typical of the common language of the ordinary people.
Ø  His use of hyphenated expressions (for example, “frozen-ground-swell”) create vivid visual imageries.
The poem is written in two stanzas of Blank Verse. It is a stanza of unrhymed iambic pentameter. The first stanza presents the situation: the annual repairing of the wall. Through two persons—the speaker and his neighbour—the poet explores two attitudes towards it.

Frost’s “Mending Wall” is one of the most studied poems in American literature. Though written in simple straightforward language, the poem has multi-levels of meanings. The ability to produce such multifarious/diverse meanings is a clear mark of genius. It teaches us the need for co-operation for a society to be harmonious. It, at the same time, urges us to question the traditional notions which are held to be universally true and applicable to all.