Sunday, August 02, 2009

A link and some rambling

Nothing to blog about as such, so back to linking. I just read Rana Dasgupta's excellent piece in the new Granta about India's market elite. It's a vivid, wide-ranging (and very scary) portrait of unbridled consumerism in the post-liberalisation years. Too many good passages to quote but here's a favourite:
MC tells me how he hates America.

‘Why should Wal-Mart come in here? I don’t mind Gucci and Louis Vuitton – they do nothing to disturb the social fabric. But keep Wal-Mart out of here. We were under slavery for seven hundred fucking years. We’ve only been free for sixty. Give us another thirty and we will buy Wal-Mart. I tell you, I was at a party the other day and I had my arms round two white people and I suddenly pushed them away and said, Why are you here? We don’t need you guys any more.’

Twenty-eight years old, well travelled and richer than most people on the planet, MC’s resentment towards white people is unexpectedly intense. I ask him how the world would be different if it were run by Indians.

‘It will be more spiritual,’ he says. But then he thinks for a moment and says, ‘No. It will be exactly the same.’
There are also engaging discussions with Tarun Tejpal and others. At one point, Tarun observes that "Hinduism is very pliable. It rationalizes inequality: if that guy is poor it’s because he deserves it from his previous lives, and it’s not for me to sort out his accounts. Hinduism allows these guys to think that what they get is due to them, and they have absolutely no guilt about it".

Actually, I think other religions are just as capable of rationalising inequality, though they might do it in vaguer terms (a simple "God knows best, there's a reason for everything He does" or "We mortals aren't capable of seeing the larger picture" would suffice). But Tarun's basic point holds: there's a self-righteous smugness that comes very easily to a certain type of religious mind. It's common for such people to look at a crippled beggar or a similarly disadvantaged person and say, “Bechara, must have done something really bad in his last life” - one gets the impression that they don't appreciate how immeasurably lucky they are, how easily the situations might have been reversed, and what an appalling, unjustifiable thing inequality really is. It's a roadblock to empathy, to being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Coincidentally I touched on this in a piece I wrote a few weeks ago about the intrusiveness and hegemony of religious tradition (the context was the recent death of my nani, and how my mother and I were harried for not going to Haridwar, etc). Will post that here once it's published.

And to lighten the mood, another link: Roger Ebert on the limited usefulness (but unlimited fun) of "greatest film" lists. Some fine clips, including one from Murnau's Sunrise, and lots of good stuff in the comments.

25 comments:

  1. the Granta article seems to be a good one . Why you link to such things on Monday morning ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stop working office hours and start freelancing. That way you'll be free to read such things on Monday mornings (while working round the clock the rest of the week, including Sundays!).

    If you read the piece, take your time over it - not to be skimmed over...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting point about Hindu philosophy rationalizing inequality.

    I've always felt that, for better or worse, Hinduism is the most right-wing and individualistic of all World religions. The emphasis on the collective is much less than in Semetic scriptures.

    Also, thanks for linking up the Ebert piece. Good fun. Though I distinctly prefer favourite-film rosters over great-film lists.
    This one was refreshing though. Felt good to see "The Roaring Twenties" on it. Typically, such lists tend to overlook fun films like these in favour of more sombre heavier material. Which is why a list of a critic's guilty pleasures is always more interesting than a Sight-and-Sound list.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The point about Hinduism and rationalizing inequality is quite fascinating. I recently had the opportunity to read nirad c chaudhuri's masterpiece "autobiography of an unknown Indian".
    He makes many similar points and unfortunately is misconstrued as a sympathizer of the Brits.
    What is of endless fascination to me to me that my generation ie our generation does have a tendency to consider the west as less than equal only due to our badge of our vast and ancient history.
    While our culture heritage is immense, our generation is more akin to an adoloscent undergrad plush with excesses of first success. We do tend to underate the remainder of the world.
    I'm not saying that we are better or worse. I'm just saying that the west does have contributions to humanity which should be noted and leveraged for what it's worth.

    What was of endless fascination to me was that NCC wrote his book in early 50's. Must have taken a lot of courage to say those things then.

    Then again we do have "love aaj kal".
    Thanks for sharing this though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. sumit: thanks for the comment, I agree with most of it. I wonder about this bit though:

    NCC wrote his book in early 50's. Must have taken a lot of courage to say those things then.

    In the 1950s we had a well-loved prime minister who was publicly known to be agnostic/atheist and who wrote highly regarded books such as Discovery of India where he was very critical of organised religion and declared that he considered concepts like "revealed scripture" to be ridiculous, and even crippling for the country's development; that the true worth of myths lay in what they told us about the development of human thought rather than in their "divinity". His books were widely read, even prescribed for children.

    I doubt it would be possible today for an Indian PM or president to openly express such views (especially if they were perceived as undermining the most orthodox narrative of Hinduism in some way). When it comes to religious matters I think we're probably more intolerant today. (Leave aside books by important political heads; on my puny little blog if I write a post about how I think of the Mahabharata as a great work of literature and try to analyse/discuss it in human terms, I'm guaranteed at least five angry comments that go "Don't insult our holy book".)

    shrikanth: I also just came across a fun piece by Tim Lott, skewering some highly regarded films. Here it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Skipped my gym workout in favour of reading Rana's article in its entirity (ok truth be todl would skip on early morning workouts for almost any reasonable excuse -especially on monday morn).

    That said I must thank you for introducing me to the article. Its probably one of the more comprehensive pieces of journalism I have encountered in the Indian (i.e. Delhi) context.

    I agree with you on your points regarding 50's and today. It paints a very different perspective on the matter now that I look at it from this lens.
    However, old NCC for whats it worth, probably was a very brave man for publishing this. Either that or he figured no one would read the book. The second point is unlikely becuase he does seem like the sort of person who did enjoy being heard and acknowledged (and not in a bad sense).

    Its true though that we have become very intolerant of differing view points.

    Im actually so excited by the article that I need to take some time out, collect my thoughts and respond in a more coherent fashion.
    My apologies for rambling on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hey admin you have made a nice blog but i want to join this blog plz activate the followers login and if you want the latest updates in mobiles, games, movies, applications and many more just logon to http://mobile-stuffed.blogspot.com
    and also you can become my blog follower and i invite you to become a follower

    ReplyDelete
  8. i think the article does a huge disservice to all those people whoare trying to better their lives .... what is wrong with being successful ? thanks to nehru we have become a third world country ,, during those times there was more black money ...tarun comes across as a bitter man

    ReplyDelete
  9. @J'wock: Thanks! That piece was perhaps a touch too irreverent though!

    By the way, regarding your point on Nehru's literary success back in the 30s and 40s, I do not think that is reflective of the cultural climate back then.

    Nehru was the Mahatma's protege and heir apparent. This did help him get away with a lot of things. Since the Mahatma was perceived as "religious" and an authentic Indian, Nehru too was associated with these attributes by default. Other similar westernized leaders like Ambedkar enjoyed less political success since they lacked the support of the Mahatma.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i think the article does a huge disservice to all those people whoare trying to better their lives .... what is wrong with being successful?

    Anon: if that's all you got out of the piece - that it puts down people who are trying to better their lives - maybe you should read it again. And yes, "being successful", in the particular sense that people like Sanjeev Nanda and MC are, is definitely a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. why is mc's sucess a problem .. he hasnt broken any laws!

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not that MCs success is a problem. It's more about how they choose to live it up. I hate quoting this, but as a great philosophical treatise of our times suggests " with gret power comes greater responsibility " ( Says spiderman).
    Thekey point for me is the certain lack of civic responsibility and more simply - good manners that pushes the city into a very feudal era.
    Now I'm all for capitalism and entrepreneural smarts. But isn't there something sick about violence spawned by the size or brand of your car- surely not everyone is trying to compensate for Freudian lacks.
    What's even more distressing is the response of the anglophile educated white collar bunch. The decision to choose goa indicate how pointless they feel the situation is. And my opinion is that this crowd too stands accused of doing too little.
    In any case, I was quite thrilled with the article. Thanks for sharing it Jabberwock.
    I went ahead and picked up a copy of "Tokyo cancelled" by rana. The premise seems interesting to warrant a look.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Overall, the Granta article is interesting and very readable. Thanks for the link. That said, I thought the author hasnt done his background research adequately and made a few erroneous assumptions. For instance, his understanding of the Delhi real estate scene is flawed. I find it hard to believe that Sanjeev Nanda could have completed his MBA aged 21. His definition of "Delhi's elite" didnt quite work for me. And a whole lot of what he describes rings true for the rest of the country as much as Delhi. Frankly, the "Delhi is full of loud, boorish Punjus" is a done-to-death angle. I would love to see a journo try to get under this city's skin a bit more - multiple sub-cultures do exist in Delhi!

    ReplyDelete
  14. it's well written - but did you really find anything new that it says? there have always been excesses in delhi - as in other cities - and it seems to play up that stereotype with some engaging anecdotes and not much else. and why is tejpal acting so morose? i thought his sickmaking sycophantic open letter to sonia gandhi was evidence of new hope for india through rahul

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well written, Dasgupta's essay. But he betrays his own angrezpan as well. For eg, his lack of understanding the implication of brand preferences, esp the Honda City, spoken of by someone "elitist" left unidentified as an indicator of nobility in a prospective son in law. Brands are signifiers, but not always of the status altitudes that he alleges they are. Just as cinema preferences are. There's more to it, just as there is more to art.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ''one gets the impression that they don't appreciate how immeasurably lucky they are, how easily the situations might have been reversed, and what an appalling, unjustifiable thing inequality really is.''

    Jai, your point about religious folks hold but this does not necessarily follow. A lot of irreligious people--libertarians for example, argue that inequality of outcomes is not only acceptable but welcome. (Just ask your good pal, Amit Varma!) In fact, your allusion to luck is more in line with religious folks, as if inequality has nothing to do with drive or industriousness or a desire to excel but is simply a function of chance, is more closely aligned with religious folks than rational thought.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry, read it as,

    In fact, your allusion to luck is more in line with religious folks, as if inequality has nothing to do with drive or industriousness or a desire to excel but is simply a function of chance.

    ReplyDelete
  18. confused: I accept that this is a complex subject, and it wasn't my intention to generalise. I was just talking about insensitivity towards poor people - the ability to turn one's eyes away from their condition - and pointing out that religion provides an escape route for those who are willing to take it.

    To be honest, I didn't completely understand your comment (I'm not fully versed with the libertarian position - and am distrustful of words ending in "ian" or "ist" anyway) but I definitely wasn't claiming that "inequality has nothing to do with drive or industriousness or a desire to excel but is simply a function of chance". It has to be a mix of the two things, with the proportions varying from individual to individual.

    Finally, it's my belief that by and large it's the religious people who tend to look for patterns and fixed narratives in everything around them: making convenient sense of the world is one of the basic functions of religion to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ok making convenient sense of the world is one of its functions anyway. But for all the Karmic indifference to poverty, there is also enough within the same religion (properly understood) that should compel people to act against it. There is an Advait injunction against superimposing the artificial on reality, which should make people keen to reject false hypotheses and the manmade figments that go with them. That the poor deserve their lot is ripe for rejection intoto

    ReplyDelete
  20. But for all the Karmic indifference to poverty, there is also enough within the same religion (properly understood) that should compel people to act against it...

    Anon: true. All religions have aspects that, if properly understood, facilitate greater empathy for others: people who are different, people who are less fortunate, even other species. I only wish more religious people would focus on those aspects. Doesn't seem to happen enough.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Man - thank you, that was an excellent piece.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Man that article has redefined my own insignificance - I have almost ceased to be - mind-bending!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Reminds me of something I read just today while reading the Bhagvad Geeta, (and it is a lot more fun in context),

    "More than deliberate blasphemers of a scripture, the unconscious misinterpreters of a sacred text are the innocent criminals who bring about the wretched downfall of its philosophy."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hinduism also has something called "Shubh Labh", which means profits are auspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hinduism also has a concept called Shubh Labh, which essentially means: Profits are Auspicious.

    ReplyDelete