random rant on the transformation of contemporary indian culture
i wrote this all down really fast, so forgive any spelling or logical inconsistencies. just getting this out of my system.
things which i find maddening about the english language indian media:
1. the consistent reference by numerous editorialists and journalists to thomas freidman. as if he was some sort of great intellectual authority or reference point.
2. the use of the term ‘international’ as a code word for globalization and the reference to indianness as being ‘ethnic’ or being ‘narrow in outlook.’ that is, to be indian is to be provincial. numerous movie stars talk about “going international” and not being “restricted” to the indian film industry. these same terms are applied to clothing, education, and language. no one seems to criticize or question that ‘international culture’ is centered around europe-america and that this cultural exchange is not a two way street. we are adopting their customs, but are they adopting ours? no! and don’t quote yoga or ravi shankar to me, that is a very superficial and different type of adoption.
3. the idea that ‘indian personalities’ lack something. that they are too shy, not outgoing or creative enough. why is this not questioned, why don’t people see that this is just what call centers and multinationals want--not something that is somehow intrinsically good? there is nothing actually deficient in 'the indian personality.' i remember when i had come back three years ago, everyone was starting to talk about how the software-outsourcing boom was going to peak soon because indians didn't have enough 'personality.' they had the technical know-how but not the creativity and mental flexibility required to sustain growth. now, the papers and women's magazines are full of advertisements for "personality development" classes and the benefit of being more 'outgoing.' doesn't anyone see this connection?
4. the idea that indian consumers being brand conscious is a mark of cultural sophistication. why is brand culture never questioned? and for the record, i want all indian people to know that "lee," "wrangler," and "honors" are off-brands in the US, brands that poor people buy at discount department stores like target or k-mart. they are not luxury symbols that have their own special stores. a few weeks ago i read this horrendous column by some faux-environmentalist who was writing about how he loved wearing gucci, and how he didn't think such luxuries were conflicting with a "green" politics. then, two weeks later, there was some hack spiritual leader talking about how he also loved wearing gucci and that it was totally possible to be spiritual and enjoy luxurious living.
5. the reference to india’s pre-colonial ideas on sexuality and eroticism in a throroughly liberal-western manner. “india is the land of the kama sutra, live it up!” wtf, that is such a misinterpretation of the past that i can't even start to write about it. everyone blames british victorians, and sometimes zealous muslims, for why indians are "repressed." but the truth is, this "repression" is a long and deeply entrenched part of hinduism as well. no one ever acknowledges this--conservatives or liberals.
6. the attempt to transform deepavali into some sort of consumer holiday to rival christmas. the columns and features on how ‘everyone’ is sending boxed chocolates for deepavali now, and how sweets are overrated. that is simply not true, i don’t even know where to buy these so called chocolates. and who is this ‘everyone’?
7. the consistent barrage of information about paris hilton. what is this obsession and why is she so interesting to people in india?
8. the consistent reference to american cultural and psychological research as if it were universal and equally applicable or relevant to india. see: special interest stories like “is chivalry dead” and gender dynamics-what a guy wants, etc. that are obvi cut and pasted out of the new york times.
9. the consistent reference to sex and the city as some modern standard of womanhood.
10. the random promotion of cargo pants as ‘in.’ they’re only in because they’ve gone out of style in the west and I’m sure that some enterprising businessmen here, or some NRIs, have bought the old machines that made them and started pumping them out here.
11. the ridiculous and inappropriate use of outdated American slang.
12. this really goes under ‘international’ vs ‘ethnic’ but the complete erasure of cultural difference between an indian and a european. as if a modern indian is fundamentally the same as a european with no significant differences in cultural conditioning.
power dynamics in india are just so obvious and unsophisticated. i mean i know that papers have their own opinions and slants everywhere, but this is just ridiculous. i feel like these papers are a parody of bourgeois, BPO, and multinational corporate interests-as if someone was being over the top in order to make his point. except these articles are totally genuine! why do people not see that these papers are just pumping out product placements, and trying to create desires for unnecessary or subpar things through the vehicle of ‘novelty?’ i am not a marxist but, seriously, this is just ridiculous. it’s like, being here, all sorts of political axioms have been made PAINFULLY visible.
there is that idea, that once a party is in power it will do anything to stay in power. that politicians are not really tied to any ideology, the only thing that they are attached to is getting and staying in power. i always felt that was a little too cynical…but no. this is no where more clear than the bjp’s recent attempt to draw in muslims [hello, it started out as a hindu nationalist group!] and the communist party’s attack on medha patkar at nandigram [hello, they should be supporting the people like her!]. or the domination of coastal telugus in ALL political parties [Congress, TDP, Communist, BJP, etc] and the effects this has had on the telangana movement. and since when has chandrababu naidu cared about farmers and getting them rice subsidies? and why even rice, why not weaving or corn or sugar subsidies, which are struggling even more? and wtf is up with the TTD’s vanavasi kalyanam program? this is not even a subtle way of introducing people into brahmanism, it is just blasting it into everyone’s face. WTF. WTF. WTF.
its not that i have some essentialist idea of indianness. i moved past that a long time ago. its not a big deal that people wear cargo pants and eat chocolate. but these discussions in the paper are just so uncritically accepting of these new economic and cultural developments. i worry that india is losing herself and it makes me sad.
things which i find maddening about the english language indian media:
1. the consistent reference by numerous editorialists and journalists to thomas freidman. as if he was some sort of great intellectual authority or reference point.
2. the use of the term ‘international’ as a code word for globalization and the reference to indianness as being ‘ethnic’ or being ‘narrow in outlook.’ that is, to be indian is to be provincial. numerous movie stars talk about “going international” and not being “restricted” to the indian film industry. these same terms are applied to clothing, education, and language. no one seems to criticize or question that ‘international culture’ is centered around europe-america and that this cultural exchange is not a two way street. we are adopting their customs, but are they adopting ours? no! and don’t quote yoga or ravi shankar to me, that is a very superficial and different type of adoption.
3. the idea that ‘indian personalities’ lack something. that they are too shy, not outgoing or creative enough. why is this not questioned, why don’t people see that this is just what call centers and multinationals want--not something that is somehow intrinsically good? there is nothing actually deficient in 'the indian personality.' i remember when i had come back three years ago, everyone was starting to talk about how the software-outsourcing boom was going to peak soon because indians didn't have enough 'personality.' they had the technical know-how but not the creativity and mental flexibility required to sustain growth. now, the papers and women's magazines are full of advertisements for "personality development" classes and the benefit of being more 'outgoing.' doesn't anyone see this connection?
4. the idea that indian consumers being brand conscious is a mark of cultural sophistication. why is brand culture never questioned? and for the record, i want all indian people to know that "lee," "wrangler," and "honors" are off-brands in the US, brands that poor people buy at discount department stores like target or k-mart. they are not luxury symbols that have their own special stores. a few weeks ago i read this horrendous column by some faux-environmentalist who was writing about how he loved wearing gucci, and how he didn't think such luxuries were conflicting with a "green" politics. then, two weeks later, there was some hack spiritual leader talking about how he also loved wearing gucci and that it was totally possible to be spiritual and enjoy luxurious living.
5. the reference to india’s pre-colonial ideas on sexuality and eroticism in a throroughly liberal-western manner. “india is the land of the kama sutra, live it up!” wtf, that is such a misinterpretation of the past that i can't even start to write about it. everyone blames british victorians, and sometimes zealous muslims, for why indians are "repressed." but the truth is, this "repression" is a long and deeply entrenched part of hinduism as well. no one ever acknowledges this--conservatives or liberals.
6. the attempt to transform deepavali into some sort of consumer holiday to rival christmas. the columns and features on how ‘everyone’ is sending boxed chocolates for deepavali now, and how sweets are overrated. that is simply not true, i don’t even know where to buy these so called chocolates. and who is this ‘everyone’?
7. the consistent barrage of information about paris hilton. what is this obsession and why is she so interesting to people in india?
8. the consistent reference to american cultural and psychological research as if it were universal and equally applicable or relevant to india. see: special interest stories like “is chivalry dead” and gender dynamics-what a guy wants, etc. that are obvi cut and pasted out of the new york times.
9. the consistent reference to sex and the city as some modern standard of womanhood.
10. the random promotion of cargo pants as ‘in.’ they’re only in because they’ve gone out of style in the west and I’m sure that some enterprising businessmen here, or some NRIs, have bought the old machines that made them and started pumping them out here.
11. the ridiculous and inappropriate use of outdated American slang.
12. this really goes under ‘international’ vs ‘ethnic’ but the complete erasure of cultural difference between an indian and a european. as if a modern indian is fundamentally the same as a european with no significant differences in cultural conditioning.
power dynamics in india are just so obvious and unsophisticated. i mean i know that papers have their own opinions and slants everywhere, but this is just ridiculous. i feel like these papers are a parody of bourgeois, BPO, and multinational corporate interests-as if someone was being over the top in order to make his point. except these articles are totally genuine! why do people not see that these papers are just pumping out product placements, and trying to create desires for unnecessary or subpar things through the vehicle of ‘novelty?’ i am not a marxist but, seriously, this is just ridiculous. it’s like, being here, all sorts of political axioms have been made PAINFULLY visible.
there is that idea, that once a party is in power it will do anything to stay in power. that politicians are not really tied to any ideology, the only thing that they are attached to is getting and staying in power. i always felt that was a little too cynical…but no. this is no where more clear than the bjp’s recent attempt to draw in muslims [hello, it started out as a hindu nationalist group!] and the communist party’s attack on medha patkar at nandigram [hello, they should be supporting the people like her!]. or the domination of coastal telugus in ALL political parties [Congress, TDP, Communist, BJP, etc] and the effects this has had on the telangana movement. and since when has chandrababu naidu cared about farmers and getting them rice subsidies? and why even rice, why not weaving or corn or sugar subsidies, which are struggling even more? and wtf is up with the TTD’s vanavasi kalyanam program? this is not even a subtle way of introducing people into brahmanism, it is just blasting it into everyone’s face. WTF. WTF. WTF.
its not that i have some essentialist idea of indianness. i moved past that a long time ago. its not a big deal that people wear cargo pants and eat chocolate. but these discussions in the paper are just so uncritically accepting of these new economic and cultural developments. i worry that india is losing herself and it makes me sad.