Last weekend, the Times of India carried a column by a well-known and saucy columnist who rather harshly credited Abhinav Bindra’s gold medal almost entirely to his wealthy ancestry. Give the same private facilities to an impoverished young man and he too would dish out a medal (since a rich man cannot be talented) seemed to be the suggestion. I do not even wish to argue with this warped piece of logic (the columnist still goes on to sell more works of fiction in India than any other writer) but the column ended up articulating something that characterizes us. As a nation, we are still uncomfortable with affluence. The rich are supposed to be manipulative, exploiters of the labour class and generally unscrupulous. Be it social debates or bollywood, in the rich v/s poor battle the rich man is always evil. Have you seen maids running away with the driver and the “maalkin’s” jewels in Hindi movies? Don’t we all know of at least one household which has suffered a similar saga? Despite all the economic progress we have made, we have not shed the conscientious compulsions of being overtly socialist.
In stark contrast, I found our separated-at-birth neighbours being fairly comfortable with the fact that their former President would perhaps spend the rest of his life in an abode which facilitates his love for golf, cigars and whisky. The person who is likely to succeed him is an affluent businessman and the widower of one of the largest land-owning families of the country. He shares power with a former prime minister who too was a reigning industrial czar before he took to governance. If you look closely, apart from the hypocrisy of prohibition, Pakistan is a lot more comfortable with the good life than we are. Some say, it is largely a nation of “north Indians” and hence, living well or aspiring to do so is part of the DNA. Could it have something to do with the fact that Pakistan’s founder Jinnah loved the good life himself and brazenly so? There perhaps lies the answer to our double standards.
Our first prime minister too was a man who was more comfortable in the social company of Edwina Mountbatten but had to toe the Gandhian line for political survival. Hence, there was a constant balancing act between having your clothes dry-cleaned in London and nationalizing banks. The burden of carrying on the Gandhian legacy ensured we were socialists not just in our government policies but also in personal lives , at least the overt part. One is yet to see pictures of Netas with whisky glasses even though most politicians that I have met have an enviable private bar. We still insist that the kurta-pyjama is our “national dress” and business tycoons shed their Saville Row suits with remarkable ease when they take to politics (Vijay Mallya is an honourable exception but you can attribute it to his being un-ambitious in Politics). Rajiv Gandhi bucked the trend a bit with his Gucci/Cartier wardrobe making it to national publications but his family seems to be shying away from carrying the sartorial legacy forward.
We are firmly on the path of economic development, the odd GDP growth rate hiccups notwithstanding. We are making progress because we have embraced an open economy and shed some socialist baggage (but for the odd Singrur) . It is time we accepted some of the beneficiaries of capitalism for what they have accomplished. Currently we insist on painting them with a tarnished brush simply because one has to conform to a certain stereotype.