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.
5 comments:
Mahesh,
Finally one that I can understand!! Commenting on the issue- well , as a people- have you seen us? We are reared with 'humility' in mind and even if anyone is proud of their assets and lol, decides to talk about them- then it is the shame of the society. And not just about wealth- it could be any of one's strengths. We live in artifice all the time- sometimes living in deceit even to ourselves. Honestly- I think we are a very arrogant people but we love to mask it by humility. Of course, there are hardly any overwhelming reasons for either. Reasons- it could be the socialist conditioning combined with the silly notions of 'rich heritage' that we have. Sheer nonsense
Unfortunately didnt read the article - but to marginalise Abhinav Bindra's glory and extreme hard work, by implying that it only takes money and training to win a gold at the Olympics - ha ha!!
While I agree with the 1st paragraph on Abhinav Bindra, the rest of the post does not measure up to the standards set in the earlier ones.
Is to correct to equate being rich & willing to flaunt your wealth with having good taste & sartorial sense? Jyoti Basu (not my favourite politician), a London educated Barrister, is reportedly fond of the good things in life (scotch, etc.) and, a communist to boot. Where does that place him?
Also the suggestion that ‘only’ north Indian’s live well or aspire to do so, is a little bewildering. Are we recommending an overtly ostentatious lifestyle? Ditto for Pakistani society – is that a role model?
Articles say India is a key market for luxury brand marketers from across the world and, conspicuous consumption is on the rise. It goes to show that the younger generation is shedding quite a few of the inhibitions & double standards mentioned in this post. Such change is welcome.
Similarly in the business sense, profit is no longer a dirty word (except maybe for Comrade Karat & his ilk). People today recognise the contributions of wealth creators in our society. People like N.R.Narayanamurthy (Infosys), Ratan Tata and, Subroto Bagchi (Mindtree) are a few that come to mind immediately, in this context.
I guess it’s a personal preference but I would like to believe that people with good taste do not necessarily have to resort to flaunting their wealth and, an overtly ostentatious lifestyle. Humility is not necessarily a sign of weakness.
Blame it on my South-Indian-ness, but there is something definitely endearing and appealing in a lack of ostentation. Having said that, its a matter of personal choice :) Mumbai may worship money, but by and large this translates into a professional approach to work, and not unscrupulousness.
There is a reason why excessive display of affluence may not be appropriate in a country that houses more than 1/3rd of the world's poor.
Are we 'uncomfortable with affluence' - I am unable make out if the article came to this conclusion or is it an inference you drew after reading it.
Firstly, this assessment of our 'national character' sounds hollow. Secondly, the flow of verbiage in favour of this inference seems to have submerged any logic it carried.
No question that the 'logic' proffered in the article (as explained)sounds ludicrous.
Without prejudice to AB's ancestry or achievement, one has to concede that he was fortunate enough to be able to provide for his own training - and his achievement owes little to public(govt) support.
Historically, this land has lured, invaders with tales of its riches, and traders high on the mercantilist spirit, with its commerce. The rulers of this land -be it the Nizams, Nawabs, Rajputs or the imperial Moghuls - were known(atleast reputed) to be amongst the richest in the world.
Even, under the oppressive rule of The Raj, we not only had a loaded zamindari but an educated elite, ensconsed in their private estates and comfortable in their western accoutrements, aping all the trivial dissipations of the day & age. And for sure, the Tata's and the Birla's didnot gain fair renown for their austere lifestyles. None were coy about their wealth or status in society.
[Further, your comment on Nehru, only exhibits the same expedient brashness, which one finds in the exhortations of all ill-informed Nehru detractors of the present generation.(Toeing the Gandhian line is an over simplification of their relationship - and lets not forget that even in doing so, he gave up more than just his western outfits. Apart from finding time for his amorous dalliances, he also managed to spend over ten years in British gaols, produce a monumental work defining and celebrating the heritage of this nation, deliver a democratic constitution to a newly independent nation - he did however forget to nationalise banks!)...his first two five year plans were quite a contrast to the Gandhian vision of economic development.]
As for Gandhi, can we forget his legendary friendship with GD Birla or JL Bajaj or even the numerous mill owners of Ahmedabad who supported his ashram ?
The spinning of cotton and donning of khadi had a practical and symbolic value for the freedom fighters (swadeshi) - and continues to do so for our current leaders - of all hues.
Imagine Rahul campaigning in UP in a Saville Row suit ? The other malt maven, Vajpayee (certainly no socialist) in anything other than a dhoti-kurta addressing a rally in Gwalior ?
The rate at which we are producing millionaires per annum currently certainly doesnt betray any covert or overt sense of embarrassment about our love for money!
cheers
P.S: You perhaps should meditate on the reasons for the stereotyping / time warped image of the rich (manipulative, exploitative, unscrupulous) - the answer may lie in the distant history of all developed capitalist nations - it will have a long chapter on the excesses of unbridled capitalism and the ruthless crushing power of unfettered capital, especially its impact on labour markets. Without denying that it perhaps is the only working model left for us to follow, one must not forget that even the most ardent advocates of capitalism cannot deny and it doesnt operate in its purest form in any country and every developed economy carries a lot of the 'socialist' baggage till date.
I agree with Sab's comments. Pakistani society is a role model for none and you seem unclear on whether you are referring to "comfort with affluence" or ostentation. The logic behind your post is weak and it appears your post is borne out of a dislike for the columnist in question and little else.
As an aside Vajpayee is a known rum drinker (and no "malt maven") and Ratan Tata lived in a 3-bedroom apartment and drove a Tata Sierra till a few years ago.
Without therefore getting into Aditya's own ignorance or "flow of verbiage" (if you didnt notice, his "comment" longer than your post), am tempted to ask if you went to school together.
Am curious since his comment is littered with (needlessly) strong adjectives which tend to be reserved for those who one strongly dislikes or envies, typically from one's childhood.
Good luck to both of you!
Post a Comment