Murder seems to be different in different places
Ramesh Chander*
Gregory Fernandes, a Goan, was killed in Britain. He died after he was brutally attacked by a group of about 20 teenagers on October 20, 2007, while their ship was anchored at a British port. While Fernandes died, his shipmate Vinod Pitchilnaviram suffered a broken shoulder. The attack has been termed a racist attack by misguided British youth. Gregory was all of 32 years old. But have you heard of Gregory Fernandes and Vinod Pitchilnaviram? Maybe so…..Maybe not.. Maybe you may not know Gregory by name, and just might have read a passing headline in the Page 6 of an Indian newspaper about a racial attack on an Indian, and the recent criminal proceedings against his perpetrators. Do you know how Gregory looked like? Do you know his parents sufferings? Probably not.
Scarlett Keelling, a British teenager was murdered in Goa in Feb 2008. Have you heard about her? Have you seen her photos? Do you know about her lifestyle, life-history and her mother? The answer to these questions is probably a resounding “Yes!!” and you might even be ready to tell me a Scarlett trivia “But do you know that Scarlett……….”
While the Scarlett Keeling murder created a tsunami in Indian and World press, Gregory Fernandes killing hardly created a ripple. The entire World media went on an overdrive detailing every minor issue, every silly rumor about the Scarlett case. Indian media did not lag far behind, providing wall-to-wall coverage and Indian television channels followed their British counter-parts, providing around-the-clock coverage on Scarleet Keeling case. “Is Goa safe for tourists” screamed the headlines around the world and in India. Did any media in India or abroad raise the question “Is Britan safe for Goans/Indians?” after the Gregory killing. In-fact Floriano Fernandes, father of Gregory said “Even I’ve been in England but it wasn’t like this before. I felt very safe, but now it seems to be a very unsafe place, especially for Indians. How can somebody kill in such a manner?” But probably you wouldn’t have seen this statement by Greogry’s father, because it was hardly played or quoted in the Indian media. But every statement and every movement of Scarlett’s mother, Fiona MacKeown, made for a new headline, a new “Breaking News Story”.
Why the enormous difference in press coverage? It is not a case of “dog biting a man is not news, while man biting a dog is news”. Both a Briton getting killed in Goa and a Goan getting killed in Britain are equally rear/ equally frequent. I don’t buy the P.Y.T (Pretty Young Thing) argument either. Most of us don’t even know how Gregory looked like… and I am sure for his family members, Gregory must have been equally beautiful. Perhaps the mystery surrounding Scarlett’s death and her colorful lifestyle might explain some of the differences. But the enormity of the differences can only be explained by the fact that the Indian and Western media thinks it is a far greater tragedy, when there is a death of a Westerner. This case reiterates the point I had made in my earlier article regarding the “value of life”…a Western life is valued more by the global and Indian media, then the life of an Indian.
The British media coverage of Scarlett is understandable, because they value the lives of each and every one of their citizens and a loss of any life of their citizens fills them with sorrow. Whereas Indian media’s coverage of the Scarlett issue and not covering an equally brutal killings of Indians is pathetic. I hope Indian media would emulate their Western counter-parts, not by copying each and every headline from abroad, but by cherishing the lives of Indian citizens. Maybe it is time for us to write to our newspapers and TV channels and tell them to stop showcasing each and every crime and alleged crime made by Indians against Westerners. Or if they want to publish these articles, they should also publish about the crimes and alleged crimes committed by Westerners against Indians.
The crime against Scarlett in Goa was heinous. But so was the crime against Gregory was equally nefarious. An Indian life is no inferior or superior than a Western one.
* Though I have seen this happening over the last seventy years , it is worth high lighting this incident, Raja
Thoughts of a 79 year old retired Indian scientist , who is an astrologer, a translator of prayers and poems and a story teller to children.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Anil Kapoor-the unnecessary circus
Anill Kapoor- the unnecessary circus!
Ramesh Chander*
When Slumdog Millionaire won the Golden Globe awards, the MEP (Most Excited Person) in the room was also the MUP (Most Useless Person) in the movie – Mr. Anil Kapoor. He was jumping around when the movie won the award for “Best ScreenPlay”, had the biggest smile when the movie won “Best Director” and was among the first to run to the stage when the movie won the “Best Motion Picture”. The behavior was repeated in the Oscars. Someone seeing only the award ceremonies, would have assumed that Anil Kapoor had co-directed the movie or at least was the main hero of the movie.
Was Mr Anil Kapoor’s mirth due to his “role” or “excellent acting” in the movie “Slumdog Millonaire”? I thought the slum kids were the real star actors of the movie. They acted their hearts out, were very natural and deserved every praise they got and more. (In my humble opinion they perhaps should have won an Oscar too. ) Mr. Anil Kapoor’s role in the movie was pretty much comparable to Amrish Puri’s role in “Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom” A villainous role that required no special acting skills and mainly involved mumbling “one-liners”. A role that would have been handled by a “guest actor” if this was a Yash Chopra movie.
Was the happiness due to his behind-the-scenes contributions? Did he direct the movie? Did he produce it? Was he write the story? Did he score the music? Did he edit the movie? Was he involved in casting of any other actors? Did he scout the locations? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO!! His role….. just a small supporting actor. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Was the smile due to some thing that he did that bettered the country? Did he better the plight of the poor in India? No. Did he persuade the director to invest a significant amount of the 300 million dollar the movie earned for betterment of Indian slums. No. Did the movie bring about any revolution in India or move the youth? No. In-fact the Wall Street Jounrnal, the premiere business newspaper in America had an article recently about how “Slumdog Millionaire” was adversely effecting the rapidly developing “Health tourism” in India. More Americans and Europeans, who could have come to India for their health needs, are staying put with Thailand because of the image of India created by this movie. This is inspite of health costs in India being half that of Thailand and Indian doctors better qualified and better skilled than their Thai counter-parts. The very slum dwellers who perhaps could have got small jobs in the “Helath tourism” industry and lifted themselves out of the slums are being effected. Thanks you “Slumdog Millionaire”. Thank you Mr Anil Kapoor.
Now Mr. Kapoor is smiling again, bragging about his role in American serial “24”. For people who are not aware of this serial, it is an American serial where an attack against America (usually by Islamic terrorists) is thwarted by America in 24 hours. This serial had evoked loud protests by the Islamic community for its stereotypical portrayal of brown-skin, “Arab-looking”, Islamic terrorists. In-fact Sendhil Ramamurhty (an Indian- American star in the serial “Heros”) refused a role in “24” because it promotes “brown-skin terrorists” stereotype. Is Anil Kapoor the first Indian to act in American serial? No… Parminder Nagra, Sendhil Ramamurhty and Naveen Andrews play significant starring role in currently running American serials. Is he even the first Indian actor in “24”. No. A bunch of Indian actors have appeared in mainly terrorists role in the serial “24”, most notably Kal Penn (a.ka. Kalpen Modi)
Mr. Anil Kapoor, please stop wagging your tails in front of Westerners, begging for every miniscule praise and every insignificant role. You had a great acting career in Bollywood. Acting in petty and stereotypical roles in Hollywood, will neither increase your reputation nor of the country you supposedly love.
When Slumdog Millionaire won, Anil Kapoor rushed to the stage as if it was his personal achievement. Now a small role in an American serial has the actor smiling and bragging all over again. Did he really do anything significant to justify this?
* This is a blog contributed by my son. I am one who does not see much pictures but I happened to see the awards ceremony.
Ramesh Chander*
When Slumdog Millionaire won the Golden Globe awards, the MEP (Most Excited Person) in the room was also the MUP (Most Useless Person) in the movie – Mr. Anil Kapoor. He was jumping around when the movie won the award for “Best ScreenPlay”, had the biggest smile when the movie won “Best Director” and was among the first to run to the stage when the movie won the “Best Motion Picture”. The behavior was repeated in the Oscars. Someone seeing only the award ceremonies, would have assumed that Anil Kapoor had co-directed the movie or at least was the main hero of the movie.
Was Mr Anil Kapoor’s mirth due to his “role” or “excellent acting” in the movie “Slumdog Millonaire”? I thought the slum kids were the real star actors of the movie. They acted their hearts out, were very natural and deserved every praise they got and more. (In my humble opinion they perhaps should have won an Oscar too. ) Mr. Anil Kapoor’s role in the movie was pretty much comparable to Amrish Puri’s role in “Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom” A villainous role that required no special acting skills and mainly involved mumbling “one-liners”. A role that would have been handled by a “guest actor” if this was a Yash Chopra movie.
Was the happiness due to his behind-the-scenes contributions? Did he direct the movie? Did he produce it? Was he write the story? Did he score the music? Did he edit the movie? Was he involved in casting of any other actors? Did he scout the locations? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO!! His role….. just a small supporting actor. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Was the smile due to some thing that he did that bettered the country? Did he better the plight of the poor in India? No. Did he persuade the director to invest a significant amount of the 300 million dollar the movie earned for betterment of Indian slums. No. Did the movie bring about any revolution in India or move the youth? No. In-fact the Wall Street Jounrnal, the premiere business newspaper in America had an article recently about how “Slumdog Millionaire” was adversely effecting the rapidly developing “Health tourism” in India. More Americans and Europeans, who could have come to India for their health needs, are staying put with Thailand because of the image of India created by this movie. This is inspite of health costs in India being half that of Thailand and Indian doctors better qualified and better skilled than their Thai counter-parts. The very slum dwellers who perhaps could have got small jobs in the “Helath tourism” industry and lifted themselves out of the slums are being effected. Thanks you “Slumdog Millionaire”. Thank you Mr Anil Kapoor.
Now Mr. Kapoor is smiling again, bragging about his role in American serial “24”. For people who are not aware of this serial, it is an American serial where an attack against America (usually by Islamic terrorists) is thwarted by America in 24 hours. This serial had evoked loud protests by the Islamic community for its stereotypical portrayal of brown-skin, “Arab-looking”, Islamic terrorists. In-fact Sendhil Ramamurhty (an Indian- American star in the serial “Heros”) refused a role in “24” because it promotes “brown-skin terrorists” stereotype. Is Anil Kapoor the first Indian to act in American serial? No… Parminder Nagra, Sendhil Ramamurhty and Naveen Andrews play significant starring role in currently running American serials. Is he even the first Indian actor in “24”. No. A bunch of Indian actors have appeared in mainly terrorists role in the serial “24”, most notably Kal Penn (a.ka. Kalpen Modi)
Mr. Anil Kapoor, please stop wagging your tails in front of Westerners, begging for every miniscule praise and every insignificant role. You had a great acting career in Bollywood. Acting in petty and stereotypical roles in Hollywood, will neither increase your reputation nor of the country you supposedly love.
When Slumdog Millionaire won, Anil Kapoor rushed to the stage as if it was his personal achievement. Now a small role in an American serial has the actor smiling and bragging all over again. Did he really do anything significant to justify this?
* This is a blog contributed by my son. I am one who does not see much pictures but I happened to see the awards ceremony.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The feet of Rain by Thanjavur Kavi Rayar
The feet of Rain
By
Thanjavur Kavi Rayar
(Kalki 5-4-2009 )
Translated in to English
By
P.R.Ramachander
When the rain comes , suddenly with a song,,
You close all the windows of your home speedily,
And you start searching for Umbrellas
Throughout the house, in nooks and corners,
You rush here and there, if you are outside,
For a place where rain’s drizzles will not reach.
Would you do this , if your loving,
Uncles, aunts and cousins come from far off?
Would you not drench yourselves,
In the rain of their love again and again?
Rain is the symbol of the pardon,
Of God for the sins of men
People need not apply rain water and mud,
And dance in the streets , when it rains,
But please understand that the rain drop is not a ghost,
But is the feet of rain.
Hold it on your head like all the plants and trees do ,
And do not forget to get the blessings,
Of the gorgeous and godly feet of rain.
By
Thanjavur Kavi Rayar
(Kalki 5-4-2009 )
Translated in to English
By
P.R.Ramachander
When the rain comes , suddenly with a song,,
You close all the windows of your home speedily,
And you start searching for Umbrellas
Throughout the house, in nooks and corners,
You rush here and there, if you are outside,
For a place where rain’s drizzles will not reach.
Would you do this , if your loving,
Uncles, aunts and cousins come from far off?
Would you not drench yourselves,
In the rain of their love again and again?
Rain is the symbol of the pardon,
Of God for the sins of men
People need not apply rain water and mud,
And dance in the streets , when it rains,
But please understand that the rain drop is not a ghost,
But is the feet of rain.
Hold it on your head like all the plants and trees do ,
And do not forget to get the blessings,
Of the gorgeous and godly feet of rain.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I need the Pied Piper of Hamelin
I need the Pied Piper of Hamelin
By
P.R.Ramachander
I am in search of that Pied piper of Hamelin,
So that he can play his pipe in my country,
And take away to the far , flung oceans,
The politician rats who are bleeding all of us,
So that they become immensely rich,
The merchant rats who by hoarding,
All that we need and make us shed tears of misery,
The government servant rats who to become rich,
Ask and get bribes even for them to smile,
The parent rats who beget pretty kids,
But leave them with an ayah so that they fulfill their dreams,
The husband rats who drink and make merry,
With the hard earned money, only to beat their wives.
The in law rats and other husband rats,
Who drive innocent girls to death , because of avarice for money,
The way side Johnny rats , who think that they are in love,
With every pretty jane that pass through their eyes,
The villain bull rats , who think it as their right,
To rape every woman who is vulnerable,
And the terrorist rats who kill in the name of religion,
But I am not sure , once he puts them all in the sea,
Whether the ocean will become so full,
That all its waters come to the shore.?
By
P.R.Ramachander
I am in search of that Pied piper of Hamelin,
So that he can play his pipe in my country,
And take away to the far , flung oceans,
The politician rats who are bleeding all of us,
So that they become immensely rich,
The merchant rats who by hoarding,
All that we need and make us shed tears of misery,
The government servant rats who to become rich,
Ask and get bribes even for them to smile,
The parent rats who beget pretty kids,
But leave them with an ayah so that they fulfill their dreams,
The husband rats who drink and make merry,
With the hard earned money, only to beat their wives.
The in law rats and other husband rats,
Who drive innocent girls to death , because of avarice for money,
The way side Johnny rats , who think that they are in love,
With every pretty jane that pass through their eyes,
The villain bull rats , who think it as their right,
To rape every woman who is vulnerable,
And the terrorist rats who kill in the name of religion,
But I am not sure , once he puts them all in the sea,
Whether the ocean will become so full,
That all its waters come to the shore.?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The butterfly park -A poem by Maithree
The butterfly park
By
Maithree Venkatesan
(This poet is only eight years old and is my grand daughter: Raja Thatha)
I once went to a butterfly park,
And was greeted by dogs, ready to bark,
With many pretty little butterflies,
Flittering around the sky.
Two little butterflies came and sat on me,
I laughed and smiled, shining with glee.
We watched a film, which told us about butterflies,
In which I learnt how butterflies fly.
Finally it was time to go,
The butterflies said “Hi” though!
I said ‘bye” and turned around the bend,
My little trip came to an end.
By
Maithree Venkatesan
(This poet is only eight years old and is my grand daughter: Raja Thatha)
I once went to a butterfly park,
And was greeted by dogs, ready to bark,
With many pretty little butterflies,
Flittering around the sky.
Two little butterflies came and sat on me,
I laughed and smiled, shining with glee.
We watched a film, which told us about butterflies,
In which I learnt how butterflies fly.
Finally it was time to go,
The butterflies said “Hi” though!
I said ‘bye” and turned around the bend,
My little trip came to an end.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
In search of an Indian Obama?
In search of an Indian Obama?
Rameshchander
After Obama won the US presidential elections, a lot of articles heralded Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati as an Indian Obama. Obama and Mayawati have lot of things to be compared on. Let's take a dispassionate look at these
Why Mayawati is like Obama?
The obvious: Obama and Mayawati are from a historically oppressed class in their respective countries.
Well-educated: Though she may not appear so, Mayawati is pretty well educated, with multiple BAs in education and law. Obama of course is a Harvard school graduate.
Oratory skills: Obama has enormous skills to move his audiences with speeches. Mayawati, too, elicits enormous response for her speech, especially among the downtrodden.
Good press: The press in both the India and America have large leftist leanings (or at least have been widely accused to have such leanings). Many people in the press feel that by elevating Obama or Mayawati, the country is setting right, decades of wrong. This has resulted in these two candidates getting enormous amount of good coverage in the press. The press largely ignores the questionable associations and corruption charges against these candidates – like Obama’s associations with Chicago underworld and Mayawati’s many corruption charges
Policies: Both Obama’s and Mayawati’s policies fall broadly in the left of the political spectrum. Both have promised or inspired hope among the lowest rung of the society, that their life will get better by electing them as leaders. Both speak for more equitable wealth distributions.
Why Mayawati is not like Obama?
Broad appeal: Obama’s first electoral victory was in Iowa, which is among the 'Whitest' of all the American states, in terms of populace. It would be an equivalent of Mayawati winning in Mylapore or some such constituency dominated by upper class. In the election, Obama won votes not only among Blacks but substantial votes among Whites, Latinos, Asians and every possible ethnic group. His message appeals to all groups both within the country and outside the country. Mayawati still gets her votes mainly from Dalits and a few other groups and mostly in a few Northern states.
Uniting people: Though much has been made of Mayawati’s coalition of Dalits and Brahmins, what she is doing is basically dividing the Indian populace, by pitting a group of people against another. Obama never tried forming a coalition of Blacks and Whites against Latinos or such similar groups.
Polish: Obama gives a more polished appearance and speech. Mayawati is more rustic in appearance and appeal. In fact, in this regard, Mayawati’s more apt comparison will be with Sarah Palin, rather than Obama.
International exposure and knowledge: Obama has wide international exposure by means of his origin, the place he grew up, the friends he had. He has enormous knowledge about world matters, thanks to his curiosity and education. Mayawati seems to be lacking in this department, unless there is a side of her, which we haven’t seen.
Debatable points:
Intelligence: Does Mayawati have as much intelligence as the Harvard educated Obama?
Love for the country: Mayawati loves the downtrodden and people of certain castes, but does she love the entire India as much as Obama loves America?
Corruption: Though Obama has some questionable associations, he has never been accused of corruption (like the Taj corridor case of Mayawati). Of course, generally Indian politicians are more corrupt than their American counterparts. So not sure if you can hold this against Mayawati.
Overall I feel that though there are similarities between Mayawati and Obama, looking beneath the surface there are also vast differences.
Rameshchander
After Obama won the US presidential elections, a lot of articles heralded Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati as an Indian Obama. Obama and Mayawati have lot of things to be compared on. Let's take a dispassionate look at these
Why Mayawati is like Obama?
The obvious: Obama and Mayawati are from a historically oppressed class in their respective countries.
Well-educated: Though she may not appear so, Mayawati is pretty well educated, with multiple BAs in education and law. Obama of course is a Harvard school graduate.
Oratory skills: Obama has enormous skills to move his audiences with speeches. Mayawati, too, elicits enormous response for her speech, especially among the downtrodden.
Good press: The press in both the India and America have large leftist leanings (or at least have been widely accused to have such leanings). Many people in the press feel that by elevating Obama or Mayawati, the country is setting right, decades of wrong. This has resulted in these two candidates getting enormous amount of good coverage in the press. The press largely ignores the questionable associations and corruption charges against these candidates – like Obama’s associations with Chicago underworld and Mayawati’s many corruption charges
Policies: Both Obama’s and Mayawati’s policies fall broadly in the left of the political spectrum. Both have promised or inspired hope among the lowest rung of the society, that their life will get better by electing them as leaders. Both speak for more equitable wealth distributions.
Why Mayawati is not like Obama?
Broad appeal: Obama’s first electoral victory was in Iowa, which is among the 'Whitest' of all the American states, in terms of populace. It would be an equivalent of Mayawati winning in Mylapore or some such constituency dominated by upper class. In the election, Obama won votes not only among Blacks but substantial votes among Whites, Latinos, Asians and every possible ethnic group. His message appeals to all groups both within the country and outside the country. Mayawati still gets her votes mainly from Dalits and a few other groups and mostly in a few Northern states.
Uniting people: Though much has been made of Mayawati’s coalition of Dalits and Brahmins, what she is doing is basically dividing the Indian populace, by pitting a group of people against another. Obama never tried forming a coalition of Blacks and Whites against Latinos or such similar groups.
Polish: Obama gives a more polished appearance and speech. Mayawati is more rustic in appearance and appeal. In fact, in this regard, Mayawati’s more apt comparison will be with Sarah Palin, rather than Obama.
International exposure and knowledge: Obama has wide international exposure by means of his origin, the place he grew up, the friends he had. He has enormous knowledge about world matters, thanks to his curiosity and education. Mayawati seems to be lacking in this department, unless there is a side of her, which we haven’t seen.
Debatable points:
Intelligence: Does Mayawati have as much intelligence as the Harvard educated Obama?
Love for the country: Mayawati loves the downtrodden and people of certain castes, but does she love the entire India as much as Obama loves America?
Corruption: Though Obama has some questionable associations, he has never been accused of corruption (like the Taj corridor case of Mayawati). Of course, generally Indian politicians are more corrupt than their American counterparts. So not sure if you can hold this against Mayawati.
Overall I feel that though there are similarities between Mayawati and Obama, looking beneath the surface there are also vast differences.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Slumdog: There's more to India than just poverty
Slumdog: There's more to India than just poverty
By
Ramesh Chander
’SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE’ won four Golden Globes and is on the way to the Oscars. Great. The underdog with an Indian connection has won. I am one of the biggest fans of Rahman and have heard his music for the film. Then I saw the movie. ‘Slumdog’, is no underdog.
Isn’t India poor?
India is a vast and diverse country and is a statistician’s dream. Figures can be twisted anyway. But the fact is that while the poverty rate in India was 40 per cent five years back, it was 60 per cent 25 years back. A 20 per cent jump translates to approximately 200 million people breaking out of poverty line. India has a 300 million strong middle class. While it is a fact that there is still unacceptable poverty in India a clear majority in India are not extremely poor as portrayed in the movie. Still showing extreme poverty is fine. But showing Indians as bloodthirsty, child-beating, eye-plucking people is outrageous.
Aren’t Indian slums are a living hell. Danny Boyle in his interview to an Indian publication has admitted that the slums in India are teaming with industries and entrepreneurs. But in the movie the only ’industry’ he has portrayed in the slums is begging, prostitution and shooting.
When a dollar isn’t a dollar
The most commonly quoted figure to paint India as an impoverished nation is quoting Indian salary in US dollars by using the exchange rate conversion. But a dollar-a-day isn’t really dollar-a-day in India; it is Rs 50-a-day. For many in US one dollar translates into one rupee. A doctor’s visit would be Rs 100 in Indian currency and at least $ 100 in America. Public transport, though very crowded and inefficient, works and a typical daily commute to and from work would be Rs 10 in India and $10 in America. Basic food items are highly subsidised for the poor people through a vast government network. Electricity is free in rural areas. Even the World Bank recognises the fallacies of using the exchange rate and has abandoned this in favour of Purchasing-Power-Parity. It is a pity that lot of publications, know about this and still use the raw exchange rate figures to make their point on poverty in India.
It is just a movie
“Just a movie” can change public perceptions. Even an over-the-top movie like ‘Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom’ was disastrous for changing the views of India for a generation of people. Kal Penn, the Indian American actor, said that after seeing the Indiana Jones movie, his American friends used to avoid him, thinking he eats monkey’s brains. The ‘Slumdog’ movie has been perceived as ‘real’ by the American and world media. Imagine the amount of profiling and impact this movie would have, especially on the lives of children of Indians abroad, who can’t defend themselves.
Do you remember the movie ‘Borat’. When it was released the Kazakistan Government immediately took out a full page ad in ‘New York Times’ talking about the good things that exist in their country. And that movie was just a comedy, which made more fun of Americans than Kazakistan. Why did they do that? Because they realised that it would be the first impression of their country for millions of people and wanted to set it right. From my experience an average American knows as much about India as we know about Kazakistan. Why do perceptions matter? They matter for the sake of our children, who should not hate India and for the sake of foreign investment. The poverty in India is decreasing because people are intelligent and also because of the foreign investment. However much you might lament about inequality of wealth in India, the fact is that in no democratic country in the world have so many people come out of poverty so soon. Of course, every person going hungry is a disgrace and in India there are still millions and millions of them.
One way to help such a huge number of people is by turning India into a communist country but communism has failed miserably or by trickle-down economics. The trickle-down economics has worked wonders in the last decade, despite all its imperfections. The last thing you want is something going wrong in top of the trickle-down economics. I have read lot of Americans saying that they don’t want to visit India after seeing the disgusting scenes.
Is that the way to help poor people?
Isn’t the author of this movie an Indian?
Indians have a long history of degrading themselves in literature and in media. Maybe because some are ‘ultra-liberal’, maybe it is due to age-old perceptions, maybe some feel that they have to dance to the tune of their ‘Western-masters’. But the fact is that many Indians in media and literature perceive (rightly or wrongly is debatable) that their work will be published/seen/recognised only if they write something degrading about India and Indians. I hope that American people can see India for its glorious diversities and not a one-dimensional hell as portrayed in the movie ‘Slumdog Millionaire’. I hope that the Oscar committee would see this movie as a con job to satisfy the Western thirst of superiority and not as ‘rags-to-riches’ story or ‘real’ portrayal of India.
By
Ramesh Chander
’SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE’ won four Golden Globes and is on the way to the Oscars. Great. The underdog with an Indian connection has won. I am one of the biggest fans of Rahman and have heard his music for the film. Then I saw the movie. ‘Slumdog’, is no underdog.
Isn’t India poor?
India is a vast and diverse country and is a statistician’s dream. Figures can be twisted anyway. But the fact is that while the poverty rate in India was 40 per cent five years back, it was 60 per cent 25 years back. A 20 per cent jump translates to approximately 200 million people breaking out of poverty line. India has a 300 million strong middle class. While it is a fact that there is still unacceptable poverty in India a clear majority in India are not extremely poor as portrayed in the movie. Still showing extreme poverty is fine. But showing Indians as bloodthirsty, child-beating, eye-plucking people is outrageous.
Aren’t Indian slums are a living hell. Danny Boyle in his interview to an Indian publication has admitted that the slums in India are teaming with industries and entrepreneurs. But in the movie the only ’industry’ he has portrayed in the slums is begging, prostitution and shooting.
When a dollar isn’t a dollar
The most commonly quoted figure to paint India as an impoverished nation is quoting Indian salary in US dollars by using the exchange rate conversion. But a dollar-a-day isn’t really dollar-a-day in India; it is Rs 50-a-day. For many in US one dollar translates into one rupee. A doctor’s visit would be Rs 100 in Indian currency and at least $ 100 in America. Public transport, though very crowded and inefficient, works and a typical daily commute to and from work would be Rs 10 in India and $10 in America. Basic food items are highly subsidised for the poor people through a vast government network. Electricity is free in rural areas. Even the World Bank recognises the fallacies of using the exchange rate and has abandoned this in favour of Purchasing-Power-Parity. It is a pity that lot of publications, know about this and still use the raw exchange rate figures to make their point on poverty in India.
It is just a movie
“Just a movie” can change public perceptions. Even an over-the-top movie like ‘Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom’ was disastrous for changing the views of India for a generation of people. Kal Penn, the Indian American actor, said that after seeing the Indiana Jones movie, his American friends used to avoid him, thinking he eats monkey’s brains. The ‘Slumdog’ movie has been perceived as ‘real’ by the American and world media. Imagine the amount of profiling and impact this movie would have, especially on the lives of children of Indians abroad, who can’t defend themselves.
Do you remember the movie ‘Borat’. When it was released the Kazakistan Government immediately took out a full page ad in ‘New York Times’ talking about the good things that exist in their country. And that movie was just a comedy, which made more fun of Americans than Kazakistan. Why did they do that? Because they realised that it would be the first impression of their country for millions of people and wanted to set it right. From my experience an average American knows as much about India as we know about Kazakistan. Why do perceptions matter? They matter for the sake of our children, who should not hate India and for the sake of foreign investment. The poverty in India is decreasing because people are intelligent and also because of the foreign investment. However much you might lament about inequality of wealth in India, the fact is that in no democratic country in the world have so many people come out of poverty so soon. Of course, every person going hungry is a disgrace and in India there are still millions and millions of them.
One way to help such a huge number of people is by turning India into a communist country but communism has failed miserably or by trickle-down economics. The trickle-down economics has worked wonders in the last decade, despite all its imperfections. The last thing you want is something going wrong in top of the trickle-down economics. I have read lot of Americans saying that they don’t want to visit India after seeing the disgusting scenes.
Is that the way to help poor people?
Isn’t the author of this movie an Indian?
Indians have a long history of degrading themselves in literature and in media. Maybe because some are ‘ultra-liberal’, maybe it is due to age-old perceptions, maybe some feel that they have to dance to the tune of their ‘Western-masters’. But the fact is that many Indians in media and literature perceive (rightly or wrongly is debatable) that their work will be published/seen/recognised only if they write something degrading about India and Indians. I hope that American people can see India for its glorious diversities and not a one-dimensional hell as portrayed in the movie ‘Slumdog Millionaire’. I hope that the Oscar committee would see this movie as a con job to satisfy the Western thirst of superiority and not as ‘rags-to-riches’ story or ‘real’ portrayal of India.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)