rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/13/85)
While I admit it's interesting to speculate on the impression Americans gain of India by seeing 'Jewel in the Crown', 'Passage to India', 'Far Pavilions', 'Heat and Dust' and so on, I think the real issue is what we, as educated young Indians, gain in the way of historical perspective regarding events that most of us view as having taken place in some remote, almost mythical past. My first reaction on seeing them was horror and humiliation that my countrymen and women had been subjected to such contempt and treated like subhumans. In fact I wondered if the facts were grossly distorted, as has often been the case in reports and movies about India. I guess I had been conditioned by years of what might charitably be called British P.R. (after all they had gotten to write the history books and describe themselves as benevolent, if firm patriarchal figures) and I found it almost impossible to believe that such things had happened only 40 years ago. It was virtual apartheid, almost as bad as in South Africa now. Bigots like Gen. Dyer of Jallianwallah Bagh were more the rule than the exception. And when Dyer was dishonourably discharged for his crime, he was presented with 26000 pounds by the British public. I think we should neither get emotional over this nor pretend it never happened: it is something that we have to come to terms with. We are what I think Naipaul called the Fourth World, the formerly colonized. Essentially without roots, a lost generation in some sense, we are trapped between two cultures. We aspire to be westerners, (like Hari Kumar), but cannot ever be fully assimilated because we carry the emotional baggage of our Indianness, and of course there is the small matter of skin colour. (And if you dont believe this matters, I think you're deluding yourself: we should know; we are, along with Egyptians, perhaps the most colour-conscious people on earth.) To a greater or lesser extent, we despise India, Indians and Indianness: there are many among us who take pride in not speaking any Indian language well; and we measure each other by our ability to speak English and by the pucca-ness of our accents. We are in limbo, and I think we'll never be truly comfortable anywhere: too Indian to be a good American, and too Americanized to be a good Indian. Those who stay on here will probably face real or imagined discrimination because of their Indian-ness at some point; those who go home will be discriminated against because of their caste, language, and the fact that they are snooty 'foreign-returneds'. Those who stay overseas have two options, and people take them to extremes: denounce India and Indian culture (for instance, V.S. Naipaul and Nirad Chaudhuri) or become zealously and aggressively Indian, and maintain romantic notions about the motherland (I cant think of any prominent Indian who has done this, but this has been done by, for example, Irish-Americans). Doomed as we are to this sort of cultural schizophrenia it behooves us to devote some thought to who and what we are. In any case, I think 'Jewel' has served very well if it makes us do a bit of soul-searching to try and figure out where we're coming from, and where we're going. Furthermore, as pure entertainment, it is a pretty well-made series. And the Indian characters are much better drawn than in 'Passage' where all the Indians are faces in a crowd, except for Victor Banerjee. But there is still the nagging feeling that it really has nothing to do with India: it's just a story of some British people, and could have been made in Timbuctoo just as well -- an exotic locale is all that's necessary. The book is worth reading, though, partly because Paul Scott neither tends to be the colonial (like Joseph Conrad or Kipling or good old Naipaul) nor sympathetic (like William Faulkner in his stories of similar oppression in the American South) but objective, a mere narrator. This gives it a feeling of authenticity somewhat lost in the TV series. Finally, while it is true that the British, like almost all previous marauders, came strictly for plunder (and did pretty well at that) there is ironically enough some poetic justice in this whole sorry mess. Here was India with its caste system and its colour consciousness, denying humanity to many of its children via caste taboos; and who do we get but the British, with an even more inhumane caste system and extreme colour-sensitivity (it's amusing how often the words sallow, brown, coffee-coloured, black, etc. are used in the Raj Quartet!). Perhaps an India that could dream up the caste system, surely the worst aspect of our culture, deserved no better than the British. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) (03/14/85)
In response to: Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330. > ... In fact I wondered if the facts were > grossly distorted, as has often been the case in reports and movies > about India. I guess I had been conditioned by years of what might > charitably be called British P.R. (after all they had gotten to > write the history books and describe themselves as benevolent, if > firm patriarchal figures) I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that "Jewel" is a British production. You know, those people who "describe themselves as benevolent." > ... and who do we get but the British, with an even more > inhumane caste system and extreme colour-sensitivity That's a pretty large statement. Would you care to back it with some _comparative_ evidence? Charles Lambert AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL.
prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna) (03/14/85)
Sub: The TV series "Jewel in the Crown" > > While I admit it's interesting to speculate on the impression > Americans gain of India by seeing 'Jewel in the Crown', > 'Passage to India', 'Far Pavilions', 'Heat and Dust' and so on, > I think the real issue is what we, as educated young Indians, gain > in the way of historical perspective regarding events that most of > us view as having taken place in some remote, almost mythical past. The pre-release publicity surrounding the British TV series "Jewel in the Crown" had excited my curiosity to a great extent. But I was quite disappointed by this much-praised series. The unusually large cast of characters and the convoluted plot (which is really several different stories tied rather loosely) were quit confusing even to me (despite possessing an "instinctive" knowledge of the Indian context by virtue of being Indian!). Although it is probably technically and cinematically great, and some simplification of the events might be justifiable in the interests of dramatization (for e.g. oscar winner "Gandhi" did simplify the man and his message), I felt that Jewel in the Crown did it a bit excessively, with the dismal result that we tended to see the melodramatization of the usual American daytime soap-opera. Whatever the intentions of the author Paul Scott (on whose novels known as "the Raj Quartet", the series is based), the TV version is undoubtedly aa colonialist interpretation of the novels. While it might serve to relive "old glory" for some nostalgic British and to romanticize India as a land of the strange and the mystique for other western audiences, it would indeed be stupid to take it too literally or view it as an image of the post-independent India. Let us not, therefore, generalize too much or derive "cultural" interpretations based on this TV series which, after all, is primarily "show business". Prasad Srirangapatna / 13 Mar ....ihnp4!alberta!cavell!prasad
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/14/85)
> My first reaction on seeing them was horror and humiliation that my > countrymen and women had been subjected to such contempt and > treated like subhumans. In fact I wondered if the facts were > grossly distorted, as has often been the case in reports and movies > about India. I guess I had been conditioned by years of what might > charitably be called British P.R. (after all they had gotten to > write the history books and describe themselves as benevolent, if > firm patriarchal figures) and I found it almost impossible to > believe that such things had happened only 40 years ago. It was A friend of mine has a book (I saw it in 1976) that was used to be a textbook by the British in schools in India (God knows when), and which classifed some Indian communities roughly as follows: "Bengalees", it said, are diminutive people who are OK, except that they may not be trusted. "Mahrattas" were people who lived mainly in the hills, and were quite warlike and uncivilized. "Mohammedans" were something that was suitably subhuman (thank God I don't remember exactly what). And the book went on and on, with similar comments about the people from each region of the country it dealt with! We humans do have a tendency (history is replete with examples) of treating anyone who is not entirely like ourselves as somehow less than human. This manifests itself mildly when one hears ethnic jokes, and history has many passages where it has manifested itself much more strongly. The (in)famous natural historian Pliny was responsible for many myths about different communities survived for centuries. (He says in his books, for example, that India is inhabited by strange winged creatures that have no heads, and have their faces on their chests; they go about in droves and take off with a great flutter of wings if approached! He may also have been responsible for the myth that Jews have tails!) Not so long ago, "scientists" tried to establish using "anthropometric" techniques (mainly skull measurements) that certain races were superior to others (there is an excellent book by Stephen Jay Gould on this stuff called "The Mismeasure of Man"). The word "barbarian" is derived from the greek "barbaros" which means someone who speaks a foreign tongue (the Sanskrit equivalent, by the way, is "barbarah"); the Arabs classified people as "Arab" or "`Ajam" based on similar scientific principles. It's not just the British; it's all of us! Not much anyone can do about that really! But you are right, it is important to understand what has happened to us, and to have the right attitude. > colour-conscious people on earth.) To a greater or lesser extent, > we despise India, Indians and Indianness: there are many among us > who take pride in not speaking any Indian language well; and we > measure each other by our ability to speak English and by the > pucca-ness of our accents. We are in limbo, and I think we'll never > be truly comfortable anywhere: too Indian to be a good American, > and too Americanized to be a good Indian. Those who stay on here Not all of us, I hope! I do think there are many of us who are not totally alienated from our culture. Perhaps the kind of people who were into "doing" plays by Ionesco in college back home, and who could never give you a straight answer when you asked how the play could ever make sense to them. I also had a history teacher in school (in fifth grade; I remember her only for her attitude) who was very proud she couldn't pronounce "Kautilya" or the word "artha-shastra"; she always said "artha-shtra", and looked at you with disdain (she refused to be tainted by the vernacular) if you pronounced it right. But I do think there are lots of Indians who are not so far gone.
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/16/85)
> > ... In fact I wondered if the facts were > > grossly distorted, as has often been the case in reports and movies > > about India. I guess I had been conditioned by years of what might > > charitably be called British P.R. (after all they had gotten to > > write the history books and describe themselves as benevolent, if > > firm patriarchal figures) > > I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that "Jewel" is a > British production. You know, those people who "describe themselves > as benevolent." > What should I be, grateful? I don't think so, for talking about them will not right any wrongs. To take admittedly extreme examples, should the Vietnamese feel "grateful" to Americans if an American film is made about My Lai? Jews to Germans for a German movie on Auschwitz? Native Americans for "Little Big Man"? The spate of Empire movies is not an act of contrition or sorrow. It's merely that in times of trouble, people look to a glorious past, and the British, with their country in decline, want to bask in the vicarious thrill of running an empire. Furthermore, there have been plenty of Empire movies before, e.g., 'Gunga Din', 'Lives of a Bengal Lancer', 'The Man Who Would Be King', that extolled the virtues of the colonists (the "benevolent", "P.R" stuff?). This reminds me of a couple of recent letters (to the NY Times and the Wall St. Journal) by Blimpish types who railed at the "distorted" views presented by 'Jewel' and yearned for the good old days of 'Gunga Din' etc. Good old days for some, I'm sure. > > ... and who do we get but the British, with an even more > > inhumane caste system and extreme colour-sensitivity > > That's a pretty large statement. Would you care to back it with some > _comparative_ evidence? I meant two things here: one, the class system among the British that denies opportunity to those who were born to the wrong parents, went to the wrong school, have the wrong accent, and so on. I have British friends who are resigned to never being 'somebody' because of their accents. This is certainly a pretty inhumane system in my view. Second, and more important, the British caste system in India did a) nothing to make our home-grown caste system less pernicious and b) anointed themselves the highest of the castes, and treated every Indian as an outcast. Top jobs were not open to Indians; nor were clubs, first class railway compartments, hospital beds... Not even to Indians who were knighted by the British crown. There were even cases of Indians dying because they were denied a bed in the "British ward" of a hospital, get this, built and operated out of Indian taxpayers' monies. I think you get the picture. I'd call this comparatively inhumane. As for colour-consciousness, please read any of the Empire books, by Paul Scott, Rudyard Kipling (Kim), John Masters (Bhowani Junction), some of Somerset Maugham's Malaya stories, or even any of the Agatha Christie books. Dame C. probably reflects her times well: her contempt for all foreigners is legendary, especially, and in increasing order of skin colour, the French, the Spanish, 'oily Levantines', Indians, Africans. Frankly, it gets tiresome after a while when Brits are astonished every time a person of dark aspect actually turns out to be a 'jolly good sort'. By the way, a disclaimer: I have no quarrels with Britons. In fact, to use the old bromide, one of my best friends is British. My tirades are directed towards the mythical colonial in a solar toupee ("I say, Cuthbertson, the natives are getting rather restless"). -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) (03/19/85)
> > I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that "Jewel" is a > > British production. You know, those people who "describe themselves > > as benevolent." > > > What should I be, grateful? I was seeking something a little more objective than your personal gratitude; namely, to debunk the idea that the British are incapable recognising their own fallibility. It certainly does not "right any wrongs," it can only serve as an object lesson against future arrogance. Let us hope that it will. > It's merely that in times of trouble, people look to a glorious past, and > the British, with their country in decline, want to bask in the vicarious > thrill of running an empire..... > ... Blimpish types who railed at > the "distorted" views presented by 'Jewel' and yearned for the good old > days of 'Gunga Din' etc. This is self-contradictory, so I need hardly point out that, if self- congratulation were the goal, ITV would have written Merrick right out of the story. Charles Lambert @ the Death Star, Illinois.
chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) (03/19/85)
> I meant two things here: one, the class system among the British that > denies opportunity to those who were born to the wrong parents, went to the > wrong school, have the wrong accent, and so on. I have British friends who > are resigned to never being 'somebody' because of their accents. I do not want to spawn a lengthy and inappropriate discussion in this group about British cultural quirks; merely to observe that the above remarks are, today, over simplistic and that the "friends" referred to should listen more closely to the plethora of undisguised regional accents in all seats of power and influence in British life. Charlie Lambert @ the Death Star, Illinois.
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/23/85)
> recognising their own fallibility. It certainly does not "right any wrongs," > it can only serve as an object lesson against future arrogance. Let > us hope that it will. > I have to agree with you here. Perhaps someday we will learn not to repeat our ancestors' mistakes. > > It's merely that in times of trouble, people look to a glorious past, and > > the British, with their country in decline, want to bask in the vicarious > > thrill of running an empire..... > > ... Blimpish types who railed at > > the "distorted" views presented by 'Jewel' and yearned for the good old > > days of 'Gunga Din' etc. > > This is self-contradictory, so I need hardly point out that, if self- > congratulation were the goal, ITV would have written Merrick right out > of the story. I don't see the contradiction, really: an empire is still an empire, even if some of the empire-builders are a bit mean. Furthermore, Merrick really is the protagonist (even though he is an antihero) of the book: writing him out or diluting his character would have gutted the story. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/24/85)
> > I meant two things here: one, the class system among the British that > > denies opportunity to those who were born to the wrong parents, went to the > > wrong school, have the wrong accent, and so on. I have British friends who > > are resigned to never being 'somebody' because of their accents. > > I do not want to spawn a lengthy and inappropriate discussion in this group > about British cultural quirks; merely to observe that the above remarks are, > today, over simplistic and that the "friends" referred to should listen more > closely to the plethora of undisguised regional accents in all seats of > power and influence in British life. > > Charlie Lambert @ the Death Star, Illinois. What the British do today is their own affair; I erred in using the present tense -- I should have made it clear that I was talking about 1945. A request: let us stop discussing 'Jewel' -- more than enough has been said about it. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.