raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghunath Ramakrishnan) (03/09/85)
i have been following, with a great deal of pleasure, the heated discussion about india and the media. regardless of the validity of the points made, it has brought into sharp focus many of india's problems, and more to the point, the role of US-resident indians in resolving some of those problems. i'd like to see a discussion on the role of US-indians on a broader scale. what do we perceive as our roles in the future of india? just what influence does this perception have (as opposed to monetary, professional and other personal factors) in our career decisions? remember, we may be small in number, but we are a very significant part of our country's educated and, in particular, technological manpower.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/10/85)
> > i have been following, with a great deal of pleasure, the heated discussion > about india and the media. regardless of the validity of the points made, > it has brought into sharp focus many of india's problems, and more to the > point, the role of US-resident indians in resolving some of those problems. > > i'd like to see a discussion on the role of US-indians on a broader scale. > what do we perceive as our roles in the future of india? just what influence > does this perception have (as opposed to monetary, professional and other > personal factors) in our career decisions? remember, we may be small in > number, but we are a very significant part of our country's educated and, > in particular, technological manpower. Good idea! However, in the hope of first provoking some more discussion on our attitudes here, I would like to bring up again the question of what our self-perceptions are. It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. I: Anger at negative coverage. More common among Indians who have spent no more than 2-3 years in this country. People who feel this way are more likely to write letters to the Editor, or give vent to their anger in the company of friends. Most likely to say "I'm definitely going back" with conviction or vehemence. Perceive this environment as very alien, and are not willing to simply make their peace with it and let things just be. When Dan Rather says "In what MAY be the largest electorate in the world..." on the news on election day, Dec. '84, they are furious. II: "Indifference" to negative coverage: More common among people who have been here longer? This attitude may often be the result of frustration with having had attitude I for too long, and may be an attempt to cope with the ensuing feelings of impotence to do anything to change the media image here. They have begun to rationalize their feelings and frustrations. When Dan Rather says "...may be the largest electorate in the world...", they attempt to laugh it off. People who feel this way are more likely to say "It doesn't really matter to me. Why should I bother myself? There's nothing one can do". At the same time, they may say "I have plans of going back", with somewhat less vehemence. Also, distance and media coverage may now have started changing their self-image. III: "Acceptance" of negative coverage: Another way of coping with frustration and impotence? Such people are may have attitude II at some point. They are most likely to say: "Now let's be objective about India. After all, there is some truth in what the media says." Perhaps they are also angry with India for giving them reason for such embarrasment. This is perhaps the most drastic way of rationalizing feelings. The stronger this attitude of "acceptance" becomes, the stronger the image of India as a sinking ship. When Dan Rather says "... may be ...", it may not make any impression at all. They are unlikely to say "I do have plans of going back" with much conviction. Clearly, self-image is not high. I don't know if this attitude is most common among people who have been here the longest. Perhaps not. In extreme cases, they are not even inclined to view India's problems in the perspective of the complexities of our society, and simply judge India on the basis of what is reported in the media. They may then say "I don't really see any hope for India". I don't know how much one's attitude changes with the length of time spent here. I know people who have been here for years and years, and still feel strongly enough to write Letters to the Editor. On the other hand, I suspect that there is some correlation between time spent here and a shift to attitude III. It would be interesting to see what the perceptions of others on this issue are. This obviously can't be a complete characterization of the attitudes of Indians here. But there may something in it. At least, that has been the reaction of other Indian friends of mine here.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/10/85)
> > i have been following, with a great deal of pleasure, the heated discussion > about india and the media. regardless of the validity of the points made, > it has brought into sharp focus many of india's problems, and more to the > point, the role of US-resident indians in resolving some of those problems. > > i'd like to see a discussion on the role of US-indians on a broader scale. > what do we perceive as our roles in the future of india? just what influence > does this perception have (as opposed to monetary, professional and other > personal factors) in our career decisions? remember, we may be small in > number, but we are a very significant part of our country's educated and, > in particular, technological manpower. Good idea! However, in the hope of first provoking some more discussion on our attitudes here, I would like to bring up again the question of what our self-perceptions are. It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. I: Anger at negative coverage. More common among Indians who have spent no more than 2-3 years in this country. People who feel this way are more likely to write letters to the Editor, or give vent to their anger in the company of friends. Most likely to say "I'm definitely going back" with conviction or vehemence. Perceive this environment as very alien, and are not willing to simply make their peace with it and let things just be. When Dan Rather says "In what MAY be the largest electorate in the world..." on the news on election day, Dec. '84, they are furious. II: "Indifference" to negative coverage: More common among people who have been here longer? This attitude may often be the result of frustration with having had attitude I for too long, and may be an attempt to cope with the ensuing feelings of impotence to do anything to change the media image here. They have begun to rationalize their feelings and frustrations. When Dan Rather says "...may be the largest electorate in the world...", they attempt to laugh it off. People who feel this way are more likely to say "It doesn't really matter to me. Why should I bother myself? There's nothing one can do". At the same time, they may say "I have plans of going back", with somewhat less vehemence. Also, distance and media coverage may now have started changing their self-image. III: "Acceptance" of negative coverage: Another way of coping with frustration and impotence? Such people are may have attitude II at some point. They are most likely to say: "Now let's be objective about India. After all, there is some truth in what the media says." Perhaps they are also angry with India for giving them reason for such embarrasment. This is perhaps the most drastic way of rationalizing feelings. The stronger this attitude of "acceptance" becomes, the stronger the image of India as a sinking ship. When Dan Rather says "... may be ...", it may not make any impression at all. They are unlikely to say "I do have plans of going back" with much conviction. Clearly, self-image is not high. I don't know if this attitude is most common among people who have been here the longest. Perhaps not. In extreme cases, they are not even inclined to view India's problems in the perspective of the complexities of our society, and simply judge India on the basis of what is reported in the media. They may then say "I don't really see any hope for India". I don't know how much one's attitude changes with the length of time spent here. I know people who have been here for years and years, and still feel strongly enough to write Letters to the Editor. On the other hand, I suspect that there is some correlation between time spent here and a shift to attitude III. It would be interesting to see what the perceptions of others on this issue are. This obviously can't be a complete characterization of the attitudes of Indians here. But there may something in it. At least, that has been the reaction of other Indian friends of mine here.
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/12/85)
> > Good idea! However, in the hope of first provoking some more discussion on > our attitudes here, I would like to bring up again the question of what our > self-perceptions are. > > It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three > categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most > clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. What good are such categorizations ? Why are you trying to impose a structure on a domain where there is none ? Such meaningless taxonomies are the basis of rabid generalizations which most of us tend to make. You have no basis, except your limited exposure to some Indians, to come up with such theories. The question is not to find out which 'type' an Indian belongs to. The question is to discuss and find out WHY we feel that the media is unfair to India ? Note that I do not even presuppose the case that the media IS unfair. In the process of answering the first question the second will be taken care of. Kulbir Arora
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/12/85)
> > > > Good idea! However, in the hope of first provoking some more discussion on > > our attitudes here, I would like to bring up again the question of what our > > self-perceptions are. > > > > It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three > > categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most > > clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. > > What good are such categorizations ? Why are you trying to impose a > structure on a domain where there is none ? Such meaningless taxonomies > are the basis of rabid generalizations which most of us tend to make. > You have no basis, except your limited exposure to some Indians, to come > up with such theories. > The question is not to find out which 'type' an Indian belongs to. The > question is to discuss and find out WHY we feel that the media is unfair > to India ? Note that I do not even presuppose the case that the media > IS unfair. In the process of answering the first question the second > will be taken care of. > > Kulbir Arora I suggest you re-read my earlier message. The suggestion wasn't that there is a "structure" on the Indian domain. Nor was I propounding a theory of "types" for Indians. To discuss the question of why we feel the media is unfair, we must first discuss our own attitudes and feelings. I went to some trouble in my message to explain that this is not a rigid systems of categories; they were general impressions meant to serve as a starting point for further discussion.
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/13/85)
> It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three > categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most > clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. > > I: Anger at negative coverage. More common among Indians who have spent ..... > II: "Indifference" to negative coverage: More common among people who have .... > III: "Acceptance" of negative coverage: Another way of coping with If you add one more stage, that of complete resignation (this is when one says, "You know, I'm not from India: I'm from Bangladesh"), you would have an analogy with the four stages of classical life: kaumara, yauvana, garhasthya and sannyasa. :-) I agree with your characterizations, though: in fact I have witnessed the metamorphoses of my friends through the various stages. And I agree that the period of time spent abroad is a major parameter. Others are 'rootedness' (e.g., being well-read in an Indian language, because I believe that language is not only a communication medium, but you also absorb an ethos and a world- view peculiar to a group) and of course, individual differences (some people being more adaptible and detached than others). I also think that people in certain communities generally tend to be more open to absorbing the cultures of their adopted homes and loosening ties with the motherland, whereas people in others tend to always go home to retire. The latter tend to care more, obviously, about events back home. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/14/85)
> > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three > > > categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most > > > clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India. > > > > What good are such categorizations ? Why are you trying to impose a > > structure on a domain where there is none ? Such meaningless taxonomies > > are the basis of rabid generalizations which most of us tend to make. > > You have no basis, except your limited exposure to some Indians, to come > > up with such theories. > > I suggest you re-read my earlier message. The suggestion wasn't that there > is a "structure" on the Indian domain. Nor was I propounding a theory of > "types" for Indians. To discuss the question of why we feel the media is > unfair, we must first discuss our own attitudes and feelings. I went to some > trouble in my message to explain that this is not a rigid systems of > categories; they were general impressions meant to serve as a starting point > for further discussion. Nevertheless, you offered a classification. I believe it is not a good starting point for discussions. The result of such classifications is that one starts assuming positions. If two people happen to make a similar statement, even though their attitudes and beliefs are different you wont see the difference. Note how you have classified me as pro U.S. anti India in your last posting. Abstraction is a fine tool. However, it hardly works when applied to people. You cannot shed individual nuances in the hope of getting a few well-defined attitudes. What you get instead is a huge semantic gap. Kulbir Arora
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/16/85)
> > It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three > > categories (or in some cases, even three stages). These seem manifest most > > > > I: Anger at negative coverage. More common among Indians who have > ..... > > II: "Indifference" to negative coverage: More common among people who > .... > > III: "Acceptance" of negative coverage: Another way of coping with > > I agree with your characterizations, though: in fact I have witnessed the > metamorphoses of my friends through the various stages. And I agree that the > period of time spent abroad is a major parameter. Others are 'rootedness' > (e.g., being well-read in an Indian language, because I believe that language > is not only a communication medium, but you also absorb an ethos and a world- > view peculiar to a group) and of course, individual differences (some people > being more adaptible and detached than others). I also think that people in > certain communities generally tend to be more open to absorbing the cultures > of their adopted homes and loosening ties with the motherland, whereas people > in others tend to always go home to retire. > The latter tend to care more, obviously, about events back home. > -- > ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet > ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet > Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330. The point you bring up is an important one. There is also a subtler issue here, I think. "Rootedness" is really a sensitivity to cultural nuances, not neccesarily at a conscious level, and usually one that is acquired through immersal in the culture. Without such an awareness, no amount of technical erudition in the culture's heritage is of any use. As an example: A few years ago, I attended a lecture by Sir Percival Spear (an Indologist of great repute). The lecture was called "India After Independence"; being somewhat familiar with some of his work, I was looking forward to hearing the man's views on the subject. His lecture was a forecast doom and gloom. I was willing to accept that as his perspective, but his reasons were really interesting. His thesis was that to really understand India, one must really understand the Indian ethos. Germans, for instance, were distinguished by their concern for detail and perfection, and the British by their stoic nature (stiff upper lip and all that sort of thing ol' chap). Fair enough. What about Indians? Indians, he said, were set apart by their well known servility and subservience to authority. A good example of this, he added, was the traditional deference to the guru. Now that the British have left, the Indians had no one to turn to for orders, and India was doomed. A lifetime of erudition and work on India - and this is what Percy gets out of it. Some of us Indians, too may be sufficiently alienated from our culture (not "rooted" in it) not to have an appreciation of some of the subtler aspects of our cultural heritage. When we are embarassed by (a real or perceived) criticism of some aspect of India, we are unable to respond (or even resolve it all in our own minds). We may then react with anger towards India for having caused us this embarassment. When one has no answer to criticisms, one can only agree with the critics. A negative self-image results. >If you add one more stage, that of complete resignation (this is when one says, >"You know, I'm not from India: I'm from Bangladesh"), you would have an analogy >with the four stages of classical life: kaumara, yauvana, garhasthya and >sannyasa. :-) The four stages (ashramas) of life in India, by the way, are Brahmacharya, Gruhasthya, Vanaprastha, and Sanyasa. But the proposed extension is a good one!
percy@ut-ngp.UUCP (percy h. bulsara) (03/17/85)
klfdkjlkfjslkfjlksdjflsk ffjsfsflkjkdjflksdjf