kumar@hplabsc.UUCP (03/02/85)
India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. Few of my American-born friends are free from the stereotype of India that the media cultivates. One of the new issues of Newsweek has an essay about the "Jewel in the Crown" series and the state of the country it is set in. The thesis of the article seems to be that India is in very poor shape, and that the Indians have no one but themselves to blame. As someone who was born in independent India, I find stories about the Raj quite boring. To look at present day India through the eyes of an ex-Indian army Englishman, who is really critiquing a series based on books written many years ago about Britishers who have left, is not really to look at India. While everything the media reports is mostly true, it is only half of the truth that is India. India today grows enough grain to feed itself. It will soon be self-sufficient in petroleum (it actually exports crude today, since its own refineries don't have the capacity!). And its democracy, young as it is, has taken a firm hold, as was obvious during the recent general elections, in a continent where totalitarian regimes are the rule. I wonder if there is any organization of Indian-born Americans which is interested in speaking out against such biases in news reports and projecting what many of us feel is the more balanced view of the country. If there are any such organizations, I'd like to hear about them.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/04/85)
> India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. Few of > my American-born friends are free from the stereotype of India > that the media cultivates. One of the new issues of Newsweek > has an essay about the "Jewel in the Crown" series and the state > of the country it is set in. The thesis of the article seems to > be that India is in very poor shape, and that the Indians have > no one but themselves to blame. > > As someone who was born in independent India, I find stories > about the Raj quite boring. To look at present day > India through the eyes of an ex-Indian army Englishman, who is > really critiquing a series based on books written many years ago > about Britishers who have left, is not really to look at India. > While everything the media reports is mostly true, it is only > half of the truth that is India. India today grows enough grain > to feed itself. It will soon be self-sufficient in petroleum > (it actually exports crude today, since its own refineries don't > have the capacity!). And its democracy, young as it is, has > taken a firm hold, as was obvious during the recent general > elections, in a continent where totalitarian regimes are > the rule. I, for one, couldn't agree more. The "Jewel in the Crown" does not even offer insights into the India of the forties, let alone the India of the eighties. But I really don't think it really was intended to provide any insights into India at all. It is (at least so far) an inane, pointless soap about the lifestyles of a bunch of confused colonials. For Englishmen, it may be a retrospect, a half-look backwards at what they were like, and what they did, and perhaps even how they lost the empire. In some subliminal way, perhaps, even a re-living of some of those times, a prolonged breath of nostalgia. The myths do endure, it would seem. I think they realize that as a nation, they never really understood India; perhaps to some of them at least, the characters may now seem as quaint and out-of-place as they seem to us Indians born after independence. I don't think the "Jewel in the Crown" can really mean anything to anybody who is not British. Americans who form impressions of India from the series will be even farther removed from the India of today than the characters in the series were from the India of their time. If Americans try to form impressions of the British, their impressions will be way off; never having been a colony (I know about George Washington, but they are kidding if they really say they were ever a "colony"), they have no way of taking into account the psychology of colonial rule, let alone the peculiarities of the Raj or the complexities of the relationship between Indians and the British. To Indians, a detailed account of how the British thought and lived in the forties means a shrug of the shoulders. To everyone except the British, it is a soap about confused colonials, and little more. I saw the report in Newsweek too. The problem with American journalists is that they do that to everyone except Americans: They, like the characters in the "Jewel in the Crown", live in a world they don't really understand. And like the characters in the series, they don't think they need to take the trouble to understand. Like British colonials, they make periodic forays into the alien world, and then return into the only environment they really comprehend (usually none the wiser for the experience), to bring back with them strange stuffed creatures and mythology. There is an article in the latest Harper's by a Sovietologist who has a similar complaint about the reporting in this country about Russia. Besides the fact that the media tends to tow the government line, he says, the real problem is that journalists in this country are too lazy to read enough to find out the truth. I think he has point there.
partha@gitpyr.UUCP (Partha Dasgupta) (03/04/85)
> [Kumar @ HP Labs] > India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. Sounds unsubstantiated to me. American media does not exactly kiss the feet of India, but then again why should they. In general they are quite truthful and more objective than Indian media is of America. > Few of my American-born friends are free from the stereotype of India > that the media cultivates. Why single out India? Ditto for ALL other countries, England included. So whats your gripe? Wash out the brains of these poor demented Americans? Have you cared to think about what the general Indian thinks about the (big baad) West? > The thesis of the article seems to > be that India is in very poor shape, and that the Indians have > no one but themselves to blame. Who else do they have to blame? Ronald Reagan? Or the ever maligned British? C'mon man, stop passing the buck... > (it actually exports crude today, since its own refineries don't > have the capacity!). Wonderful!! Aren't we all so proud of that. India also exports high grade iron-ore because we dont care to make steel of it. And we get a few quick bucks out of these resources without the bother of having to process it. Its all the fault of those damn British -:) > And its democracy, young as it is, has taken a firm hold... But of course. Jawaharlal Nehru... Indira Gandhi... Rajiv Gandhi... !! -:) > I wonder if there is any organization of Indian-born Americans > which is interested in speaking out against such biases in news > reports and projecting what many of us feel is the more balanced > view of the country. If there are any such organizations, I'd > like to hear about them. I don't. Probably I love India as much as you do, maybe even more. But I like to consider realities. What you want is biased glorification of India like what the ****-ed up Indian media does. Form organizations of Indian-born Americans, American-born Indians, or what have you. Speak up for all you like. But the truth will remain that India is in a very crummy situation (albeit improving, but *very* slowly), and we are the only people to blame. Everyone is looking up to dear Rajiv as if he is the avatar who will work wonders for India. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. Time will tell. -- Partha Dasgupta Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!partha
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (03/04/85)
> India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. Few of Media does not discriminate. *ALL* news is mostly about disasters, crime, corruption. I don't see too many stories about nice things going on in the U.S. either. You only notice when the same stuff is said about India. Be frank. Media is as commercial as anything else. They donot want to tell stories like the tax bill or politics or opening of a new industry in a country which does not affect the local population. Such moves will only reduce their ratings and revenue. Remember, media does not single out India. I don't see much news about Canada or Mexico either. As regards people, who form their opinions based on tv news coverage, I don't see how we can blame media for the follies of these people. Even the big wigs in television journalism concede that what they cover barely scratches the surface. If you want details and more news, you still have to go to the Newspapers. > (it actually exports crude today, since its own refineries don't > have the capacity!).... Sorry. The reason for export is not lack of refining capacity. It is because the refineries are not designed to refine the kind of crude found in India. These refineries can refine only the kind found in the middle-east. India is still a net importer of crude. But I agree that we are getting there. > If there are any such organizations, I'd > like to hear about them. Good Luck. Let me know if you find one. I'd like to hear about them too. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna) (03/07/85)
> > [Kumar @ HP Labs] > > India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news > > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often > > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British > > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. > > Sounds unsubstantiated to me. American media does not exactly kiss the feet > of India, but then again why should they. In general they are quite truthful > and more objective than Indian media is of America. > > > Few of my American-born friends are free from the stereotype of India > > that the media cultivates. > > Why single out India? Ditto for ALL other countries, England included. So > whats your gripe? Wash out the brains of these poor demented Americans? Have > you cared to think about what the general Indian thinks about the (big baad) > West? > Sub: Western Media coverage of Indian Events. This with reference to some impassioned views on the subject of media (in particular TV) coverage given to the Third World (in particular India) on this net news group. While the proponents of the "free and fair" western media and its critics and detractors both have a valid argument, up to a point. On the one hand, it is clearly true that a country geographically as large, politically as important, and technologically as rich in manpower as India, does not get the kind of western media attention that it deserves. Even much smaller and apparently less "significant" countries seem to get much wider and more importantly, more frequent coverage. Examples include Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and Afghanistan (in Asia), Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran (in the Middle East) and Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. (in Central America). There are several reasons for this state of affairs. Countries are perceived as being important for economic, geo-political, military and strategic reasons. India, located as it is, neighbouring two giants of the Second World (?) is not only somewhat overshadowed politically and militarily but also perceived (with some justification) as being "aligned" with, if not part of, the Soviet block. Our own political leaders of recent times have done little, if anything, to correct this impression, and indeed, to cast a more "idependent" profile in international affairs. The consequences of this combination of misconception and neglect by the media, however, are quite clear. The average American (or Canadian) seems to exhibit an appalling ignorance of India and things Indian. What coverage there is (disaster, natural and man-made; accidents etc.) only reinforces a biased and myopic view of India and Indian affairs. On the other hand, I believe the media here has much to commend it. I suppose it can be responsive to public reaction (which is more than can be said of broadcast media elsewhere) and it is up to us, as unofficial Ambassadors of our country, to try and change media perceptions. There is no use adopting a cynical attitude of one extreme or another - that the media is irrationally biased against India or that everything back home is so bad that it deserves the bad media it getts. Let us have a balanced and rational approach which might prove illuminating and effective. Prasad Srirangapatna / 6 mar 85
kumar@hplabsc.UUCP (Arvind Kumar) (03/08/85)
The following is a message I received from another person on the net which is produced below with permission. From: <hplabs!ihnp4!eagle!prem@HP-MARS> Date: 3 Mar 85 10:53:20 CST (Sun) Subject: Re: India and the Media hi. I have been quite annoyed at times at the biased reporting in the US media. There was, however, a detailed report in a new york times magazine from a few years ago (I'll be glad to mail you a xerox copy if you are interested). This report was very honest... it described the filth and grime and disease and poverty along with the VCR's, the gleaming research facilities, the nuclear power, and the burgeoning middle class, all of which are very much in evidence these days. Which brings up a very interesting hypothesis. Any one who is not totally blind can see the changes in India.. the number of cars on the road, the industrial growth, ready availablity of consumer goods, the reducing infant mortality rate... the progress made is newsworthy in itself. Then why the lack of coverage of the good side of the story ? One answer I have heard from some of my more paranoid "lefty" friends is that the US media is far less free than might appear, and is ipso facto under the control of a "junta" of people with enormous resources of wealth and influence. It is in the interest of these people to show up countries that don't have a free enterprise system as being unsuccessful, and those that are (korea, taiwan, singapore) as being dynamic, growing, vital etc. The biased reporting, it is maintained, is evidence of manipulation by these well-heeled tycoons. what think you ?
kumar@hplabsc.UUCP (Arvind Kumar) (03/08/85)
What can I say? I agree with many of the things that people are
saying. The question that I want to pose is, so what can one do,
short of talking about it. Yes, India is a long way from being
where it ought to be, but surely the right kind of media coverage
in the most powerful nation of the world, and my adopted country,
the U S, can help India get there. And when I say India, I mean
the country, not the government. And yes, "India" can easily be
replaced with most other third world countries as far as this
discussion goes.
Here is a letter from an American-born professor who was in India
at the time of the last elections. You all might find it of interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------
India and the U S
Sir, - As a political scientist - with the University of Washington -
on my first visit to India, I have been amazed to witness at first
hand, the virility and maturity of Indian democracy in the general
elections. This is so particular (sic) because my overall impression
of India from the U S media was that of a thinly-veiled dynastic
form of government.
Those of us in the United States who glibly uphold democratic values
should rejoice that the world's largest democracy is not a cliche
but a living reality. The elections have been a vibrant assertion
of the fact that democracy is preferable to dictatorship, and viable
even when tried on a scale never before attempted in human history.
Mr Inder Malhotra's incisive article on Indo-U S relations unfortunately
misses a crucial dimension, namely, the need for imaginative and
innovative Indian public relations efforts in the U S. To overcome
media-induced bias and ignorance, one must go beyond newsletters,
bulletins, and even video-cassesttes, that cater in any case solely to
the Indians in the U S - a microscopic 0.25 per cent of the population.
I wish your government would follow up for example on the illuminating
television interviews given by the Sri Lankan Professor Ralph Buultjens
after Mrs Gandhi's murder that made such a wide impact, and finally
prodded me to see India for myself. Could it not also produce material
on the lines of the brilliant but short-lived journal of your Consulate
in New York, that a few years ago sought to provide a refreshingly
non-bureaucratic point of view and insight ("Darshan," I believe it
was called) into all aspects of Indian life?
These are stray examples of what could be a new trend that would
reflect the image of a new government of a country that certainly
needs to be known better in the world, and in the U S in particular.
Prof. Laird Andersen
(Reprinted from the Times of India, sometime in December 1984, w/o permission)ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/09/85)
> > Why single out India? Ditto for ALL other countries, England included. So > whats your gripe? Wash out the brains of these poor demented Americans? Have > you cared to think about what the general Indian thinks about the (big baad) > West? Any Indian (with any pride and self-respect at all) must invariably be disturbed or hurt by negative reporting by the media here. We just seem solve the problem differently. Some of us become angry. Others among us may rationalize these feelings and our impotence in two different ways: Either by repeating to others (and ourselves) that we really don't care (most of us), or by convincing ourselves (despite knowledge to the contrary) that the portrayal is, after all, accurate (some of us). Indians definitely have a far better perception of the USA than Americans have of us (educated Indians, that is; if you must bring up the question of illiterate Indians, then I suggest you compare them to illiterate Americans). The reason is simply that we hear more about the USA than the negative aspects of life here: That the chances of death from violent crime, for instance, are greater those from heart disease, cancer or auto accidents, or that some 30% of children may be sexually molested. Our perception would be terribly distorted too if we only heard these negative reports. You bring up England. While there is negative reporting about England, there is a corresponding amount of positive reporting too that creates some balance. That is primarily because American journalists understand England reasonably well. The reason that does not happen with India (or the 3rd world in general) is that journalists are not aware of, or even interested in our ways. I know they don't have to be, but that's no reason to say what they are doing is OK. > Who else do they have to blame? Ronald Reagan? Or the ever maligned British? > C'mon man, stop passing the buck... > > Wonderful!! Aren't we all so proud of that. > India also exports high grade iron-ore > because we dont care to make steel of it. And we get a few quick bucks out of > these resources without the bother of having to process it. Its all the fault > of those damn British -:) > > But of course. Jawaharlal Nehru... Indira Gandhi... Rajiv Gandhi... !! -:) Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. They of course, were properly elected. Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not. When the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what happens when a corresponding thing happens back home? > I don't. Probably I love India as much as you do, maybe even more. But I like > to consider realities. What you want is biased glorification of India like > what the ****-ed up Indian media does. Form organizations of Indian-born > Americans, American-born Indians, or what have you. Speak up for all you > like. But the truth will remain that India is in a very crummy situation > (albeit improving, but *very* slowly), and we are the only people to blame. > Everyone is looking up to dear Rajiv as if he is the avatar who will work > wonders for India. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. Time will tell. I am sure you love India as much as anyone else does. But cynicism is not a solution to anything. Is the "****-ed up" media you speak so disparagingly about any worse than the media here that projects the myth about America being the "greatest country" on earth (whatever that means). (Talk about "biased glorification"!) The point is simply that a positive self-image is crucial whether you are an individual, or a company or a whole nation. Ask any Japanese executive why his workers are so productive. When one no longer cares about a positive self-image, there is no more motovation for progress. (Psychologists agree that the most important charcteristic of chronic depressives is lack of a positive self-image.) Just as an experiment, I suggest you tell an American that his country "sucks" and observe the natural reaction. The main reason for Reagan's popularity is that he succeeds in creating a positive feeling in America. There is no reason to repress positive feelings about India. Whether or not Rajiv is an "avatar", there is no reason to chastise people for feeling positive! Other minority communities have been effective in helping the media understand their country, culture, or point of view better. There is no reason why organizations of Indians shouldn't (whether they are Indian-born Americans or American-born Indians or whatever else). It might even make life for everyone a little better.
suresh@amd.UUCP (P. Srisuresh) (03/09/85)
In article <> prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna) writes: >> > [Kumar @ HP Labs] >> > India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news >> > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often >> > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British >> > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is. >> >> Sounds unsubstantiated to me. American media does not exactly kiss the feet >> of India, but then again why should they. In general they are quite truthful >> and more objective than Indian media is of America. >> >Sub: Western Media coverage of Indian Events. > >On the one hand, it is clearly true that a country geographically as large, >politically as important, and technologically as rich in manpower as India, >does not get the kind of western media attention that it deserves. Even much >smaller and apparently less "significant" countries seem to get much wider and >more importantly, more frequent coverage. Examples include Korea, Vietnam and >Cambodia and Afghanistan (in Asia), Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran (in the >Middle East) and Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. (in Central America). There are >............ so on. The above letter from Prasad pretty much summarizes why India gets the coverage it gets today. I guess, any story gets a media coverge only when there is a point of internal or international interest to the pub- lic as whole or in part. By points of internal interest, I mean issues like serial murders, muggings, latest foods, execise programs, money earning tips and so on. The main issues of international interest are political, military, economical and technological events. There has to be some- thing sensational or something different from usual for the media to cover it. No wonder, Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanisthan gains more coverage than most other third world contries including India does. As far as the first and second worlds go, their issues and events stand to gain high priority within the Americans, perhaps as much as for themselves, since they have high vested interest in those countries. Talking about them is almost like talking about themselves. Competing with them is almost like competing internally within themselves. Hence the second and third worlds are looked upon more as internal than otherwise. Third world is merely a scale by which to compare and feel good about themselves or to know that there does exist some part of the world that doesn't concern them that much. Well, may be I am rambling a little here. The point is that India is non-aligned. At worse, soviet oriented. No great technological breakthrough. Nei- ther is there much to talk about economical progress. There was some sensational political news with the raid of the Sikh temple and Indira Gandhi's assasination following that. Then, there was Bhopal disaater. I am sure most of you agree with me that India had it's share of media coverage during that period. India has been very sluggish and dormant for quite a long time. People are as sluggish as the govt. they elect to govern themselves. Only now, we hear some news about the govt. taking some active role and begining to give a boost to the technological and economical fronts. I am sure, we will get more and more prominent coverage as the days go by. India has been on the news much more frequently now a days than before. This is a neat prelude to the trend that is likely to follow. You are right. American press is not the only way to communicate with the people. I do not deny that it is possi- ble to communicate through other means like movies, commer- cials etc.. Sure, commercials too. if Saudu Arabia could do it, why can't we? One way to make the American public Understand India as much as they do of the McDonalds burgers is to flash lots of commercials. As for coverage through movies, we don't have many movies about India made outside India. So, people like to listen and watch what the intel- lectuals in India have to say. Take people like Satyajit Ray or Mrinal Sen. Most of their themes circle around the poor and their state of affairs. I am not complaining about that. Poverty-it is topmost problem of India. But, we do not have many movies throwing light on the other side of India. How- ever, we do get some balanced coverage from Indian press, I believe. But that doesn't help that much. Another means of media education is possible via Indi- ans abroad. What can we do to bring up the image? If it is not snobbish to do so, we could probaably start a nationwide press, make some movies(English) and above all, impart tech- nology we earned to India, to make some good news. Hope you enjoyed reading the article. In case you didn't you'll be glad to know that I am stopping here. -- suresh
hemanth@amdcad.UUCP (Hemanth Kanekal) (03/12/85)
> > I don't think the "Jewel in the Crown" can really mean anything to anybody > who is not British. Americans who form impressions of India from the > series will be even farther removed from the India of today than the characters > in the series were from the India of their time. If Americans try to form > impressions of the British, their impressions will be way off; never having > been a colony (I know about George Washington, but they are kidding if they > really say they were ever a "colony"), they have no way of taking into account > the psychology of colonial rule, let alone the peculiarities of the Raj or the > complexities of the relationship between Indians and the British. To Indians, > a detailed account of how the British thought and lived in the forties means > a shrug of the shoulders. To everyone except the British, it is a soap about > confused colonials, and little more. > > I saw the report in Newsweek too. The problem with American journalists is > that they do that to everyone except Americans: They, like the characters > in the "Jewel in the Crown", live in a world they don't really understand. > And like the characters in the series, they don't think they need to take > the trouble to understand. Like British colonials, they make periodic forays > into the alien world, and then return into the only environment they really > comprehend (usually none the wiser for the experience), to bring back with > them strange stuffed creatures and mythology. > > There is an article in the latest Harper's by a Sovietologist who has a similar > complaint about the reporting in this country about Russia. Besides the fact > that the media tends to tow the government line, he says, the real problem is > that journalists in this country are too lazy to read enough to find out the > truth. I think he has point there. Excellent comments on the Jewel in the Crown. Hope We get to see more of this..... -- Ppp[350,240]c[+100,+100]p[450,260]c(a-90c)[-100,-100]p[280,190]t'.'p[420,190]t'.'p[244,254]t'/'p[446,254]t'\'p[240,385]t(s3)'Hello'\
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/12/85)
> > Indians definitely have a far better perception of the USA than Americans > have of us (educated Indians, that is; if you must bring up the question of > illiterate Indians, then I suggest you compare them to illiterate > Americans). The reason is simply that we hear more about the USA than the > negative aspects of life here: That the chances of death from violent crime, > for instance, are greater those from heart disease, cancer or auto accidents, > or that some 30% of children may be sexually molested. Our perception would I don't have anything to say about the above statement, but I do get irritated by its premise. The reason you can use statistics about American life is because they are compiled ! Are they collected in India ? The last time a sociological survey was done in Delhi, it revealed 60% of the brides in arranged marriages were potential candidates for bride-burning. People talk about cancer, auto-accidents etc. in the US and make smug judgements about the state of the society. But, of course, ignorance is bliss. What do we know about cause of death statistics in India ? What do we know about children in India ? What do we know about anything measurable in India ? Most of our perceptions are based on localized experiences we've all had wherever we were brought up. Compare that to a society like the US where every statistic is not only collected but made public, and maybe you'll be more objective. > Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. They of course, were > properly elected. Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not. When > the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what > happens when a corresponding thing happens back home? You just dug a hole for yourself, my friend. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt just happened to be second cousins. That's a far cry from a father - daughter - grandson lineage. And what Kennedy mystique are you talking about ? JFK just barely managed to defeat Nixon in the 1960 elections. As a matter of fact it was one of the most closely fought US Presidential elections. Whether Bob Kennedy would have won or not is largely an academic question. And Teddy Kennedy is popular ? You must be kidding ! Kulbir Arora
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/12/85)
> > > > Indians definitely have a far better perception of the USA than Americans > > have of us (educated Indians, that is; if you must bring up the question of > > illiterate Indians, then I suggest you compare them to illiterate > > Americans). The reason is simply that we hear more about the USA than the > > .....etc... > > I don't have anything to say about the above statement, but I do get > irritated by its premise. The reason you can use statistics about > American life is because they are compiled !......etc.. > ....... > we were brought up. Compare that to a society like the US where > every statistic is not only collected but made public, and maybe you'll > be more objective. What are we supposed to be "objective" about? Your concern seems to be to decide who or which society is "better"! Even to show that the Indian sytem is inferior in comparison to others. My point is simply that arguments of the sort you are putting forth are meaningless: Every society has its evils/shortcomings. No Indian can claim that our system (social/political) is faultless. Neither can anyone from any other place in the world. So why pick out India and somehow suggest that things out there are terrible and we ought to be ashamed to show our faces to the world? My point is simply that if we heard only about crime and other problems in this society, we would have a very negative and unfair image of the US. We have a balanced image of this country because we DO know about all the good that exists here. If Indians can't view India in the proper perspective, who can? > > > > Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. They of course, were > > properly elected. Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not. When > > the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what > > happens when a corresponding thing happens back home? > > You just dug a hole for yourself, my friend. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt > just happened to be second cousins. That's a far cry from a father - > daughter - grandson lineage. > And what Kennedy mystique are you talking about ? JFK just barely managed > to defeat Nixon in the 1960 elections. As a matter of fact it was one of > the most closely fought US Presidential elections. Whether Bob Kennedy > would have won or not is largely an academic question. And Teddy Kennedy > is popular ? You must be kidding ! > > Kulbir Arora One Roosevelt wasn't elected because he was related to the other; neither was Indira elected because she was Nehru's daughter. (Remember Kamaraj and the "Syndicate"?) Rajiv clearly benefited from the "sympathy vote" after Indira's assasination. Whether he would have won without the "sympathy vote" (i.e. if she had died a natural death, or lost, like in '77) is, like the Bobby Kennedy issue, an academic question. My feeling is that he wouldn't. You may differ.
niyogi@sunybcs.UUCP (Debashish Niyogi) (03/13/85)
> Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt. They of course, were > properly elected. Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not. When > the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what > happens when a corresponding thing happens back home? > I don't know how long you have been in the U.S., but your knowledge of U.S. political history is obviously f***ed up. Teddy and FDR were not father/son or even brothers, so there was no question of dynastic rule, unlike the case of Nehru, Indira and Rajiv. And surely you don't deny the fact that a large (read that LARGE) number of Indians (mostly but not necessarily the illiterate ones) vote on the basis of their own sentimental thinking, and that the deaths of Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi played a large part (in sentimental terms) in the massive mandates in favor of Indira and Rajiv respectively. If you care to read about American history, you will find that such irrelevant sentiments do not play any significant part in the presidential elections. > Is the "****-ed up" media you speak so disparagingly > about any worse than the media here that projects the myth about America > being the "greatest country" on earth (whatever that means). (Talk about > "biased glorification"!) > I don't see why you should be so uptight about Americans calling their country the "greatest country" in the world. The words "myth" and "biased glorification" used here cannot be rationally justified, especially in the light of the fact that India cannot currently make such a claim and justify it in any way. Remember that it's not merely the media here in the U.S. that makes the claim (about the U.S. being the greatest ...), but the media in most other countries (including, I may add, a section of the media in India). And personally, I think it's true, too. -- --- Debashish Niyogi -------------- UUCP : {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!niyogi ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!niyogi CSNET : niyogi@buffalo ARPA : niyogi%buffalo@csnet-relay --------------
arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora) (03/14/85)
> > ................... Compare that to a society like the US where > > every statistic is not only collected but made public, and maybe you'll > > be more objective. > > What are we supposed to be "objective" about? Your concern seems to be to > decide who or which society is "better"! Even to show that the Indian sytem > is inferior in comparison to others. My point is simply that arguments of > the sort you are putting forth are meaningless: Every society has its > evils/shortcomings. No Indian can claim that our system (social/political) > is faultless. Neither can anyone from any other place in the world. So why > pick out India and somehow suggest that things out there are terrible and we > ought to be ashamed to show our faces to the world? My point is simply that > if we heard only about crime and other problems in this society, we would > have a very negative and unfair image of the US. We have a balanced image of > this country because we DO know about all the good that exists here. > How did you conclude all of the above from my posting ? You are attributing a position to me which I never took. If you have read a subsequent posting of mine, this will be clear, hopefully. Lets get some axioms into this discussion, ok ? I am NOT comparing societies. It is meaningless to do so. The word "compare" in my posting is used in a situational context and NOT a qualitative one. I do NOT believe this society is better than ours. Such opinions are meaningless. I am NOT ashamed of showing my face to the world as an Indian. > If Indians can't view India in the proper perspective, who can? That is exactly the question I was attempting to answer. We seem to be differing on what 'proper' is. If self-criticism to you is what you have stated above then you are as jingoistic as Reagan. All this balanced view of the U.S. that you profess to have is because you live here. Did you have the same view before you came here ? I certainly didn't. What I saw and heard in India about the U.S. was mostly very negative, the kind of statistics you wrote about in your previous posting. What do you have to say about all that we hear about the 'decadent West' in India ? (Whether the West IS decadent or not is NOT being discussed here). Don't you think if an American spent some time in India, he or she would have a more balanced view ? Why are you then complaining about Americans here not knowing about the 'good' things back home ? Everybody unto themselves sitting in their own homes ! As a matter of fact, the media barrages the American public mostly with the 'bad' things about them, most of the time. Any news report on TV usually heads off with murders, rapes, fires etc., before anything else. What makes you think that there is a concerted effort to single out India for unfair treatment ? My friends from Israel have the same complaint as you have !!! An american citizen has as much interest in the fact that India's growth in GNP last year was among the highest in the world, as an indian citizen has in the fact the auto-industry in the U.S. bounced back last year. That is to say, NONE. An indian citizen's smugness when reading about the 'decadent West' is no different from an american citizen's when reading about the 'disasters' in the third world. This media bias is a mythical issue. I wouldn't even ask you "Why should they " ? However, try to answer "Why do you want them to" ? You seem to be wanting an american-style hard-sell of India to Americans. Do you really care that much for their approval ? > Indira elected because she was Nehru's daughter. (Remember Kamaraj and the > "Syndicate"?) Rajiv clearly benefited from the "sympathy vote" after Indira's Indira WAS elected because she was Nehru's daughter. (Don't interpret my criticisms of the Indian Politik as anti-Indian , please !!!) The power struggle after Shastri's death resulted in Indira being the compromise candidate since she was percieved as being most 'acceptable' to the public. THAT is what has to change in India. The masses accepted her since she was Nehru's daughter. Period. The masses in India have to become aware of the fact that the politicians are accountable to them and not the other way around. Mrs. G. very much understood this timid accept- ance we have when she started grooming R. for the job. I agree with you that her death was largely responsible in his winning. That is exactly what I am complaining about. I have nothing against Rajiv G. But why do we feel obligated to reward him with that job simply because his mother was assassinated ? That doesn't say much for citizens of a democracy. Kulbir Arora
vivek@nsc.UUCP (Vivek Pendharkar) (03/14/85)
For those interested in reading a *fair* coverage, I would recommend the "Economist". I have personally found it to be very accurate, mature, and non-sensational type of journalism. Time or Newsweek are no match at all!
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/15/85)
Regarding "The Jewel in the Crown" -- what I find to be the most interesting part of the program is the opening newsreel clips. I would really like to see a program comprised of these and other newsreels, in uncut form, with narration explaining all the little details and what is going on in the scenes, not just the particular main event being pictured. Something like this would probably still not reveal the real India of the time, but it could explicitly be described as the journalists' and "official" view of the events depicted. Some Indian historians could then describe what was REALLY happening in the background or in the surrounding culture. Another aspect of India and the media -- one almost always overlooked -- is shortwave radio: There are a lot of shortwave radio listeners who gain insight (or at least information from the "official" government perspective) into activites and events in other countries which are neglected or go unreported in the usual US news media. It would be well worth it for India to have a strong voice in this forum, to present the Indian point of view. (Other countries who do this well are South Africa, with Radio RSA, and Great Britain, with the BBC, to give a couple examples from many.) However, India is practically unhearable on shortwave. I've been casually DXing for years and have never heard a listenable signal from India. If there are any Indian nationals reading this who have any influence or a communications channel with the Indian government department that runs All India Radio, let them know that there is an eager and ready audience here in the US which would love to hear clear, listenable signals from Indian radio. If technical issues of propagation will prohibit a direct broadcast from India to North America with a high-quality signal, look into time-trading with local-area shortwave broadcasters. For example, Taiwan (Voice of Free China) trades time on its Asian transmitters for time on the North American transmitters of WYFR, a religious broadcaster which wants to reach Asian listeners. Everybody benefits from this; a clear, strong signal gets to each broadcaster's target area when they use each other's transmitters. Why couldn't AIR do the same, with this or another North American station? Regards, Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
pankaj@sbcs.UUCP (Pankaj Gupta) (03/15/85)
>One Roosevelt wasn't elected because he was related to the other; neither was >Indira elected because she was Nehru's daughter. (Remember Kamaraj and the >"Syndicate"?) Rajiv clearly benefited from the "sympathy vote" after >Indira's assasination. Whether he would have won without the "sympathy vote" >is an academic question. I do not know much about the Kamraj era, but anyone who knows about the Sanjay days and the Rajiv days knows that the ONLY reason why Sanjay and Rajiv were able to rise prominently was the fact that they were the sons of the Mrs. G. In fact if you look in the newspapers in the post Sanjay days, you can find reports of Rajiv saying that he does not want to enter politics, and find reports of the various sycophants of Mrs. G. demanding that Rajiv enter politics. The problem of Indian politics is that every politician professes that his only aim in life is to serve the masses, whereas what really goes on behind is a same old story of corruption and exploitation. What is even more bothering is the fact that the politicians get away with it. (Disclaimer - I am not comparing Indian politics with any other system). Having visited India a couple of months ago, I got (another) dose of Doordarshan and Aakashwani. I sure hope that you guys, who were debating about the US media, had had a similar experience, and the argument would have been closed. The govt. controlled media there is totally biased and orchestrated towards singing the praises of Rajiv & Co. The US media is much more objective by any comparison. Pankaj Gupta SUNY @ StonyBrook
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/15/85)
> For those interested in reading a *fair* coverage, I would recommend the > "Economist". I have personally found it to be very accurate, mature, and > non-sensational type of journalism. Time or Newsweek are no match at all! This is true. There are plenty of articles on the Third World, and the style is drily entertaining. "The Economist"'s political and economic views tend to be somewhat conservative, which might not appeal to some. Unfortunately, it is rather expensive to subscribe to (the North American edition costs $75 a year). The BBC also seems to provide rational, impartial coverage, though it's mostly straight news without much analysis. -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/16/85)
> > For those interested in reading a *fair* coverage, I would recommend the > > "Economist". I have personally found it to be very accurate, mature, and > > non-sensational type of journalism. Time or Newsweek are no match at all! > > The BBC also seems to provide rational, impartial coverage, though it's > mostly straight news without much analysis. > -- To this list, I'd like to add The Christian Science Monitor.