Vir Sanghvi writes about "Punjabi-isation of India". He's partly right, but generally wrong. His premisses that Hindi cinema is influencing pop culture in a significant way, and that Hindi cinema by and large depicts Punjabi stereotypes, are valid. But his conclusion that India has become "Punjabi-ised" (as a result), does not hold. Naturally, there's nothing right or wrong about the said Punjabi (or any other) melting pot, (though I do have my personal views about such a thing). Except that it does not exist.
Interim Thoughts has a good post on this which makes some of the points I had in mind. For example, the pervasiveness of Idli and Uddina Vade. Further, although it's true that Punjabi food has made a major impact in big cities in the South, more in dinner than in lunch, Andhra meals is also quite formidable. Even if we give it to Punjabi food, it is not clear to me how much it has got to do with movies or TV. I would imagine drinking espresso based coffees or eating pizza to be more direct effects of movies or TV.
The prevalence of Punjabi food in tourist locations in Kerala or anywhere else can be explained without the so called Punjabi-isation. It is not significantly different from the non-usage of coconut oil for cooking in those places.
Hindi movies are terribly popular, but that's not all. It's amazing how popular Telugu movies are in a place like Dharwad. Telugu movies run for 100s of days regularly. Even in Belgaum, the bigger Telugu hits run for a long time!
Karva chauth or whatever it is called might be the most brilliant motif in Hindi cinema since "duniya ki koyi bhi taaqat use nahi bacha sakta", but unlike Sanghvi, I am not sure if women everywhere have started observing it suddenly. Moreover, I know of at least one ritual -- Bheemana amavaasye -- which is quite similar to Karva chauth, observed in Karnataka. Similar rituals might exist elsewhere. With respect to other festivals also, I don't think there's any significant change due either to Punjabi culture and/or movies. Probably indoor rituals and customs have reduced a bit, and outdoor activities have increased, due to the changing times.
Salwar kameez is probably the most popular dress, but saris do return during ceremonies. On the other hand, trousers stay.
All that aside, one of the more direct influences of Hindi movies that I have seen in (some parts of) the South is the taking in of Hindi words for relationships. The increasing usage of funny words such as "bhabhi", "devar", "jeeju" etc. in lieu of age old local equivalents is definitely a direct effect of Hindi movies. However, this is more likely a 'Barajatya effect' than a 'Johar-Chopra' Punjabi effect. This is significant because this has extended beyond big cities, and it has invaded households. This is unlike most other effects which can be seen mostly in big cities and outside of the family. You can find young men and women in a place like Gokak inserting these terms quite naturally in their otherwise unadulterated Kannada.
The point is that memes are running along in all directions. Even the trivial, and pretty annoying ones like the Kannada verb maaDi, (ex: enjoy maaDi, relax maaDi), being used by Hindi speaking folks all over Bangalore.
While it is quite annoying to see the Raj Malhotras and the Rahul Singhanias of the world singing, dancing, oye-hoying and generally making merry all the time, I am sure there is much more to Punjabi pop culture than that, let alone Indian pop culture.
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Regional Language TV vs National TV
I have always thought the regional language channels that serve general entertainment (non-sports, non-news) are much better than national TV (Z, Star, Sony etc.), in terms of the variety as well as the quality of programming. Why is the difference so stark? (If you disagree, do comment.) I believe regional language TV are doing quite well commercially too, despite covering programmes on literature, classical music, agriculture, dialects, warnings to fishermen, political debates, in depth interviews with non-celebrities, along with the usual serials, film based programmes, and possibly 'reality' shows. How is this feasible?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The University
Yesterday I happened to overhear a part of a chat between two guys in the lab here. I guess they were discussing the state of their respective theses (all PhD theses at all times and places are in a bad state, naturally), and somehow the chat seems to have moved on to PhD students in general. One of them suggested that nobody does a PhD in IITs. And the other one agreed and further said that even the ones that do are not up to scratch, and they probably do PhD in IITs because they don't have any other option. Actually, he used Hindi equivalents of words such as "leftovers" and "otiose". But anyway, that's not the thing.
Forget these desis who have apparently escaped the below par IITs (the very havens to reach which they doubtless spent several months in Kota, Rajasthan, only a few years before that). A labmate of mine, a fellow PhD student of mine, in fact, used to proclaim repeatedly, the following line - "BTech's are the products of IITs, MTech's the byproducts and PhD's the waste products."
The cleverness of such things notwithstanding, we can point to several leftovers and waste products that are, well, being very productive. But that is also not the point. I hear such things so often that it's neither offensive nor amusing. Surely the IITs, or the higher education in India in general, for that matter, has a very long way to go. That low quality students join IITs (or other institutes in India) for PhDs or that IITs produce low quality PhDs is probably (circularly) true in general. While I don't have a problem with the generalization, I only find statements such as the ones I cited ironic.
When you state such truisms, you are either reinforcing a stereotype or being a party to a self-fulfilling prophecy or both. Let's say you are one of the few bright people in India, and you go elsewhere and state that bright people don't stay in India, I don't think that would come to me as a fascinating realisation.
Please make no mistake. I am not at all suggesting that people, bright or otherwise, should stay in India just because they are born here. It's an individual's choice. It's true that opportunities are not abound here. Especially the brightest people find great opportunities abroad, and it might well be foolish on their part to miss them. There are also strong points in favour of the argument - 'the best people should get the best opportunities and conditions.' I agree with that too. But the only clause that might be useful if we add it is - provided some of them come back and reproduce the kind of opportunities and conditions that they had the privilege of experiencing.
The US was, and continues to be, built by people from all over. It's the people who create the opportunities and nurture conditions that attract more people. After all, it is the people who make an institute or a country great, and not the other way round. So, unless the whole world can migrate to the US (or Western Europe), there is a dire need to create opportunities and nurture conditions elsewhere, on the way to making them also attractive and great.
One of the most important steps, if not the most important step, in this direction is the university. That's what made Europe and the US great. That's what we need to build if we want to see a better India.
There's also another incentive that the university provides in terms of preserving/developing our culture. Build high quality, big and real universities. Not just new IITs, but places that facilitate teaching and, more importantly, research in all disciplines -- arts, history, linguistics, basic sciences, engineering, culture etc.. Build places where ideas can flow freely, ideologies can clash in a constructive way. Let people discuss sciences, culture, languages and arts; let people innovate. Then we will see cultures being preserved in a real sense.
Forget these desis who have apparently escaped the below par IITs (the very havens to reach which they doubtless spent several months in Kota, Rajasthan, only a few years before that). A labmate of mine, a fellow PhD student of mine, in fact, used to proclaim repeatedly, the following line - "BTech's are the products of IITs, MTech's the byproducts and PhD's the waste products."
The cleverness of such things notwithstanding, we can point to several leftovers and waste products that are, well, being very productive. But that is also not the point. I hear such things so often that it's neither offensive nor amusing. Surely the IITs, or the higher education in India in general, for that matter, has a very long way to go. That low quality students join IITs (or other institutes in India) for PhDs or that IITs produce low quality PhDs is probably (circularly) true in general. While I don't have a problem with the generalization, I only find statements such as the ones I cited ironic.
When you state such truisms, you are either reinforcing a stereotype or being a party to a self-fulfilling prophecy or both. Let's say you are one of the few bright people in India, and you go elsewhere and state that bright people don't stay in India, I don't think that would come to me as a fascinating realisation.
Please make no mistake. I am not at all suggesting that people, bright or otherwise, should stay in India just because they are born here. It's an individual's choice. It's true that opportunities are not abound here. Especially the brightest people find great opportunities abroad, and it might well be foolish on their part to miss them. There are also strong points in favour of the argument - 'the best people should get the best opportunities and conditions.' I agree with that too. But the only clause that might be useful if we add it is - provided some of them come back and reproduce the kind of opportunities and conditions that they had the privilege of experiencing.
The US was, and continues to be, built by people from all over. It's the people who create the opportunities and nurture conditions that attract more people. After all, it is the people who make an institute or a country great, and not the other way round. So, unless the whole world can migrate to the US (or Western Europe), there is a dire need to create opportunities and nurture conditions elsewhere, on the way to making them also attractive and great.
One of the most important steps, if not the most important step, in this direction is the university. That's what made Europe and the US great. That's what we need to build if we want to see a better India.
There's also another incentive that the university provides in terms of preserving/developing our culture. Build high quality, big and real universities. Not just new IITs, but places that facilitate teaching and, more importantly, research in all disciplines -- arts, history, linguistics, basic sciences, engineering, culture etc.. Build places where ideas can flow freely, ideologies can clash in a constructive way. Let people discuss sciences, culture, languages and arts; let people innovate. Then we will see cultures being preserved in a real sense.
Monday, February 16, 2009
On culture preservation
[Warning: Long post.]
All cultures at all times have been characterized by certain levels of fluidity. Cultures get formed, evolve, meet other cultures in constructive and destructive ways; some of them erode and die. But all these are gradual processes. It's not typically the case that there is a culture flourishing at some point, and dies a sudden death some years later.
If newer generations of Indians are increasingly growing culturally unaware [1], distant or westernized, or are perceived as such, there are more reasons to that than meet the eye. Let us list some:
By the prevalent narrow definitions, many people like me are probably culturally unaware because we don't care much about religions and customs, and have a somewhat, well, unacceptable lifestyle. This despite the fact that we know quite a bit about things like Indian literature, music, and contribute in our limited ways to science and technology. But in the presence of such exclusive, squeezed up definitions, is it any wonder that a lot of people grow averse to "culture"?
The family and the society is generally intolerant to deviations from perceived normality. It is very hard to have meaningful debates. (Pseudo) Stereotypes are created quickly and dealt with severely. Sections of societies are coercive and violent, and there is no chance of rational debate with them. On the other hand, there are sections of the society, consisting of learned people, that have embraced an inclusive culture, are open to civil debate, yet are too self-righteous for one. They too don't take too long to proclaim depravity on the part of people who happen to have a different view. For example, some writer friends of my family who come down hard upon me, whenever I talk in support of free trade; or when I say that we cannot impose a particular language upon people, however much it pains us to see its usage going down. Again, these are huge deterrents that can easily put off the less passionate.
While the lack of rational debates in the family and the society is a big problem, the general apathy of the family and the society towards elements of (inclusive) culture is equally dangerous. Like I said, it's not that people suddenly stopped being aware of their culture. Family and societal conditioning play a part in the development of a person. Here, I want to take the examples of two of my nephews. (Just to make a point; no judgements intended.) There is this nephew of mine, about 10-12, who's your average kid: doing homework, getting marks, playing video games, watching TV, being stubborn and demanding, and being.. er.. largely listless. Not that the kid is dull, he's quite good at school. I've never seen him invent a game (he'd rather get his parents to buy a toy), never seen him read a book, play an outdoor game, talk about a story in Panchatantra, or do anything creative. What I do see is his parents running behind him to do his homework and score well. (Last year, the kid started a "falling suddenly and fainting" routine to ward off their pressure, much to our dismay!) I've not seen a single book in their house. Never seen the parents taking the kid to any culture related activity like a play (there are a lot of plays targeting kids too), or a concert. His access to culture is limited.
There's this other nephew of mine, 3 or 4, and the kid is a riot! It doesn't take much to get him involved. You start a story and he develops it himself just be observing the things around him. He can make a toy of anything that he gets in the fashion of Kung Fu masters. He's constantly prodded by his parents and grandparents. With enthusiasm and patience, new stories are told, new things are shown. Among the kids in my close circles, this one stands out. If I have to bet my money on which one will potentially grow to be culturally aware (in the broadest sense), I'd chose this kid.
To be sure, I am not theorizing anything. I am not implying definite causalities. There are numerous factors that determine a person's development including the traits one is born with. I am only suggesting that conditioning helps. I am also unhappy with the trends in general. We complain that our kids watch TV and play video games. But we don't care enough to include parks, open spaces, playgrounds and trees in our urban plans, along with malls. (And then shout that malls spoil our culture!) We don't care to make the outdoors safe to children. Is it odd that the newer localities in Bangalore are less green and er.. less cultural, in a manner of speaking? No. Because we cannot afford to save space for parks, public libraries or open-air auditoriums. The opportunity cost of investing in culture is just too high!
Due to all these reasons and more, there's a difficulty in accessing -- in a general sense -- elements of our culture. It's far easier to access "western culture" in many ways. Some of my friends who have good taste in cinema, and know a lot about world cinema, don't know much about good Indian cinema of old. Part of the reason for this is that it is easier to access the former, especially in this age where a major source of information for many is the Internet. The same applies to books, encyclopedic articles and so on.
While the virtues of visiting a pub are easy to access and verify, those of going to a concert might not be. The news has not reached me, or it is too far from where I live, and anyway no one will come with me if I go there. Again, this is just another way of looking at things. There are a lot of people who go out of their way to practice one, other or both lifestyles.
Finally, culture finds new ways and forms. Things are not as bleak as they appears. The Internet, for example, is facilitating immense new possibilities. Getting local information is becoming increasingly easier. Although there is nothing substantial to base this on, I think there is a revival of interest in Indian classical music because of the sheer ease of access on the Internet. Similarly, many Kannada language blogs (surely, other language blogs too) get added every day. Indeed there is a great amount of quality writing on the Internet by ordinary folks. Although we are still not good at public discussions, we seem to be doing that well on the Internet. A lot more people are more actively involved in expressing themselves, which is also a form of cultural revival. Social activism -- not only the undergarment type, but also, say, the use bicycles propaganda type. But this aspect is often ignored in the big talks of saving culture.
***
[1] This post is based on the premise that newer generations of Indians are culturally unaware etc..
[2] Again, whether one should or should not care for these elements of culture is not my concern. Only that if we are talking about culture, I'd like it to be about an all inclusive culture.
All cultures at all times have been characterized by certain levels of fluidity. Cultures get formed, evolve, meet other cultures in constructive and destructive ways; some of them erode and die. But all these are gradual processes. It's not typically the case that there is a culture flourishing at some point, and dies a sudden death some years later.
If newer generations of Indians are increasingly growing culturally unaware [1], distant or westernized, or are perceived as such, there are more reasons to that than meet the eye. Let us list some:
- Increasingly exclusive definitions of culture
- Intolerance, Coercion and/or self-righteousness of sections of society, in various forms
- The general indifference of society as a whole in building/preserving an inclusive cultural context for its own and the future generations
- A general difficult in accessing the various elements of culture for people
- A tendency to ignore new forms and ways in which culture gets fostered
By the prevalent narrow definitions, many people like me are probably culturally unaware because we don't care much about religions and customs, and have a somewhat, well, unacceptable lifestyle. This despite the fact that we know quite a bit about things like Indian literature, music, and contribute in our limited ways to science and technology. But in the presence of such exclusive, squeezed up definitions, is it any wonder that a lot of people grow averse to "culture"?
The family and the society is generally intolerant to deviations from perceived normality. It is very hard to have meaningful debates. (Pseudo) Stereotypes are created quickly and dealt with severely. Sections of societies are coercive and violent, and there is no chance of rational debate with them. On the other hand, there are sections of the society, consisting of learned people, that have embraced an inclusive culture, are open to civil debate, yet are too self-righteous for one. They too don't take too long to proclaim depravity on the part of people who happen to have a different view. For example, some writer friends of my family who come down hard upon me, whenever I talk in support of free trade; or when I say that we cannot impose a particular language upon people, however much it pains us to see its usage going down. Again, these are huge deterrents that can easily put off the less passionate.
While the lack of rational debates in the family and the society is a big problem, the general apathy of the family and the society towards elements of (inclusive) culture is equally dangerous. Like I said, it's not that people suddenly stopped being aware of their culture. Family and societal conditioning play a part in the development of a person. Here, I want to take the examples of two of my nephews. (Just to make a point; no judgements intended.) There is this nephew of mine, about 10-12, who's your average kid: doing homework, getting marks, playing video games, watching TV, being stubborn and demanding, and being.. er.. largely listless. Not that the kid is dull, he's quite good at school. I've never seen him invent a game (he'd rather get his parents to buy a toy), never seen him read a book, play an outdoor game, talk about a story in Panchatantra, or do anything creative. What I do see is his parents running behind him to do his homework and score well. (Last year, the kid started a "falling suddenly and fainting" routine to ward off their pressure, much to our dismay!) I've not seen a single book in their house. Never seen the parents taking the kid to any culture related activity like a play (there are a lot of plays targeting kids too), or a concert. His access to culture is limited.
There's this other nephew of mine, 3 or 4, and the kid is a riot! It doesn't take much to get him involved. You start a story and he develops it himself just be observing the things around him. He can make a toy of anything that he gets in the fashion of Kung Fu masters. He's constantly prodded by his parents and grandparents. With enthusiasm and patience, new stories are told, new things are shown. Among the kids in my close circles, this one stands out. If I have to bet my money on which one will potentially grow to be culturally aware (in the broadest sense), I'd chose this kid.
To be sure, I am not theorizing anything. I am not implying definite causalities. There are numerous factors that determine a person's development including the traits one is born with. I am only suggesting that conditioning helps. I am also unhappy with the trends in general. We complain that our kids watch TV and play video games. But we don't care enough to include parks, open spaces, playgrounds and trees in our urban plans, along with malls. (And then shout that malls spoil our culture!) We don't care to make the outdoors safe to children. Is it odd that the newer localities in Bangalore are less green and er.. less cultural, in a manner of speaking? No. Because we cannot afford to save space for parks, public libraries or open-air auditoriums. The opportunity cost of investing in culture is just too high!
Due to all these reasons and more, there's a difficulty in accessing -- in a general sense -- elements of our culture. It's far easier to access "western culture" in many ways. Some of my friends who have good taste in cinema, and know a lot about world cinema, don't know much about good Indian cinema of old. Part of the reason for this is that it is easier to access the former, especially in this age where a major source of information for many is the Internet. The same applies to books, encyclopedic articles and so on.
While the virtues of visiting a pub are easy to access and verify, those of going to a concert might not be. The news has not reached me, or it is too far from where I live, and anyway no one will come with me if I go there. Again, this is just another way of looking at things. There are a lot of people who go out of their way to practice one, other or both lifestyles.
Finally, culture finds new ways and forms. Things are not as bleak as they appears. The Internet, for example, is facilitating immense new possibilities. Getting local information is becoming increasingly easier. Although there is nothing substantial to base this on, I think there is a revival of interest in Indian classical music because of the sheer ease of access on the Internet. Similarly, many Kannada language blogs (surely, other language blogs too) get added every day. Indeed there is a great amount of quality writing on the Internet by ordinary folks. Although we are still not good at public discussions, we seem to be doing that well on the Internet. A lot more people are more actively involved in expressing themselves, which is also a form of cultural revival. Social activism -- not only the undergarment type, but also, say, the use bicycles propaganda type. But this aspect is often ignored in the big talks of saving culture.
***
[1] This post is based on the premise that newer generations of Indians are culturally unaware etc..
[2] Again, whether one should or should not care for these elements of culture is not my concern. Only that if we are talking about culture, I'd like it to be about an all inclusive culture.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Of routine stereotypes and arbitray simplifications
The US is a vast and self contained country. As a result, probably Americans don't need to look outside for most things such as education, career, opportunities, a good life and pop culture. A common American's day to day life need not involve gaining any amount of understanding of the rest of the world. (While this is true for any person anywhere, it is more so in the US.) When a situation arises wherein (s)he needs to understand or evaluate its significance, arguably, (s)he needs to look at the situation with an Americanised (or at most, a westernised) worldview. Drawing analogies and equivalences help.
So, while it is alright that American analysts and media talks about 'India's 9/11' or 'India's Enron', it's amusing to me when Indians or even NRIs for that matter need such analogies. If an European wants to evaluate and come to terms with the Himalayas as the 'Alps of the East', that's fine. But if I am told how the Kodagu district of Karnataka (or Coorg) is the 'Scotland of India', what meaningful information can I gain in addition to what I already might or might not know? And, yes, I have been told this (by an NRI)! I can definitely locate Scotland on the map; but I've lived in Kodagu for about 4 years. When I think about the Satyam fraud, I feel cheated, but I can hardly relate to Enron. Similarly, if I get told that Amitabh Bachan is the Tom Cruise (or whoever else) of India, the only thing I might learn is that Tom Cruise is a super star. I had read somewhere that Barkha Dutt is India's Christiane Amanpour or Geraldo Rivera. Who are they? And what am I? India's what?
The other thing about the US, the melting pot that it is, is that most of the things here have been simplified and/or standardised: routine social/economic interactions; customs; processes; games and sports, etc.. At least, I find them to be so. I can't even begin to compare baseball and cricket for example. Or the social rituals such as marriages. Probably Americans have simple notions about most things, because they don't need to deal with complexity on a routine basis. It might very well be the case that, analogies, stereotypes and reductions work for them. I see words like typical 'southerner', 'New Yorker', 'midwestern' and so many other phrases being used regularly. Although I can't convince myself that any entity can be that monolithic, I don't know much about America, so I can't judge one way or the other.
But I have no doubts stereotypes and arbitrary simplifications don't work in India. Complexity is the name of the game over here. For good or for bad, we deal it with complexity in our homes, workplaces, traffic, social interactions, what have you. We are adept at dealing with complexity. Why then do we still resort to arbitrary simplifications is something I don't understand. There is nothing typical about South India or North India or particular cities and towns. Recently I was in a salon where the hairdresser asked me if I was from the upper part or the lower part of India, and added, "Because I know that the people from the upper part have lighter skin." Again, if an American needs these simplified distinctions, that's fine. But we see the same simplification being used in India all the time!
Appearances may be deceptive but are still simple things. What about entities such as culture? People talk enthusiastically about 'Indian culture', 'Western culture'. Perhaps 'Kannada culture'. Even 'pub culture'. Where do I find the descriptions? Why do we talk about them as though they are monolithic entities? Or people arguing vehemently if a particular movie depicts the 'Real India' or not. Where is the real India? Is there a way of knowing if I belong to that? There are these and so many phrases in the recent times (even 'Indian Obama') that I don't understand -- that's why this post -- but they just continue to be used on and on. Not just by ill-informed people or upholders of culture, but on TV, in blogs and elsewhere.
So, while it is alright that American analysts and media talks about 'India's 9/11' or 'India's Enron', it's amusing to me when Indians or even NRIs for that matter need such analogies. If an European wants to evaluate and come to terms with the Himalayas as the 'Alps of the East', that's fine. But if I am told how the Kodagu district of Karnataka (or Coorg) is the 'Scotland of India', what meaningful information can I gain in addition to what I already might or might not know? And, yes, I have been told this (by an NRI)! I can definitely locate Scotland on the map; but I've lived in Kodagu for about 4 years. When I think about the Satyam fraud, I feel cheated, but I can hardly relate to Enron. Similarly, if I get told that Amitabh Bachan is the Tom Cruise (or whoever else) of India, the only thing I might learn is that Tom Cruise is a super star. I had read somewhere that Barkha Dutt is India's Christiane Amanpour or Geraldo Rivera. Who are they? And what am I? India's what?
The other thing about the US, the melting pot that it is, is that most of the things here have been simplified and/or standardised: routine social/economic interactions; customs; processes; games and sports, etc.. At least, I find them to be so. I can't even begin to compare baseball and cricket for example. Or the social rituals such as marriages. Probably Americans have simple notions about most things, because they don't need to deal with complexity on a routine basis. It might very well be the case that, analogies, stereotypes and reductions work for them. I see words like typical 'southerner', 'New Yorker', 'midwestern' and so many other phrases being used regularly. Although I can't convince myself that any entity can be that monolithic, I don't know much about America, so I can't judge one way or the other.
But I have no doubts stereotypes and arbitrary simplifications don't work in India. Complexity is the name of the game over here. For good or for bad, we deal it with complexity in our homes, workplaces, traffic, social interactions, what have you. We are adept at dealing with complexity. Why then do we still resort to arbitrary simplifications is something I don't understand. There is nothing typical about South India or North India or particular cities and towns. Recently I was in a salon where the hairdresser asked me if I was from the upper part or the lower part of India, and added, "Because I know that the people from the upper part have lighter skin." Again, if an American needs these simplified distinctions, that's fine. But we see the same simplification being used in India all the time!
Appearances may be deceptive but are still simple things. What about entities such as culture? People talk enthusiastically about 'Indian culture', 'Western culture'. Perhaps 'Kannada culture'. Even 'pub culture'. Where do I find the descriptions? Why do we talk about them as though they are monolithic entities? Or people arguing vehemently if a particular movie depicts the 'Real India' or not. Where is the real India? Is there a way of knowing if I belong to that? There are these and so many phrases in the recent times (even 'Indian Obama') that I don't understand -- that's why this post -- but they just continue to be used on and on. Not just by ill-informed people or upholders of culture, but on TV, in blogs and elsewhere.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi
Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi is exceptional cinema. It truly is. There are not many movies that offer a glimpse of the historical context of this huge and complex beast called India. You don't often come across a movie in India that tries to capture the ethos of a time, a place or a people. Not in the modern times anyway, when cinema is by and large unambitious.
The 60's and 70's were important periods of time world over. It is that period that the movie sets out to talk about eventually reaching the mega event called Indian Emergency. In a sense, the movie is a tribute to the ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, successes and failures, of that period. And, of course, the inevitabilities of India.
I had heard about it a few times, but saw it only a few days ago. More power to Sudhir Mishra and his ilk. More power to the artists, especially Shiney Ahuja and Chitrangada Singh. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.
The 60's and 70's were important periods of time world over. It is that period that the movie sets out to talk about eventually reaching the mega event called Indian Emergency. In a sense, the movie is a tribute to the ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, successes and failures, of that period. And, of course, the inevitabilities of India.
I had heard about it a few times, but saw it only a few days ago. More power to Sudhir Mishra and his ilk. More power to the artists, especially Shiney Ahuja and Chitrangada Singh. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Please let me fail!
[Warning: What follows is a rant]
That parents (and family) expect their kids to be safe, settled and successful is justified. What is not justified, however, is that the measures of success et al. are predefined and immutable. I see so many times people worrying that their kids are not getting anywhere (meaning, they don't earn as much as their friends; don't yet have a plot of land unlike the others etc..), whereas the said kids are thoroughly enjoying their life learning new skills and working hard. Let alone the family, even others assume a right to measure a person's success! Just because they have access to the measures!
If one is a PhD student, especially is India, one has to deal with this on a regular basis. If there is some career choice in India that is totally absolutely "out of syllabus", it is chosing to do a PhD in Computer Science, in India! (Add to it, "not from one of the most reputed institutes", if you will.) Imagine doing a PhD in CS, when "software has a huge scope" in the Indian industry! One must be crazy to waste 5-6 years doing a PhD. One gets asked questions such as the following on a regular basis: why PhD; why in India; why not in [great country|institute]; what is the scope for PhDs in India; what is the range of the starting salary for PhDs.
Sometimes, if the people are in good form, the questions are nastier: how good is [the institute where you are pursuing a PhD]
I am not making any of this up. I get to deal with them so regularly, sometimes from family, sometimes from strangers, that I have got used to them. But sometimes the annoyance accumulates so much that it gets to your nerves. This rant is a possibly a result of that. So, I have one thing to ask: people, please don't bother. I promise to never to pry and never to judge your life. I never do.
Please let me fail! Please let us fail. People who fail matter too, you know. In fact, if you check the history of the world, it is the people who risked failure that mattered the most. When one is exploring something new, failure is the norm! But if such a person even succeeds marginally, it potentially has a happy effect on several others. If I want to find a job in India, it is my prerogative. When a person is doing research work, there cannot be guarantees on time. If I fail to complete my PhD in 3 years, it's alright with me. I prefer failing on my terms to succeeding on yours! I do crave success as much as you do. I do want a well paying job, a cozy home, an LCD TV, and subscriptions to lifestyle magazines. But on my own terms; at my own pace.
I am happy, however unlikely or unreasonable it may appear to you. Happy that I am learning new things. Getting awestruck by the beauty of things. Generating ideas and implementing some. Contributing in my own little way. I am proud of what I am doing. I don't carry any illusions that whatever I do is going to make a difference to anyone. But again, the history of the world is a story of the synergy of countless tiny ideas coming together over time. Unless you allow people to risk going out of established paths, innovation cannot and will not happen. I am sure you mean well when you expect me to be settled and satisfied. But what if I want to be unsettled? Look at the world around you. How can a creative and sensitive person not be unsettled by what he observes and experiences?
And please understand that such aversion or anxiety towards failure is unwarranted. Things have changed quite a bit. People can afford a little bit of failure these days. It's alright if a kid tries something and fails. He has the time and resources to recover from his failures. If someone takes a break from her job to learn fencing or photography (or even just to relax!), it's alright, all is not over for her. I am sure there are more than a just few ways to live a good life. I am not sorry if all this sounds lofty or highhanded, because when you pry on me with condescending questions, you are not exactly being humble.
Please let me fail! Please let us fail. People who fail matter too, you know. In fact, if you check the history of the world, it is the people who risked failure that mattered the most. When one is exploring something new, failure is the norm! But if such a person even succeeds marginally, it potentially has a happy effect on several others. If I want to find a job in India, it is my prerogative. When a person is doing research work, there cannot be guarantees on time. If I fail to complete my PhD in 3 years, it's alright with me. I prefer failing on my terms to succeeding on yours! I do crave success as much as you do. I do want a well paying job, a cozy home, an LCD TV, and subscriptions to lifestyle magazines. But on my own terms; at my own pace.
I am happy, however unlikely or unreasonable it may appear to you. Happy that I am learning new things. Getting awestruck by the beauty of things. Generating ideas and implementing some. Contributing in my own little way. I am proud of what I am doing. I don't carry any illusions that whatever I do is going to make a difference to anyone. But again, the history of the world is a story of the synergy of countless tiny ideas coming together over time. Unless you allow people to risk going out of established paths, innovation cannot and will not happen. I am sure you mean well when you expect me to be settled and satisfied. But what if I want to be unsettled? Look at the world around you. How can a creative and sensitive person not be unsettled by what he observes and experiences?
And please understand that such aversion or anxiety towards failure is unwarranted. Things have changed quite a bit. People can afford a little bit of failure these days. It's alright if a kid tries something and fails. He has the time and resources to recover from his failures. If someone takes a break from her job to learn fencing or photography (or even just to relax!), it's alright, all is not over for her. I am sure there are more than a just few ways to live a good life. I am not sorry if all this sounds lofty or highhanded, because when you pry on me with condescending questions, you are not exactly being humble.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Big Why Question
The big why question I am talking about is - why we are the way we are? In fact, that's the question V. Raghunathan's book, Games Indians Play: Why We Are the Way We Are, tries to understand. As the title suggests, the authors tries to answer the 'why' question through a game theoretical perspective. Specifically, he does it by modelling many of our day to day interactions in terms of prisoner's dilemma (PD). And, as you might know, the only equilibrium that two rational people reach in a one shot PD is defect-defect. That is, neither cooperates. The book does not offer anything frightfully new to someone who is familiar with PD and its possibilities. Nonetheless, the book is a welcome and useful approach to understanding India's problems: a lot of times India's problems are stated at very abstract levels; trying to understand them in terms of economics presents a more concrete model.
It does seem that non-cooperation has stabilised in India. In fact, this is quite the antithesis of another book I read recently, The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, wherein Axelrod argues how simple, natural and inevitable cooperation is. Raghunathan suggests that most of the non-cooperative bahaviour that exists in India is because the games we play mostly remain one shot PDs and do not progress into becoming Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas (IPDs). In this post I'd like to explore this point a little bit. I welcome inputs.
So, the problem is not that we Indians play games. It is that we don't play them enough. Or that our games do not become repeated games involving the same small set of players. Why is it that we don't play repeated games? The obvious first answer is that our urban populations are enormous, thus presenting a potentially unlimited supply of random players to chose from. As a result, two (uniformly) randomly chosen players feel it mighty safe to defect and move on. Owing to the huge sample space, the probability of meeting the same player in the near future is small. Thus, there is no incentive to cooperate in view of future gains. The best example of this is our traffic, where everyone is out there to compete and get ahead (albeit, marginally). If only the commuters could see beyond the 2-feet of as yet unoccupied road, and cooperate with each other, traffic would be smoother, safer and more efficient for everyone. But the commuters work under no guarantees; and everyone around is a stranger without any history of interaction; so why bother?
But is that all? Not really. Even in situations that are repeated, somehow cooperation does not evolve. Let's take a real example. My mom had a domestic help who used to "complete" all the work she was responsible for in a jiffy. My mom complained every day about how carelessly the domestic help worked, and who she has to literally redo everything once the help left. Further, she used to remain absent for extended periods of time regularly, without even informing ahead of time. I suggested that mom could get a different person and relieve the present one. But she presented two difficulties: no one else in the locality would do the job for the amount the present one does it for, they all take at least twice as much; and secondly, the present one is an old woman, and it's not nice to ask her to leave. I argued that it doesn't make sense to pay lesser (or pay at all) if the work cannot be delegated. I also suggested that may be mom could raise the present help's wages. Perhaps she will do the job better. That way it will help both. Mom wasn't ready to accept that. It's all the same; it doesn't matter how much more you give; no point in wasting money.
I think a lot of our interactions follow this model. Two things here: (1) Cooperation seems a huge risk to us. We feel that, in the absence of guarantees, if we are the first ones to cooperate, it will likely lead to personal loss and embarrassment. (2) We fail to work out a punishment model when the other player defects. We are happier to defect right at the beginning. To add to this, we are either not easily provoked in the face of defection against us, or we don't know what to do when provoked, thus preferring not to get into such a situation at all.
Rather than adopting a straightforward Tit-for-Tat, we generally work out a complex balancing act not necessarily based on economics, but on combinations of things like value system, social status and stereotypes. For example, my mother was being nice in some sense by not replacing the old domestic help. Perhaps that was her intention. But was she being nice really, in a game theoretic sense? I think not.
***
There's a lot more to say about this topic, which I'll do in later posts. I look forward to your ideas on the big why question and how can this be changed.
It does seem that non-cooperation has stabilised in India. In fact, this is quite the antithesis of another book I read recently, The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, wherein Axelrod argues how simple, natural and inevitable cooperation is. Raghunathan suggests that most of the non-cooperative bahaviour that exists in India is because the games we play mostly remain one shot PDs and do not progress into becoming Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas (IPDs). In this post I'd like to explore this point a little bit. I welcome inputs.
So, the problem is not that we Indians play games. It is that we don't play them enough. Or that our games do not become repeated games involving the same small set of players. Why is it that we don't play repeated games? The obvious first answer is that our urban populations are enormous, thus presenting a potentially unlimited supply of random players to chose from. As a result, two (uniformly) randomly chosen players feel it mighty safe to defect and move on. Owing to the huge sample space, the probability of meeting the same player in the near future is small. Thus, there is no incentive to cooperate in view of future gains. The best example of this is our traffic, where everyone is out there to compete and get ahead (albeit, marginally). If only the commuters could see beyond the 2-feet of as yet unoccupied road, and cooperate with each other, traffic would be smoother, safer and more efficient for everyone. But the commuters work under no guarantees; and everyone around is a stranger without any history of interaction; so why bother?
But is that all? Not really. Even in situations that are repeated, somehow cooperation does not evolve. Let's take a real example. My mom had a domestic help who used to "complete" all the work she was responsible for in a jiffy. My mom complained every day about how carelessly the domestic help worked, and who she has to literally redo everything once the help left. Further, she used to remain absent for extended periods of time regularly, without even informing ahead of time. I suggested that mom could get a different person and relieve the present one. But she presented two difficulties: no one else in the locality would do the job for the amount the present one does it for, they all take at least twice as much; and secondly, the present one is an old woman, and it's not nice to ask her to leave. I argued that it doesn't make sense to pay lesser (or pay at all) if the work cannot be delegated. I also suggested that may be mom could raise the present help's wages. Perhaps she will do the job better. That way it will help both. Mom wasn't ready to accept that. It's all the same; it doesn't matter how much more you give; no point in wasting money.
I think a lot of our interactions follow this model. Two things here: (1) Cooperation seems a huge risk to us. We feel that, in the absence of guarantees, if we are the first ones to cooperate, it will likely lead to personal loss and embarrassment. (2) We fail to work out a punishment model when the other player defects. We are happier to defect right at the beginning. To add to this, we are either not easily provoked in the face of defection against us, or we don't know what to do when provoked, thus preferring not to get into such a situation at all.
Rather than adopting a straightforward Tit-for-Tat, we generally work out a complex balancing act not necessarily based on economics, but on combinations of things like value system, social status and stereotypes. For example, my mother was being nice in some sense by not replacing the old domestic help. Perhaps that was her intention. But was she being nice really, in a game theoretic sense? I think not.
***
There's a lot more to say about this topic, which I'll do in later posts. I look forward to your ideas on the big why question and how can this be changed.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Ek Doctor Ki Maut
Several days ago I had an accidental pleasure of watching Tapan Sinha's Ek Doctor Ki Maut. It was a unique experince for me, of watching a great movie without even knowing its name, even after it ended. It was only later, when I searched on the web based on the movie's plot and lead characters that I found some information about it. And I watched it on Lok Sabha TV!
The reason I started watching it (it had already begun; I don't know how much I have missed) was because I caught Pankaj Kapur, who plays Dr. Dipankar Roy talking about his research work with his mentor Dr. Kundu, a very senior microbiologist. What caught my attention was that I could readily relate to the way they were talking. It is the talk that we do so often in our lab. Probably in any research lab. As I continued to watch it I kept thinking how things have not changed! The love for scientific approach, the passion for research, the unrelenting quest for truth was there. It is there now too. It was not prevalent. It is not prevalent now either. It was thought that real research is done in the west. That hasn't changed either.
Dr. Roy, who's a government servant has discovered a vaccine for leprosy, after years of toiling. He has worked after his office hours, by setting up his own lab, and working in small private labs of some of his friends. He has also observed that, as a side effect, his vaccine has a definite chance of curing female infertility. It is a revolutionary discovery if it is proved to be true. Dr. Roy states clearly that his primary work is the discovery of a vaccine for leprosy. Though there's a definite possibility of the vaccine curing female infertility, it is only an observed side effect, and he is not going to claim anything yet about that. An enthusiastic journalist friend of Roy's (Irfan Khan) publishes this news. It is the infertility bit of the news that captures the imagination of the people, so to speak, and plays a crucial role in Dr. Roy's eventual "failure".
Very soon bureaucracy takes over. Peer envy starts haunting Roy. Leading gynecologist of Calcutta start a lobby against Roy, because Roy, who's not qualified in gynecology, is interfering in their business by announcing fake results. Roy finds it ridiculous that gynecologists should find problems with his research. It is them who are interfering in his business. It is them who are uinqualified to judge his work, because it has got nothing to do with gynecology; only microbiologists or cellular biologists can review it. The lobby grows stronger. Roy gets rebuked for publishing fake stuff. He is harassed at his work place. But he cannot afford to leave his job due to the loans he had to take for his research work. He gets invited to a talk by medical students. He gets humiliated there. They say they don't "believe" in his research. Roy is not at all amused by their choice of words. He maintains - "Science does not depend on anybody's belief or disbelief; it asks for proof. It's all about truth." He gets transferred to a remote village in Bengal, so that he does not complete his papers.
What is striking also is the foresight of Dr. Kundu, Roy's mentor, who to begin with expresses his displeasure about the news article that mentions the chance of curing infertility. He says - "Dipankar's work is about leprosy." He knows, by virtue of his experience that, this distraction was unnecessary and potentially dangerous until Roy publishes his papers. In any case, he tells Roy to leave everything else and complete his papers. He even makes the first draft of Roy's work and sends it across to an organization called John Anderson Foundation. He knows that the people here will not accept this work unless it is ratified by the west. (An enthusiastic response by the John Anderson foundation is buried deep by the bureaucracy at Roy's hospital.) Dr. Kundu takes Roy's family to task severely when he comes to know that he had gone to give a lecture to medical students. First news papers, then BBC and now this -- he is irritated. He restates the need to complete the papers and send them across before all this publicity kills his work.
A glimpse of hope appears in the form of Dr. Emily from the John Anderson foundation, who unfazed by the bureaucracy, comes all the way to the village where Dr. Roy is working. She goes through his preliminary writings and is amazed at its comprehension. She urges Roy further to complete this work and send across the papers. However, he is finding it immensely difficult to live alone in a village, away from his lab, libraries, and his most supportive wife (Shabana Azmi), who comes to meet him every weekend. He has already grown hopeless, when a new lobby led by his friend and gynecologist Arijit, puts pressure on the director of health to transfer Dr. Roy back to Calcutta.
Back in Calcutta, Roy resumes his work, hopeful of quickly completing his papers and publishing them. But it's too late. One day his journalist friend comes home and in a perturbed tone announces that the vaccine for leprosy has been discovered. The approach for its discovery is exactly the same as Roy's. Just that his name does not appear in the news piece. Some folks from MIT have won the race. At the end of the movie, Roy receives an invitation from John Anderson foundation to join them and continue his work by collaborating with their scientists. He only says to Dr. Kundu - "After all, my research was not false."
The movie was inspired by the tragic story of Subhash Mukhopadhyay, who was the first Indian physician to perform invitro fertilization (test tube baby), and who committed suicide because he was not allowed to present his work in international conferences. It's not so much about the plot of the movie (that I have revealed thoroughly, without even warning) as much as the thought that has gone into it.
The reason I started watching it (it had already begun; I don't know how much I have missed) was because I caught Pankaj Kapur, who plays Dr. Dipankar Roy talking about his research work with his mentor Dr. Kundu, a very senior microbiologist. What caught my attention was that I could readily relate to the way they were talking. It is the talk that we do so often in our lab. Probably in any research lab. As I continued to watch it I kept thinking how things have not changed! The love for scientific approach, the passion for research, the unrelenting quest for truth was there. It is there now too. It was not prevalent. It is not prevalent now either. It was thought that real research is done in the west. That hasn't changed either.
Dr. Roy, who's a government servant has discovered a vaccine for leprosy, after years of toiling. He has worked after his office hours, by setting up his own lab, and working in small private labs of some of his friends. He has also observed that, as a side effect, his vaccine has a definite chance of curing female infertility. It is a revolutionary discovery if it is proved to be true. Dr. Roy states clearly that his primary work is the discovery of a vaccine for leprosy. Though there's a definite possibility of the vaccine curing female infertility, it is only an observed side effect, and he is not going to claim anything yet about that. An enthusiastic journalist friend of Roy's (Irfan Khan) publishes this news. It is the infertility bit of the news that captures the imagination of the people, so to speak, and plays a crucial role in Dr. Roy's eventual "failure".
Very soon bureaucracy takes over. Peer envy starts haunting Roy. Leading gynecologist of Calcutta start a lobby against Roy, because Roy, who's not qualified in gynecology, is interfering in their business by announcing fake results. Roy finds it ridiculous that gynecologists should find problems with his research. It is them who are interfering in his business. It is them who are uinqualified to judge his work, because it has got nothing to do with gynecology; only microbiologists or cellular biologists can review it. The lobby grows stronger. Roy gets rebuked for publishing fake stuff. He is harassed at his work place. But he cannot afford to leave his job due to the loans he had to take for his research work. He gets invited to a talk by medical students. He gets humiliated there. They say they don't "believe" in his research. Roy is not at all amused by their choice of words. He maintains - "Science does not depend on anybody's belief or disbelief; it asks for proof. It's all about truth." He gets transferred to a remote village in Bengal, so that he does not complete his papers.
What is striking also is the foresight of Dr. Kundu, Roy's mentor, who to begin with expresses his displeasure about the news article that mentions the chance of curing infertility. He says - "Dipankar's work is about leprosy." He knows, by virtue of his experience that, this distraction was unnecessary and potentially dangerous until Roy publishes his papers. In any case, he tells Roy to leave everything else and complete his papers. He even makes the first draft of Roy's work and sends it across to an organization called John Anderson Foundation. He knows that the people here will not accept this work unless it is ratified by the west. (An enthusiastic response by the John Anderson foundation is buried deep by the bureaucracy at Roy's hospital.) Dr. Kundu takes Roy's family to task severely when he comes to know that he had gone to give a lecture to medical students. First news papers, then BBC and now this -- he is irritated. He restates the need to complete the papers and send them across before all this publicity kills his work.
A glimpse of hope appears in the form of Dr. Emily from the John Anderson foundation, who unfazed by the bureaucracy, comes all the way to the village where Dr. Roy is working. She goes through his preliminary writings and is amazed at its comprehension. She urges Roy further to complete this work and send across the papers. However, he is finding it immensely difficult to live alone in a village, away from his lab, libraries, and his most supportive wife (Shabana Azmi), who comes to meet him every weekend. He has already grown hopeless, when a new lobby led by his friend and gynecologist Arijit, puts pressure on the director of health to transfer Dr. Roy back to Calcutta.
Back in Calcutta, Roy resumes his work, hopeful of quickly completing his papers and publishing them. But it's too late. One day his journalist friend comes home and in a perturbed tone announces that the vaccine for leprosy has been discovered. The approach for its discovery is exactly the same as Roy's. Just that his name does not appear in the news piece. Some folks from MIT have won the race. At the end of the movie, Roy receives an invitation from John Anderson foundation to join them and continue his work by collaborating with their scientists. He only says to Dr. Kundu - "After all, my research was not false."
The movie was inspired by the tragic story of Subhash Mukhopadhyay, who was the first Indian physician to perform invitro fertilization (test tube baby), and who committed suicide because he was not allowed to present his work in international conferences. It's not so much about the plot of the movie (that I have revealed thoroughly, without even warning) as much as the thought that has gone into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
