Thanks for sharing that excellent piece Saurav. Who does Hazra write for?
c-da At 11:21 PM -0500 11/26/02, Saurav Pathak wrote: >Utpal Brahma said on AssamNet: > >+ Something strange about Indians, they always come in >+ extremes. We have one group who sees no evil in >+ whatever mother India does (the likes of Lavakare) - >+ be it inncocents getting least respect for life. We >+ have another group who sees no virtue in whatever >+ little India has achieved or stands for. > >an article on the topic: > >Hanging India�s dirty linen in public >Indrajit Hazra >November 26 > >The washing machine went bust long ago and a mountain of linen has >piled up. Like any other country, India too has its fair share of >dirty laundry. The question is: do we hang them up in public? >Despite my penchant for quoting the proverb �Patriotism is the last >bastion of the scoundrel� every now and then, I have felt a rush of >pride surging up each time there�s something good happening in the >name of our Nation-State. > >When India wins a cricket match � against Australia, for example, >as it did in the Test series last year � something irrationally >pleasurable makes me feel like singing Vande Mataram (and no, that >doesn�t make me any less secular than when I feel like singing We >Are The Champions. The same feeling creeps up when I hear the world >wowing about some Indian writer, some Indian movie, some Indian dish >etc etc. Sometimes, the tide of pride arrives through the oddest >lane. For example, when I heard that Kim Thayil, the lead guitarist >of the now defunct superband of the Nineties, Soundgarden, was of >Indian origin. (The guy who produced the first Pearl Jam album, Rick >Parasher, is also of desi stock.) > >I feel good when I hear good news about India and Indians. So the >flip side is as true: I get deeply ashamed when something shameful >happens. So let�s get back to the original question: does one hang >one�s dirty linen in public? Of course, one has to define first >what one means by �public�. > >My namesake in the Ramayan, quite clearly realised that his father >Ravana was not the world�s best guy when the latter stole somebody >else�s wife. I believe that he made a big issue out of it and the >usual filial fireworks must have happened in the court of Lanka. Be >that as it may, our man Indrajit decided to fight for his dad and >against Rama because of some strong sort of pride in the fact that >family troubles should be tackled within the family and it was >extremely bad sport to publicise the fracas. (Which is why Uncle >Vibhishan is that great loser from which side you want to look at >him.) > >So �public�, in the case of India and Indians denotes the world >outside India and non-Indians. > >In January, I was at the annual Round Table meet organised by the >Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs at Cumberland Lodge in >England. It was a rather pleasant affair with me listening to >longish lectures, delivering a pitifully short and woolly one, and >meeting up with interesting people with whom I nibbled away on many >stereotypes. After one such session, a lady came up to me. She >worked in an NGO dealing with leprosy and was going back to India >after a couple of years. She told me about her work in Orissa and I >told her about mine in Delhi and things were pottering along, until >she asked me whether it was safe to continue her work in Orissa. > >I was a bit flummoxed. There was a time when Westerners (oh, what a >jolly catch-all phrase!) saw India as the land of snake charmers and >elephants and all that. So was this woman stuck in that world where >India was still inhabited by Ganga Din and Maharajas? The penny >dropped after she added, "How seriously dangerous is the Bajrang Dal >in Orissa now?" Other words appeared in my head inside that warm bar >room at Cumberland Lodge: Graham Staines, Dara Singh, Christian >missionaries. > >My first reaction was to tell her that it was safe to go to Orissa >and that the incident of Graham Staines was an aberration, an >anomaly. India was not the caricature of a barbaric State where >lynch mobs go running about looking for people unlike them. I kept >telling her that secularism was strong enough to get rid of such >nuisance. She seemed convinced and said that this was pretty much >what she heard from other friends in India also. > >Much later, I kept thinking whether my picture was not slightly out >of focus. I still stand by my opinion that what happened at >Manoharpur village in Orissa on January 22, 1999 -- or for that >matter, what happened at the Dangs district in Gujarat in 1998 -- >was an ugly aberration. But then, so was Godhra, Gujarat and all >those big or small conflagarations that seem to make newspaper >readers tire of life. Was what I told the lady at Cumberland Lodge >the truth. It was like saying that there�s a billion-to-one chance >of a lightning striking you. But what does that billion-to-one >statistic mean to the person at the other end? > >I realised that I was defending my nation�s image � not that I�m >the Republic Day-parade-saluting, Gandhi-photograph-on-my-wall, >pride-in-my-nation kind. Far from it. I badmouth (and badwrite) >India�s political class and society to a point where I�m accused >of being an anti-national, firang-chamcha. But the point is that >some unconscious editing tool flicks into action whenever I talk >about India�s shortcomings to foreigners. As they say, you can take >the boy out of the Nation-State stirrings, but you can�t take the >Nation-State stirrings out of the boy. > >More recently, I was talking to a gentleman who works in Geneva for >the European Union. Over baigan bharta and roti, he asked me about >Narendra Modi. Instinctively, I looked away and started telling him >how it�s appalling what happened � and is still on the pot � in >Gujarat. When he, off the cuff, made a remark about how Europeans >found it remarkable that the chief minister, accused of being >hand-in-glove with the post-Godhra carnage was still in power and >was running for reelections, my embarrassment was made acute. I >asked for the bill and felt the same way a chap feels after a >neighbour tells a chap about how he caught his father coming out of >a brothel. > >So what does one do when talking about one�s country and countrymen >to outsiders? I have a � perhaps stupid � principle. I tell them >whatever I really think about the �dirty linen� only when asked. I >won�t � yet � get up on a barrel in Hyde Park and shout about the >carnage that happened in Gujarat; or about dubious ways in which the >Indian government handles things from Kashmir terrorism to the >victims of the Union Carbide accident. But when asked, I tell them, >as calmly, as objectively as possible (which is impossible, either >because I�m too ashamed to tell them about the truth or because I >sometimes do feel too strongly about something.) > >So in the end, I�m stuck feeling silly in front of a firang who, >when discussing the troubles of India and Indians, either thinks >that I�m the type of scoundrel who is holding on to his �last >bastion�; or who thinks that I�m one of those nuts � immortalised >by that Goodness Gracious Me! character who keeps barking about how >all the things in the universe came from �India!� � who refuses >to hear any criticism of his country. > >But then again, as people of my generation remember, Nargis was >wrong to slam Satyajit Ray for �portraying poverty, and only >poverty� in his films. Nargis, who made that comment after seeing >Pather Panchali getting rave reviews and awards from the West, >thought that the film was peddling poverty � which was as inane as >saying that Chaplins movies were only about people running around >and kicking people. So if I get slammed for answering uncomfortable >questions about my country to outsiders -- which I, in some weird >admission of tribal camaraderie I don�t relish � so be it. But >then, I have a feeling that there are other fellow countrymen � all >well-meaning, I�m sure � who�ll slam me for not speaking up >enough. In other words, I�m screwed. > >P.S. Before I sign off, I just want to tell you about the >uncomfortable truth that I came face to face with after writing last >week�s column on Bill Gates. For one, I was NOT � as most >respondents thought � in favour of throwing Mr Gates�s money that >he donated for AIDS research back at him. Quite the contrary. What I >wanted to say was that even if philanthropy has some hidden ulterior >motive, it is to be applauded. > >Likewise Mother Teresa. Her greatness is not to be disputed even if >she had any other motive apart from serving people (like wanting to >being a good person, for example). For all those who thought that I >was slamming Bill Gates and Mother Teresa, let me make it clear that >what I wanted to say was that a good act far outweighs the motive >for the act. > >I blame the confusion on my writing skills and as punishment, I have >decided to stop writing this column�. Nearly fell for that one, >didn�t you? Heh, heh. >
