I am always interested in people's perceptions about my country. Americans, at large, still feel India is a land of snake charmers and elephants, or now a days of course Indians take their well established jobs away, by slogging their ass out. Brits & Europeans need no introduction to India - some are still in the Winston Churchill frame of mind and some of-course have admitted that India & Indians are a class different who make their own spicy & zesty living, wherever they go.
I have heard a lot of adjectives about India in my interactions with travellers from different parts of the world. But everyone admits - India is an "experience" - it is often described as the last stop in the global travelers itinerary. It is anarchic on surface, it is dustier on the first impression, it is overstocked with people - despite all this, a visitor always finds a coherent, consistent force of life, vibrant, incredibly beautiful. In short India is an universal nation with twenty-eight states, seven union territories, 30 different languages (18 of them officially recognized), 2000 dialects & ofcourse 1.12 billion people of innumerable races and creed.
But when you look into India more closely, you are struck by the duality of the country, the deep divide that painfully separates us - largely based on the dichotomy in our economy - India Vs. Bharat. India is a notional entity, largely anglicised and relatively better-off, thriving on the service economy; while Bharat is the rural, agricultural, poor and backward face of our country surviving on agrarian economy; our agricultural methods still remain archaic at large. Have you ever heard that the sensex of country, which is a home to the largest number of billionaires in Asia & Europe, reacting to monsoon predictions. Ask an Indian how many times he/she has seen a Merc and a bullock cart crawling in the traffic side by side. A large population of our country lives in villages, which are tucked away in remote corners, still living in the 16th century, very traditional and cut off from the rest of the world. It is painful to see the slum dwellers and the footpath occupants of large cities in India are infact refugees from Bharat who come in search of livelihood to India.
On the other hand I see another India - the vibrant, evolving, transforming and challenging nation with new dimensions as if it was born yesterday, despite having a history as old as 4,500 years back, at times questioning the archaic values and traditions, man made flimsy belief systems, and blind faiths that Indians tend to adopt.
There is also another view to this - India believes in the West, Bharat reposes its trust in the ancient culture of the land. The Indian outlook is materialistic, while the Bharathiya ethos view spirit as primary and believes in the spiritual approach. While India believes in individualism, Bharat believes in family values. As a Bharatiya, cows are indeed holy and worshipped while as an Indian - steak preparation is delicious and mouth watering. Indians would celebrate their birthday by cutting cake, blowing candles and opening champagne bottles, while Bharatiyas are awestruck about the concept of blowing off light on your birthday.
Whatever the view - there is a stark distinction in our society, there is a constant struggle between two distinct attitudes to life, but both co-exist together. Our political leaders can exploit both shades of India, make false promises in election speeches and manifestos of bridging this gap - between the rich & poor, between tradition & modernity, between agrarian and service economy - life for people from this land would go on. We all will die - burn, bury or cremate according to our religious beliefs - but we would be looking forward towards the pragmatic and straight-forward functioning - trying our best to bridge the gap, but we would never be able to.
As I relax this Saturday evening in the nice, cosy & friendly capital city of Utah - far away from my country - I often wonder about India’s individuality on the global front, its originality and its unique diversity, which is brimming all over - sustaining the continuous onslaughts of corruption, politics and bureaucracy.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Mr. Darcy & Rhett Butler
Having done my schooling from Catholic schools and given the battering in many Indian families to prefer British classics over American literature, exposed me to 18th century novels at quite an young age. By the time, I was in Vth grade - David Copperfield, Great Expectations and Shakespeare were part of my regular studies.
The first time I read Pride & Prejudice was in 7th standard when my parents got me an abridged version of the novel. As I read on, I discovered a vast sea of human emotions first time expressed on paper in front of me. Besides Jane Eyre, Jane Austen's best written work of art was amongst my first few novels that I loved reading again and again. In tenth grade, I was smitten by Gone with the Wind. My mind and I could never put it down till I completed it. One set at the backdrop of a quiet serene English county of early 18th century, the other that scripted a civilization that was Gone With The Wind - the plantations, the American Civil War & the Reconstruction period - set almost a century later. Pride & Prejudice is a classic, which elaborately detailed the traditional 18th century British society with typical constrained romanticism - early Victorian approach. Gone with the Wind followed the typical American literary principals - personal, intense with overt display of emotion.
Fitzwilliam Darcy and Rhett K. Butler, the two male protagonists, one in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and the other in Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind - are among the top 10 romanticized characters of English literature. Two interesting, rude, unsocial characters set in completely different backdrops have a striking similarity. Pride & Prejudice opens with the famous line 'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife' - the male protagonists of both the novels are handsome, self-absorbed, chesty aristocrats, dashing and attractive to women at first glance, become deemed as a men unworthy of marriage as there no positive qualities other than wealth. Like Mr. Darcy, the community has a negative impression of Rhett Butler and it sharpens into a particular resentment for both the characters as the plotline progresses. Despite the similarities, if closely analyszed there is a distinct difference. Butler is suave and debonair with his natural charm. He is not a gentleman in any way, shape of form. He is gifted with a certain ability to mock and insult in a very irritating manner. Darcy, despite being potrayed as arrogant and detached, struggles with his conscience, emotions and reason, and is in truth a kind and good natured man. In the end, despite his wealth, looks, and talents, Butler is left looking for something that still holds value in his life, whereas Darcy gets what he wants.
As I grew up, I often tried choosing between Mr. Darcy and Rhett Butler. I have met lot of friends across the globe, who have read, appreciated and fallen in love with both the characters, like me. But when asked to compare, friends have chosen bits and pieces of both characters, typical of human natue. We always want to choose the most adept, but in actuality never end up with anything close to our utopian world. As men and women become peacocks in their efforts to attract each other, flaunting their plumes and strut , we definitely somewhere in the back of our mind get influenced by these characters - they do form the first visual prototype from which we draw inspiration. Mr Darcy for sure is no longer 'relevant' to the modern female, but he continues to fascinate women despite being the potrayed as an image of male dominance. Rhett Butler gave modern society the epitomes of manly persona. Women see him as handsome and dashing, with an infusion of "bad boy", getting infatuated by the tall, dark and the handsome.
I, as every person on this earth, has her own theories. For sure Darcy and Butler are ficticious and are imaginary characters but we do adore and dream of. However these novels are adult versions of fairytale and in reality there is no fairy Godmother. What we end up in life is completely different from what we imagine. Whom we meet or whom we accept as the Rhett Butler or Mr. Darcy of our life, happiness in a relationship is entirely a matter of chance, which needs to kindled and cared for very carefully. We all look for morally upright devoted and faithful relationships. But finally what matters is accepting the way I am. No Darcy no Butler but the acceptance of the other, just the way he or she is..
The first time I read Pride & Prejudice was in 7th standard when my parents got me an abridged version of the novel. As I read on, I discovered a vast sea of human emotions first time expressed on paper in front of me. Besides Jane Eyre, Jane Austen's best written work of art was amongst my first few novels that I loved reading again and again. In tenth grade, I was smitten by Gone with the Wind. My mind and I could never put it down till I completed it. One set at the backdrop of a quiet serene English county of early 18th century, the other that scripted a civilization that was Gone With The Wind - the plantations, the American Civil War & the Reconstruction period - set almost a century later. Pride & Prejudice is a classic, which elaborately detailed the traditional 18th century British society with typical constrained romanticism - early Victorian approach. Gone with the Wind followed the typical American literary principals - personal, intense with overt display of emotion.
Fitzwilliam Darcy and Rhett K. Butler, the two male protagonists, one in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and the other in Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind - are among the top 10 romanticized characters of English literature. Two interesting, rude, unsocial characters set in completely different backdrops have a striking similarity. Pride & Prejudice opens with the famous line 'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife' - the male protagonists of both the novels are handsome, self-absorbed, chesty aristocrats, dashing and attractive to women at first glance, become deemed as a men unworthy of marriage as there no positive qualities other than wealth. Like Mr. Darcy, the community has a negative impression of Rhett Butler and it sharpens into a particular resentment for both the characters as the plotline progresses. Despite the similarities, if closely analyszed there is a distinct difference. Butler is suave and debonair with his natural charm. He is not a gentleman in any way, shape of form. He is gifted with a certain ability to mock and insult in a very irritating manner. Darcy, despite being potrayed as arrogant and detached, struggles with his conscience, emotions and reason, and is in truth a kind and good natured man. In the end, despite his wealth, looks, and talents, Butler is left looking for something that still holds value in his life, whereas Darcy gets what he wants.
As I grew up, I often tried choosing between Mr. Darcy and Rhett Butler. I have met lot of friends across the globe, who have read, appreciated and fallen in love with both the characters, like me. But when asked to compare, friends have chosen bits and pieces of both characters, typical of human natue. We always want to choose the most adept, but in actuality never end up with anything close to our utopian world. As men and women become peacocks in their efforts to attract each other, flaunting their plumes and strut , we definitely somewhere in the back of our mind get influenced by these characters - they do form the first visual prototype from which we draw inspiration. Mr Darcy for sure is no longer 'relevant' to the modern female, but he continues to fascinate women despite being the potrayed as an image of male dominance. Rhett Butler gave modern society the epitomes of manly persona. Women see him as handsome and dashing, with an infusion of "bad boy", getting infatuated by the tall, dark and the handsome.
I, as every person on this earth, has her own theories. For sure Darcy and Butler are ficticious and are imaginary characters but we do adore and dream of. However these novels are adult versions of fairytale and in reality there is no fairy Godmother. What we end up in life is completely different from what we imagine. Whom we meet or whom we accept as the Rhett Butler or Mr. Darcy of our life, happiness in a relationship is entirely a matter of chance, which needs to kindled and cared for very carefully. We all look for morally upright devoted and faithful relationships. But finally what matters is accepting the way I am. No Darcy no Butler but the acceptance of the other, just the way he or she is..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)