     
|
|
 |
|
Should superficiality be outlawed?
5th Feb 1999 Srinath Srinivasa @usa.net
Hi all, When I looked at the www.data-flo.net/india web site and enjoyed the articles written there about Indian life in the knowledge that the articles represented a "superficial" picture of Indian life (as mentioned by the author), I could not help but think about the power and malice that this superficiality can weild. The site contains so many statements depicting specific incidents and generalises them as "Indian mentality". And that was why I was tempted to generalize "unnecessary preaching" as American mentality. Both are just as superficial. But for the common person superficiality is life. The exodus towards greener pastures in the west, equating money with added value, religious fundamentalism, dirty politics,... all are results of superficial thinking. What if I made superficial statements like (pardon the language-- but it is true) "why do Americans use paper to clean their asses?" or "why do Americans share a glass of water which has been half drunk by another person, and whose saliva still resides on the rim of the cup; and are worried about the germs that reside on telephone microphones because so many people talk into it? (the latter was based on a TV news feature)". I can claim that they are superficial (which they are), and made with LOVE for the American life style and should be taken with large doses of salt. But it sure would be used as fodder for any kind of rabid verbal fight, if situations lead to such a fight. I have seen so many of my friends fall for the perceived glamor of the west-- seeking out greener pastures, earnings in dollars and sending the money back home, not realising that they are in fact running away from building the Indian system, and the money they are sending back home actually feeds on the system of corruption, because the "good" system is not so strong, and all the "pillars" of this good system-- the professionals painfully educated by the Indian system-- are slowly being eroded. All this sounds so philosophical an argument, and I am sure none would have thought about global economies when jumping at an opportunity to realise their American dream. I have seen so many of my friends argue for capitalism (with an American accent in their voices) and the "virtue of selfishness" with an Ayn Randian air. But can't they realise that the selfishness adds value (and is thus virtuous), only if it is directed towards value? People, rather, I would say, most of the Indian industry, maybe even the government is equating money with added value. It takes a bit of probing to realise that "money = value *only* if there is a system to convert money to value, and in the lack of a good system of monetary exchange (as is the case with India), the availability of money prompts just about any kind of system to manifest itself-- be it in the form of extortion, fundamentalism, burglary or whatever". And what do we hope to achieve by selling pillars of our system to get money? It sounds like selling parts of your car to buy petrol-- your car is going to collapse one day if it continues-- and you can have all the petrol for yourself. Suddenly (a few) people in India are earning in dollars, have seen parts of USA and wants to lead life like them. They want cars, they want microwaves,... not realising that there are no roads to drive cars, there is not enough electricity for all the gadgets... And nobody wants to work for building them-- the Indian system, because it pays in rupees and is not half as glamorous. Many times I feel like screaming out at superficiality. When I was studying in India and made such statements, people laughed so much at me, and had made me convince myself that I would be some sort of a failure or a madman, if I were to be so "foolish" to hold a computer science degree and not seek out US shores. I had written an examination for further studies after my bachelor's and I remember this cousin of mine who was telling me on phone "I hope we can meet sometime so that I can convince you of the foolishness of studying further when you have such brilliant opportunities". I tried so many times in vain to explain to him that my future studies was not directed at eventually getting a higher paying job. And what is even more dismaying is that I actually relented to this implicit "pressure of superficiality", as I have now come to call it, (I cannot believe it!) and I actually am getting more attention when I visit India! People who were once snubbing their noses at me now come to talk to me as though I have visited some fairy land, and some of it would rub on them by just talking with me. I can narrate an incident which summarizes the "pressure of superficiality" currents flowing among Indians-- When I was in India, I had once presented a paper in an international conference in Chennai, based on my work which I had done in India. I was surprised to note that there was not a single question and very few seemed interested. When I came back to my seat, the person sitting next to me introduced himself as the director of a local company and said that the talk was good. Our conversation went as follows-- Him: You did this work in here? In India? Me: Yes... Him: You did not work on this in the US? Me: (quizzically), No... Him: Why did you not work on it in the US? Me: (d-uhh??) I don't understand. Why should I work on it in the US? What has it got to do with it? Him: No, nothing... but if you had had a US affiliation, you would have got a better response from the audience. Why is this hype? I have made quite a few trips here and there out of India, but truly, I have not found Indian life to be any more difficult or irritating or Indian bureaucrats to be very indifferent (I have been at the receiving end of some really bad behavior from German bureaucrats, for instance). Sometimes I feel that I cannot understand which is causing more harm-- the lack of development (of big industries) that India suffers from due to it missing the industrial revolution, or the superficiality that is being permeated to every home and every individual, thanks to the innovations of the information revolution. Why can't people see that India is a different nation from America? Why can't people address India's problems at first principles? (The other day I got an abstract from a researcher in an IIT working on "discovering hidden associations among wares sold in supermarkets"-- how many supermarkets are there in India that have so much transaction data collected online that you have to discover hidden knowledge in them? If only he had looked around him, there are lots of problems-- too much traffic or too much illiteracy or whatever, are they not opportunities for innovative research? When I was studying for my masters there seemed to be an implicit notion that whatever was "current" in computer science research was whatever was going on in Palo Alto, or IBM or Stanford or MIT or some such place. But they are just addressing their problems! Why can't we address our own problems, and be just as current????) If you were to ask me, superficiality should be outlawed! But how? Any ideas? Best, Srinath -- Send in your ideas to address challenges of Indian life: http://www.indiapolicy.org/ifi
6th Feb 1999
Dushyant Arun Viswanathan @ea.oac.uci.edu
That is quite a profound piece you wrote, concerning superficiality. We are witnessing the gradual whitewashing of the Eastern mentality, and it is quite difficult to stop it, and get people thinking about what they are doing, and the perilous consequences of their idiotic superficiality. But there is one possibility. We must resurface our indigenous Indian mentality. We must be re-educated in the ways of our ancestors. We must realize our own potential that runs in our bloodlines, as Jung perhaps would say; it is unnatural and rather disgusting to lower ourselves, as Indians, to the perverse commercial mentality that is taking over the world. I say, thank god the industrial revolution didnt sweep over India when it swept over Europe and America. Its a saving grace. We must distribute articles on our own svadharma, we must promote the idea of service to our kinsmen. Its an interesting concept that most of India is poor, but Indians are so affluent outside of India. And the rich of India are very very rich. The rich have a duty to the not-rich. We, as the Indian intellectuals in an affluent society must promote, via articles, social work, and financial donation, the upliftment of our people. The have-nots always will want to emulate those who are rich. And richness and Americanness are synonymous, in this context. We have to promote the great thoughts of the brilliant people of recent times-- people like Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Tilak, Dayanand Saraswati, etc. Its re-education in the archetypical Indian mentality that will save us from the degradation of commercial oppression. Dushyant
8th Feb 1999
Srinath Srinivasa @usa.net
I would like to add a bit more of my ramblings as a sequel to the mail on superficiality. Firstly, the earlier mail was NOT about India and/or USA. It was not to insinuate anything about the relative "goodness" of the Indian set of beliefs or the US set of beliefs; nor was it a satire on the Indian NRI aspirant moving to US shores. The main idea behind the mail was to put forth the argument that superficial information (like hype) is not as innocous and harmless as it seems. When we delve deeper into a system of axioms, we may find that the truth equations change almost diametrically. Which is precisely, what I fear is happening in India. When I have time I am planning to write a complete article on this issue of the Indian "context" and where might be the source of its problems and put it up on the ifi site-- but that's just not yet. By the term capitalism and free market, people usually mean what I have now come to term "first order" capitalism or free market. Here all exchanges are within a single logical system and there is no strong outside entity which could influence the way the system evolves. US at the turn of the century, can be termed to be somewhat like that. At that time, free market, in essence meant, "If ya gotta get money, ya gotta put somethin' in". And this "putting somethin' in" helped the whole system flourish. But present day India is different. It is a "second order" scenario-- the equation is "if ya gotta get money, ya gotta go to US or join a MNC". Here, there is no "put something in". Mathematically speaking (sorry I get a bit abstract, when speaking about, well, abstract issues), consider a system S in which we are in. In Ayn Randian world, one puts value into S in order to get money so that s/he could extract value from S out of that money. Now, we have two systems S1 and S2. People in S1 still follow the earlier model, but people in S2 add value to S1, get money from it, and take value from S2. The connections between S2 to S1 for getting value from S1 are not completely economically determined. There are a lot of strings attached for S2 to get value from S1, which involves international politics more, and international business less. So, finally S1 appreciates in value and S2 depreciates in value. Consider the arguments of the globalists for free flow of goods between countries-- it does not matter much among US and Europe, for instance, as both have more or less the same buying power. But considering the difference between dollar and the rupee, figuratively, it means that for every one unit of work that one puts in US, his/her competitor in India would have to put 42 units of work! In an ideal sense, "free market" should not only mean free exchange of goods, but also 1:1 value among buying power. Actually, even with that we would face problems simply because we don't have the industrial infrastructure, for which the first world has had a 300 year head start. When confronted with a crisis or a seeming crisis, we normally do a worst case analysis. In this case, the worst case seems very frightening to me. Look at these-- 1. The system S2 is drained of its value and is completely dependent (like humanitarian/aid-seeking) on S1... 2. ...which amounts to a complete colonization by S1, but with the exceptions like.. * Unlike British times, the colonization here would be implicit-- people would be actually richer and have more options at an individual level like better cars, better refrigirators, etc., but almost nothing on a systemic level-- no good roads to drive cars, not enough electricity, no good waste management system, etc. * There would be a lot of problems, but no visible adversary. In the time of the British, every plight of Indians were attributed to them, and they were thrown out; but now, when confronted by stressful life, increasing prices or denigrating public health, we don't know what to do, we keep blaming every political party that is in power, every policy, every religion, every race, every foreign country from Pakistan to USA ..... and keep on clashing among ourselves. Simply put, "more money" + "weak system" = ANARCHY. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS IS: 3. All of these may not happen by design! Unlike the times of the British, where the British *meant* to colonize in distant lands in order to meet their requirements, the present "colonization" may not be due to any kind of devious design by US or NATO or anybody. It could well be the natural way by which things unfold-- we are setting the stage for it! The systemic changes would be somewhat like the growth of the internet-- nobody can control its growth, or nobody is in charge of its well being. Is the analysis realistic? Well, to me it certainly seems so. Look at the economic crisis that all the Asian "Tigers" recently had. I would not be surprised if the causal roots of the crisis lie in some combination of decisions taken by one or more MNCs in far off USA or Europe, even if in the best of interests. Consider the increase in sporadic crises involving public life, in recent times. We have had too many changes of governments, too many incidents of ugly fundamentalism, too many cases of teenage crime, too many cases of bigotry... If we accept that the analysis is okay and sketches a probable future, what if such a situation actually happens? What can we do about it? How can we salvage ourselves, and fast!?! The concern expressed here are not about cultural invasion or a clash of ideologies. They are about the very system that most of us lead our entire lives in. (For example, looking at the current growth of number of vehicles and pollution levels, we cannot hope to wait until new roads are built, new mass transport is installed, new engines with less pollution are fitted into vehicles...) So what can we do? what? what?? what??? Needless to say, I have been haunted by these questions almost every moment of time when I am awake. And this was one of the motivations for starting a database to solicit ideas for India. The way I see it, the most promising ray of hope seems to be in research. We need to research the fundamentals of the Indian lifestyle. We need a lot of interdisciplinary researchers asking fundamental questions-- doesn't matter if IEEE or Nature or Science does not accept their papers. If it is consistent, it ought to be implemented. We ought to seek out LOCAL entrepreneurs to implement research problems. Sure, we need money and all the dollars we can get. But to get petrol, we cannot afford to sell our cars. And pertinent interdisciplinary research, backed by strong and astute entrepreneurs would go a long way in building the car to use the incoming petrol and possibly buy more petrol. I would be very very interested in your comments and criticisms about the cogitations expressed in this article. Please let me know if you find any inconsistency. Best Wishes! Srinath -- Send in your ideas to address challenges of Indian life: http://www.indiapolicy.org/ifi
10th Feb 1999
Bad Rajiv @hotmail.com
Wow, Srinath, that was a well written piece! I believe things aren't really that hopeless. The root cause of the problem is this archaic system we've inherited. The system was designed by a colonial power to adress its own administrative needs. Worked for them, but doesn't work for our present day circumstances. Long ago, Gandhiji recognised this - and suggested that local self-government be used as the bulwark of a new system. He was on the right track. Today, we have a system in which people from far away control funds and take decisions (whenever they get the time to do their jobs) which are quite irrelevant for the local folks. The administrative machinery is so inefficient that the cost of doing anything at all escalates to ridiculous amounts, and still doesn't deliver value. So, schools are run-down, roads never get fixed, hospitals have expensive machinery lying in a total state of disrepair. To this, add corruption, and whatever reources manage to flow through this creaky system are stolen. Have you noticed how the government measures its performance? Not by what they achieved, but usually by how much money they managed to spend. They actually set targets that way. The consequences are inevitable. Do you know how many useless things get bought by government departments and agencies just before the year ends? To ensure that budgets don't lapse and are renewed in the new year. At inflated rates that allow the supplier and the purchaser to pocket lots of money. (Useless because they never get used. Do you know how many computers the government has? Most are lying idle or are very marginally used). Yet, we meet so many bright, intelligent looking officers. What do they think of this? Sadly, most have succumbed to the system that rewards them to get "with it" and punishes them for not complying with this "win-win" formula they've found. Ask them, and they'll tell you that they are not officially aware of any wrong doing. Are they blind, you ask yourself. But officially aware is more important than just aware. Gandhiji anticipated this, I think, and felt that locally elected officials would be more sensitive and more responsive to local needs. Of course you'd have some corruption and inefficiency, but local elections would provide some kind of redressal system to the local folks. India looks like too big a problem to solve, but like every problem, breaking it up into smaller, more manageable parts would make it easier to tackle. This may sound simplistic but I don't see another method working. Along with this we would have to give up many of our existing notions of how government systems are supposed to run. Such as the lifelong job security that government jobs offer. People who've been hired to do a job should get on and do their work, knowing that they can be sacked if they don't. The country is today suffering from a crushing debt burden that only goes to keep a very large number of useless people in secure, cushy jobs. Get rid of 90% of them and the need for deficit financing would disapppear. And efficiency would actually go up! I once had the privilege of meeting Dr. Kurien, the man responsible for the Amul miracle, Operation Flood and so many other good things. He voiced exactly this thought. He said that the elimination of most governmental controls has led to huge improvements in performance in the milk industry worldwide. There are solutions to many of our problems. Some will work in some places and not in others. The problem with a highly centralised system is that many great solutions are abandoned because they aren't applicable everywhere. I'm convinced that that's the root cause of our problem. A too centre-centric (Sounds quite nice when you repeat it aloud rapidly 5 times) system that provides too much security and no accountability of performance and achievement. Having said that, what can one do about it? Ah, there you have me. The people who can change the existing system are the very same who benefit most from maintaining this awful, vicious status-quo. So, it is inevitable that the change will have to come from some other angle. Every time we elect a new party to power at the centre, we hope they will change the entrenched system, but no, they quickly get seduced by the status-quo. What could these other angles be? I don't know. Maybe some other readers could contribute some ideas? I sure hope this is interesting and useful, folks, and not just idealistic ranting........ Rajiv K. Badlani
13th Feb 1999
Aseem Asthana @bom4.vsnl.net.in
Hi there, There has been some posts recently from Mr. Srinivas and Mr Rajiv. Let me add some more to it. Mr Rajiv said that the root cause was inefficiency, corruption and > I'm convinced that that's the root cause of our > problem. A too centre-centric (Sounds quite nice when you repeat it > aloud rapidly 5 times) system that provides too much security and no > accountability of performance and achievement. (I tried the centre-centric thing. Nice sound). This is true. However, in my opinion the main couase of many if India's problems is that not many people voice their opinions, register protest or in short are affected by anything. Let me elaborate this further. I was once at a restaurent near a high way. Local place. The owner of the place had paked his jeep at the high way(NH no 3). It was struck by a speeding bus going to Mumbai. Not head on but from the side. No one was injured and the bus driver even apologetically stopped the bus. But the fellow, the owner rushed to the driver along with the waiters of the place with hockey's in hands and threatened to bash up the driver. He was taking law into his hands, instead of calling the police. All the people in the restaurent must have felt something at the behaviour of the man but none of them even cared to look up from their plates. Me and my freinds were the only ones between the owner and the driver. This is just a small example. What I want to say is that the people are really not registering their protests. In most of the cases evil springs from small cases. It has to be nipped in the bud. A raised eye brow, a raised voice a small shout is all that is required. This lets the wrong-doer know that this kind of behaviour is not encouraged and even more than that, that if continued he may face stiff opposition. This is true not only in case of privates but also in case of erring govts and companies. In this regard the recent initiative taken up by some people on this list agaist Sterling is laudable. Let them know that such behaviour will be met with stiff opposition. The whole point of this monolouge is that we have to take more action in trying to make this country more to our liking. In some case, most of you must have noticed sometime, people actively ingore a wrong doing because taking even the sligthest of actions might be a dis comfort to them. Well that is all that is there to it. Aseem. Aseem Asthana, 239 A, New Swarg Mandir, Mhow 453441, MP, India. Final Yr, Comp Sc. Sri Govindram Sekseria Institute of Technology, 23, Park Rd, Indore. MP. India.
