1. Birthday present of a jet plane to the wife. And yet by another a yacht. Building a home for Rs. 800 crores. Having palatial mansions in various cities of world and India. Companies buying jet planes for the exclusive use of their CEOs. Spending over 50 crores of rupees towards the marriage of the off spring. Buying a handbag costlier than that of a car. The list goes on. Some of the rich Indians have now got out of the inhibition of parading their wealth.
2. Naturally such incidents are widely reported in the English media. But then English media has only limited reach. But when these incidents are reported in the TV, particularly the vernacular channels, then reach becomes very high or widespread.
3. The reaction of viewers would be mixed. ‘ Why not, when these people can afford it ‘ - general reaction of upward mobile people. ‘ It is against the Indian culture ‘ - this is the view of by far the largest segment of Indians. ‘ They have earned it, so it is for them to do what they like, this has been the trend world-over, it is peanuts compared to the extremely lavish style in which kings lived just a hundred years back, spending leads to economic activity, etc., etc.,’ would be some other comments. Generally old people look askance at such exhibition of wealth, whereas youngsters tend to take the same in their stride.
4. However, it cannot be denied that such actions have social implications, particularly in country like India with extreme poverty, more so since TV is reaching every nook and corner of the country.
5. When kings ruled the country before merger of their kingdoms with India, people ( subjects ) looked at the kings with awe, fear and reverence. The kings had the power of life and death of their subjects. The courtiers of some of the kings even propagated the myth that the kings were progenies of this or that God, which many of the subjects believed also. Hence the term jealousy had no place in those times in the way of thinking of people towards their kings.
6. At that time even the courtiers, mofussil chiefs, and others including landlords and businessmen, while living in style far above the levels of ordinary people but much below that of the kings did hardly evoke any resentment among ordinary folks because the same was within the ambit of the expected and accepted.
7. Then came independence of the country. Politicians, instead of kings became rulers,. However, the subjects continued to hold their erstwhile kings with same awe as before. Over a period of time awe was replaced by respect.
8. Politicians of the immediate post independent era were of high integrity and lived simple lives.
9. Slowly business people started to live extravagantly which was looked at askance by politicians but ordinary people accepted the position in their stride but not with awe, as was the case in respect of kings.
10. The present scenario. Erstwhile kings are no more revered by their erstwhile subjects. Politicians became corrupt and amassed wealth but as most of them continued to live in simple style, jealousy was not in the psyche of people when they viewed the politicians.
11. Business people went on acquiring wealth. But it is only during the last decade or so that they started exhibiting wantonly their wealth. Palatial bunglows, luxury cars, frequent foreign jaunts, opulent marriages etc., are exhibited now with panache. This metamorphosis was quick and required time was not there for slow adjustment and take the same in their stride for people to the changes in the style of living of rich. It need to be noted that till a few years back ostentatious living and vulgar display of riches were frowned upon by most of the Indians, including those who had riches. There is no attempt to under play or hide the exhibitionist culture. And it is widely believed that this is done out of ill gotten lucre.
As the eminent writer Santosh Desai has written:
· “Is anything vulgar any more. The idea of vulgarity has been appropriated as an epithet to be used by groups with extreme views on how other should behave.
· To pronounce something vulgar was to banish it from the ranks of the civilized, by deeming things to be inappropriate rather than illicit.
· Watching the IPL auctions and the media interviews thereafter, I was struck by the absence of that world from our active vocabulary today. Here we had a spectacle where the richest and the most glamourous body shopped the purest and the most talented by bidding on them. There was a television interview, with the owners all resplendent in designer glasses talking about their acquisitions. In the entire interaction, there was not a trace of self-consciousness about what was happening. After all, they were rich and beautiful and they had already bought Ferraris so why not sport stars now? The market in India is not content to be an invisible mechanism but wants to strut around dressed in gaudy finery. Wealth becomes real only when displayed. Money seems to create a vicarious thrall.
· In the Television, unseemly squabbles between bit-has-beens and obscure never-will-bes, comedy routines based on cross-dressing jokes full of bawdy suggestiveness, high pitched melodramatic theatrics by reality show judges who are forever moving between tantrums, exploitive headlines in the name of investigative reporting on news channels, up-the-skirt camera angles used to cover a new sporting phenomenon called the cheerleader, the list is a long, long one.
· The legitimacy of money and its ability to speak in a uniform voice, has blunted the sharp differences that existed earlier. The security once derived from one’s social class which made money secondary is no longer as much in evidence.
· Television as a medium too hastens the move to privilege the quantitative over the qualitative. The TRP, which is a superficial measure of viewership, determines television content today; it is more important how many people watch rather than what kind influence a channel is able to exert.
· In a world full of diverse people, there can be no uniform standard of good taste. One person’s aspiration can so easily be another person’s vulgarity.”
12. It could be said that with the increase in the number of affluent people, level of affluence in the country going up and changing values, this trend is to be expected, as had happened in rich countries.
13. As is human nature, this change would also be taken in its stride in due course.
14. Yet one feels uneasy at this development, more so in a country like India with too many poor who are subsisting with unimaginable poverty. In that context the above mentioned change becomes an eye sore, which could have negative social implications. It is so and hence this emerging culture has to be deplored.
****
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
What is Culture?
I. The term Culture encompasses various aspects of human life, such as:
1. Religion ( practicing / non practicing, conversion ), concept of God, caste beliefs, rituals, festivals,
2. Society, marriage, family values, sex, bringing up children,
3. Customs, cuisine, literature, arts ( music, dance, architecture ), values, ethos, etc.,
4. Even the above listing is only a little more than illustrative and not exhaustive, much less complete. e.g. it is often said that ‘ it is American culture, it is military culture, it is Punjabi culture, it is Tata Group culture,’ and so on so forth.
5. It is important to note that National culture in a manner of speaking is a chimera because identity gets fragmented by separate religious beliefs and practices and societal values.
6. What is the culture of an individual, his family, his religion, his country? To understand the same, one would have to approach the issue negatively, i.e., by looking at the beliefs, rituals, societal mores, family functioning, etc., of those who are of another religion, region & country and then compare the same with one’s own set of facts.
7. In a country or region, if there is one culture, particularly in the matter of religion, then culture becomes a somewhat binding force for the people. But when a country/region has multi-cultures, as India is, then by far culture becomes a dividing factor.
8. Cultural changes have taken place in almost all places of the globe in the past and the process is a never ending one. Some changes are evolved and some changes are thrust on people by the rulers.
9. Segregation and rituals formed the essence of all cultures, then and now.
10. In a manner of speaking ‘ culture ‘ and ‘ cultural changes’ are in essence akin to the concept of jungle law applicable to animals because it is the strong and powerful who decided / changed what is culture.
11. ‘Compassion for others ‘ enunciated by all cultures was only a concept and seldom practiced, then and now.
12. Members of each culture looked down on other cultures, then and now.
13. ‘We have a rich culture now and in the olden days we had a glorious culture’ - so claims proponents of all cultures. But the facts are:
· Culture at any time were only a set of beliefs most of which were against those who were ‘ down and under’ and they continue to be so, i.e., the downtrodden continue to be in the pits.
· Prejudices and rituals were the essential parts of culture then and now.
· Then and now everybody looked askance at other cultures.
II. Salient points to be noted:
· Culture in respect of many areas of life of same religious group would have variations from country to country and even region to region.
· Most of the areas encompassed by the term culture goes on changing with the passage of time, though in a few areas and so also in the case some groups of people no change / hardly any change situation would be there even if one takes a long span of time ( e.g., tribal communities) .
· Copying culture of one set of people/society by another is also universal.
· In respect of many areas of culture, it is a mindset, which is not susceptible to logical reasoning.
· One’s culture is defined more in terms of the differences with the culture of another.
· Cultural changes within one society / family are not viewed with equanimity by members of the same society / family.
· By far elders in family wish to stick to the culture under which they have been living whereas youngsters may want ( and actually do ) to stray from the same.
· What is considered culturally reprehensible at any time may become totally acceptable culturally with the passage of time.
· Cultural changes suo moto from within may be welcomed / accepted / tolerated by a religion /society/
· Cultural changes brought by family would largely be embraced by members of the family, but not thrust on an individual or done through an edict of rulers.
· Culture and cultural change of a religion / society / family influences culture of another, though this would hardly be admitted by those who had effected the changes.
· ‘ What is Indian culture.’ The replies would vary from religion to religion, caste to caste, educated and not educated, villager and cityite, etc.,
· It is far more easier to identify what is not Indian culture rather than spell out Indian culture. With people of different religions, castes, compounded by regional differences in living, it is not easy to define Indian culture. Further, as is universal, perceptions of the culture would vary between young and old generations.
· Unlike India, with cultural differences between religions, castes and regions, many countries can be labeled as homogenous with only one culture. Take Israel. Yes, Jews had flocked from different parts of the world to Israel. There are Arabs and Christians also in Israel. Yet by far Israel has one culture. So is the position in respect of Arab countries.
· Though said somewhat in humourous vein that ‘Indian culture is agriculture,’ there is more than modicum of truth in the saying, for, hundreds and thousands of years individual/family/society living was more or less wholly anchored to agriculture. Of course, that is not the position now.
· Taliban – their members want to go back to the culture prevalent a few centuries back. For them what is written in the holy scripture is the only law of God and cannot be compromised on the ground of ‘change of time.’ Further, they want to implement this perceived culture by persuasion, failing which by force. They are not prepared to accept the adage of ‘ live and let live ‘ with other cultures.
· In the case of each individual, culture of his family gets imbedded in the psyche from childhood onwards. As one grows up the culture takes root and it is not easy to change the same. Those who grasp the cultural differences may take an approach of ‘ let them have their culture and let me have mine, with no value judgement’ but then some would grow up with the conviction or get indoctrinated later that ‘ my culture is better / higher than the culture of others.’ And then the trouble starts.
· The trouble becomes more dangerous when an individual or the society he belongs to, in the belief that his/their culture is superior, wants to change the culture of others ( partly a la Hitler syndrome ).
· It is the young who can and are bringing cultural changes. In the case of old people, the culture they have lived has become part of their psyche and hence change is resisted.
· In the matter of culture, all countries need to emulate American example. While largely a country of Protestant ( Christian ), America has various cultures, i.e., Catholic and other denominations of Christianity, large population of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc., Each of these groups are allowed to function with their culture. Indian culture is a melting pot of different cultures. It cannot be imprisoned by the label of Hindu culture.
· Both protagonists and adherents to change are off the mark. When the time comes, changes will happen. Resistance would in the course of time wither away.
III. Explanatory notes and examples
· Take the example of dress. During the last fifty years the mode of dress of Indians have vastly changed. Western dress of pants had made inroads to Indian male dress, in cities, towns, offices, colleges, etc., Salwar Kameez dress of North India is fast replacing saree in all parts of the country. Increasingly young women, particularly those working in offices and going to colleges, are opting for pants and skirts.
· Visiting temples daily for praying was a must in yester years for Hindus. Now it is an occasional visit, with homes having an area for praying with pictures of Hindu Gods.
· Having six to ten children was part of Indian culture in yester years whereas increasingly the option is to have one to three children.
· Except in the case of poor, women working in offices was an alien concept till a few decades back; but not any more.
· Higher caste Hindus were by far vegetarians till recent times but now more and more higher caste Hindus eat non vegetarian food.
· Till a few decades back, marriage with a person of different caste not to talk of different religion, was extremely unusual. But this is changing.
· The attacks against the girls in the pubs - While those who have a more world-wide view may condemn such attacks and allude to abominable chauvinism, those who are moored to the societal culture and parents, while disagreeing with personal attacks, would at the same time find it difficult to view with equanimity the pub culture development. Antagonists would label this act as Hindutva Talibanisation because Taliban prescribes dress and behaviour codes for women in the name of protecting their culture and tradition.
Post-script: What is the need for a Ministry for ‘ Culture’ in the Government. What can it do. Codify Indian Culture? That would be like opening a Pandora’s Box. Administer Indian Culture? That obviously is not the job of Government. The moment the Government tries to weed out what Government perceives as bad influences of each culture, there would be strident furor from adherents of various cultures.
Signing off: Whoever coined the term ‘ culture vulture ‘ has to be complemented for capturing in one phrase the charlatan who poses as guardian of any culture.
IV Reading material
1. Sivarama Karanth, Kannada writer:
“ It was impossible to talk of Indian culture as if it is a monolithic object. Indian culture today is so varied as to be called ‘cultures.’ The roots of this culture go back to ancient times; and it has developed through contact with many races and peoples. Hence, among its many ingredients, it is impossible to say surely what is native and what is alien, what is borrowed out of love and what has been imposed by force. If we view Indian culture thus, we realize that there is no place for chauvinism.”
2. Extracts from the Book titled ‘ THE INDIANS’ by Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar.
“ It is about ‘Indian-ness.’ The cultural part of the mind that informs the activities and concerns of the daily life of a vast number of Indians as it guides them through then journey of life. The attitude towards superiors and subordinates, the choice of food conducive to health and vitality, the web of duties and obligations in family life are all as much influenced by the cultural part of the mind as are ideas on the proper relationship between the sexes, or on the ideal relationship with god. Of course, in an individual Indian the civilizational heritage may be modified and overlaid by the specific cultures of his family, caste, class or ethnic group. Yet an underlying sense of Indian identity continues to persist, even into the third or fourth generation of Indian diasporas around the world.
Identity is not a role, or a succession of roles, with which it is often confused. It is not a garment that can be put on or taken off according to the weather outside; it is not ‘ fluid’ but marked by a sense of continuity and sameness irrespective of where the person finds himself during the course of his life. A man’s identity – of which the culture that he has grown up in is a vital part – is what makes him to recognize himself and be recognized by the people who constitute his world. It is not something he has chosen, but something that has seized him. It can hurt, be cursed or bemoaned but cannot be discarded, though it can always be concealed from others or, more tragic, from one’s own self.
And once someone has grown up in a particular culture and, let us say, is twenty years old, he will never acquire a full understanding of other cultures since the brain has passed through the narrow bottleneck of ‘ culturalization.’ In other words, the possibilities of ‘ fluid’ and changing identities in adulthood are rather limited and, moreover, rarely touch the deeper layers of the psyche.
In spite of rapid social changes in the last decades, an Indian continues to be part of a hierarchically ordered and, above all., stable network of relationships throughout the course of his life. This complex, relationship based pattern of behaviour also manifests itself in work situation. Although intellectually the Indian professional or bureaucrat may agree with this Western counterpart that, for instance, the criterion for appointment or promotion to a particular job must be objective, a decision based solely on the demands of the task and merits of the case, emotionally he must still struggle against cultural conviction that his relationship to the individual under consideration is single most important factor in his decision. And among the vast majority of traditional minded countrymen, whether it be a trader bending the law to facilitate the business transaction of a fellow caste member, or an industrialist employing an insufficiently qualified but distantly related job applicant as a manager, or the clerk in the municipal office accepting bribes in order to put an orphaned niece through school - dishonesty, nepotism and corruption are merely abstract concepts. These negative constructions are irrelevant to the Indian experience, which, from childhood on, nurtures one, and only one, standard of responsible adult conduct – namely, an individual’s lifelong obligation to his kith and kin.
A person’s closest friendships too are with members of his own caste. His relations with members of other castes are more formal, governed as they are by unwritten codes prescribing and proscribing relationships between castes.
A person’s violent outrage provoked by an ostensibly minor slight may not only be the result of an individual problem in ‘ managing aggression,’ it may also have its source in a historical resentment shared by his caste as a whole and passed down from generation to generation as part of his caste identity.
Indian society is made up of men ‘ who bow their heads to the kicks from above and who simultaneously give a kick below, never thinking to resist one or refrain from the other.
3. From the website:
The word culture has many different meanings. For some it refers to an appreciation of good literature, music, art, and food. For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish. However, for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns. ‘ Culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society
Culture is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture. They are not culture in themselves. For this reason, archaeologists can not dig up culture directly in their excavations. The broken pots and other artifacts of ancient people that they uncover are only material remains that reflect cultural patterns--they are things that were made and used through cultural knowledge and skills.
Layers of Culture
There are very likely three layers or levels of culture that are part of your learned behavior patterns and perceptions. Most obviously is the body of cultural traditions that distinguish your specific society. When people speak of Italian, Samoan, or Japanese culture, they are referring to the shared language, traditions, and beliefs that set each of these peoples apart from others. In most cases, those who share your culture do so because they acquired it as they were raised by parents and other family members who have it.
_
_
_The second layer of culture that may be part of your identity is a subculture. In complex, diverse societies in which people have come from many different parts of the world, they often retain much of their original cultural traditions. As a result, they are likely to be part of an identifiable subculture in their new society. The shared cultural traits of subcultures set them apart from the rest of their society. Examples of easily identifiable subcultures in the United States include ethnic groups such as Vietnamese Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans. Members of each of these subcultures share a common identity, food tradition, dialect or language, and other cultural traits that come from their common ancestral background and experience. As the cultural differences between members of a subculture and the dominant national culture blur and eventually disappear, the subculture ceases to exist except as a group of people who claim a common ancestry. That is generally the case with German Americans and Irish Americans in the United States today. Most of them identify themselves as Americans first. They also see themselves as being part of the cultural mainstream of the nation.
Culture and Society
Culture and society are not the same thing. While cultures are complexes of learned behavior patterns and perceptions, societies are groups of interacting organisms. People are not the only animals that have societies. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, and hives of bees are societies. In the case of humans, however, societies are groups of people who directly or indirectly interact with each other. People in human societies also generally perceive that their society is distinct from other societies in terms of shared traditions and expectations.
While human societies and cultures are not the same thing, they are inextricably connected because culture is created and transmitted to others in a society. Cultures are not the product of lone individuals. They are the continuously evolving products of people interacting with each other. Cultural patterns such as language and politics make no sense except in terms of the interaction of people. If you were the only human on earth, there would be no need for language or government.
*****
1. Religion ( practicing / non practicing, conversion ), concept of God, caste beliefs, rituals, festivals,
2. Society, marriage, family values, sex, bringing up children,
3. Customs, cuisine, literature, arts ( music, dance, architecture ), values, ethos, etc.,
4. Even the above listing is only a little more than illustrative and not exhaustive, much less complete. e.g. it is often said that ‘ it is American culture, it is military culture, it is Punjabi culture, it is Tata Group culture,’ and so on so forth.
5. It is important to note that National culture in a manner of speaking is a chimera because identity gets fragmented by separate religious beliefs and practices and societal values.
6. What is the culture of an individual, his family, his religion, his country? To understand the same, one would have to approach the issue negatively, i.e., by looking at the beliefs, rituals, societal mores, family functioning, etc., of those who are of another religion, region & country and then compare the same with one’s own set of facts.
7. In a country or region, if there is one culture, particularly in the matter of religion, then culture becomes a somewhat binding force for the people. But when a country/region has multi-cultures, as India is, then by far culture becomes a dividing factor.
8. Cultural changes have taken place in almost all places of the globe in the past and the process is a never ending one. Some changes are evolved and some changes are thrust on people by the rulers.
9. Segregation and rituals formed the essence of all cultures, then and now.
10. In a manner of speaking ‘ culture ‘ and ‘ cultural changes’ are in essence akin to the concept of jungle law applicable to animals because it is the strong and powerful who decided / changed what is culture.
11. ‘Compassion for others ‘ enunciated by all cultures was only a concept and seldom practiced, then and now.
12. Members of each culture looked down on other cultures, then and now.
13. ‘We have a rich culture now and in the olden days we had a glorious culture’ - so claims proponents of all cultures. But the facts are:
· Culture at any time were only a set of beliefs most of which were against those who were ‘ down and under’ and they continue to be so, i.e., the downtrodden continue to be in the pits.
· Prejudices and rituals were the essential parts of culture then and now.
· Then and now everybody looked askance at other cultures.
II. Salient points to be noted:
· Culture in respect of many areas of life of same religious group would have variations from country to country and even region to region.
· Most of the areas encompassed by the term culture goes on changing with the passage of time, though in a few areas and so also in the case some groups of people no change / hardly any change situation would be there even if one takes a long span of time ( e.g., tribal communities) .
· Copying culture of one set of people/society by another is also universal.
· In respect of many areas of culture, it is a mindset, which is not susceptible to logical reasoning.
· One’s culture is defined more in terms of the differences with the culture of another.
· Cultural changes within one society / family are not viewed with equanimity by members of the same society / family.
· By far elders in family wish to stick to the culture under which they have been living whereas youngsters may want ( and actually do ) to stray from the same.
· What is considered culturally reprehensible at any time may become totally acceptable culturally with the passage of time.
· Cultural changes suo moto from within may be welcomed / accepted / tolerated by a religion /society/
· Cultural changes brought by family would largely be embraced by members of the family, but not thrust on an individual or done through an edict of rulers.
· Culture and cultural change of a religion / society / family influences culture of another, though this would hardly be admitted by those who had effected the changes.
· ‘ What is Indian culture.’ The replies would vary from religion to religion, caste to caste, educated and not educated, villager and cityite, etc.,
· It is far more easier to identify what is not Indian culture rather than spell out Indian culture. With people of different religions, castes, compounded by regional differences in living, it is not easy to define Indian culture. Further, as is universal, perceptions of the culture would vary between young and old generations.
· Unlike India, with cultural differences between religions, castes and regions, many countries can be labeled as homogenous with only one culture. Take Israel. Yes, Jews had flocked from different parts of the world to Israel. There are Arabs and Christians also in Israel. Yet by far Israel has one culture. So is the position in respect of Arab countries.
· Though said somewhat in humourous vein that ‘Indian culture is agriculture,’ there is more than modicum of truth in the saying, for, hundreds and thousands of years individual/family/society living was more or less wholly anchored to agriculture. Of course, that is not the position now.
· Taliban – their members want to go back to the culture prevalent a few centuries back. For them what is written in the holy scripture is the only law of God and cannot be compromised on the ground of ‘change of time.’ Further, they want to implement this perceived culture by persuasion, failing which by force. They are not prepared to accept the adage of ‘ live and let live ‘ with other cultures.
· In the case of each individual, culture of his family gets imbedded in the psyche from childhood onwards. As one grows up the culture takes root and it is not easy to change the same. Those who grasp the cultural differences may take an approach of ‘ let them have their culture and let me have mine, with no value judgement’ but then some would grow up with the conviction or get indoctrinated later that ‘ my culture is better / higher than the culture of others.’ And then the trouble starts.
· The trouble becomes more dangerous when an individual or the society he belongs to, in the belief that his/their culture is superior, wants to change the culture of others ( partly a la Hitler syndrome ).
· It is the young who can and are bringing cultural changes. In the case of old people, the culture they have lived has become part of their psyche and hence change is resisted.
· In the matter of culture, all countries need to emulate American example. While largely a country of Protestant ( Christian ), America has various cultures, i.e., Catholic and other denominations of Christianity, large population of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc., Each of these groups are allowed to function with their culture. Indian culture is a melting pot of different cultures. It cannot be imprisoned by the label of Hindu culture.
· Both protagonists and adherents to change are off the mark. When the time comes, changes will happen. Resistance would in the course of time wither away.
III. Explanatory notes and examples
· Take the example of dress. During the last fifty years the mode of dress of Indians have vastly changed. Western dress of pants had made inroads to Indian male dress, in cities, towns, offices, colleges, etc., Salwar Kameez dress of North India is fast replacing saree in all parts of the country. Increasingly young women, particularly those working in offices and going to colleges, are opting for pants and skirts.
· Visiting temples daily for praying was a must in yester years for Hindus. Now it is an occasional visit, with homes having an area for praying with pictures of Hindu Gods.
· Having six to ten children was part of Indian culture in yester years whereas increasingly the option is to have one to three children.
· Except in the case of poor, women working in offices was an alien concept till a few decades back; but not any more.
· Higher caste Hindus were by far vegetarians till recent times but now more and more higher caste Hindus eat non vegetarian food.
· Till a few decades back, marriage with a person of different caste not to talk of different religion, was extremely unusual. But this is changing.
· The attacks against the girls in the pubs - While those who have a more world-wide view may condemn such attacks and allude to abominable chauvinism, those who are moored to the societal culture and parents, while disagreeing with personal attacks, would at the same time find it difficult to view with equanimity the pub culture development. Antagonists would label this act as Hindutva Talibanisation because Taliban prescribes dress and behaviour codes for women in the name of protecting their culture and tradition.
Post-script: What is the need for a Ministry for ‘ Culture’ in the Government. What can it do. Codify Indian Culture? That would be like opening a Pandora’s Box. Administer Indian Culture? That obviously is not the job of Government. The moment the Government tries to weed out what Government perceives as bad influences of each culture, there would be strident furor from adherents of various cultures.
Signing off: Whoever coined the term ‘ culture vulture ‘ has to be complemented for capturing in one phrase the charlatan who poses as guardian of any culture.
IV Reading material
1. Sivarama Karanth, Kannada writer:
“ It was impossible to talk of Indian culture as if it is a monolithic object. Indian culture today is so varied as to be called ‘cultures.’ The roots of this culture go back to ancient times; and it has developed through contact with many races and peoples. Hence, among its many ingredients, it is impossible to say surely what is native and what is alien, what is borrowed out of love and what has been imposed by force. If we view Indian culture thus, we realize that there is no place for chauvinism.”
2. Extracts from the Book titled ‘ THE INDIANS’ by Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar.
“ It is about ‘Indian-ness.’ The cultural part of the mind that informs the activities and concerns of the daily life of a vast number of Indians as it guides them through then journey of life. The attitude towards superiors and subordinates, the choice of food conducive to health and vitality, the web of duties and obligations in family life are all as much influenced by the cultural part of the mind as are ideas on the proper relationship between the sexes, or on the ideal relationship with god. Of course, in an individual Indian the civilizational heritage may be modified and overlaid by the specific cultures of his family, caste, class or ethnic group. Yet an underlying sense of Indian identity continues to persist, even into the third or fourth generation of Indian diasporas around the world.
Identity is not a role, or a succession of roles, with which it is often confused. It is not a garment that can be put on or taken off according to the weather outside; it is not ‘ fluid’ but marked by a sense of continuity and sameness irrespective of where the person finds himself during the course of his life. A man’s identity – of which the culture that he has grown up in is a vital part – is what makes him to recognize himself and be recognized by the people who constitute his world. It is not something he has chosen, but something that has seized him. It can hurt, be cursed or bemoaned but cannot be discarded, though it can always be concealed from others or, more tragic, from one’s own self.
And once someone has grown up in a particular culture and, let us say, is twenty years old, he will never acquire a full understanding of other cultures since the brain has passed through the narrow bottleneck of ‘ culturalization.’ In other words, the possibilities of ‘ fluid’ and changing identities in adulthood are rather limited and, moreover, rarely touch the deeper layers of the psyche.
In spite of rapid social changes in the last decades, an Indian continues to be part of a hierarchically ordered and, above all., stable network of relationships throughout the course of his life. This complex, relationship based pattern of behaviour also manifests itself in work situation. Although intellectually the Indian professional or bureaucrat may agree with this Western counterpart that, for instance, the criterion for appointment or promotion to a particular job must be objective, a decision based solely on the demands of the task and merits of the case, emotionally he must still struggle against cultural conviction that his relationship to the individual under consideration is single most important factor in his decision. And among the vast majority of traditional minded countrymen, whether it be a trader bending the law to facilitate the business transaction of a fellow caste member, or an industrialist employing an insufficiently qualified but distantly related job applicant as a manager, or the clerk in the municipal office accepting bribes in order to put an orphaned niece through school - dishonesty, nepotism and corruption are merely abstract concepts. These negative constructions are irrelevant to the Indian experience, which, from childhood on, nurtures one, and only one, standard of responsible adult conduct – namely, an individual’s lifelong obligation to his kith and kin.
A person’s closest friendships too are with members of his own caste. His relations with members of other castes are more formal, governed as they are by unwritten codes prescribing and proscribing relationships between castes.
A person’s violent outrage provoked by an ostensibly minor slight may not only be the result of an individual problem in ‘ managing aggression,’ it may also have its source in a historical resentment shared by his caste as a whole and passed down from generation to generation as part of his caste identity.
Indian society is made up of men ‘ who bow their heads to the kicks from above and who simultaneously give a kick below, never thinking to resist one or refrain from the other.
3. From the website:
The word culture has many different meanings. For some it refers to an appreciation of good literature, music, art, and food. For a biologist, it is likely to be a colony of bacteria or other microorganisms growing in a nutrient medium in a laboratory Petri dish. However, for anthropologists and other behavioral scientists, culture is the full range of learned human behavior patterns. ‘ Culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society
Culture is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture. They are not culture in themselves. For this reason, archaeologists can not dig up culture directly in their excavations. The broken pots and other artifacts of ancient people that they uncover are only material remains that reflect cultural patterns--they are things that were made and used through cultural knowledge and skills.
Layers of Culture
There are very likely three layers or levels of culture that are part of your learned behavior patterns and perceptions. Most obviously is the body of cultural traditions that distinguish your specific society. When people speak of Italian, Samoan, or Japanese culture, they are referring to the shared language, traditions, and beliefs that set each of these peoples apart from others. In most cases, those who share your culture do so because they acquired it as they were raised by parents and other family members who have it.
_
_
_The second layer of culture that may be part of your identity is a subculture. In complex, diverse societies in which people have come from many different parts of the world, they often retain much of their original cultural traditions. As a result, they are likely to be part of an identifiable subculture in their new society. The shared cultural traits of subcultures set them apart from the rest of their society. Examples of easily identifiable subcultures in the United States include ethnic groups such as Vietnamese Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans. Members of each of these subcultures share a common identity, food tradition, dialect or language, and other cultural traits that come from their common ancestral background and experience. As the cultural differences between members of a subculture and the dominant national culture blur and eventually disappear, the subculture ceases to exist except as a group of people who claim a common ancestry. That is generally the case with German Americans and Irish Americans in the United States today. Most of them identify themselves as Americans first. They also see themselves as being part of the cultural mainstream of the nation.
Culture and Society
Culture and society are not the same thing. While cultures are complexes of learned behavior patterns and perceptions, societies are groups of interacting organisms. People are not the only animals that have societies. Schools of fish, flocks of birds, and hives of bees are societies. In the case of humans, however, societies are groups of people who directly or indirectly interact with each other. People in human societies also generally perceive that their society is distinct from other societies in terms of shared traditions and expectations.
While human societies and cultures are not the same thing, they are inextricably connected because culture is created and transmitted to others in a society. Cultures are not the product of lone individuals. They are the continuously evolving products of people interacting with each other. Cultural patterns such as language and politics make no sense except in terms of the interaction of people. If you were the only human on earth, there would be no need for language or government.
*****
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Supercilious ( assuming an air of superiority ) &
Supercilious ( assuming an air of superiority ) &
Janus-faced ( facing both ways at once, hypocritical ) attitude of many of us Indians
1 ) Muslims practicing Yoga
Islamic Council, Malaysia, issued last year an edict prohibiting Muslims from practicing of yoga that included chanting ( the latter, i.e., chanting, had historically a connotation with Hindu religion ). Recently Indonesian Ulema Council also issued such a verdict. It is a Muslim theological stand and since the same had no adverse effect on Hindus, the matter should have been left at that by Hindus. But no. Some Hindus who have the entrenched belief that Hinduism is better and higher religion than others, have joined issues with the above edict. One Hindu expert went even to the extent of stating ‘ The mistake is in thinking that the chanting – the repetition of Om, for instance – is with religious intent. Rather, it is a tool to aid breathing techniques, an integral aspect of yoga. Yoga is not akin to practicing in gym…..it is a holistic, all-encompassing view of health and well-being, focusing on the mental as much as it does on the physical.’ And since for this type of people, the final verdict on any such matter is given by ‘ Mecca of wisdom, ‘ i.e., US of A, the author cites the fact that many Americans have taken to yoga there ( indirectly saying that if Christians can chant ‘Om’ why can’t you Muslims ). Wittingly or unwittingly the proponent of this thesis has erred. Yoga is a form of exercise of the body. It removes blocks in the free flow of blood. For those who are lazy or averse to do physical exercise on a regular basis or walking daily, yoga is an alternative way of keeping the body energized. Yes it was conceived by a Hindu. However, it had no religious connotation. Meditation results in the mind becoming quiet. Meditation can be done silently or by repeating a word. It is not easy to make the mind quiet. Hence alternative process of repeating a word was made part of meditation. It could be any word. Since meditation was also invented by Hindu, the suggested word was ‘ Om ‘ or ‘ Rama’. But it could be any word, say ‘ Ravi.’ Subsequently, some of the advocates of yoga and meditation combined both these so that body is kept in good condition and the mind becomes quiet, whereas some others taught these as separate sciences. Put it simply, neither yoga nor meditation has anything to do with Hindu religion.
‘Ours is the best religion ‘ - many hard believers of various religions think so. More rational and sensible people take the stand of ‘ you and your faith - me and my faith – let us not cross swords – let us have an approach of live and let live.’
When divisions between various religions are getting more and more entrenched, was it necessary for these Hindu fundamentalists to join the above issue. And why the craving of the Hindu zealots for acceptance by other religionists on the practices of Hindu religionists. Each of the religions other than Hinduism have one God. And they can’t understand how could there be a religion with a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Hindus can’t give any rational explanation for this. They will say it is a fact, we are proud of it, etc., But then why expect other religionists to agree with Hindus.
2 ) Girls going to pubs and drinking/ dancing / holding hands with boys.
My vote is to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan for openly going against the above culture developing in metro cities. The attack on the pub has to be condemned. But I would like to join issues with the press, socialites, page three people, etc., who see nothing wrong with girls going to bar and drinking in the company of girls and boys.
Today in metropolitan cities, affluent / well to do parents have sleepless nights on their wards ( largely daughters ) taking to modernity at a furious pace. Be it dressing, coming late to the house, bohemian approach to life, parents find it difficult to adjust. Most of them realize that the above mentioned way of living of their wards could lead to the youngsters ( girls ) smoking, drinking, taking drugs and having sex with boys. This is not an imaginary fear. It is happening.
Agreed, there is human tendency to resist changes. Thirty years back, girls wearing jeans and exposing midriff were frowned upon. But today in cities this has become common. The divorce rate is going up. Couples postpone having children and then limit the number of one, two or at the most three. Both husband and wife work. They have opted for nuclear families. The live in system is taking off in cities, etc., etc., Elders find the pace of change too fast to their liking. Yet knowing well that these developments cannot be checked ( and some of them being welcome changes ) many a parent accept the same with equanimity. But not the pub culture, which is of recent origin.
The point is contrary to the depiction by the fourth estate of ‘ assault against personal liberty, ‘ by far people are against the pub culture development, though at the same time they would genuinely condemn the hooliganism.
P.S. The fourth estate is getting increasingly alienated from the mores of Indian family culture. It is pandering to the style of West. It has taken upon itself the role of moral guardian for the society, a task to which it is ill equipped.
More P.S: I am increasingly disillusioned with some of the antics of fourth estate. Mahesh ( Bhupati ) has been rechristianed by one leading daily as ‘ Hesh ‘ ( a la American style ). Another paper has shown Mahesh Bhupati and Sania mildly hugging each other after the doubles’ victory ( that is enough for Muslim fundamentalists to make a hue and cry).
Janus-faced ( facing both ways at once, hypocritical ) attitude of many of us Indians
1 ) Muslims practicing Yoga
Islamic Council, Malaysia, issued last year an edict prohibiting Muslims from practicing of yoga that included chanting ( the latter, i.e., chanting, had historically a connotation with Hindu religion ). Recently Indonesian Ulema Council also issued such a verdict. It is a Muslim theological stand and since the same had no adverse effect on Hindus, the matter should have been left at that by Hindus. But no. Some Hindus who have the entrenched belief that Hinduism is better and higher religion than others, have joined issues with the above edict. One Hindu expert went even to the extent of stating ‘ The mistake is in thinking that the chanting – the repetition of Om, for instance – is with religious intent. Rather, it is a tool to aid breathing techniques, an integral aspect of yoga. Yoga is not akin to practicing in gym…..it is a holistic, all-encompassing view of health and well-being, focusing on the mental as much as it does on the physical.’ And since for this type of people, the final verdict on any such matter is given by ‘ Mecca of wisdom, ‘ i.e., US of A, the author cites the fact that many Americans have taken to yoga there ( indirectly saying that if Christians can chant ‘Om’ why can’t you Muslims ). Wittingly or unwittingly the proponent of this thesis has erred. Yoga is a form of exercise of the body. It removes blocks in the free flow of blood. For those who are lazy or averse to do physical exercise on a regular basis or walking daily, yoga is an alternative way of keeping the body energized. Yes it was conceived by a Hindu. However, it had no religious connotation. Meditation results in the mind becoming quiet. Meditation can be done silently or by repeating a word. It is not easy to make the mind quiet. Hence alternative process of repeating a word was made part of meditation. It could be any word. Since meditation was also invented by Hindu, the suggested word was ‘ Om ‘ or ‘ Rama’. But it could be any word, say ‘ Ravi.’ Subsequently, some of the advocates of yoga and meditation combined both these so that body is kept in good condition and the mind becomes quiet, whereas some others taught these as separate sciences. Put it simply, neither yoga nor meditation has anything to do with Hindu religion.
‘Ours is the best religion ‘ - many hard believers of various religions think so. More rational and sensible people take the stand of ‘ you and your faith - me and my faith – let us not cross swords – let us have an approach of live and let live.’
When divisions between various religions are getting more and more entrenched, was it necessary for these Hindu fundamentalists to join the above issue. And why the craving of the Hindu zealots for acceptance by other religionists on the practices of Hindu religionists. Each of the religions other than Hinduism have one God. And they can’t understand how could there be a religion with a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Hindus can’t give any rational explanation for this. They will say it is a fact, we are proud of it, etc., But then why expect other religionists to agree with Hindus.
2 ) Girls going to pubs and drinking/ dancing / holding hands with boys.
My vote is to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan for openly going against the above culture developing in metro cities. The attack on the pub has to be condemned. But I would like to join issues with the press, socialites, page three people, etc., who see nothing wrong with girls going to bar and drinking in the company of girls and boys.
Today in metropolitan cities, affluent / well to do parents have sleepless nights on their wards ( largely daughters ) taking to modernity at a furious pace. Be it dressing, coming late to the house, bohemian approach to life, parents find it difficult to adjust. Most of them realize that the above mentioned way of living of their wards could lead to the youngsters ( girls ) smoking, drinking, taking drugs and having sex with boys. This is not an imaginary fear. It is happening.
Agreed, there is human tendency to resist changes. Thirty years back, girls wearing jeans and exposing midriff were frowned upon. But today in cities this has become common. The divorce rate is going up. Couples postpone having children and then limit the number of one, two or at the most three. Both husband and wife work. They have opted for nuclear families. The live in system is taking off in cities, etc., etc., Elders find the pace of change too fast to their liking. Yet knowing well that these developments cannot be checked ( and some of them being welcome changes ) many a parent accept the same with equanimity. But not the pub culture, which is of recent origin.
The point is contrary to the depiction by the fourth estate of ‘ assault against personal liberty, ‘ by far people are against the pub culture development, though at the same time they would genuinely condemn the hooliganism.
P.S. The fourth estate is getting increasingly alienated from the mores of Indian family culture. It is pandering to the style of West. It has taken upon itself the role of moral guardian for the society, a task to which it is ill equipped.
More P.S: I am increasingly disillusioned with some of the antics of fourth estate. Mahesh ( Bhupati ) has been rechristianed by one leading daily as ‘ Hesh ‘ ( a la American style ). Another paper has shown Mahesh Bhupati and Sania mildly hugging each other after the doubles’ victory ( that is enough for Muslim fundamentalists to make a hue and cry).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
