Reality never had it so good for itself before. But, before we start on our rant, a moment's silence for Shinjini, a schoolgirl paralysed by maybe too much of it.
Every other TV channel has decided that an infusion of life is what every middle-class living room needs. And religiously, reality in its different avatars, in the form of diamond-decked starlets and pan-chewing babus, has invaded our entertainment needs.
Gone are the days when entertainment was escape from reality. That is too shallow for us now. Now it is escape to reality, it seems. Even if reality means a production assistant waves away "intruders on the action." Even if reality means prying into the innards of a simple, functional being. The camera, it seems, is everywhere. And, reality is what is captured on it.
The trouble is that this is not just the latest fad that TV audiences are taking to. The game shows of a decade or two ago and the Saas-bahu soaps that are still popular, were clearly about something "outside," about people resembling us but somehow different. People wanted to be in on all that, but you were not in unless you were in the show itself.
Now we all are the show. Life is no longer sanitised by people wielding the megaphone. There is just the word 'Start' or whatever is the word that is in the beginning, and life just unfolds. We are brought ourselves and our neighbours, and our friends and our enemies all on a few square inches of the latest technology. Welcome to the Truman Show. Welcome to yourself.
The camera, in its long history has finally performed the impossible. Earlier there were allegations that it was opaque on the shooter's side - that things were left out. Now it has been silvered on the lens side, and it reflects what lies behind. Allegations that too much has been left on the scene.. well we were never asked to speak or forever be silent.
For all that TRPs and other intricate number-mongering yields, it is a simple fact, universally acknowledged, that a single reality TV show with simplistic idea or none, is simply in search of a prime spot top be vacated by other silly items like news and stuff.
We have our 24-hour news channels now - who watches them anyway but dull, old people. We have our multiplexes and for those who have no time to go there, we have our local pirate of the DVD ocean. We have our parks and beaches and centres of culture which we can get away to when we can arrange for the six-pack. What we need from TV right now is reality; we need life. And if it is live so much the better.
Unvarnished, unedited, untouched by the editorial scissors that snips out what the human condition expresses from its inmost being. Tears, smiles, shouts of joy and anger, emotions that each of us have felt, and will feel all the more now that we have seen them on TV, shown by people like us.
In the age of reason that we were supposed to be living in, less was supposed to be more. In the age of reality TV that we are living in more is less.
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Argutentative Indian
There is something disturbingly simplistic and naive about academicians even when they speak the gospel truth that simple men do not understand. Take the case of Amartya Sen's "The Argumentative Indian and Other Essays," which I read recently from off a friend's bookshelf. A well-written book for the most part and considerably enlightening, but also employing a certain tenacious tentativeness and an assertive defensiveness with heavily apologetic rhetoric in some places.
One of the key complaints one can raise about Dr. Sen's book is his ready knowledge of certain obscure texts and customs and his introduction of such into the argument to make what would otherwise have been an indefensible point. Take, for example, his patent knowledge of the Vedic and post-Vedic schools of philosophy, and his repeated insistence on the allowance made for skepticism in the Vedic religion. Granted Carvaka is a name not to be dismissed lightly in the history of Indian philosophic thought, but no sensible observer of the practical Hindu religion would deem him a figure of considerable significance in the mainstream consciousness. Even all the mantras from the scriptures that he quotes to substantiate his claim of a substantial respect for skepticism in Hinduism are merely taken out of context without reference to the apparent resolution of all doubts that follows in the text. To claim for the average Christian the doubts of Sabellius and Tertullian would be as pertinent as the claims Sen makes for the average Hindu as the inheritor of the heritage of doubt explored in the Upanishads and other scriptures. In sum, the mainstream Hindu consciousness is more a hereditary and cultural construct than a logical religious one and Dr Sen brings a few bookmen to the busy street to prove the existence of certain obscure and mostly irrelevant-to-the-average-Hindu ideas.
Another important 'fact' for Sen is the prevalence of the argumentative tradition in the Indian ethos. While it would be mere snobbishness to deny the possibility and the primitive presence of the dialogue mechanism in the Indian plurality, Sen falls into the opposite error of wishful thinking of the kind of people with the 'bright pebbly eyes of the Theosophists,' to quote Sen quoting Chesterton. Here, he reminds one of Marx, who believed the modern, enlightened workman would spend his toiling hours busy in the factory and come back home to entertain himself with Shakespeare or the philosophers. The sad fact is that the rural Indian, and even the urban Indian in most parts of India, has little time and inclination to involve themselves in public debate of any form. There are pockets where activism has rendered the democratic process of inclusive debate effective but this is not as widespread as one would gather from the text. Agian, it is not the possibility of debate that is in question but the inclination towards, and the readiness for it, in a useful sense, in current-day India. Extrapolating from this state of affairs to the past, it is inconceivable to think that the rural Indian of the past had much say in matters of governance either, the panchayat being an elitist and, often, a hereditary or class-oriented group of people with some voice lent to select elite groups within each village. And the repeated emphatic mention of Asoka's and then Akbar's measures to conduct public debates and communal interactions tends to make one forget the tradition of the agoras and the Forum and other institutions that the West remembers well. In the final analysis, whereas democratic elements were present in Indian governance, the idea is inherently Western, if it should be assigned a pedigree.
Other ideas presented in the analysis of calendars, the India-China interaction etc., seem plausible but far-fetched and his veneration for Tagore, while well-founded, clouds his judgement. It is a fact that non-mainstream writers are ignored in the long run and Tagore chose to remain in the shadows. His contributions to literature might parallel those of Bharati, the Tamil poet, but one does not see in Sen even a recognition of the many other stalwart writers from obscure corners of the country who have been ignored as much as Tagore has been, in spite of the Nobel he managed to win.
There is also a curious reluctance to go beyond the obvious condemnation of the fundamentalists in his political rhetoric. While the RSS umbrella organizations come in for stick, there is a want of the equanimity required to see in the political machinery flaws in all its components. The Congress and other parties escape any admonition by the mere fact of being secular and yet, as Sen himself acknowledges, it is not merely communal rhetoric that is damaging the fabric of our society. Cultural divides run deep and even if healing elements too run into those fissures, all political parties share the blame for exacerbating the situation.
The merits of the book are patent and what one may learn from it too and hence I will refrain from the obvious paeans to the patient collection and analysis of pertinent data, the penetrating critiques on certain issues and the overall usefulness of the book; but the flaws run a concurrent course too and, while this is expected in any work of such magnitude and scope, a suspicion of schoolman rhetoric is not easy to avoid.
One of the key complaints one can raise about Dr. Sen's book is his ready knowledge of certain obscure texts and customs and his introduction of such into the argument to make what would otherwise have been an indefensible point. Take, for example, his patent knowledge of the Vedic and post-Vedic schools of philosophy, and his repeated insistence on the allowance made for skepticism in the Vedic religion. Granted Carvaka is a name not to be dismissed lightly in the history of Indian philosophic thought, but no sensible observer of the practical Hindu religion would deem him a figure of considerable significance in the mainstream consciousness. Even all the mantras from the scriptures that he quotes to substantiate his claim of a substantial respect for skepticism in Hinduism are merely taken out of context without reference to the apparent resolution of all doubts that follows in the text. To claim for the average Christian the doubts of Sabellius and Tertullian would be as pertinent as the claims Sen makes for the average Hindu as the inheritor of the heritage of doubt explored in the Upanishads and other scriptures. In sum, the mainstream Hindu consciousness is more a hereditary and cultural construct than a logical religious one and Dr Sen brings a few bookmen to the busy street to prove the existence of certain obscure and mostly irrelevant-to-the-average-Hindu ideas.
Another important 'fact' for Sen is the prevalence of the argumentative tradition in the Indian ethos. While it would be mere snobbishness to deny the possibility and the primitive presence of the dialogue mechanism in the Indian plurality, Sen falls into the opposite error of wishful thinking of the kind of people with the 'bright pebbly eyes of the Theosophists,' to quote Sen quoting Chesterton. Here, he reminds one of Marx, who believed the modern, enlightened workman would spend his toiling hours busy in the factory and come back home to entertain himself with Shakespeare or the philosophers. The sad fact is that the rural Indian, and even the urban Indian in most parts of India, has little time and inclination to involve themselves in public debate of any form. There are pockets where activism has rendered the democratic process of inclusive debate effective but this is not as widespread as one would gather from the text. Agian, it is not the possibility of debate that is in question but the inclination towards, and the readiness for it, in a useful sense, in current-day India. Extrapolating from this state of affairs to the past, it is inconceivable to think that the rural Indian of the past had much say in matters of governance either, the panchayat being an elitist and, often, a hereditary or class-oriented group of people with some voice lent to select elite groups within each village. And the repeated emphatic mention of Asoka's and then Akbar's measures to conduct public debates and communal interactions tends to make one forget the tradition of the agoras and the Forum and other institutions that the West remembers well. In the final analysis, whereas democratic elements were present in Indian governance, the idea is inherently Western, if it should be assigned a pedigree.
Other ideas presented in the analysis of calendars, the India-China interaction etc., seem plausible but far-fetched and his veneration for Tagore, while well-founded, clouds his judgement. It is a fact that non-mainstream writers are ignored in the long run and Tagore chose to remain in the shadows. His contributions to literature might parallel those of Bharati, the Tamil poet, but one does not see in Sen even a recognition of the many other stalwart writers from obscure corners of the country who have been ignored as much as Tagore has been, in spite of the Nobel he managed to win.
There is also a curious reluctance to go beyond the obvious condemnation of the fundamentalists in his political rhetoric. While the RSS umbrella organizations come in for stick, there is a want of the equanimity required to see in the political machinery flaws in all its components. The Congress and other parties escape any admonition by the mere fact of being secular and yet, as Sen himself acknowledges, it is not merely communal rhetoric that is damaging the fabric of our society. Cultural divides run deep and even if healing elements too run into those fissures, all political parties share the blame for exacerbating the situation.
The merits of the book are patent and what one may learn from it too and hence I will refrain from the obvious paeans to the patient collection and analysis of pertinent data, the penetrating critiques on certain issues and the overall usefulness of the book; but the flaws run a concurrent course too and, while this is expected in any work of such magnitude and scope, a suspicion of schoolman rhetoric is not easy to avoid.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Learnings
big learning:
More often than not, of all the things I do, those that I would not give my life for, are not worth doing.
Chennai:
The distance from Nungambakkam Station to West Park Street, Shenoy Nagar is about 3km and almost nobody along the entire way will know how to get to the place.
Traffic Police Constables and small vendors are ideal to get to know routes.
It is a long way from Shenoy Nagar to the Connemara Library(>4km) and the library is disappointing. Every seventh row of tiles is missing on one side of Chetpet Bridge.
It is easy to steal pens from Barrista but cheaper to buy one from outside and drink cheap coffee too. Dont ask for the other perks though!!
Thuvarankurichi:
A political loudspeaker will always drown out a religious one.
Madurai:
They always pour sambar on dosas.
Mudukulathur:
Asking for a glass more of water makes some people wince more than asking for an acre of land would.
Some people really do useful work.
Singarayapuram/Pedhanandhal:
When some villagers ask someone to get 'purer' and 'better' water for drinking(purer than what they themselves use), it is only more yellow than city-dweller piss-yellow.
Venniravaikkal:
It is not easy for everyone to decide what the balance is on Rs.200 when Rs.179 is due.
Maruthagam:
Not everyone might have heard of what Gandhi did.
The rest, of course, is silence.
More often than not, of all the things I do, those that I would not give my life for, are not worth doing.
Chennai:
The distance from Nungambakkam Station to West Park Street, Shenoy Nagar is about 3km and almost nobody along the entire way will know how to get to the place.
Traffic Police Constables and small vendors are ideal to get to know routes.
It is a long way from Shenoy Nagar to the Connemara Library(>4km) and the library is disappointing. Every seventh row of tiles is missing on one side of Chetpet Bridge.
It is easy to steal pens from Barrista but cheaper to buy one from outside and drink cheap coffee too. Dont ask for the other perks though!!
Thuvarankurichi:
A political loudspeaker will always drown out a religious one.
Madurai:
They always pour sambar on dosas.
Mudukulathur:
Asking for a glass more of water makes some people wince more than asking for an acre of land would.
Some people really do useful work.
Singarayapuram/Pedhanandhal:
When some villagers ask someone to get 'purer' and 'better' water for drinking(purer than what they themselves use), it is only more yellow than city-dweller piss-yellow.
Venniravaikkal:
It is not easy for everyone to decide what the balance is on Rs.200 when Rs.179 is due.
Maruthagam:
Not everyone might have heard of what Gandhi did.
The rest, of course, is silence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)