Once-Clear Thoughts Are Clouded

The New York Times

June 19, 2009
LETTER FROM INDIA

Once-Clear Thoughts Are Clouded

MUMBAI — There has always been a lush, adjectival richness to foreign correspondence from India. We write of creaking bullock carts, curled moustaches, stinking latrines, sallow-cheeked farmers, smoky air, sweltering megalopolises and aching villages. We relentlessly describe.

We write about India this way because India is beautiful — not beautiful like Paris, sumptuous and elegant, but beautiful in its distillation of the extremes of human experience. To go into a Mumbai slum or a rain-starved Rajasthani village is to know how beautiful ugliness can be.

But description tempts us, too, because India is mystifying. Correspondents send home answers. India withholds reliable answers. Correspondents schematize reality. India waits for the schema, then cruelly disproves it. The temptation to write 1,000-word tone poems is fierce in a country easier to describe than to explain, and easier to explain than to understand.

I will leave India soon for America, from where I came. I have spent six years seeking to understand. Before going, I wanted to write a column saying something conclusive about India, why it matters, what it means.

But India is a place for seeking, not concluding, and here the chasm between what I wonder and know has widened with time. So I decided instead to write down the questions that still haunt me after 2,000 days here, about justice, love, culture, power, freedom — questions I hope someone abler will answer someday.

The first thing you see in India is indignity: filthy slums, boulevard defecation, puffed-out bellies. You feel shocked but also noble in your compassion. Then it becomes normal. You see that the true degradation is in human relationships, in the belief that people come in different levels of humanness. The idea is so pervasive and tempting of your vanity that, in time, it infects you, too.

And so I wonder: At what moment does a child learn her level of humanness? How did so many in this generation suddenly defy those destinies, as their parents never dreamed? How can callousness to poverty mingle so closely with the warmth that Indians rain on family? Which will change India first, the trickle-down of compassion or the trickle-up of rage?

Some of what I wonder was clear to me until India clouded it.

Indian love — family love, romantic love — once felt alien. It was not easy to spend time in giant, multigenerational households. Love meant scolding, meddling, judging, people obsessing about your eating, telling each other why their skin is too dark or their frame too thin. In romance, too, love was understated and assumed, given through sacrifice. It never aimed to fascinate, exhilarate.

Then I began to see the power of love in which it’s not about you.

Now I wonder: does love mean never taking another for granted, as it often does in the West, or is it the serene liberty to do so? Which is more of a gamble, marriage by arrangement or by love? Is love more durable when it is just the two of us or when it weaves together tribes?

Then there is the question of what you keep.

In the Davos Age, there is a formula for developing nations: low tariffs, privatization, sushi, English fluency, jazz bars, Bellinis, fashion weeks, consumptiveness, thinness, the purging of superstitions. These nations must in a decade Xerox a way of life that rich countries built over centuries.

But India is an ancient, continuous civilization, and Indians feel excitement but also pain in the dueling pressures to be someone else and be themselves: to subscribe to their astrology charts, schedule things on “auspicious days,” dance to the beats of Punjab’s plains, drink lentil soup.

Can one be “global” without being a mimic? Does the English language obliterate or liberate, disguising the caste and class of those who master it? Why is more culture flowing into India today than flowing out?

I wonder, too, about Indian power. This week, at a summit meeting in Russia, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, stood shoulder to shoulder with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the dubiously re-elected president of Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad might have listened to Mr. Singh: India and Iran are cultural cousins, sharing elements of language and culture. Millions of Indians claim Persian descent. India buys Iranian oil.

But this week, as Iran trampled on the values that Indians hold so dear, Mr. Singh found nothing meaningful to say.

Why, when the world sees India as a great power, does India see itself as Burundi? Beyond its own affluence, what kind of world does India want? What will it do to build it?

And what can the world’s Irans learn from Indian democracy?

I once asked Mufti Shabbir Alam Sidiqi, an important Islamic cleric, whether disenfranchised Muslims were losing faith in India and taking solace in fundamentalist ideas.

“What you have in India you have in no other country,” he replied. “In this republic there are rights. We can demand our rights, speak out. In other countries: eat, drink and shut up. Go to Saudi Arabia: you can’t speak. There is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Iraq, Iran. These things are nowhere. They are all dictatorships.”

Indian democracy should not work. Indians share no language. They cling to their identities. Most live below that level of middle-classness beyond which democracy supposedly thrives.

But the system holds. The coups, election theft and statecraft-by-murder that afflict much of the developing world don’t happen here. Democracy brings little to the poor, the state is corrupt, politicians lack principles and ideas. Yet those with no reason to believe continue to believe, vote, speak, petition.

And I wonder: Is India reinventing democracy — democracy designed not for colonial Virginia, but for societies like this: poor; inequitable; ethnically, religiously, linguistically balkanized; in the throes of convulsive change? Would India, if it summoned the will, be a more persuasive lecturer on democracy’s merits than America?

Then there is one more question. This one I will seek to answer — not now, but in my next and final letter from here.

Is a land with such beauty and possibility, with these vast questions still to answer in my lifetime, a land whose addiction can ever be escaped?

25 HAVE COMMENTED SO FAR. ADD YOUR COMMENT:

Anonymous said...

A nice article--impassioned, nostalgic in advance, honest in confusion, scintillating in expression---having recently encountered your writing, one is likely to miss this series in the future. I was reminded of what Alex Guiness in the film about T E Lawrence says about "desert loving Englishmen". One wishes you that your literary-journalistic journey will bring to you the oases you seek.

Anonymous said...

If you remember Feisal as Guiness in the above quote adds that the Arabs do not love deserts, but gardens and water and greenery.

S.B.Anumolu said...

As always, you are thought provoking. Myself, being an Indian, I do not know the answers to your queries. Nor, do I think any other Indian knows the answers. Perhaps, that is the charm of India. I am sure you will come back to India to seek answers. But again, you will go back more clouded than before.

I have enjoyed your writing. I am looking forward to your book.

S.B.Anumolu
Hyderabad

Anonymous said...

Really enjoyed reading your articles.

NV said...

Mr. Giridharadas,

You are a tremendous writer. I thought this column was most eloquently written, and agree with S.B. Anumolu above: very thought provoking.

As a Canadian of Indian descent, I too am fascinated by the motherland, and repeatedly seek answers to the same questions you are asking.

I'm looking forward to your final letter from India, and to your return to America, and your future projects.

Cheers,
Navin

Elite-Irony said...

If India is redefining democracy, I wonder if we shouldn't use a different term. What there is, is a psephocratic oligarchy with heavy aristo-feudalistic overtones. The people don't rule, its the ballots (psephos)) which do, and the ballots put rich dynasts with a royal background into power. And India just got done with national elections last month, but what'd you know, already Maharashtra is getting ready for its assembly elections in September. This off-year election cycle must end. It has real consequences because national and state politics is linked. Among the many things India needs is a delinking of national (especially foreign policy-related) issues and state issues. It is partly because of this never-ending election paralysis that a Kashmir peace deal got put off - the Congress chose not to announce the deal with Musharraf in late 2006 because of the state assembly elections in February 2007, hoping to announce it in April. But in March 2007, Musharraf's Presidency went off the rails, and in the two years since, it appears we went five years back, to 2004! Had a peace deal been announced in 2007, would Mumbai 2008 have happened? Mumbai 2008 now casts its shadow on the Maharashtra Elections of 2009!

I know you don't celebrate India's electoral democracy uncritically, but it is still a huge stretch to suggest that India preach 'democracy' to anyone, including its neighbors.

Anonymous said...

Leave alone answers, one doesn't know even the questions---except maybe the obvious ones---and maybe that's true of the US and where-have-you...

Anonymous said...

I will miss your excellent Letter from India column. Looking forward to reading your next work.

Anonymous said...

Look forward to the last article...

AKT said...

Read your article for the first time today in the New York Times and instantly fell in love with your writing style. Not only did I discover a few obscure facts about my native country, but also rediscovered the English language and its many offerings to express and describe human feelings and actions.

Looking forward to reading all your other colums about India through this website.

Thank you for the treat you bring through your writing.

Aakriti

Anonymous said...

One hopes this blog will continue to function---it's your writing we were going to miss---the shit we can always smell for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Anand,
First I thought you are posing as a white man- my inference from your tone of the article. Then I see you were born in America, which means you are an ABCD!! (American Born Confused Desi). I'm still afraid you are posing to be a white man.

I respect many of your opinions on the incredibly complex idea called India.

However, your political comments are ENTIRELY misplaced, and you look at the world through the American "holier than thou attitude".

My dear friend, I hope you talked to Indians and got an earful on how they feel about terrorism. My dear friend, India has to take care of itself, its security. That's what matters to Dr.Singh.

My dear friend, the glorious USA- the beacon of freedom has sponsored a religious exclusivist state for 62 years right next to India. USA has sponsored and continues to sponsor this country and calls it an ally, a country which sends in terrorists to train stations to shoot at unarmed civilians.

Do you realize how skeptical Indians are about American hypocrisy? India is not USA to go around the world lecturing to every one, simultaneously sponsoring dictatorships and terrorist countries.

Dr.Singh only cares about the survival of India in the jungle out there, and India has nothing to say about Iran because of this.

Take care and talk to your parents if they are still around.
-

Anonymous said...

Anand,

You will be missed.

Who will interperet the nuances of daily life for those expats smitten by India that you leave behind?

I was recently driving on the road to the north of Dharvi and saw five small children, squatting in a perfect semi circle,innocently engaging in communal defication. It was natural, beautiful, disturbing. I did think at the time it needed your understanding and style to adequately articulate.

Friday's will be deminished.

Anonymous said...

Enough is enough of ancestral homeland---what are roots after all---as a sufi bard exclaims(translation improvised):

If it was to be found in wood or glade
Then cows and calves would be first to find
If to be found on river banks
Then frog and fish would find it first

Anonymous said...

To the question: Is love more durable when it is just the two of us or when it weaves together tribes - there has been an answer for over fifty years now: The Elementary Kinship Structures by Claude Levi-Strauss. And since you're interested in capitalism and wealth circulation - the answer is in there as well. Because the human mind is the same always and everwhere.

tatiana sokolova said...

This is a fabulous achievement. Every sentence provokes meditation. Cannot remember when I last read something so meaningful in a newspaper.

Anonymous said...

Your prose is a thing of beauty!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the US will be a better school for key-pushing than this, 'cause that's where you belong-you have been merely indulging in the manufacture of tourist brochures--the action is there..for you..

Anonymous said...

Is your "prose" spontaneous or crafted, Mr Silent?

Anonymous said...

You usually write good articles, but this latest one seems, probably is, very disturbing. You dont understand India and your article is hardly a nice way to look at India as an outsider...

What you feel, is basically, what any outsider / foreigner / NRI would think and feel.

It's not right what you wrote! But then again, as a columnist.. these are only your thoughts... nothing true or false in it...

Anonymous said...

Anand, I really like your modern and innovative writing style. I must admit that you are one of the best writers in New york times (in recent times). I am happy to see the continuation of journalistic excellence, which is slowly dying from uncontrolled explosive growth of Macho journalism. I wish you best of luck in your new assignment

Anonymous said...

Anand,

Beautifully articulated and thought provoking. It will be nice if we can also evolve some answers however complex the situation. May be the answer will be found if we try not to frame India through the prism of the West or even China.

I have subscribed to your blog and was disappointed that your next essay is not up there yet? Keep it up. You help enunciate what we all feel and think but are unable to articulate.

Best wishes,

jucarii said...

look forward for the last arcticle

Anonymous said...

Waiting for your sweet bye bye....

white templar said...

"Why, when the world sees India as a great power, does India see itself as Burundi? Beyond its own affluence, what kind of world does India want? What will it do to build it?"

India does not 'build' worlds in it's own image. That is the essential difference between Americans and Indians. We accept. We absorb. We move on. Iran's problems are it's own, irrespective of what Obama does or does not say. The US has become so used to policing the world that silence is seen as meekness or confusion.
That is not India. Never has. Never will be.

Post a Comment

Post a Comment