Deliberately wrong portrayal?
Today, 27th July
2010 Sunday Edition of the Times of India
had an
Article entitled “Only in India: The curious case of Ash-envy”
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Only-in-India-The-curious-case-of-Ash-envy/articleshow/6096367.cms
) written by well-known and extremely popular novelist, Chetan
Bhagat. It began with Mani Ratnam’s Raavan, pondered over Aishwarya’s
performance, made a reference to Hritik Roshan and his latest movie
Kites and
also discussed the case of Shashi Tharoor. From all these references and
discussions, he tried to “address the broader issue of Indian
envy “. He made some very important remarks like- “First-generation
climbers
are seen as crass, undeserving and subject to harder hurdles before
they can earn their place in the sun.” Also that “ We can’t accept,
reward or
frankly, deal with talent.” He provides a reason for that- “Centuries of
oppressive class and caste-based rules have made us this way.” Then he
exhorts
the Indians by saying- “This must change.” Also makes us understand that
“People’s
success should inspire rather than make us unhappy.” In sum, he wants us
not to
be Ash-envy, but to be Ash-inspired. Then he ropes in religious thoughts
also
and incidentally what he picks up to make his arguments feel more
logical and
authentic is the divine principle of ‘mudita’ from Buddhism.
I have a lot to respond to this Article. The first thing is that envy is
a
natural human nature and is certainly universal in its spread. It has
been
dealt with by philosophers since ages. While Aristotle (in Rehetoric)
defined
envy (phthonos) "as the pain caused by the good fortune of others",
Immanuel Kant defined it as "a reluctance to see our own well-being
overshadowed by another's”. Even
religions are not ignorant of this fact. Envy is one of the Seven deadly
sins
of the Christian Church. Islam says that envy (Hassad) can destroy one's
good
deeds. Russell,
Bertrand in his The Conquest of Happiness also mentioned that it
is universal, though also ruing the fact that it is the most unfortunate
aspect
of human nature. Thus the fundamental assumption of Bhagat that it is
something
specially to do with Indian content and texture is not only blatantly
fallacious but is also an abjectly defective. The fact is that human
beings
have been born envious and retain this quality till they Rest in Peace.
Or maybe,
even after. About the religion’s concern being to get rid of this vice,
his
quote of Buddhist concept clearly makes one understand that the matter
was
being taken seriously as much in India as elsewhere. Buddhism can in 6th
Century BC, a time when Bhagat’s “oppressive class and caste-based
rules” was
still much rampant as the religion itself is believed to be a revolt to
such
conditions.
Now coming to some of the modern “greats” he has quoted and has tried to
defend, I personally don’t feel they are as saintly, virtuous and
praiseworthy as
Bhagat wants to make out of them. Two of them are film-stars who earn
their
livelihood by acting in films and being big Celebrities around the
country.
They are already much hyped than what they deserve. If one starts
talking of
their hardships and contributions to the society, do they come anywhere
near
freedom fighters, social workers, academicians, true religious souls and
devoted scientists of our country? What more should have been given by
the
country-men? What is there that they don’t have- immense name, fame,
money,
power, privileges ! All for acting in films ? And even there Bhagat
wants us to
be so magnanimous as to praise them even if they come up with a real
cropper.
All this defence for Aishwarya Rai’s performance in Raavan. Or that of
Hritik
Roshan in Kites. Who made Hritik the super star? Who gave all their
heart and
soul to Aishwarya films like Guru and Hum Dil de chuke Sanam? So, does
Bhagat
want to make it compulsory for all Indians to watch an Aishwarya film
and to
give rave reviews about it, whether we like it or not? Just because she
has
been a Miss World and is an internationally recognized beauty. Would it
not be
too much for us? The same Hritik had his hits with Koi Mil Gaya and
Krish. But
does that mean we all must throng to theatres at all costs, or otherwise
face
the sermons of Bhagat for being parsimonious or envious or mean?
About Shashi Tharoor I would not like to comment because it pertains to
the
realm of politics but the reason for which he had to quit his position
as a
minister are well-known to one and all. Yes, there would be people who
might
come up with the rational of parity and equality in treatment with
certain
other similar cases. But then, wasn’t Tharoor himself made a minister
the very
first time while we have hundreds of examples
of politicians struggling their way despite being MPs and MLAs
not for
years but for decades.
This applies equally well to Bhagat. People lapped
his
novels and they became best-sellers despite his having no lineage of
great
authors. But would it then make it compulsory for all of us to go and
buy his
books and to praise them with all our hearts even if they don’t shape up
equally well.
To sum it up, let us not take up stray and individual cases to reach a
conclusion, that too as wide-ranging as Bhagat has tried to do. It does
not
bestow well for a person who has become a celebrity himself, within a
few years.
That too in India.
Amitabh Thakur
IIM Lucknow
# 94155-34526
