Dear Amitabhji, Completely agree with you....have you posted this on the TOI site... let other also understand this.... Anand
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Amitabh Thakur <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2067666&id=1434665272&ref=mf>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 > > > > >
