>
> Does your being immersed (perhaps in the slums of Madras or
> rural expanses of Punjab?) in India, lead to the posts you forward
> about corporate and Bollywood goings on? Surely you will admit
> they provide only another impression, another nuance, a partial
> truth?
All truth is of course partial. My posts (most of which have an urban bias by virtue of my being "immersed" in urban India) are, however, not intended to reinforce any preconceived notion about India that I may have - there is no "agenda". Something tremendous is happening in India - something of potentially world-historic significance - and neither the gushing 'neo-libs/neo-cons' (I wish somebody would explain these phrases to me) of the Right nor the sanctimonious proselytizers of the Left have even begun to understand it. I haven't understood it either - I am only sharing my excitement (and puzzlement) with whoever is willing to listen.
> We can trade charges about persons till we are blue in the face,
The word "charge" was only used in the context of the argument and was not meant to be a personal charge against anybody. I am sorry if it was misconstrued in that way.
> but the content deserves better attention. The upshot (as seen in
> the previous thread) is this: that multiple views exist and are
> needed to understand reality (politics, culture in India, in this
> case) is the very reason why Cockburn's [overall correct] opinion
> needs space for expression and deserves attention, especially in
> a left mailing list.
Cockburn is woefully off the mark. His glib over-simplifications would be amusing if they were not tinged with the pathos of sterility.
>
> The idea implicit in my post is this: At a time when the image of
> India being promoted (and the opinion available) both internally and
> abroad is one of a neo-capitalist economic boom (an image that
> serves Western conservatives quite well), alternate viewpoints and
> data provide a more nuanced picture.
I am not sure what 'neo-capitalist' means. Nor am I certain that the interests of Western conservatives, whoever they may be, are best served by projecting India as a vibrant modern economy rather than a country of elephants and snake charmers. Today's world is far too complex to fit into these simple patterns of causation.
> Who provides such views and
> data is irrelevant and we should not be reduced to trading
> credentials.
>
No dispute here.
> There is also another point of interest I wished to raise with my
> post: the use of Western symbols in India and what they may mean
> in a sociological sense...
>
Would certainly be a fascinating inquiry. I am not aware of anyone having seriously pursued it, though.
I live in Mumbai, btw. Do drop me a line if you are going to be passing through.
-- Tom Alter
(For the uninitiated: Tom Alter is an American actor who was brought up in India, lives here by choice, acts in Bollywood films (more often than not as the Evil White Man) and speaks/writes Hindi/Urdu with as much felicity as Ravi does English)