A Rejoinder to "Unjoin the Dots" by Sagarika Ghose

Joel Stein might have gone ‘stomach-sick' for having hurt the sentiments of many through his article in Time, but some of his self appointed apologists have no qualms in suggesting that ‘Indians should learn to take themselves less seriously'. The advice is simple and clear that if Indians want to live and work in a globalised marketplace they should learn to be less hung up about culture and identity. And the advise comes with a warning too. If you want to wallow in identity and culture - ‘Don't venture beyond home'. If you want to access the complete prescription read "Unjoin the dots' by Sagarika Ghose in HT on http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/sagarikaghose/Unjoin-the-dots/Article1-571898.aspx .

Ghose seems to impress upon the readers with her ‘candid' argument that American soft power with its ingredients of music, education, clothes, movies, thinkers, books and even world view which to her appears to be imparting ‘manifold pleasures' is difficult to challenge given the propensity of Indian middle class to crave for them. Is it so really? Had it been so Stein should not have been so bitter about Bollywood films and samosa. In Stein's town Edison, Pizza Hut would not have given place to Indian sweets shop and Italian restaurants would not have got converted into Indian restaurants had American soft power been really so powerful. Yes, it is true that America today appears as a land of opportunities for many Indians in the same way England used to be once. But it is also true that only few Indians have allowed themselves to be overwhelmed and overawed by it completely. People like Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal cannot ever become examples of Indian success, they can at best be Indians lost to America forever because they failed to acquire any understanding of "self" and got swept off their feet. May be they were blinded by the opportunity offered to them pushing them for a compromise. Such ‘cultural sacrifices' are rarely celebrated except within a motley club of self seekers and misguided elements.

The imagery of American-speaking urban Indian who sees himself as a white American in the same manner the 20^th century dark-Indian desi babu in three-piece suit saw himself as white Englishman seems highly misplaced in the wake of an emerging India which is confidently writing success stories everywhere in the world. To bank such bizarre theories on ‘Sprite-ad' is nothing more than instances of highly simplistic narration with inane interpretation. It is like complaining that Gandhi should not have felt anguished for having been thrown out of the train because the train in which he was traveling was a product of the British technological prowess and that he was also dressed like an Englishman. So the fault lay with Gandhi and not with the colonial cultural mindset.

Ghose would like Indians to have faith in the kind of ‘cultural sacrifices' which Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley made to become successful rather than having faith in multiple-armed, elephant-nosed gods. She vehemently pleads that to become successful in America one needs to convert. If one cannot convert and also wants to practice one's own faith better do it ‘in secret at home'. Since as Indians ‘we hardly embody the dignified ways of the truly cultured' as we insist on displaying ‘dotheads' and ‘dashes' on our foreheads, we have no right to resist and protest. And mind it, the term Indians according to her refers to those who worship multiple-armed, elephant-nosed gods. Muslim and Christian Indians stand excluded as according to Ghosh they have already acceded to her prescription for success.

Ghose in a way, unconsciously though, has come out with an indictment of the concept of pluralism as practiced in America. If American society stands at odds with a small Indo-American community seeking to follow its own cultural pattern then it cannot be disputed that its claim of plurality and democracy itself stands challenged. To see the attempts to defend and protect cultural identity as ‘cultural assertion' and ‘aggression' is not only fascistic but an example of highly intolerant system. No right thinking individual can approve it. Can it be called ‘dignified way of truly culture'? No, it can't. The answer doesn't lie in unjoining the dots. Unjoining the dots may result in scattering and dispersal of a community. The process only keeps symbolizing weakness and disunity. Only joining the dots may create an image of unity and strength. It may give an imagery of completeness.