(Hostage)
(Nature-Culture binary in Devdas poster)
(Rajnikant retaliates against the heroine by speaking English)
(Somu Desai)
My friend, artist, problem solver, mentor to many young
artists and above all a great human being Somu Desai, who lives in Pardi, near
the industrial city of Vapi, a border district of Gujarat with Maharashtra,
asks me a very pertinent question: Why many artists are still enamoured by the
White/Western world? Why do Indian artists need endorsement from the white
world? When shall we stand on our own feet? Somu Desaid adds in his facebook
message that he knows it is a sensitive issue to talk about but he is very keen
to know my opinion about it. I am also aware of the fact that it would be a
very touchy issue for many that certain observations from my side could even
sound like coming out of a perennial xenophobia. Hence, I would like to be as
balanced as possible while answering this question raised by Somu Desai.
The simplest answer to this question could come from understanding
a phenomenon called the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. This is a strange and complex
psychological situation in which a captive/hostage feels absolute sympathy and
love for the captors. In a hostage situation, after spending a few days with
the captors, the hostages develop some sort of bonding with the captors. The
captives start feeling that they are made hostage for a justifiable cause and
the captors are not criminals but true crusaders for a greater cause. This is a
reverse form of trauma, which adversely affect a captive freed out of certain
captured situations. If we look at our social relationships, we could see how
this syndrome is operational in multiple ways.
I could cite certain
examples from our popular culture, which replicates the real life situations.
In our popular movies, a young girl with a free flying soul happens to react to
a certain situation in a very aggressive fashion. However justified her action
is, as the audience is pushed to gaze at the situation through a pair of male
eyes (refer the discussion on male gaze in movies by Laura Mulvey) and forced
to feel that the exercising of her free will is totally unjustified. At this
moment, the male/hero enters the scene, totally disgusted by her action (almost
replicating the disgust that we as audience feel at this moment) and slaps her
tightly. She looks at him with a sense of wonder. In the next scene or if the
next scene is not a song scene that shows their growing fondness for each
other, after a few scenes, we see the same girl now absolutely domesticated and
obedient to the highhandedness of the male protagonist. In our daily lives too,
women are subjected to male domination and they perpetuate this admiration for
their male tormentors by doing rituals and pujas for the longevity of their
lives. Similarly, old servants are seen so attached to the household and its
male heads and they are even ready to sacrifice their lives for the well being
of that family.
Both these cases are prime examples of Stockholm Syndrome. However,
the powerful dominates you, you develop an affinity and respect for the mighty
one (Politics and religion also thrive in this syndrome as the masses are made
to believe in their raging and tormenting leaders and gods). When western
colonialism came to India first as trade possibilities and then as governance
of an ungovernable land and people, people started believing in the illusion
that only the white people could govern well. Despite the heavy subjection, the
subjects under this colonial rule thought that these white people were here for
our common good. This was operational in socio-political and cultural and
economic spheres very effectively because the relationship between the colonial
masters and the subjects was always based on the binaries of existence and
projected realities.
These disparate and condescending binaries started off from
the very separation of nature from culture. Nature and culture were pitted
against each other as opposing ideas. While nature stood for all uncouth
(uncooked/raw) and unrefined objects/behaviours, culture stood for everything that
was cooked and refined. In a theoretical level, villages were viewed as nature
and cities were viewed as culture. In the same way, women were considered as
nature and men were taken for culture. So the colonial masters called their
subjects as ‘Natives’, the unrefined people from ‘nature’ (natal, nativity,
nature and so on have the same linguistic root that connotes ‘birth). As
western colonisers were white in complexion, they infused this idea amongst people
that all what was white was always good/culture and all what was dark was
always wrong/nature. The white was the tamer because he was sophisticated, he
had sophisticated weapons and was in possession of scientific knowledge. And
the brown was the tamed who lacked in sophistication and knowledge.
That does not mean that the Indians were a pack of uncouth
people living in a dark age when the colonial masters arrived. Indians too were
sophisticated in their own ways, their world view was considerably different
from that of the occidental guests. Their governance was developed enough to
control and develop new kingdoms. The White colonial masters found that India
was a country full of chieftains and kings fighting each other for maintaining
their supremacy, often victimising the ordinary people who belonged to the
working class, through heavy taxations. The British colonial system found this
situation quite fertile enough to perpetuate not only their economic interests
but also their political ideologies. That was how the British Empire too the
charge of India from the East India Company. Taking the infighting between the
local kings as a socio-political advantage, the British gained the confidence
of people by offering them a peaceful life. The British, unlike the former
colonisers in this land became a part of the general life of India, often
imposing his presence through better knowledge, industry and power.
(Indian Railways- A British Introduction)
The influence of Stockholm Syndrome starts at this juncture.
The British had introduced rail, postal service, health services and so on.
These positive measures imparted a feeling that the British were here for
ruling us permanently and whatever they would do were the right things to be
done. If you look at the change in dress code even in the rural areas from the
late 19th century onwards, we could see that even the ordinary
people wearing an overcoat and a cap. The British had consolidated power in
India and they imparted the idea that the powerful was the right people and
white was always right. White possessed better knowledge and skills. They
prepared people thinking like white in brown bodies for the functioning of the
British government locally, through an ideological educational system. Slowly,
our mindset was transformed considerably. Despite all the subjections, we thought
that the British was always good and white was right.
The power and influence that the British left on Indian
psyche was so strong that after they left India in 1947, the new government of
India literally perpetuated and replicated the very idea of British Rule in
different ways. Our leaders started living in the bungalows that the British
had left here. Our leaders started behaving like the British/White people in
brown bodies. Despite the strong influence of Mahatma Gandhi, the majority of
Indian population thought that British was right especially when the democracy
was going to dogs during the post independence years. Like the hostages freed
from captivity, many Indians thought that the British were far better than the
Indian rulers. They nostalgically thought about British rule. They wanted to
become the upholders of the western values because they thought that it was
better than any other system.
The colonial footprints are now not just fossilized
imaginations or museum pieces. They are very strong even today. Our films have
been very influential in perpetuating this idea of white being always right in
many ways. When a ‘cultured’ girl offends the hero by calling him an uncouth
person, the hero bursts into a long dialogue in English to the surprise of the
heroine. This invites a round of applause and hysteria amongst the audience
because, English language shows sophistication and power. If you speak in
English, you have the power and you could say utter nonsense in accented
English and get away with it. That’s why many of our artists who abroad for
studying for six months or one year, come back with an affected accent. They
think that the white is right and to be on the right side they should speak in
accented English.
In fact, today we live in an absolutely different world. The
borders are now porous though thanks to international terrorism migration has
become a bit difficult. However, the internet has opened a different world for
many people in the world. I always feel that chatting does not have an accent;
it has only spelling mistakes or deliberate abbreviations. Yet, we have not
come out of the colonial hangover. Even our media tend to call our artists ‘Indian
Damien Hirsts’, ‘Indian Picassos’ and so on. It comes from the feeling that to
be international or to be globally accepted you should be attached to a white
western name. This comes from our colonial Stockhome syndrome. Many of our
artists also believe that getting the endorsement of the white world is very
important because he/she still believes that the power lies in white people.
And indirectly he/she admits his inferiority as an Indian (it is a very
personal complex and is not shared by all Indians) before the white people.
That’s why, even a white backpacker is treated like a Richard Gere or Brad Pitt
when he gate crashes in parties in India.
(Brad Pitt)
Some may argue that in today’s world there is no white and
black divide. But it is just an illusion. Unless and until the
black/brown/yellow worlds believe that they are right in their own ways and the
whites are right in their own ways, and none is superior or inferior to
another, the white supremacy and the brown servility are going to remain there.
I am not an advocate of fanatic nationalism. Love, sex and dhoka are beyond
nationalism. And I believe love, sex and dhoka are the fundamentals of all
creativity.
There is a misconception amongst the Indian artists that to
be an international artist, he should emulate some art language created by a
white Euro-British-American male artist. He does not understand the simple fact
that the white man’s art comes from his own experiential and materialistic
realities. Even if we say that now we have an ironed out world and the tastes
and living realities are uniform all over the world, our experiences are
difference as much as our realities are. We find an ironed out world only
inside the malls, high end pubs, hotels, five star hotels, airport lounges and
so on. And be sure people do not really live inside malls and airport lounges.
During the boom time, many artists who were continuously jet setting took the
illusion of living off suitcases in the airport lounges for their permanent
reality. They suffer today and suffer acutely.
I conclude this article with two more observations: First,
be proud of what you are should be the first and foremost ethical value that an
artist should inculcate in his life and practice. He should be political and
spiritual at the same time. He should have a tongue to speak up when there is
injustice around. He should have a spirit to meditate when his meditation would
do greater good to a larger mass. And above all he should respect his own art. Two,
veteran artist and scholar, K.G.Subramanyan, in one of his interviews says that
being local is the most important thing to be international because whatever we
call international is actually local in their own terms.
But unfortunately, Indian artists do not (most of them)
listen. They still believe that a backpacker from the US is either Bill Gates
or Brad Pitt in disguise.
2 comments:
I agree with you that any art /culture flourishes in context to its immediate environment. That is culture can thrive only if it is produced /consumed /appreciated/ critiqued in the the environment where it is produced. And if any of these links are missing then such cultural forms cannot survive for long.
When we look at other Indian cultural forms such as music, film theater and english /literature we have “indianised' it enough to adapt to local sensibilities. I believe all these forms have been first aimed at the local audience though western audience is very much on the radar. These cultural forms have been judged by the so called 'ordinary' people of India. It is the local support that has made these forms such a powerful tool. Bollywood is case in point. I personally feel that “audience” is critical component to any art form and what is ailing the current Indian contemporary art scene is the support of local audience.
Weather lack of museums , government apathy for visual arts we have to look seriously why it has not reached out to our own people? Why indian visual artists do not trust the taste of 'ordinary' people and let them participate what they feel about their practice. I do not believe the man on the road cannot understand conceptual art or installation art of today. There might be various reasons for this trust deficit. The onus of reaching out to its people lies on artist/ gallerist and critics so that it compels people to come and watch the art. Instead contemporary art has remained elusive and exclusive club of rich and wealthy.
A recent TV interview of a famous Indian artist sums this attitude. The artist on a national TV bragged that 90% of his art is being shown abroad and he has not found any appropriate 'space' in India to showcase his art. I feel such a statement only reflects arrogance as well as well as disdain to his own art where he claims his roots are. This is where Bollywood/Amir Khan stands apart.
Brilliant piece...loved reading it!!! Thanks for sharing :)
Post a Comment