Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sunybcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!sunybcs!arora
From: arora@sunybcs.UUCP (Kulbir S. Arora)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Re: Re: India and the Media
Message-ID: <1333@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 20:06:09 EST
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.1333
Posted: Wed Mar 13 20:06:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 03:22:06 EST
References: <2440@hplabsc.UUCP> <197@gitpyr.UUCP> <409@crystal.UUCP> <1304@sunybcs.UUCP> <415@crystal.UUCP>
Organization: State University of New York @ Buffalo,NY
Lines: 85


> >   ...................  Compare that to a society like the US where
> >   every statistic is not only collected but made public, and maybe you'll
> >   be more objective.
>
> What are we supposed to be "objective" about? Your concern seems to be to
> decide who or which society is "better"!  Even to show that the Indian sytem
> is inferior in comparison to others.  My point is simply that arguments of
> the sort you are putting forth are meaningless: Every society has its
> evils/shortcomings.  No Indian can claim that our system (social/political)
> is faultless.  Neither can anyone from any other place in the world.  So why
> pick out India and somehow suggest that things out there are terrible and we
> ought to be ashamed to show our faces to the world?  My point is simply that
> if we heard only about crime and other problems in this society, we would
> have a very negative and unfair image of the US.  We have a balanced image of
> this country because we DO know about all the good that exists here.
>

  How did you conclude all of the above from my posting ?  You are attributing
  a position to me which I never took.  If you have read a subsequent posting
  of mine, this will be clear, hopefully.
  Lets get some axioms into this discussion, ok ?
  I am NOT comparing societies.  It is meaningless to do so. The word
  "compare" in my posting is used in a situational context and
  NOT a qualitative one.
  I do NOT believe this society is better than ours.  Such opinions are
  meaningless.
  I am NOT ashamed of showing my face to the world as an Indian.

> If Indians can't view India in the proper perspective, who can?

  That is exactly the question I was attempting to answer.  We seem to
  be differing on what 'proper' is.  If self-criticism to you is what
  you have stated above then you are as jingoistic as Reagan.
  All this balanced view of the U.S. that you profess to have is because
  you live here.  Did you have the same view before you came here ?  I
  certainly didn't.  What I saw and heard in India about the U.S. was
  mostly very negative, the kind of statistics you wrote about in
  your previous posting.  What do you have to say about all that we
  hear about the 'decadent West' in India ?  (Whether the West IS
  decadent or not is NOT being discussed here).
  Don't you think if an American spent some time in India, he
  or she would have a more balanced view ?  Why are you then complaining
  about Americans here not knowing about the 'good' things back home ?
  Everybody unto themselves sitting in their own homes !
  As a matter of fact, the media barrages the American public mostly with
  the 'bad' things about them, most of the time.  Any news report on TV
  usually heads off with murders, rapes, fires etc., before anything
  else.
  What makes you think that there is a concerted effort to single out
  India for unfair treatment ?  My friends from Israel have the same
  complaint as you have !!!
  An american citizen has as much interest in the fact that India's
  growth in GNP last year was among the highest in the world, as an
  indian citizen has in the fact the auto-industry in the U.S. bounced
  back last year.  That is to say, NONE.
  An indian citizen's smugness when reading about the 'decadent West' is
  no different from an american citizen's when reading about the
  'disasters' in the third world.

  This media bias is a mythical issue.  I wouldn't even ask you "Why
  should they " ?  However, try to answer "Why do you want them to" ?
  You seem to be wanting an american-style hard-sell of India to
  Americans.  Do you really care that much for their approval ?

> Indira elected because she was Nehru's daughter.  (Remember Kamaraj and the
> "Syndicate"?)  Rajiv clearly benefited from the "sympathy vote" after Indira's

    
  Indira WAS elected because she was Nehru's daughter. (Don't interpret my
  criticisms of the Indian Politik as anti-Indian , please !!!)   
  The power struggle after Shastri's death resulted in Indira being the
  compromise candidate since she was percieved as being most 'acceptable'
  to the public.  THAT is what has to change in India.  The masses accepted
  her since she was Nehru's daughter. Period.  The masses in India have to
  become aware of the fact that the politicians are accountable to them and
  not the other way around.  Mrs. G. very much understood this timid  accept-
  ance we have when she started grooming R. for the job.  I agree with you
  that her death was largely responsible in his winning.  That is exactly
  what I am complaining about.  I have nothing against Rajiv G.  But why
  do we feel obligated to reward him with that job simply because his mother
  was assassinated ?  That doesn't say much for citizens of a democracy.

  Kulbir Arora