The Economic Times
English EditionEnglish Editionहिन्दी
| E-Paper
Search
+

    View: Two countries, India then, India now

    Synopsis

    The India of then and that of now would have two very different answers. And that irreconcilable bifurcation sums up the partition that has sundered the two Indias.

    The India of now, echoing Marx’s comment on Hegel’s proposition regarding the dialectics of history, seems to have stood the India of then on its head.
    The India of ‘then’ denotes not just a time gone by, but it also denotes a country transformed, almost beyond recognition. Though the physical boundaries of the India of then are much the same as they are of the India of now, much of its interior landscape, of its occupations and preoccupations, has dramatically altered.

    Not long freed from colonial bondage, the India of then had yet to fully find its economic feet, and thrift and austerity were the watchwords of the day, necessitated by lack of resources. The great wide world outside, with its promise of glittering goods and services, lay on the far side of a khadi curtain of frugality we had drawn across us to keep us safe from the temptation of prodigal foreign delights.

    We even coined our own word for foreign — phoren — which made foreign sound more foreign than foreign. Being phoren-returned was a great cachet, vouch-safed to the elitest of the elite. When an uncle of mine became the first member of the extended family to obtain a passport, a clan get-to-get her was organised and the prized document was passed from hand to hand amid exclamations of wonderment and awe. My uncle had business with a Swiss company dealing in dairy products, and when he returned from one of his foreign trips, he’d shower us children with chocolates of that country, seductively sweet with the taste of forbidden fruit.

    But if in the India of then the more material goods of distant climes — from cars to confectionery — remained virtually inaccessible, the intangible products of thought and opinion suffered no such restraint. Be it the Non-Aligned Movement, suitably capitalised as befitted its gravitas, to the Suez crisis and later the US involvement in Vietnam, world affairs were the pith of the moment, not just in editorial columns but in everyday coffeehouse conversation as well.

    In what was then Calcutta, ‘Amar naam, tomar naam, Viet-naam!’ was the rousing rallying cry against US imperialism. The word — or was it a title? — ‘intellectual’ was an encomium, not an epithet describing an anti-national element of seditious intent. A common mantra of the day was ‘simple living and high thinking’, the paucity of consumer products made up for by a wealth of diverse discourse.

    The India of now, echoing Marx’s comment on Hegel’s proposition regarding the dialectics of history, seems to have stood the India of then on its head. Today, our towns and cities boast supermarkets which are a cornucopia of international brands of comestibles of all kinds. On our roads and highways stray cattle negotiate hazardous rites of passage with motorised vehicles sporting the insignia of global marques.

    It has become cheaper, and more attractive in other terms, for a middle-class family from, say, Delhi to have a flying vacation in, say, Thailand than in Kochi, or Goa. Indians can now send legally up to $250,000 abroad per year per individual. ‘Phoren’ is no longer phoren.

    But if the world, in all its corporeal manifestations, has opened up for India, India, in large part, appears to have closed its mind to the universality of thought it once embraced and substituted it with parochial pride and prejudice. Our own tradition of eclectic philosophic exploration has been subsumed within a valorisation of a mythic past in which an elephant-headed deity is cited as evidence of organ surgery, and Kurukshetra is claimed to have been a theatre of strategic nuclear warfare.

    The phraseology of our public disquisition has undergone a narrowing of horizons, with terms like ‘love jihad’, ‘gau rakshak’, ‘cultural nationalism’, and ‘illegal migrants’ replacing the wide-ranging sweep of the lexicon of the India of then. Has the gain of material plenitude been worth it when weighed against the impoverishment of ideas?

    The India of then and that of now would have two very different answers. And that irreconcilable bifurcation sums up the partition that has sundered the two Indias.
    (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)

    Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    10 Comments on this Story

    Asis Banerjee53 days ago
    The Author cleverly ignores Govt attitude & deafening SILENCE about USSR invasion of Hungary & later in Afghanistan. Moreover, he is silent on Bandung Conf and laughable NAM in the above context. Considering all these idiotic & "not so beneficial" aspects for India, "Now India" has a better image in the International arena as well as performance of Indians (like many of us) in many countries weigh more than anything...
    CA RSR Murthy Murthy53 days ago
    The India of then could not usher a square meal a day for majority of its citizens. It is a shame on mankind and a blot on our Country,that as a legacy of those days (close to 70 years),it has remained what it is. The India of then as an economic model how much ever the westernised mind dwells in the superiority of its thoughts. The hungry stomach has no time for intellectual odyssey.The India of today atleast throws a glimmer of hope,that it can feed its millions though it may (or may not be actually) dwelling in the slumber of intellectualism.Let us give the India of today a chance to change of its millions stuck in poverty. If not 70 years, half of it atleast !!!No nation or individual has ever prospered without pride in itself or oneself.
    Prabhat Kumar54 days ago
    you are selectively using events and thoughts to up hinduism, totally ignoring the glorious events and thoughts of the scholarship and achievements, it is not your fault have learnt only what has been projected before you by the British and leftist historians.
    The Economic Times