We like reading Tom Friedman’s articles about India. We may have been critical of him, more critical than perhaps any one else has been. But we like him. His flattery of India pleases us, his rationale strokes our collective ego. He always seem enthralled with what learns in India. His expressions are reminiscent of the “prashasti” style (high praise) of Samskrut that was developed in the 3rd century CE. In fact, Friedman follows Manu’s dictum laid out just after the Great Flood:
- “Satyam Bruyat, Priyam Bruyat, Satyam Apriyam Na Bruyat” (Speak the Truth, Speak what is pleasing, Do not speak Unpleasant Truths)
We were reminded of Tom Friedman when we read Anne Applebaum first in Slate and then in Washington Post. Her Washington Post article, virtually identical to her Slate.com article, received praise from other columnists, “think-tank scholars” and people who claim to like India. Her concluding sentence was the perfect example of the Manu-Smruti edict. It spoke the truth and it spoke the pleasing truth:
- “A better governed India would be the best possible advertisement for the benefits of democracy across the developing world.”
We recognize the debt the world owes to Manu, the man who built the boat and escaped the Great Flood that wiped out much of the world in that ancient period. The Samskrut word for man is Manav, a descendant of Manu and quite likely the predecessor word for Mann/Man in European. Manu-Smruti, or the Remembrances of Manu is an amazing work. Some of it is great, some not so great and some we, like so many Indian philosophers, disagree with.
Personally, we have never learned that second part of Manu’s dictum, the one that advises against speaking unpleasant truths. Being Mathematicians by training & Global Macro practitioners by Varna (“a” silent) or occupation, we care far more about unpleasant truths than the pleasing kind.
So here we go. We found Anne Applebaum’s article superficial to the point of being trite and we told her so in a tweet. In fact, her article immediately reminded us of a Tom Friedman article. Notice that both Anne Applebaum and Tom Friedman quote Gurucharan Das and Shashi Tharoor. Two different American authors writing with two different viewpoints in two different US publications quote these two people and none other!
This is revealing,we think. Coincidence or otherwise, it demonstrates a closed feedback loop.
- Anne Applebaum, Tom Friedman and their American colleagues approach India from their own viewpoints. So they naturally gravitate towards people who say things they want to hear, especially well known people who can be reliably quoted, people like Gurucharan Das & Shashi Tharoor.
- These are just two of the more visible names in this new Indian product – smart, articulate Indians who understand what American media wants and supply it with an erudite flair. These Indians become well known in think-tank/university/publishing sectors through the exposure they get from Applebaum, Friedman & others. This is a mutually beneficial loop, reputationally and monetarily.
- In turn, Applebaum & Friedman become convinced that what they understand of India is correct and reflective of “modern” India.
This creates another closed feedback loop in India. Indian media writes self-flattering articles about how Indian authors are getting global recognition and that prompts more smart young Indian writers to adopt similar viewpoints for reference in the New York Times, Washington Post and others American publications.
From a business and marketing standpoint, this is a beautiful machine. But it is corrosive to long term Indo-American relations and severely detrimental to understanding of India. Americans who read such manufactured Indian product have no idea how core India thinks, how the middle class looks at India and how it will shape India. And these core Indians develop contempt towards America based on the supercilious garbage produced by New York Times, Washington Post & others.
Robert Kaplan is far more thoughtful, far more knowledgeable and analytical than either Anne Applebaum & Tom Friedman. But even Kaplan has strapped on the same blinders that are worn by others in the American media. His mind, like Tom Friedman’s, can begin only with Renaissance Europe, it only reads what has been written by the Portuguese or British and so to him Mughals represent real India. Tom Friedman makes a similar mistake when he writes:
- “At one point, I tossed out an idea to which one of the Indian analysts
responded: That was tried before — “in the 11th century.” It didn’t work
out well. That’s why I like coming to Delhi to talk about the region.
Indian officials tend to think in centuries, not months,…”
Like Kaplan, Friedman can’t seem to think before 11th century. At the very minimum, Tom Friedman should read about India & its interactions with the Arab Muslim world from about 700 CE to 900 CE. Ideally, he should read or at least have some one teach him about Vishnu-Gupt Chanakya, the strategist who was far more of a founding father than Gandhi. Chanakya is emerging again as a favorite of today’s real India, among Business Schools and among real Indian students. In contrast, Gurucharan Das went to University of Chicago to study Indian Dharma and came back with less understanding than before.
It may well be that Kaplan, Friedman, Applebaum just cannot comprehend that there is anything worthwhile to understand about India, the pre-Islam India. We have a very simple suggestion for them. They should read the Maha-Bharat first as a story and then pick up a copy of Yuganta, essays on Maha-Bharat by the late Dr. Iravati Karve, a brilliant anthropologist. The Gupta Period, the Golden Age of India (300 – 600 CE) featured the primacy of the Maha-Bharat and the Imperial Kanauj (700 -900 CE) period saw the revival of Bhagvat-Puran, a related work.
The Maha-Bharat is not only the greatest story ever told but it is the key to understanding India & Indians. You can go any part of India and get into a real discussion with common poor Indians about Truth, Justice and Law in the Maha-Bharat. But Applebaum, Friedman & Kaplan won’t bother. They will tell you that you can’t understand Israel without understanding the story of Moses but they won’t bother understanding the Maha-Bharat.
Anne Applebaum wrote what can be legitimately called a decent, superficial article about corruption in today’s India. She wrote about India’s “apathetic voters” and wondered whether “they will support clean politicians“. Unfortunately, she doesn’t understand that India’s post 2004-2006 corruption is totally different from the corruption that preceded the 2004 election. She doesn’t understand that the other critical factor in today’s Indian corruption springs from the U.S. Federal Reserve. She also fails to realize that the post- 2004 Indian “democracy” is more similar to the Indian system of the late 17th & early 18th century than to the 1947-2004 period. A detailed discussion of this is for another article on another day.
Anne Applebaum is also wrong when she writes about anti-corruption protests and the recent protests against the horrific Delhi rape-murder as two different outbursts. She is correct in stating “Hazare’s campaign has lost steam” but totally incorrect about the reasons. We have begun to think that neither protest was really about the visible cause. Meaning the protests for Anna Hazare were really not about corruption and the protests in Delhi were really not about rape or women’s rights. But this anti-consensus discussion will also be left for another article on another day.
You see, we can broach such a seemingly shocking thought, we can think so freely about real India because we don’t have a closed feedback loop. That protects us from myopia or mental blinders that restrict the perspective of Anne Applebaum & Tom Friedman.
Send your feedback to editor@macroviewpoints or @MacroViewpoints on Tweeter
