Sigh.
For six months or more, you keep a leash on your writing. You write for the most part about telecom, with diversions into other infrastructure sectors. You keep it factual and devoid of metaphors (though you indulge yourself with a PJ every so often). And what happens? The minute you decide to spice things up a little with some dramatic flourishes, you get accused of condescendation1.
Oh well. I suppose it was my fault for not being as explicit as I could have been. So let’s dive into the clarification.
Starting out, I am not accusing anybody who finds the ad objectionable of being leftist, or a fool. In fact, there are two aspects to this. First, I am only talking about the three people who have linked the ads, not everyone who dislikes them. Second, I am not calling them leftists, or fools. Nor am I saying that they are opposed to liberalisation. What I am saying that they exhibit the same behaviour that religious people do.
Now, let’s talk about why I’m saying that.
There is an undercurrent in all of the posts that I linked to that it is wrong to use the images of the poor. It exploits them, commodifies them even.
MumbaiGirl:
That it’s ok to use poverty in a patronising fashion, like a commodity, make a joke about it.
Nancy Gandhi:
Millions of men and women in this country — who are NOT thieves — spend their whole lives doing backbreaking, soul-killing work, and remain pretty much in a cashless world — while we lucky few can buy things with plastic cards. Let’s make jokes about their misery on top of it.
My first question: so?
We commodify other people and make jokes about them all the time. The Coke ads have been stereotyping a bunch of ethnic communities for two years now. The new Airtel hoarding for their One rupee plan shows a Sardar and a Bharatnatyam dancer. Isn’t that commodification, when you pick people only for the fact that they live far apart and help you point out that distance has died?
So, MumbaiGirl, what is so special about the poor that you want to make an exception for them? This is the veneration I’m talking about. It’s the same sort of veneration that makes Hindu NRIs claim that you can’t put Ganesh on a thong, or Muslims infuriated when someone publishes cartoons of Mohammed. Or Parsis when Oliver Stone uses a Zoroastrian symbol in Alexander. Or Christians when The Last Temptation of Christ is made. Yes, not all these cases lead to rioting or burning embassies, but the underlying argument is the same: that only some people have the right to decide what is a tasteful and correct use of a particular symbol.
And now my second question, which should hopefully explain the later commandments.
Who is more patronising: the copyrighters of the ads, or the people who take offense on behalf of the poor? The ones who make fun of people, or the ones who think that people cannot judge for themselves whether to be offended or not, and need somebody to spring to their defence? By what authority do they assume the right to take offense on behalf of someone who may not even have seen the ad? Are the poor their property that they must worry about their welfare?
This is the other way in which these posts have resembled religion. They assume the right to take offense on behalf of someone or something, no matter whether that someone or something is alive to care, or dead, or a symbol, or non-existent, or supremely indifferent. Just like the outrage felt by ‘Hindu pride’ when MF Hussain draws Saraswati. It is perhaps worse, because these posts reduce the poor to symbols, instead of people.
1Condescendation is a physical process unique to Infamous Cartel Members. It’s what happens when you’re so cool that the waves of your condescenscion solidify around you in a frosty condensate.
I don’t think your comparison between a pun on poverty, and a similar one on ethnic communists, sardars etc. holds any water. The former is a social condition, in which I am sure the person is not very content. He had rather not be poor, and he sees no way out of it, so that much as he may not like your jokes about him, he has no choice but to accept them. A sardar, or a communist, is happy being that, or, at least, has some sort of free-will at his dispostion to change his present condition, in case he doesn’t like your stereotyping, or punning at his expense.
It is somewhat similar to making fun of a fat man, who is fat from lack of exercising or from an overdose of fatty foods, and joking about a fat man, who is fat for his Thyroid malfunctions. it is not a question of taste. It is more a question of whether the focal point of your jokes has the choice, or free-will, available to him to change is his condition, in case he is not happy about your jokes.
The underpriviliged, I don’t think do.
Now, we are talking!
Good comeback. This one.
Although I did find myself in agreement with your description of the “Worship Poverty” religion in the earlier post, I did believe that your post could have been written differently.
The way you wrote it, it did seem inappropriate and open to criticism for, you just linked to the three ‘Getting Offended By Ads-Dept’ type posts and proceeded to define the ‘religion’ thereby creating a direct association for the people who wrote the post to the poverty worshipping religion.
‘Poverty Worship’ is a generic New-Left , “Liberal” , Typist social phenomenon and a people who engage in it may not conciously be a part of any such ideological anti-ideological group or deliberately engage in it as if it were an ideology. A lot many people get subconciously conditioned into it.
[…] Update:Adisht comes back with a clarification, and an excellent rebuttal. […]
Apropos of nothing, you spelt condescension wrong.
Kinda spoils the joke when ya use a word play and then screw up in the follow-up.
Just like it kinda screws up the alleged humour when you follow up unfunny posts with lamer explanations.
“By what authority do they assume the right to take offense on behalf of someone who may not even have seen the ad?”
It is my sense of right and wrong, which is shared by others but not obviously you, that gets offended, whereupon I reserve my rant to right, whether at own blog or commentspace.
Equating it to “Just like the outrage felt by
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for going a bit overboard in my criticism on my blog. I will post my due apologies regarding inadvertently misrepresenting your statements there as well.
However I would politely point out that while being critical of others’ protests and going by the undercurrent of offense that you took at their protests, you are appropriating the authority to determine who should protest about what . Quel irony!
In short, aren’t you yourself being patronising by trying to determine which protests are protest-worthy and which can be castigated as ‘along religious lines.’
You did not find the ads offensive. You did not protest. Someone found the ads offensive they protested. End of story.
Assume that I am a jholawala NGO working in a tribal area or a journalist writing a story on tribals. I see that a Multi National pharmaceutical company is carrying drug trials which are banned in their country of origin on these tribals, who owing to their illiteracy do not understand the risks. Now as a journalist I write a news story or if I am a jholawala I write a blog post about this, terming it exploitation.
Now lets see… I haven’t written pieces on atrocities carried out on dalits, on child labourers and marijuana addicts whose right to smoke what they want the evil govt. is trampling upon. I as a person am insensitive about their exploitation. Yet something about the tribals has touched a chord. So it is now established that I am a member of that religion of yours because, horrors of horrors(!), I am venerating the tribals.
I have committed all the sins in your book:
1) I have spoken on behalf of someone
2) I have been more patronising than the MNC who treated the tribals as guinea pigs, just because I protested against them.
3) I have assumed that the tribals cannot judge for themselves and have sprung to their defense.
4) I have assumed that the tribals are my property and have worried about their welfare.
Teacher teacher, can I please be admitted to this religion now. Please!!!
And where to draw this line on speaking on behalf of someone? For instance, Jessica Lal’s murderers get away without getting justice. I write a blogpost in support of instituting an enquiry. Obviously I have no stake in the matter, apart from well-being of society in general. I am not a relative of Jessica Lal. Am I now being patronising by ‘protesting on behalf of’ Jessica Lal’s family?
Today Gaurav spoke about Libertarians fighting for school voucher scheme and protesting against indirect taxes here.
He said it was not for their self-interest but in fact Libertarians are doing it on behalf of the poor. Now how about me writing nice 10 commandments about how Libertarians speak on behalf of the poor, taking special care not to forget italicising the behalf! If the poor wanted reduction in indirect taxes let them ask for it themselves. If the poor want school vouchers let them ask for it. Why are the Libertarians acting like religious types by venerating the poor and speaking on their behalf? Are they any different than the middle class or the rich or any other class?
Please replace the word MumbaiGirl in the above quote with the word Libertarians and you will get my point.
And going by the satirical tone of your post it seems that you are lampooning patronisation. Yet you don’t see your own patronisation. May I remind you that we live in a democracy. And peaceful protests are not a crime but are in fact encouraged for the healthy functioning of a democracy. I for one am a staunch atheist and share your antipathy towards organised religion.
Is it your case that if I am a hardcore VHP types and I protest a thong being introduced in the Indian market carrying the picture of Shiva, then even my peaceful protests such as expressing anger through my blog are somehow not appropriate?
You amaze me. You are the first Libertarian I have come across who looks down upon people peacefully exercising their free-will. Till today I had only met Libertarians who used to say that everyone’s right to free will should be respected irrespective of the level of stupidity which may or may not involve (what some may interpret as) patronisation. The Libertarian position I know of is that racist language is an expression of free-speech even though majority finds it obnoxious and patronising. This is because nobody has the right to determine what constitutes as obnoxious/patronising and therefore should not look down upon hate speech! But apparently you think otherwise, if not about hate speech then about speech finding exploitation/commodificaton of poor as patronising.
The question I asked on your earlier post still holds…
Do any of these posts call for a ban on the ads? Are the writers rioting outside Economic Times office stoning it? Are they asking for any income redistribution? They are simply saying that they found the ad tasteless. What goes of anybody
Chetan,
Just to nitpick, Gaurav posting on behalf of libertarians is certainly not equivalent to Dilip posting on behalf of the poor & downtrodden.
For example, Dilip is openly implying here that he is what is known as a “salaried employee”. He has no problem going to Vidarba & writing report on dead farmer, & in the same breath, consuming bottle of vintage wine at 5 star hotel. No dichotomy whatsoever. His words btw. He is after all getting salary to write about farmer. He himself says writers like him will come & go, he doesn’t do anything at all about the dying farmer, unlike the Saroj Jha & Revathi he so admires who actually get things done instead of useless wordsmithing and stenography, which will win you cookie point in blogland but not in Vidarba, where you need real backbreaking work( as opposed to the sms cellphone laptop 9-windows type backbreaking 🙂
Point being, Dilip isn’t poor, he isn’t farmer, he is not from Vidarbha, it is not his near and dear commiting suicide, he is just a guy with a pen & camera getting cash to write columns. So he is in essence speaking on behalf of something that he can maybe identify with on emotional level, but is not required to and certainly not a part of. Like the NRI blogger who writes about middle east tension while being neither Arab nor Jewish nor living anywhere near gaza patti.
Now, this Gaurav dude has a, imo, misguided affiliation with whatever he thinks the term libertarian means. Never mind that being libertarian in India is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. Anyway, let that pass. Assuming Gauravan affiliated with this libertarian cult, he is one of them. He is not writing on behalf of them, he himself is one of them. Besides he is not getting paid to write about them. That adds a little more credibility to his accounts, and conversely causes a dubious “whatever” when I read the trinity’s post on Other India.I mean, if you want to write about Star Trek, you don’t have to be Roddenberry, but atleast be a card carrying trekkie. Don’t watch Star Wars and write about Star Trek.
Kya yaar tu bhi:
Now wait a minute! Where did Dilip come into picture anywhere???
And to be frank I am glad that Gaurav is the way he is. I mean I for one commend the spirit that the Libertarians were doing things which were not in their self-interest. For some reason I hadn’t thought of them that way till Gaurav explained. And there is no inconsistency in Gaurav’s and other Libertarians’ position. CCS, the most prominent Indian Libertarian think tank also says something similar about indirect taxes affecting the poor. My point was that there is no need to condescend to anyone just because they are offended by something said about a group which they don’t belong to. Everyone of us indulges in that at one point or another. It is called having an opinion! So there is no need to publicly condescend. That I went overboard in a bid to score points is unfortunate. But I had nothing against Aadisht. Hum to sirf itna chahte hai ki aap blogoarthiyon ka swagat unhe pan karke na kijiye. I would not like to see Libertarians going down the ‘holier than thou’ rabbit hole. We have had enough problems with socialists who indulge in that.
That was an evil one.
Chetan, one very important difference before you compare the points I raise with the points those who are criticisng the ads.
What I or other libertarians usually write about is rights being trampled upon. Or rights being stolen. The right to own property, the right to sell your property at the price you deem fit, the right to start a business selling electrcity or education etc. The government and its cronies in most cases are trampling on these rights and stealing money. There isn’t too much black and white here.
Now I agree that there is no immediate personal connection between those causes and me right now because I happen to be well off. But that does not mean I stop caring about the policy my government frames because if someone’s rights are being trampled, then it is wrong, and even in a libertarian society there need to be disincentives on trampling rights. It is my government, one which I am forced to pay taxes to and so I am in my rights to ask what is being done about it.
The comment I made on presstalk was to basically debunk insinuations that Libertarians only care about urban issues, mobile phones and growth rates….all “far removed” from reality. It does not mean I am selfless and speaking on behalf of anyone. I am as much a part of the system as anyone.
The difference here is that the ads are being carried by company A and feature persons A & B. Others have no stake in it. And no rights are being trampled and nothing is being stolen by showing that a pickpocket turns destitute. It is a very very subjective matter of taste. Do they have a right to protest? Of course they do. Free speech and all. But mind well that they ARE taking offence “on behalf” of someone since they are not personally involved. Again, as I said, they have a right to express what they want. But then Aadisht also has a right to poke fun at them.
And you have the right to compare their protests with my protests aginst statist issues.
And I have a right to say the comparison is flawed. 🙂
Exercise your right to admit the same. 😛
Gaurav, I would have admitted the same, but I am a lazy lazy person. I hate to excercise my right to admit. The cost benefit analysis says that it is a ghate ka sauda. 😉
Jokes apart, I know that the situation is nuanced and that you talking on behalf of poor and the ad-bashers talking on behalf of poor aren’t exactly the same. Precisely the reason why it is a comparison not a metaphor. I didn’t say Gaurav did a HOTHL today at presstalk nor did I say Gaurav has converted to their religion.
By using three examples, those of jholawala NGO, Jessica Lal and yours, I was trying to point out how fraught with problems this whole things of deciding what constitutes ‘speaking on behalf of someone.’ It was therefore that before launching into the comparison between bloggers protesting against Jessica Lal verdict and your comment on presstalk, I had posed a question…
At some point of time we all speak on behalf of someone. If I write a blog post frowning on the Iraq war or what kytb spoke about Neha writing a piece on Gaza patti, which you will agree is far removed from Indians, does not mean that I venerate the Iraqis or Neha venerates Palestinians. It also does not mean that we are anointing ourselves as sole spokespersons, It does not logically follow from writing a post on the issue that we claim to be the only ones understanding it.
Let me tell you a secret. This thing that me and Neha are indulging in is something called having an opinion and sharing it. And everyone indulges in that at some point of time including Aadisht, How that translates into someone being clubbed into a certain religion having those axioms is the crux of the matter here. More so because of Cartelians insistance/veneration of logic. Show me logically how Mumbai Girl writing that piece translates into her being a follower of those commandments. You do that and I will excercise my right to admit!
Ahem. Aren’t you forgetting a crucial actor C in this equation? C for consumer! Towards whom the ads are directed at? How can you say that the consumers have no stake in something which is clearly directed towards them? In fact you saying that you have a right to speak on behalf of poor because you are an actor in the system and criticising the goverment indirectly affects your well-being it much more of a stretch than a consumer protesting against an ad directed towards him/her.
(To use my now much abused opening line:)
With due respect, Chetan. The advertisements are targetted at advertisers in BE, not at general consumers. I consumed the advertisement, but was not the target of it, because I don’t have any interests in advertising in Brand Equity. If the prospective advertisers (or their wives or shareholders) were offended I am sure they won’t advertisements in BE thus punishing them for their crudeness.
Libertarians talk about and defend rights. Rights as principles of social organisation are universal. Specific rights do exist, but those arise from these universal rights. Human rights, property rights etc. are what you will find civil and economic libertarians defend. The people who suffer the most from the destruction or disrespect for these rights are often the poor, and thus highlighting their plight serves as an example of what is wrong with the current policies, as well as those prescribed by (Aadisht’s taxonomical innovation in religion) Povertyism.
Aadisht: do you think poverty is a good funny? People joke about things that are funny, you know.