An Indian Identity in a Globalizing world
The Sept-Oct ’07 issue of JetScreen (Jet Airways in-flight entertainment guide) had a brief interview with Melody Queen Lata Mangeshkar in which the first question was (emphasis mine):
“Question: A graph recorded at the Royal Albert Hall, London has proved that you have the most perfect voice in the world…
Lata: I’m very happy to hear this but I’m happier about the fact that I’m an Indian. If they have said that my voice is the most perfect in the world, then it definitely makes me happy and proud.”
Quite acontrast from Shri Lakshmi Mittal’s remarks from some time ago:
Whether I’m Indian or the citizen of another country is irrelevant in this global environment*.
*Quote from TIME profile here.
Here is a QUESTION TO READERS:
Is national identity likely to become less important as the world becomes “smaller” and distances and geographical barriers break down?
Or will identity become even more salient as globalization progresses apace?
Would you agree wih Lata-ji or Shri Mittal? Thoughts and comments please.
Related Posts:
Of Bangalore, Bengaluru and Fractured Identities
Image courtesy: Wikipedia
I tend to agree with Lata-ji.
Even if Mittal is shrugging off the identity question, he cannot deny that the biggest problem he had in taking over Arcelor was the identity issue. And in fact, I suspect he made this remark with that takeover in mind.
Also, a look at the recent election results in Europe shows a trend: An attempt to (re)define their own national identity as in how to absorb the immigrants.
It was also evident in the US w.r.t. outsourcing: Jobs going to non-americans.
In all these cases, the business world though has been neutral or in favor of globalization.
So, in a way, Mittal was right in that it did not matter to a businessman. He intends to pay back his investors irrespective of their nationality.
Dear Shantanu:
We must make a distinction between Lata and Mittal here. When Lata says she is a proud Indian, she is identifying herself not merely as a citizen of the Indian State. It is not the geographical boundaries, but the inclusive concept of race, culture and dharma that she has in mind. She is an artiste and as such speaks the language of heart.
Mittal was talking at another level. He merely said that hailing from a certain part of the world must not be taken as a prerequisite to be able to contribute to a global vision. Mittal is a practical businessman. He must rely more on the head than the heart to be successful.
There is not doubt that Mittal and Lata are proud Indians in their own ways. Both displayed self esteem and conviction to say what they did.
Regards,
Nandan
But the fact is Mittal has Indian passport and citizenship. He could have changed this long time ago but not because he identifies himself as proud Indian.
I am always amazed how even the most intellectuals amongst us Indians are able to justify our excessive Indian patriotism and glorify it! Lata having the best voice in the world has nothing to do with her Indian origin…she is simply a gifted human being and would have been so regardless of where she was born or what citizenship she held.
It is truly time we started thinking in global terms. Yes, collectively we must all work towards taking India forward and regaining our ancient glory…but to gloat over our small achievements (in this event purely individual and that too God’s gift) merely makes us appear very small minded. What we MUST work for is truly liberating India. In this regard, I would really appeal to every one to read Sanjeev Sabhlok’s book “Breaking Free of Nehru” at
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/breakingfree.html
It is truly a liberating experience!!
@ Suresh: Do you feel that one reason why we find it necessary to “gloat over small achievements” may be that we wish to regain our pride after centuries of domination?
I don’t see any contradiction here. A truly liberated India can (and will be) a proud India
Yes… but the answer to every question need not necessarily be.. I am proud that i am an Indian
Q: (To Amartya) Congrats on winning the Nobel Prize! You are the Economist of the year!
A: I’m very happy to hear this but I’m happier about the fact that I’m an Indian. If they have said that my economics is the most perfect in the world, then it definitely makes me happy and proud.
Q: (To Nooyi) Forbes recorded that you are the most powerful woman in the world.
A: I’m very happy to hear this but I’m happier about the fact that I’m an Indian. If they have said that I am the most powerful woman in the world, then it definitely makes me happy and proud.
The above two answers sound ridiculous, out of place and jingoistic.
Coming to Lataji, she is our country’s pride and one has to admit, that facing journalists and answering questions isn’t her forte and does not have to be. When Lataji says it, it sounds nice because it exudes a wonderful child-like innocence.
But if anyone else said, I’m sure it would reek of silli untranationalism. We need to be proud of our country but not express it out of context, keeping Lataji’s quote in mind.
And why don’t you put Mittal’s statement in context.
Q: (to Mittal) Do you think your Indian citizenship creates an advantage or disadvantage of sorts when you deal with people at the global level?
A: Whether I’m Indian or the citizen of another country is irrelevant in this global environment
Now, I do not know the context either but in the above context it sounded reasonable.
You don’t have to show one person in bad light (especially when you have no idea whatsoever about the context) in order to make the other brighter.
The post could’ve just been about how proud we need to be that we’re gifted by a nightingale like Lataji and how infinitely sweet of her to say what she said. Mittal’s statement was a worthless inclusion.
@Nandan and Suresh:
It would be really nice if you accorded a ‘ji’ to Lata Mangeshkar.
@ Blogical: First of all, thanks for dropping by and contributing to the discussion.
The intent of the post was neither to glorify Lata-ji’s quote nor ro denigrate Shri Mittal.
The real point was the question that I posed to everyone:
Is national identity likely to become less important as the world becomes “smaller” and distances and geographical barriers break down?
Or will identity become even more salient as globalization progresses apace?
***
A separate point is of course whether his citizenship really makes a difference to Shri Mittal’s identity (even though he has been repeatedly attacked on his Indian origin and his company has been derisively called a “company of Indians”).
As most of you know, he has spent the majority of his life (and made almost all his fortune) outside India.
His primary base is London where his citizenship actually becomes an advantage because of complex tax laws related to residency.
In the same TIME profile from where I got the above quote, Shri Mittal is further quoted as saying:
Your identity is your company,” says Mittal. “I have a global company, so I have a global identity.”
This is an entirely justifiable position and who am I to argue with it anyway? Shri Mittal’s identity is his personal business.
As I mentioned in another comment though, a country and society that is just coming out of centuries of domination and subjugation needs some kind of anchor – or “national icons” – to regain its pride – which is why you see us (meaning most Indians) feeling proud about achivements of NRI Indians (including those how have given up their citizenship and passport) – a recent example being newly elected US governer Bobby Jindal.
And finally, for the record, I have the highest regard for Shri Mittal. He fully deserves all the praise and respect he gets…His achievements are an inspiration to Indians and non-Indians alike.
*** NOTE by MODERATOR: This comment was mistakenly stuck in the spam queue ***
Dear Blogical-ji,
Thank you for the advice. I shall henceforth add -ji to Lata-ji’s name whenever I mention it. Don’t you think we must also accord the same respect to the other people you have mentioned in your post? Must we be partial only to Lataji? The following info is copied from Wikipedia.
All these people have excelled in their chosen field.
“Amartya Kumar Sen CH (Hon) (Bengali: ??????? ????? ??? Ômorto Kumar Shen) (born 3 November 1933), is an Indian economist, philosopher, and a winner of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences (Nobel Prize for Economics) in 1998, “for his contributions to welfare economics” for his work on famine, human development theory, welfare economics, the underlying mechanisms of poverty, and political liberalism.”
“Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi (born October 28, 1955 in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India) is the chairman and chief executive officer of PepsiCo, the world’s fourth-largest food and beverage company. On August 14, 2006, she was named the next to succeed Steve Reinemund as chief executive officer of the company. Reinemund, 58, retired on October 1, 2006. According to Forbes magazine’s 2007 poll, Ms. Nooyi is the fifth most powerful woman in the world. She has been named the #1 Most Powerful Woman in Business in 2006 & 2007 by Fortune magazine.”
“Lata Mangeshkar (Marathi:??? ???????) (born September 28, 1929) is an Indian singer. Focusing mainly on Hindi and Marathi film music (playback singing), she has sung in over twenty major Indian languages.
Lata Mangeshkar is only the second Indian singer to have received the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honour, the other being M. S. Subbulakshmi. In fact, no other Indian singer of non-classical music has been awarded anything higher than the Padma Bhushan, the nation’s third highest civilian honour as of April 2007.”
“Lakshmi Narayan Mittal[1] (or Lakshmi Nivas Mittal) (??????? ????? ??????) (born June 15, 1950) is a London-based Indian billionaire industrialist, born in Sadulpur Village, in the Churu district of Rajasthan, India, and residing in Kensington, London. He is the fifth richest person in the world, with a fortune of US$32 billion according to Forbes.[2][3]
The Financial Times named Mittal its 2006 Person of the Year. In May 2007, he was named one of the “100 most influential people” by Time magazine.”
With regards,
Nandan
I have no dispute with any of the above…these are individual views and we MUST respect ALL views.
I would only like to comment on the request Lata Magenshkar as Lata Ji. This is another Indian hang up with which I feel very uncomfortable. My adding or not *Ji* after her name does not in anz way reflect the level of respect I hold her in. True, on her face, I am likley to address her as Lata ji in view of her age etc and my *Indian* hang up. I have however lived abroad all mz life, and in the western world, or in China, no need is felt for such superlatives. Everz one is addressed bz name ..included the CEO of major Multinationals and even Ministers.. Quite often even parents are addressed bz name. This in no awaz reduced the respect for the person, it is just the waz world is becoming and i am verz comfortable with it. In a Globaliyed world, sooner we get used to such usage the better. Respect comes from heart and is shown in actions, not the waz we address another. Even in India, childrem frequentlz adress their mother as Tu…this is expression of affection, not disrespect.
Dear Sir,
I do not think that as the world becomes smaller the concept of an identity will be lost. Economically speaking, yes the world will lose significantly theconcept of identity, but singly as an individual I do not think it will be happen.
Even as of date we have a nobel prize winner talking of how white and blacks are different because of their gene structure.
The other day we read about the matter of a probable Australian PM talking tough on the “Shariat” and also spoke very strongly that people who do not believe in a strong ‘christian” Australia can leave if they do feel strongly about it.
Even as early as last week the European Court of Justice had to intervene in a dispute between the take over proposal by one car maker of european origin of another car maker of european origin, Volkswagon of Germany.
It is never a loss of a business that will affect a man but his loss of an identity as a part a certain society will deifnetly affect him and hence national identity will become stronger as business flex their muscles.
Regards,
vck
All: Thanks for the comments…
Some of you may have already read this bit of *news*:
“Ambani elbows out Gates to become world’s richest”
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/ambani-elbows-out-gates-to-become-worlds-richest/51373-7.html?xml
Question: Should we be proud that Shri Ambani made his fortune in India (as an Indian) or is his nationality merely incidental to the fact of his wealth?
Adding another perspective to the debate:
I don’t know if you have seen the latest Idea Cellular Ad featuring Abhishek Bachchan on Indian TV. He, as the headman of the village, is fed up of regular caste-conflicts. He orders “Aaj ke baad is gaon mein koi bhee apNe naam se ni jaaNa jawega” .
It is hilarious, yet conveys a subtle message that technology is playing a major role blurring the identities (at least the ones that lead to bloody conflicts)
I’ll find out if the ad exists on YouTube exists and share the link.
Dearb Sir,
The information on Shri. Ambani proves proves my point. Reliance is an Indian company. Today if Shri. Mukesh is termed to be the richest man overtaking Shri Gates, it is only because the FII’s and other Financial pundits have found India a good destination to invest in.
Hence it is commerce that makes Shri. Mukesh the Indian take the limelight. If the FII’s exit India Shri. Mukesh is not going to be less Indian than he is now!
So an identity will definetely be a part of ones living, unless we see the whole concept of life as philosophically as the Rishis of India did.
Regards,
vck
Shantanu’s question is:
“The real point was the question that I posed to everyone:
Is national identity likely to become less important as the world becomes “smaller” and distances and geographical barriers break down?”
—
All I know is that as *knowledge* barriers break down, ie, we learn to do research on our own, everyone and their uncle will want to be associated with India..not India Inc., but the India that has always existed as a culture, a civilization.
When people get to know the Indian roots of almost anything of value:
mathematics; intellectual, benign, uplifting spirituality (not the “join me or die” kind that has its very own dictionary meaning now: “religion”); astronomy; architecture; environment- consciousness; language; art; metallurgy; medicine; textiles; food..
..then the queue will form.
“Global” will come to mean “borrowed from India”..
Yes, all this will be achieved in a small part by the breaking down of distances too, but books, websites, and word-of-mouth will do a far better job..