The
last email I read on the Internet discussion group, RajivMalhotraDiscussion,
before I left the group for various reasons, prompted me to write this article.
Rajiv Malhotra had started a thread, “Are Hindus Today Fit For Hinduism?” and
one of the respondents, Geeta Bhatt, psychoanalyzed the Hindus and had this to
say (reproduced verbatim – specific phrases italicized):
“I would, however like to add the
following observation from a totally different angel - parenting style of
India.
A son or a male in India is on one end
of the spectrum not allowed to make any decisions or take care of himself in
any form or shape. Women
are trained to serve the man, from drawing hot water for his bath to laying out
his clothes that he would wear to work, to standing like a servant by the
dinning table while he eats, but eats what his wife or mother serves him.
At the other end of the same spectrum his ego is strokes and pampered at every
turn. The inflated empty ego of such a man, is capable of throwing tantrum at
home, and exercise a phantom display of power over the women, but in the world
of men, he is ineffective, subservient and incapable of speaking his
mind or be the leader.
The highly skilled, intelligent,
gifted Indian men when step in to the multinational corporations, they
lack the basic skills of taking care of themselves, and appear weak and
ineffective in front of others. On the other hand, Indian women of the same
category who were taught to be quietly assertive, and be in charge of their
homes and husband, fair much better in some situations, and thrive in a white
men's world where
their opinions and views are respected.
This is just another way of looking at
how we are raising our boys, and it's in the kindergarten that one
forms the fundamental sense of self worth. Slavery of the psyche can
be changed by teaching boys that they are not ' god's gift', and preserving
their empty sense of 'worth' is an old game. The rules have changed and they
need to wake up. (June 28, 2012)”
I
do not believe these are Rajiv Malhotra’s views. However, his list is highly
moderated and even a well-informed, and well-referenced argument that
contradicts his point of view is censored (along with a dismissive note that
the member is getting pedantic or even worse “dropping names”), and Malhotra
does not hesitate (it is his prerogative though) to edit out other members’
posts or interject his own comments (instead of allowing a member to express
himself uninterrupted and then responding without ad hominem attacks). So, it
was surprising that this email went through without a murmur. I decided to
comment on it since this is a classic example of what Malhotra calls “anxiety
from below” in his important work Being Different – An Indian Challenge to
Western Universalism. Let us now return to Bhatt’s comments. The gist of
her arguments is:
- Indian men are incapable of taking care of themselves and cannot assert themselves in front of white men whereas Indian women somehow can
- Earning the recognition of white man is a mark of success
The
first point is baseless, and if anything, is contradicted by facts. Indian men,
hailing from such remote places as Moradabad and Kota, not only rise to the top
of Wall Street firms and McKinsey but they are also overwhelmingly represented
in Silicon Valley innovations. Many of these men went to IIT after cracking
IIT-JEE, which is not only the toughest exam in the world but also one which
requires a candidate to sacrifice everything else (including grades in class
12) to prepare for IIT-JEE, and only those with the highest self-worth and
self-confidence can achieve that. Their children sweep Geo Bee, Spelling Bee,
Math and Science Olympiads, and emerge at the top of selection list in almost
all leading American universities. In places like Cupertino, unable to compete
with Indian kids, whites move out of the neighborhood. This is hardly a symptom
of the lack of self-esteem as Bhatt alleges. If these men are unworthy, it is
indeed surprising that a FaceBook or LinkedIn should hire Indian boys, hailing
from small towns and middle class families, and educated in Indian engineering
colleges at phenomenal salaries. If they cannot hold their ground in front of
white men then it is surprising that virtually every multi-national consulting
firm should setup shops in India, hire Indian men in overwhelming numbers, and
deploy them abroad. There is little evidence that Indian women fare better than
their male counterparts.
So,
what motivated Bhatt’s email? Not facts for sure. It can be best understood in
the context of what I call “Catalog Bride Syndrome.” As Malhotra aptly points
out in his book, the west suffers from “anxiety from above” and many societies
that have been victims of western colonizing exhibit “anxiety from below.” This
is often characterized by a compulsive desire to first assume that the western
norms are ideal and then to evaluate other societies according to these norms.
A westerner is keen, subconsciously or otherwise, on imposing his norms on
other societies and these societies in turn are anxious to proclaim their
conformance and subservience.
There
is yet another characteristic too. The west is inherently a parasitic, selfish
and exploitative culture deriving its justification from the Christian notion
of Chosen People. It has not only selfishly exploited other societies by
colonizing them in the past but continues to do so by other means today - the
Swiss secret banking system which encourages stooges of the west to loot
ordinary people’s money in developing nations and hide them away in secret bank
accounts being an example. This exploitative tendency extends itself to other
walks of life too and manifests itself in the form of western male attitude
towards the feminine.
A western woman has to play by the rules of the
game to fit in. Marriages are hardly sacred in western societies where one leases
a spouse just the way one leases a car. Just as one might test drive many cars
and eventually lease one for a few years, most westerners date many partners
and since their marriages often end in divorces, it is as if they had just
leased a partner for the duration of their short-lived marriage. The western
model is highly exploitative of women (and children too), treats her as a
trophy to be coveted, and does not breed trust. Recent researches in human sexology indicate that nearly 70 percent of western women
report faking orgasm and one of the reasons is “insecure avoidance” in which a
woman fakes orgasm to avoid difficult discussions with her male partner and to
overcome her own sexual insecurities. Another research by the Harvard
psychiatrist Harrison Pope which relies upon a computerized measure of body
image perception called somatomorphic matrix reveals that an average American,
French, or Austrian male believes that he needs an additional 28 lbs of lean muscle
to be attractive to the opposite sex (Blakeslee, Sandra and Blakeslee, Matthew:
The Body has a Mind of Its Own – How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do
(Almost) Everything Better, p. 43.). These are symptoms of a latent western
male insecurity and discomfort with sexuality.
This western male insecurity and
latent discomfort with sexuality is the reason why they import catalog brides
from societies that have repeatedly been assailed by western consumerism,
armies, and propaganda, and have started losing their own culture and self
worth. A section of white men perceive such catalog brides as more amenable
than white women (who are perceived as “high-maintenance” and hence only
desirable as sexual mates in one-night stands and not as spouses). So, it is no
surprise that insecurity characterizes such relationships, though the reason
for this is unlikely to be genetic and may have to be traced back to the
western memes.
Catalog brides, often hailing
from such countries as China or the Philippines, display anxiety from below.
Sometimes, these women marry men old enough to be their fathers for purely
material benefits such as getting a green card. Others are victims of western
propaganda who experience “anxiety from below” and seek to redeem themselves by
marrying an American white spouse. These white men too, in marrying a woman
much younger than they are, are coveting a trophy wife and know well that it is
their status as a white American that enabled them to get the woman in the
first place. However, neither party would admit to it. Instead they rationalize
their behavior by portraying themselves as special and blaming others.
Bhatt’s mail is not only devoid
of facts but also laden with logical fallacies. Pretending that the proverbial
Indian woman who “stands
like a servant by the dining table while her husband eats, but eats whatever is
leftover” really exists one can be quite certain that she would not have the
wherewithal to acquire the skills needed to go abroad, stand in front of the
white men Bhatt considers the gold standard, and impress them in the corporate
setting with her assertiveness. On the other hand, those women who land such
job profiles would have had the best of education, pursued career from a very
tender age, and hence wouldn’t have waited by the dinner table.
One
can be reasonably certain that Bhatt is not reporting from her personal
experience and that she is repeating a stereotype someone else created. Like
many other stereotypes about Indians, i.e, sati or the burning of widows, this
too is not a report of a current social reality. The stereotype takes a real or
imaginary social behavior from a bygone era, projects it on to contemporary
times, and creates the illusion of reality. However, one could very well point
out that in the bygone days, unlike the Indian woman, the American white woman actually
waited by the dining table and cooked dinner for the family and falsely project
it on contemporary American society. However, nobody does it. Why? The reason
is that such social stereotypes as the subjugated Indian woman-repressive
Indian man is created by the angst-ridden white male who seeks catalog brides and
internalized by the likes of Bhatt who display signs of “anxiety from below.”
Fortunately,
an overwhelming majority of Indian men and women do not (yet) display such
anxiety. They do not seek recognition from white men. They are confident of the
skills they bring to the table. Remember that a majority of Indian colleges
lack any infrastructure whatsoever unlike American colleges. Despite this
limitation, Indians have not the slightest doubt that they would thrive in
competition with Americans. They usually do – be it in emerging highly
successful in the masters programs or PhD in American universities or successfully
competing with their American counterparts in the corporate world. However, a
small minority of Indians display Catalog Bride Syndrome. The reason for this
is likely to be memetic. They often hail from urban, west-aping families, have
been alienated from their own cultures during their stints in convent schools
and the parasitic humanities departments of urban Indian colleges (especially
from New Delhi or Calcutta), and suffer from low self-esteem. They usually
redeem their self-worth by seeking recognition from a white person. One such
behavior manifests itself in the form of a compulsive urge to seek and if
possible marry a white person.
I
do not at all imply that every inter-racial marriage is motivated by this
syndrome. I am aware of marriages between self-respecting Indians and white
Americans which are entirely motivated by love (though I must clarify that I do
not at all imply that such marriages are superior to the traditional Hindu
arranged marriage). In such cases, I have also noticed that the married couple
hold Indian culture in high regard and do not attempt to falsely stereotype it.
However, any stereotyping attempt that privileges one sex (while
mischaracterizing the other sex) from a culture and implicitly presents the
white man (and never the white woman) as the gold standard should be seen for
what it is: Catalog Bride Syndrome.
Imagine
what would be the reaction if someone were to create a stereotype of black men
lacking assertiveness in front of white men which black women, after a servile
waiting beside the black man’s dining table, impressively display in front of
white man. Anyone who made that false statement would be correctly called a
racist (or a house-slave) and the one who criticizes it appreciated. Why should
it be any different when the black man in the above example is replaced by an
Indian man?
