What? No mangoes?

Oh, there are mangos alright, the magazine editor simply cropped them out of the photo ;)

that headset is fly.

Hey - have any of you ever seen a septum piercing like that in India? I've only seen them in the US.

Hey where are the other classic traits
-The Namaste?
-The marigold flower garland?
-Mehndi?

From CNN.com's article on Time's cover story.

In the tradition of writers citing Asia's "tiger" economies and the Chinese "dragon," now comes the elephant.

Groan...

These guys are so creative at times.

Newsflash.

Indians often fetishize the elephant, refer to India as an elephant (read first chapter of India Unbound by Gurcharan Das), and purchase those annoying little elephant knickknacks to decorate their homes. Indians have a habit of wearing bindis. Indians also happen to eat a lot - and, I mean, a bloody lot - of mangoes. Indians like mehndi and yeah, they tend to namaste, just like Americans shake hands.

So what's with this hoity-toity, pretentious 'oh but we're just sooooo misunderstood - aren't they just sooooo limited' faux-angst? Reminds me of a bunch of whiny pretentious wannabe intellectuals.

Indians often fetishize the elephant, refer to India as an elephant (read first chapter of India Unbound by Gurcharan Das), and purchase those annoying little elephant knickknacks to decorate their homes. Indians have a habit of wearing bindis. Indians also happen to eat a lot - and, I mean, a bloody lot - of mangoes. Indians like mehndi and yeah, they tend to namaste, just like Americans shake hands.

Dont be such a Drama-Queen

I love the elephant part of it but the picture on the cover is just too cliche' and oft beaten path. Time can do better than that.

Abhi, admirable attempt at filling Manish's void.

I haven't read the article yet, but the call center focus reminds me of the Discovery Channel documentary with Pulitze Prize devaluer Thomas Friedman. The Other Side of Outsourcing, if you haven't seen it. It was unsettling for me, but nothing surprising for anyone here. It seems the Indian middle class is almost completely ignoring the "Other India".

There are male call center workers too, particularly from Citibank.

Wonder what the male version of this cover would look like....(no more Shah Rukh or Salman Khan, please).

"Hey - have any of you ever seen a septum piercing like that in India? I've only seen them in the US."

I saw an actress in a Hindi movie with that piercing, and I think a National Geographic picture, don't remember from when though. Oh, and my cousin! She has one too, but I think she got it to make her parents mad :)

Did anyone read the complete article?

there just *has* to be a Mahesh Bhatt quote rite?

Hey - have any of you ever seen a septum piercing like that in India? I've only seen them in the US.

I guess the Auntie in the excerpt below from a past SM post on piercings had one like that in India:

I had recently gone to a Bengali family party, and was sitting on the floor talking to an older auntie type, when I noticed she had something gold in her nose. I asked her what it was, and with a little pull here and there, she pulled out a punk-rock style gold septum ring. A little shocking, since as a desi girl I was more familiar with the more traditional nose piercings, but not the septum style. She continued by telling the story of how she got it as a girl, and and how the piercing was supposed to bring shanti on her husband- basically (what I garnered from my poor Bengali) anytime she exhaled, she would be bringing good luck on her mate...

Anna,

Only in deep rural India. Ennis is right - one would not see piercing even in semi-urban settings.

Maybe, an isolated somebody's cousin in Cochin/ Mumbai/ Surat.

Hey - have any of you ever seen a septum piercing like that in India? I've only seen them in the US.

They're very, very common in the villages. I've seen them a lot in Rajasthan, Himachal and U.P. I don't generally travel anywhere else but I think they must be common elsewhere too. If you meant among the city folk, then no, I haven't seen any.

I meant: one would not see septum piercing even..........

Hey - have any of you ever seen a septum piercing like that in India? I've only seen them in the US.

I have seen them on bharatnatyam dancers.

dude, I called the Cicatrix resemblence at 10 this morning. Stealing my lines (grumble grumble grumble) ;)

At least Mrs. Rushdie wasn't tricked out like that on the Newsweek cover on March 6th.

she reminds me of my former self- the bharatnatyam dancer. i used to HATE wearing that septum jewelry piece. and the head piece. and the necklace piece....oh, eff it, i might as well come clean-- i hated all of the costume jewelry.

although, on to another tanget, i must say, TIME did do a fascinating job of capturing a beautiful, south indian lady. is it a real model? seriously, who cares what the article is about, let's dissect this magazine cover, shall we? ;)

You can tell they planned this a few weeks ago, and were waiting for a slow-ish news week. The Sensex has been tanking lately, and there's been a fair amount of grumbling about rising fuel costs...

At least they didn't call Padma Lakshmi or Aishwariya Rai to pose for the picture!

dude, I called the Cicatrix resemblence at 10 this morning.

DesiDancer did - I can testify to it ;)

Does she work at a call center; or is she a call girl. That is what I do not get - why choose a beautiful Desi girl, accessorized to the hilt - she looks like she is going to a wedding. why not use the picture of some fat, overweight sadhu, graciously blurring his private parts. I do not kno but I really do not like it,why? Because the call centers are in India because it is cheap to do busines there, and then you associate that idea - like pavlov, with my cousin on the way to her wedding, as soon as she gets off work. What message does that send to the masses, of people not exposed to India - who may have lots of redneck preconceptions. So you pray to that disney character right? The pavlovian association that I feel that is made here is again - some form of minor propaganda (or a slightly more benign word that I can not think of). Opal - I truly feel is just another instance of this same shit. Why? Becaues Opal Mehta does not exist, and what does it preach - this is how you get into Harvard girls. In my view some publisher jumped at the opportunity to do this - to create this character. ANd the author - having obviously not lived that lifestyle had to get some insight into what that kind of life is. Hence the plagiarizing which she may not have consciuosly realized was what she was doing. Third example, is this episode of some special on outsourcing where they so gingerly go into the apartment of two indian girls and ask about dating, where one Indian girl admits to having sex before marriage. What does that have to do with outsourcing? What does that have to do with outsourcing. I am not so sure I want that angle, portrayed, having many girl cousins who I absolutely adore, who all had arranged marriages. anyone see what I am getting at?

Pankaj;

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say, but I don't see how that girl on the cover brings to mind a call girl or prostitute. She does represent a cliche and exoticized version of an Indian woman, but then again that's about the only type that exists in the Western media (including the work of diaspora filmmakers like Gurinder Chadha). Why didn't they put a Sadhu on there? I don't know, but it would have been fitting. Or else a 90 pound tamilian with alfalfa hair, a dilbert shirt and a pocket protector. Because we all know that while all Indian women either look like Aishwarya Rai, Padma Lakshmi or this girl, all Indian men are emotionally stunted, emasculated nerds. I'm so glad that the U.S. mainstream press has finally revealed us for what we are to the rest of the world.

highlarious! good snarking :)

Also in Time this week, Rahul Mahajan's heroin overdoese.

Post 23: Hello? How do you see this photo as an assault on Indian female honour? That seems to be, in an admittedly twisted and rambling way, to be your point. Just cause the girl looks good? Not a lot of covers sport ugly people these days. Or are you simply spouting the age-old Indian prejudice that all working girls are 'working girls'?? If that's the case, you need to join this century.

Outsourcing and the erosion of traditional Indian mores are related, in many ways. For more info, see the Thomas Friedman/Discovery Channel piece, as suggested by Shruti. It is deeply unsettling.

With this cover India has jumped the shark

Amardeep,

Don't be badmouthing Rahul Mahajan, he already ODed and is in deep shit.

I was in India when all this was happening week ago.

Man, 24/ 7 new channels on TV tore him apart even his spin doctors (like former PM, uncle, Apollo hopital doctors, etc.) tried their best.

Dharma Queen:

Indians also happen to eat a lot - and, I mean, a bloody lot - of mangoes

Mangoes to eat? Oh.

Yeah, I just bought three ripe ones and they're sitting in my fridge. And I'm second gen.

Just call me a self-exoticizer.

Drama Queen - That is not what I am getting at, I just do not understand in coming up with a cover why they chose to do that - Why not put a headset on the taj mahal?

Pankaj, cause that's the American (maybe just human) way - put a pretty girl on the cover and the magazine will sell. Were you maybe speaking in metaphorical terms when you wondered if she were a call girl? (ie is India selling herself for filthy lucre)

Drama Queen - I did not mean to say that she was actually a call girl. but call center - pretty girl, hence call girl. Just trying to say - that why is there a need to put a pretty indian girl on the cover of time if we are talking about India's economy, it evokes stereotype - the new symbol of India - Opal Mehta's cousin. It just does not sit right with me. If it was about the US. and an Indian periodical used a georgeous california blonde in a bikini with stars and stripes - would that be appropriate? To me - I don't think so.

all Indian men are emotionally stunted, emasculated nerds. I'm so glad that the U.S. mainstream press has finally revealed us for what we are to the rest of the world.

awww...at least you guys get the Silicon Valley jobs though...while we're stuck answering calls from angry housewives in the midwest, cooking your food and raising your overachieving spelling-bee kids.

So what's with this hoity-toity, pretentious 'oh but we're just sooooo misunderstood -aren't they just sooooo limited' faux-angst? Reminds me of a bunch of whiny pretentious wannabe intellectuals.

i agree. sometimes it's valid as in manish's brilliant postcolonial analysis of book covers. but looking for stereotypes in 'time'? that's kind of like looking for the 'elephant' (sorry just had to include that loverly image in too) in the room.

and putting hot girls on magazine covers? really? who woulda thought. i'm glad it's that coy chica on the cover instead of the sideburned, glasses-wearing coconut-oiled hair stereotype of the indian nerd girl (yes boys, we have an ug stereotype too).

Pankaj,

I see where you are coming from, but is the Indian girl's appearance really as belittling as a bikini? It's ceremonial, traditional dress. She doesn't look undignified to me.

I think there is a habit on the part of editors/illustrators who want to portray a certain country as 'friendly', 'approachable', 'trustworthy' etc. to choose feminine emblems. Nineteenth century French and English cartoonists invariably portrayed France and England as beautiful, motherly, robust women, while Germany was portrayed as a very masculine monster. Women are seen as ambassadors. I don't think this cover is any more than an appeal to that psychology. A man tends to appear more threatening - or just more boring.

If it was about the US. and an Indian periodical used a georgeous california blonde in a bikini with stars and stripes - would that be appropriate?

I'm fairly certain most periodicals would put Britney Spears on their covers rather than a bearded Amish guy for a story about the US (regardless of its relevance to the story)...

Pankaj

why choose a beautiful Desi girl, accessorized to the hilt - she looks like she is going to a wedding

she looks like she is going to her own wedding. Go to someone else's wedding like that, the bride will bitch-slap you for upstaging her.

She be hotness....who is she? A model? Bollywood/Mollywood/Kollywood starlet? Beautiful eyes like that : methinks she's gotta be a Tamilian/Bengali/Mallu.

I am sorry - it just does not sit right with me, it is - to me not embematic of what the article is about. People all over the country, in places like bumblefuck idaho - have now seen some indian girl and are exposed to some Idea of India - that is what it does, like I said before it links India to the girl on the cover. Now uncle jed in bumblefuck has just got a glimpse of India. She is not what India is about, India - I hope, I pray is still about enough modesty, where putting a girl like that on the cover is shocking to well, people like me. I just don't like people who have Ideas about race that are not up to speed picking up a Time magazine and letting their minds make whatever association it may. Outsourcing has a connotation of being "cheap", if you link that concept to the girl on the cover it gives uncle jed a sense of empowerment over that idea of an indian girl, o.k. - so now you are "cheap" -or better yet "cost effective". I do not want anyone coming to some conclusion that my cousins are "cost effective"

if you link that concept to the girl on the cover it gives uncle jed a sense of empowerment over that idea of an indian girl,

So you are worried some guy named Jed in Idaho may draw a negative opinion about India/Indians based on a magazine cover ? I doubt Time magazine has a big circulation in Idaho, so you can rest easy.

The picture is misleading coz the face of Indian IT is a nerd. But who will buy the face of a nerd on the covers

Maybe uncle Jed in Bumblefuck will actually read the words on the cover (if he can read; if he can't, then why worry about him) and link the girl to the 'world's biggest democracy' and the 'world's next great economic superpower'.

I guess that a regular reader of Time magazine (even Mr. Jed from Idaho) will be well informed about India. There have been a lot of articles in the last few years. Don't worry Pankaj.

I doubt Time magazine has a big circulation in Idaho, so you can rest easy.

My younger brother lives in Idaho. I will ask him to start polling people.

The picture is misleading coz the face of Indian IT is a nerd. But who will buy the face of a nerd on the covers

Not necessarily, if this picture's caption is to be believed...

The picture is misleading coz the face of Indian IT is a nerd. But who will buy the face of a nerd on the covers

Oh yeah, with people like Kavya Vishwanathan, Gurinder Chadha trying to outdo the westerners in reinforcing stereotypes, who needs Indiana Jones- The temple of doom

I believe that I am on the money here - I really do, but bear with me because - to be frank I am getting over some shit that might make me a little "militant". But There are a lot of people with negative - backwards ideas towards race and foreigners. And for these people to link - psychologically - India to the woman on the cover gives them a sense of empowerment. Race and Power - that is what that game is about. And when there is something foreign to an audience, there is fear, with fear there is a loss of power. So the tendency in a person with that sort of psychology is to take a view of india as being there to handle their "laundry" whatever is outsourced. And then they link this idea of a pretty indian girl with that idea of outsourcers doing their laundry. Do you think that Time would ever put a cover of a pretty Israeli girl on the cover if there was an article about Israel. How about Thailand?

Indians often fetishize the elephant, refer to India as an elephant (read first chapter of India Unbound by Gurcharan Das), and purchase those annoying little elephant knickknacks to decorate their homes.

I know an elephant represents various aspects of India in certain ways. I have those annoying carved marble little elephants sitting around somehwere in some box. I just don't like naming economies after a certain animal that 'represents' said country. Tiger, Drago, Elephant...whats up with naming these economies after animals? I can see how people use the analogy for aggressive (Tiger/Dragons) or size (elephant), but can't these writers just call it a good/strong economy than giving it some animal name? I guess its a pet peeve.

Some day when different economies keep coming up, they'll run out of animal names.

Lets make some other analogies:

Russia - Bear
Egypt - Nile Crocodile (or the Sphinx)
Brazil - Anaconda
Australia - Tazmanian Devil (with the cartoon of course)
Canada - A Moose? Russians took the Bear.
Botswana - Hippo (from the Okavango, Indians took the Elephant)
South Africa - Great White Shark
Some middle eastern country - A camel.
Mongolia - Wild Horse
The Republic Congo - Gorilla
Democratic Republic of Congo - Gorilla (conflict among Congos for who gets called the Gorilla).
Norway - Reindeer
And more...

I am really interested in knowing how FOBs react to such articles. From what i read, it is less strongly (if at all) than the ABDs.
WHY????? I think that is the real post i am waiting for.

I am really interested in knowing how FOBs react to such articles.

I'm a brown_fob and my reaction was..."oh well..not again!". Every other day, we see such articles in newpapers and magazines...forward it to our friends on various yahoogroups (iit alumni grp, hostel grp, batch grp, wing grp and what not), and that the end of it. On seeing the cover, none of my FOB friends felt that it was misrepresenting India. The overall reaction was of casual disregard.

I see a little bit of baffling logic here.

This cover is deemed as stereotyping India and Indians, the girl on the cover as being a "call girl", etc. But just over at the other post on the World Cup, there is a picture of an attractive Brazilian girl. No one there denounced that. Apparently, she's "hot" and that's all that matters. Here, a picture of an Indian woman has gotten some all hot and bothered. Maybe because she's one of us, a Desi.

But the deeper underlying dynamic in all of this is that women are ornamental to marketing. Brazilian women are seen as sexy beach bunnies, Indian women as "exotic", East Asian women as feminine, subservient arm candy, all American girls as bad girl, racy, Bay Watch types, etc. The truth is that women are 1) the objects of commercial marketing, and 2)they are stereotyped according to their ethnic background.

I asked jokingly (#10) what the cover of Time would be like if the person would have been a male. In my experience, all call center telemarketers and workers that I've spoken with are overwhelmingly Desi men. But women sell, not men. There is not a female edition of the Sports illustrated Swimwear issue. Playgirl had been created upon the assumption that bare skinned men would attract women the way men are drawn to visual images of naked women, and in the end, Playgirl got gay readership instead.

"The overall reaction (of FOBs) was of casual disregard"
This is what i gather too. Which makes it even more intriguing why ABDs react so strongly. This protective attitude does not appear truly organic.
It is a mystery.

Well...you had me with you Cheap Ass, until the bit about women not liking the sight of bare skinned men. Hot Stuff calendars featuring nude firefighters sell like hot cakes here - and they sell to women. I was initiated into the mysteries of the male body at age nine by a friend who had stolen a copy of Playgirl from her older sister. Lots of women read Playgirl, surf porn, drool at the sight of Matthew McConaughey's bare chest, and just generally love the sight of the male body. But media/magazines etc. are still controlled by men, and women still have a long way to go before they feel the freedom to be as openly sexual as men are.

right on, Cheap Ass Desi.

From my personal experience, I feel that most of the FOBs (esp. students) regard themselves as sort of unofficial ambassadors of India. They're always keen to answer any doubts/queries that a foriegener might have about India. When we're faced with dumb questions ("Does India have cars/electricity ?), we do feel a bit(!) annoyed..but the main feeling is that of surprise at the other person's ignorance and lack of knowledge.

CAD,

The problem is not with the fact that there is an Indian girl on the cover of Time, or that there is a "hot Indian girl" there either. Arm-candy, hot etc. are generic adjectives. I think the over-the-top Orientalism and exotification of the girl shown above is being flayed here. To borrow your analogies, it would be like having a Brazilian insurance-saleswoman in samba headgear or an Japanese geneticist in full Geisha pancake.

The fact that the folks over at Time still have an exotic notion of what India stands for, and are promoting the same with this blatant cover, is what is being called into question here. In many ways it undermines the very text below the graphic -- 'India Inc'.

The picture is misleading coz the face of Indian IT is a nerd. But who will buy the face of a nerd on the covers

Who said indian nerds aren't photogenic or hott? I resent that.

until the bit about women not liking the sight of bare skinned men.

Sure, there are women who like Playgirl, surf Internet porn, hubba hubba attractive pop stars, buff athletes and Bill Clinton, etc. I may have made a sweeping generalization, I now realize. But judging from my experience and knowledge, I think that women being objectified draws much more crowds than the other way around. Again, this is not to dismiss women who like naked men. But compared to men who drool at the sight of nude women and the manner in which men consume these capitalized and commercialized images, men are in the lead. In my opinion. (NOTE: I am not male bashing. I know plenty of males who do not regularly buy Playboy, surf Internet porn, and haven't recieved lapdances. At least as far as I know).

I wonder if there are studies conducted on this: the reaction and reception of women to male nude bodies as opposed to vice versa, and how the conclusions play into marketing.

The fact that the folks over at Time still have an exotic notion of what India stands for, and are promoting the same with this blatant cover, is what is being called into question here

IMO, Indians (living in India) will like this cover. It captures the "old and the new" identities.

As an Indian in India, I am slightly concerned about the stereotyping (concerned - not irritated, mind you), but mostly happy that India is getting more attention in international publications.

10 years ago when I would travel to America, my Indian-ness was mostly a matter of curiosity at a very fundamental level ("why do women wear the red dot?"). Now, thanks to covers like this, that issue has been more or less settled, and the questions I hear are more sophisticated ("can India be trusted with nuclear power?"). So the attention, however stereotypical, has been mostly for the better. That is perhaps why we tend to welcome such articles in India.

PS: What really gets my goat, though, is the stereotyping in the Times of India. If an ABD kid somewhere in the American midwest as much as gets an A in Geography, she is hailed as an example of "Indians succeeding overseas".

To borrow your analogies, it would be like having a Brazilian insurance-saleswoman in samba headgear or an Japanese geneticist in full Geisha pancake. The fact that the folks over at Time still have an exotic notion of what India stands for, and are promoting the same with this blatant cover, is what is being called into question here. In many ways it undermines the very text below the graphic -- 'India Inc'.

Good point.

Also, Its time the westerners start recognising the Narayan Murthys and Azim Premjis. Indian magazines already carry Bill Gates on the cover.

So,
Is it right to say that non-ABDs care less about Indian-ness than do ABDs? And if so, is it because non-ABDs have a living, breathing India on their mind? Which no amount of misreprensentation -of the Time cover can be classified as such - can threaten.

The problem is not with the fact that there is an Indian girl on the cover of Time, or that there is a "hot Indian girl" there either. Arm-candy, hot etc. are generic adjectives.

Arguably, "exotic" can be just as generic as "arm candy", "hot". And a subservient, demure Asian girl who's "arm candy" is not "orientalism"? A picture of a young, "hot" Brazilian girl in beachwear is not stereotyping either?

The fact that the folks over at Time still have an exotic notion of what India stands for, and are promoting the same with this blatant cover, is what is being called into question here.

Its time the westerners start recognising the Narayan Murthys and Azim Premjis

DesiDudeInGotham,

There is nothing wrong with the cover. Why would lone ike to showcase India in a vanilla way?

I think NRIs/ ABDs/ brown neo-intellectuals are obsessed with being Don Quixote fighting the dragons of exotization. Few weeks ago, I was trying to look India with a Wall Street like prism.

What I saw is Toyatos filled with 10-15 people with rural trappings and three generations in the car and maybe, their goat too.

India is not NYC, not London, not Kansas City, and shouldn't be.

Cheapo:
If you were to design the cover, what image would you have used ?

I've read plenty of articles on Narayan Murthy and Azim Premji in US newspapers/magazines.

They never feature on the covers, only in articles. If Time wanted to honour the rising Indian economy, there are real people out there who are doing real work.

Neale:

Is it right to say that non-ABDs care less about Indian-ness than do ABDs?

Re: #69 (oohh, a dirty number!!)--

Especially given the fact that we ABD's are citizens of this freakin' country, and we have the right to protest the depiction and portrayal of the land of our ancestors and our people as manufactured by The Man and The System, goddamit.

Cute lady on the cover. Dish Network, indeed.

#52 - Ok - I guess my "call girl" joke was not understood by this crowd. Call center - pretty girl, hence: call girl. She is pretty - get it? As for your comment on brazil, if you put that picture on the cover of Time in talking about the Brazilian economy - there would be something seriously wrong. Again, would there ever be a photo of a attractive Israeli girl - who is in the army, deceked out as GI barbie on the cover of time - if they did a piece that was centered on Israel.

CAD, I agree that stereotyping in general is bad. But there is ethnic stereotyping, and there is generic stereotyping. Putting TMBWITW would be generic stereotyping -- all our women are beauty queens, or putting a geek with a pocket protector would be geneic -- all desi engineers are geeks. And both would be accurate to an extent. Bharatnatyam dancers with earpieces is not accurate. That's the point. It's a lazy visual shorthand.

Incidentally, all my Brazilian friends were quite ok with the hot woman. And the reason is that it prompts hicks from BumbleF, Idaho to ask inane questions like "are all brazilian chicks this hot dude?" (a stereotype no doubt). Whereas, after this cover, these same bumpkins will look straight at you and ask you earnestly if "Indian women wear that fancy gold shit in their hair to work." And then proceed to cite Time Magazine.

Kush, I am all for Indians projected in the S&M SM way ;)

CAD:
You make a good point, but not quite enough. What i miss in these posts is a gripping, personal take on the ABD experience. Which would help me understand the outrage. Talking of racism and a Time magazine cover in one stroke is not enough. And the dollops of cynicism do not help.

That is really it - would Time ever put on the cover an Israeli Girl decked out as G.I barbie, on the cover of it's magazine if it did a piece on the Israeli Military? I don't see that happening, she is way too beautiful for the cover, this is Time - it is not maxim or a men's magazine.

Neale:

You make a good point, but not quite enough. What i miss in these posts is a gripping, personal take on the ABD experience. Which would help me understand the outrage. Talking of racism and a Time magazine cover in one stroke is not enough. And the dollops of cynicism do not help.

1. What kind of "gripping, personal take on the ABD experience" regarding the Time magazine cover are you looking for? The "ABD experience", as you call it, is individualized, in context of racism ABD's face, and the social and political dynamics of US society. As a sidenote, I wouldn't reify the "ABD experience", which is why I myself pointed out that I am generalizing, which is problematic.
2. If it's not enough for you to understand the "rage", would you prefer a PH.D. style thesis?
3. If you're referring to post #70, I was half joking. Since we are not first generation Indian immigrants, but born and raised in the US, then I can see why some would feel impelled to express displeasure if we are depicted in a certain way. If you think that looking at the social, political, and cultural processes of the US are "dollops of cynicism", then I can't help you there. Maybe someone else can describe their experiences in the manner that you are seeking.

|..where your credit-card details may be stored--or stolen

i don't know.

I showed the cover to my parents. They were thrilled and proud that India is getting more good press on a serious issue. They couldn't see past its obvious intention to be positive.

I suspect the reaction of many on this site is not a result of being Indian, but rather being educated in a very western multicultural way... which encourages hyper sensitivity to all stereotyping, and to look for deeper, structural sociopolitical meanings in the stereotype.

Sometimes I think all this sophistication just blurs the simple truth.

Pankaj and DD in Gotham:

I see the distinction that you two are pointing out, ie the Time cover is about "India Inc" vs. Brazilian girl and soccer matches, so I'll totally concede that you two are right on this point. BUT, soccer is also an industry that is a part (albeit a small slice) of the economy, and they are being used for marketing as well. Furthermore:

But there is ethnic stereotyping, and there is generic stereotyping. Putting TMBWITW would be generic stereotyping -- all our women are beauty queens, or putting a geek with a pocket protector would be geneic -- all desi engineers are geeks. And both would be accurate to an extent. Bharatnatyam dancers with earpieces is not accurate.

I don't see such a clear line between "generic stereotyping" and "ethnic stereotyping". First, your examples here-- super nerd Desi engineers, Desi beauty queens-- are these not stereotypes based within the context of a given ethnicity? Second, Bharatnatyan dancers with earpieces being inaccurate-- forgive me, but I think you are nitpicking here. Desi computer geeks and Desi beauty queens ala Aishwarya and Sushmita are not accurate stereotypes either. Yes, they represent a certain segment of India. But they are by no means precise stereotypes of Desis at large.

Time ever put on the cover an Israeli Girl decked out as G.I barbie, on the cover of it's magazine if it did a piece on the Israeli Military?

This case-- regarding the military of another country-- shouldn't be compared to a cover regarding another country's economy, I think. It's not like Time did a cover on the Indian military in Kashmir, and had an Indian GI Jane barbie type with her boobies plopping out of her uniform with an AK 47 suggestively holding them up.

I don't see that happening, she is way too beautiful for the cover, this is Time - it is not maxim or a men's magazine.

haha... nicely done! I'm new to sepia and loving it so far!

Pankaj,

While I understand your concerns in your posts, which collectively add up to "Why this image with this topic?", I think you give too much credence to the publication. Time is infotainment at best now that a whole host of other more serious, more intellectual, less pretentious publications are available and would treat this topic more intelligently. The same with Newsweek.

But she is a little too pretty for a piece on India's economy. Forget about Gi. Barbie, how about just a pretty Israeli girl on the cover of time for a piece on Israel's military. Would that ever happen? Call center workers don't go to work like that, and Israeli women in the military do not wear mascara. that is it for me on this thread - It is getting silly, do not want to lose my credibility.

how do you people find so much time to be continuously dedicated to commenting here? Why do you all seem so passionate about these inane issues? :)

Manju:

I suspect the reaction of many on this site is not a result of being Indian, but rather being educated in a very western multicultural way... which encourages hyper sensitivity to all stereotyping, and to look for deeper, structural sociopolitical meanings in the stereotype.

Sometimes I think all this sophistication just blurs the simple truth.

Or perhaps, underlying modes of power, its projection, its tendency to feed circular reasoning and its role in shaping psyche are better understood.

As for your comment on brazil, if you put that picture on the cover of Time in talking about the Brazilian economy - there would be something seriously wrong.

Vait ek minute: I agree with you about using this ladkhi on the cover when discussing the Indian economy; it's messed up. However, the issue also discusses the "biggest, messiest, sexiest city--Bombay", Bollywood and among other delightful treasures, the favorite Western motif when discussing non Western societies-- the overlap and struggle between the old and new, the traditional and modern, as in the words of Nair in this issue: "a place that has always lived in several centuries at once". Juxtapositions of Bombay stockwallas riding on elephants, swamis meditating but answering their cell phones etc (I am lampooning). Though its main focus is on the the Indian economy, it does touch on other aspects as well.

Just for the record, I'm not defending Time. I'm just saying that this cover is part and parcel of a larger, general trend of the stereotyping of peoples and societies, objectification of women (like semi nude women in car, watch, alcohol, and sports commercials and advertisements) and that it is not strictly confined to the portrayal of Desis and India. But this cover doesn't piss me off enough to mobilize a grassroots movement, or launch a letter writing campaign to Time.

In the meantime, I'm going to fantasize about the Desi male call center worker counterpart of this Time cover above. Like Abhi, I will now be much nicer and gentle when speaking with "Bob", "John" and "Henry" calling from Delhi and Banglore. Might even engage in a bit of chhi chhi talk...

Did anyone else notice this in the first paragraph of the Time article.

" He's right. If you want to catch a glimpse of the new India, with all its dizzying promise and turbocharged ambition, then head to its biggest, messiest, sexiest city--Bombay. Home to 18.4 million people and counting, the city, formally known as Mumbai, is projected by 2015 to be the planet's second most populous metropolis, after Tokyo."

IS that bad fact checking for a major news magazine. Mumbai was formerly known as "Bombay" not vice versa, as the magazine says. As one reads through the article, there are numerous obvious facts that are incorrect. amazing!

Nonsense, Abhi, don't lie. Everyone knows there is no such place as Idaho.

But if there were to exist, I'm guessing Time would not be unheard of there. "Time magazine was created by Henry Luce so that people living in areas where national and world news coverage was scarce could keep up with the events of the day."[link]; indeed, it's even had a somewhat sordid role to play in this fictional state's private history. Sure it's in decline, but it is, after all, the original and still the largest news weekly.

She says, not quite loyally.

Check out the MediaKit. Skinheads and Polar Bears and Aunties, oh my!

http://www.time.com/time/mediakit/

VJ:

IS that bad fact checking for a major news magazine. Mumbai was formerly known as "Bombay" not vice versa, as the magazine says.

You're confusing "formally" with "formerly".

Forget about Gi. Barbie, how about just a pretty Israeli girl on the cover of time for a piece on Israel's military. Would that ever happen? Call center workers don't go to work like that, and Israeli women in the military do not wear mascara.

Pankaj, yaar, you are too obsessed with this idea of an IDF soldress on the cover of Time. Moreover, the references and analogies as to why Beach Bunny Brazilian women are not gracing the covers of Time which discusses the Brazilian economy is flawed as well, because it takes things out of context. Let me try to put this Time cover into perspective in very, very crude terms:
Currently, the political, social, and economic climates have their stereotypes and objectives cut out. So:
First, Time would never publish an attractive Israeli female soldier when the focus in on the IDF. This would discredit and potray a significant geopolitical ally of the US in bad light. One of the justifications as to why the US provides practically unconditional political, economic, and military support to Israel is that Israel is a vulnerable prey at the hands of a bunch of Palestinian terrorists who want to "drive the Jews out to the sea". The IDF thus must be portrayed as an honorable, courageous army protecting Israel and its survival. Newsweek, another "infotainment" mag like Time, has done this consistently.
Secondly, Brazil presently is not a major economic investment objective for the US. Brazil is more associated with soccer and Rio de Janiero, and Sexy Brazilian Beach Bunnies are ornaments which help this image.
India, on the other hand, has become the principal goal and most promising case of investment: it is a potential market of supposedly 200 million middle class consumers, almost the same size as the entire population of the US put together. Collective imagination of India is exotic, traditional, and home of Bollywood and arranged marriages with an emerging class of techno warriors that is going to bring India towards integration into the global capitalist economy. For Time, Bharat Mata/Natyam Dancer is an attractive-- and exotic-- woman to invest in. "India Shining" it is, and all the gold jewelry she's wearing underscores that point. And the fact that she's a call center worker: well, this is one way to deflect the public outcry at outsourcing, framing the issue in a positive, affirmative way.

Think about it: Time is marketing an economy that has recently liberalized, and has tremendous potential for US investment. India Shining has become the poster boy/girl for Third World countries that have liberalized. Time's touting India and this cover is an advertisement. If thought in this context, is it suprising that they have chosen a cover like this? How eye pleasing would it have been if they had featured a Bombay stock broker on the floor of the BSE, or a REAL call center worker?

Or maybe I am reading too much into this cover...

A couple of points from me:

1. I agree that there is some stereotyping at play in the Time cover pic, although they may be some other factors involved as per CAD's comments in post #90. Or maybe it's just showing that what used to be regarded as a fairly "traditional" society (as per the model's jewellery, general appearance, and the rest of the imagery in the pic) is now becoming part of the globalised techno-economy (as per the headphones and mic she's wearing).

2. Personally, I think showing a female model in a more slick corporate setting and wearing the associated business attire would have been a better way to go, a la Bipasha Basu in her new film, er, "Corporate".

3. I think Pankaj is massively overreacting to the fact that they used a pretty model on the cover. No offence, Pankaj.

4. And regarding the hypothetical bikini-babe in stars and stripes swimwear being used to represent the US, the Indian media already does that all the time anyway, as depicted in numerous Hindi films and music videos with white models. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, of course, but I think this is a valid point. In any case, the analogy would only hold true if the Time cover model was wearing some kind of racy temple-prostitute outfit or a barely-there/about-to-fall-off sari, which obviously isn't the case here.

Jai,

You're right, a slick corporate woman in a suit would have been better for the cover, but then she would just have looked - American.

What bugs me about many of these posts is their assumption that a beautiful girl necessarily represents an airhead or a bimbo, and can't possibly represent something 'serious' like the economy.

I can understand the issues with exotification (which are definitely present) - what call (center) girl actually comes to work looking/dressing like the Time picture? I would guess zero. The issue with her being pretty seems a little over the top as a protestation, in my opinion. Given that one of the other major female representations of "India" is Aishwarya Rai, I don't think going after pretty women on covers is the best place to spend our energy.

Neale, et. al: For a discussion of the gendered use of (tech) women as the new symbol of Indian nationalism vis-a-vis the economy, and for some ABD analysis, there actually IS a Ph.D. dissertation on exactly this subject. It should be published via UMI by now and should be on file at UC Berkeley's library in the next few months under Sociology, and it's by Smitha Radhakrishnan (of Desi Dilemmas fame). :)

What bugs me about many of these posts is their assumption that a beautiful girl necessarily represents an airhead or a bimbo, and can't possibly represent something 'serious' like the economy.

Yes! It's an outrage, this vile prejudice against beautiful people.

It is funny to read the responses from a FOB perspective.. For all those who are against seeing this image, tell us about your alternatives.. (i.e what image would you want on the front page cover?).. That will give us a better idea to comment..

Personally I think it is a good one trying to mix tradition with modernity.. (I'd have liked someone doing a yoga pose with the headset..) that's even better.. Couple Yoga with IT, you create a great "brand India"..

Ugly,
Get with it. It's a vile prejudice against beautiful WOMEN.

Word to our mother. The Great Mother India, that is! She is both doe-eyed AND ambitious, seductive AND industrious, ready to perform a Thillana AND tricked out to work the dressing room at Old Navy (Ugh. Could they have made that headset any more 1998?).

I saw this post then came across the June 19th edition of TIME Asia featuring the cover story, 'India's New Dawn'. If you were provoked by the American cover, definitely check this out.

When you click on the link, the thumbnail cover to the right of Jim Erickson's article is what is being published under the TIME banner on this side of the world. It's a little small, but you can probably make out that it's a generic looking city scape and an equally generic brown woman and man. They look like they just graduated from an IIM / Wharton. They look like they just stepped out of Cafe Coffee Day / Starbucks. They look (oh shit...) like you and me.

So here's a thought - maybe the Amrikan editors of TIME have got our back. Those of you amidst the upward mobile sepiaed masses can now deflect questions about whether you're planning to steal Joe Idaho's job by saying, "Didja see the June 19th TIME? Do I look like her? I don't think so". Meanwhile, as far as the Census Bureau is concerned, you're still safely ensconced in the demographic with the highest incomes in the country. BWAAAA HA haaaaaa...
~
As far as the Asia version, I think:
(1) it's an ugly cover, though...
(2) they bear a much closer resemblance to the true face of upwardly mobile India than the Bharathanatyam lass, and...
(3) at least it's not an exotified India, but...
(4) it is also guilty of the lazy design problem that the American version of the magazine suffers from.

Then again, TIME isn't especially known for showing nuance in their cover design - didn't they just do one featuring Zarqawi's face with a big red 'X' through it?

I guess one could argue that this woman does not represent a typical woman who works at a call center in India. From the few videos I have seen on call centers, the women are dressed either in Western casuals or mostly shalwar kameezes with a few saris. Most of them do not wear over the top make up like the woman in the cover and are certainly not loaded with nose rings and elaborate gold head bands.
I guess the reality is too dull to be put on the cover of Time magazine.

As for the person above who was wondering why are some people upset at the cover, the answer is pretty simple. We all want to fit in the societies we live in. We all want to be treated as regular normal people who just happen to have a different skin color. Covers like this one perpetuate the image of Indians being foreign and different.

Part of me thinks the Asia cover version wouldn't have worked here just cause Indians can look American (the reverse does not hold true) - and if there's no (sometimes stupidly) obvious signs screaming 'I'm Indian' (aka bindi, mehndi etc.), no one would think the story was about India.

The other part is thinking maybe Pankaj of the erstwhile paranoia may have had a point...the pretty exotic call centre girl is so terribly nonthreatening, whereas the two generic people look like businesspeople, are strong, active etc.

Um, I'd be calling bullshit if some story on Japan being an economic force had a kimono-clad woman wearing that headset, too. It's rampant exotification. "Look at them weird furriners and all that funny shit they wear."

And Neale, if you can't figure out what American-born desis think after reading an entire WEBLOG devoted to such things, written BY and FOR ABDs, surf elsewhere. No one owes you more than what is painfully obvious.

I don't have a problem with the exotified cover-- it's marketing, people. They have to sell to the lowest common denominator, to the cheap seats. So if some halfwit in Idaho (sorry Saheli ;) ) picks up this magazine and *this* is the picture of India that they get, and start to incorporate into their diversity consciousness, then so be it. It's a hell of a lot better than more turban jokes or ignorant questions about if "the dot" means coffee is ready. So I say show our people as beautiful, hard working, intelligent... whatever it takes. Pile up some mangos behind that girl and put mehndi on everything that will hold still. We may be tired of these marketing "signature India" items, but the fact is it's done a lot to improve the mainstream (ignorant) perception of indians than ever in the past. So yeah, pass me my "curries" and spices and I'll ride my elephant off into the sunset, because it's better than being accused of being talibani or called the stock variety of offensive brown racist names.

We all want to fit in the societies we live in. We all want to be treated as regular normal people who just happen to have a different skin color. Covers like this one perpetuate the image of Indians being foreign and different.

Hmm.. I thought the TIME article was about India and its people and not specifically about people of Indian origin living in the US.. (correct me if I'm wrong.) so what's the big deal if they want to show some person with an unique Indian attire (bharatnatyam is not practised anywhere else.. ). And India is REALLY different and foreign in many aspects for US. Isn't that a fact??.

Hmm.. I thought the TIME article was about India and its people

Do India and its people go to work looking like that? No. Isn't the duty of a NEWS magazine to report things accurately? If I want exaggeration and fiction, I'll pick up US Weekly.

and not specifically about people of Indian origin living in the US.

In my day-to-day interactions, what gets emphasized is the fact that we are of brown origin, not that we're living in the U.S. At worst, we are total foreigners who and just visiting/are newly arrived ("Your English is so good! And you barely have an accent!") at best, we are still murkily other. This cover others us even more, even if it's about a story in India. When I walk around and people think "India!" and NOT "California!" or "America!" then yeah, it's going to affect me.

Dharma Queen - Exactly. Though you said it much more conscisely than I did.

In the Asian version of the cover, their chins are held high and their posture is erect. They're young and they look well rested. They are definitely walking with purpose and at a decent pace. It would all be far more threatening to American sensibilities than the Bharathanatyam babe.

In terms of visual literacy and whatnot, I find it interesting that they are walking in an easterly direction (at least if one holds right as east, left as west), and that there's a mountain in the background (mountains at one's back being good feng shui, I think). Maybe there's more nuance in TIME cover design than I originally thought. That, or I'm reading too much into things.

Then again, TIME isn't especially known for showing nuance in their cover design - didn't they just do one featuring Zarqawi's face with a big red 'X' through it?

Actually I liked that one...

Though Time did get into trouble for digitally altering this image.

Speaking of reactions to exotification, anyone seen this link: www.blackpeopleloveus.com ?

I showed it to a Kenyan friend and he nearly died laughing - and unfortunately confirmed that he'd had a number of the phrases cited used on him by white people. Someone out there should start an 'Indians love us' link. Some of the phrases used could be, as Anna mentions, 'OMG! You have, like, no accent whatsoever!' or 'So, do you eat curry at home?' or 'You mean your boyfriend isn't Indian?'.

I am a second generation Indian who grew up in Africa so if I say something that enrages people, rest assured that I don't mean to be offensive.

Growing up there, my idea of India was exotic dances, a very rich history, amazing food and stunning women. I don't know how the people in the US imagined India to be (without visiting the place) but that was it me. For me, the cover is a way of showing the new india where the culture etc is still rampant but so is the country's amazing leap in the business and technological arena. It's a study of contrasts on a country that boasts the coexistence of history and culture along with cutting edge technology and science.

I find the idea that 'Someone will think that this is how indians look on a daily basis' preposterous. This is 2006 people...not 1945! I don't see pictures of aborginal women on Australian magazines and imagine everyone in Sydney looks like that. How about considering the fact that India is in the news for something positive and just celebrating that?

That being said...the woman is gorgeous and I'd rather see someone like her with the make up and jewellery instead of this one.

I think a large portion of Time's readership consists of people who equate the term "outsourcing" with "layoffs," and it conjures the spectre of jobloss. Coupled with this is the constant frustration expressed time and time again about having a problem with a product/service and having to talk to an Indian whom one "can't understand." This image, to me, is an attempt to soften this aggression, and it's very hard for me to ignore the genderedness of it.

Exotic and orientalized bling aside, I can't help but notice the Mona Lisa angle/tilt to her head, the steady gaze and disarming smile. The headset completes the image, which to me screams out - or rather whispers seductively - "Call me!"

Do India and its people go to work looking like that? No. Isn't the duty of a NEWS magazine to report things accurately? If I want exaggeration and fiction, I'll pick up US Weekly.

This article as I believe, haven't read) is something positive about India (with the usual patronizing crap).. Naturally they'd like to get a glamorous picture on the cover.. If it is about famine deaths/poverty in India, they'd probably use a "Satyajit Ray/Deepa Mehta" type pictures.. What's the big deal??.. You have to analyse all the TIME covers and report us back if all the covers (images) report accurately the topic in hand without any bit of exaggeration and imagination. You can take offence if the reports are inaccurate, but cover images, hmm.. cut them some slack.. :-)

In my day-to-day interactions, what gets emphasized is the fact that we are of brown origin, not that we're living in the U.S. At worst, we are total foreigners who and just visiting/are newly arrived ("Your English is so good! And you barely have an accent!") at best, we are still murkily other. This cover others us even more, even if it's about a story in India. When I walk around and people think "India!" and NOT "California!" or "America!" then yeah, it's going to affect me.

I can understand that and empathize with you.. FOBs generally are prepared to take those comments in a stride.. It is hard on people who are born and brought up here.. But expecting someone doing an article on India to conform to your perspective is asking for too much..

Hmm.. I thought the TIME article was about India and its people

Do India and its people go to work looking like that? No. Isn't the duty of a NEWS magazine to report things accurately? If I want exaggeration and fiction, I'll pick up US Weekly.

Oh, please. It's a cover. A magazine cover is an advertisement for its own product. ALL news magazines engage in intentional hyperbole on the covers. Cover design is a reflection on their marketing, not the validity of their reporting. What, you expect photo-realism every week?

If the pictures and story INSIDE the mag have the same qualities as the cover, then you'd have a legitimate complaint about the quality of the reporting. But seperate the cover from the reporting. The National Review, The New Republic, The Village Voice, New Scientist, they ALL produce exaggerated covers.

Idiot: Wow, your english is so good...

ANNA: Thanks, so's yours.

funny... DQ... here's my favorite (with a tweak)

Sally is so thoughtful. She always tries to set me up with every black man indian girl she knows. Since we're both black indian that means my date and I will have so much in common.

Pankaj, Dharma Queen,

The non-threatening subtext is the key here. Something a largely non-desi editorial staff (assuming Time is such) would find satisfactory. Most of sepia do not: To varying degrees from mild amusement to rage. The woman is gorgeous, attractive, but wholly inappropriate given the nature of the story. A better choice: same model, grey suit, cell phone, tiny bindi, but I don't run Time..now if Laxmi Mittel would consider buying....