September 02, 2008
Class and Compassion are not in Vogue in IndiaFashion
I saw it myself and then a few of you blew up the tip line (thanks, Taara), my twitter and my skypager; on Sunday, the Grey Lady featured an article about Vogue India’s…interesting choice of models, for one of their recent editorial shoots. The “creative” (and by creative, I mean not at all) direction the magazine (which I still can’t procure in DC) stumbled through raised your threaded-eyebrows as well as some of your hackles, and rightly so.
Giving impoverished people $10,000 bags, Burberry bumbershoots and Fendi bibs for their children reeks of an appalling level of arrogance, an utterly clueless infatuation with “edginess”, and a heartless disregard for those for whom India does not yet shine. But let me tell you how I really feel, as I fisk the NYT article freely:
NEW DELHI — An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes — who is wearing a Fendi bib (retail price, about $100).
A family of three squeezes onto a motorbike for their daily commute, the mother riding without a helmet and sidesaddle in the traditional Indian way — except that she has a Hermès Birkin bag (usually more than $10,000, if you can find one) prominently displayed on her wrist.
Elsewhere, a toothless barefoot man holds a Burberry umbrella (about $200).
Welcome to the new India — at least as Vogue sees it.
Way to keep it classy, VI. Also, just so you know, the text on that picture says, “Baby’s Day Out: It’s never too early to start living in style.”
Vogue India’s August issue presented a 16-page vision of supple handbags, bejeweled clutches and status-symbol umbrellas, modeled not by runway stars or the wealthiest fraction of Indian society who can actually afford these accessories, but by average Indian people.
Many fashion magazines (and this is lamentable, in my opinion) prefer to use celebrities instead of models to display designer wares; surely some contact-lens-sporting ingenue would have happily offered her services? And also, agreed to appear in this “vision” of label whoring? Actually, they could have kept the spread only moderately offensive by replicating what many of their vestern sister publications do, and having said “model” out amid the grittiness of poor people, who, if we are to believe VI, are the new black. That’s hot.
Perhaps not surprisingly, not everyone in India was amused.
Not just India. Everywhere people have functioning hearts and brains.
The editorial spread was “not just tacky but downright distasteful” said Kanika Gahlaut, a columnist for the daily newspaper Mail Today that is based here, who denounced it as an “example of vulgarity.”
There’s nothing “fun or funny” about putting a poor person in a mud hut in clothing designed by Alexander McQueen, she said in a telephone interview. “There are farmer suicides here, for God’s sake” she said, referring to thousands of Indian farmers who have killed themselves in the last decade because of debt.
Um, like, Kanika? Who, like, cares? If I can’t see it, it, like, doesn’t exist. So yay, no farmer suicides! Yum, this sand tastes good!
Vogue India editor Priya Tanna’s message to critics of the August shoot: “Lighten up,” she said in a telephone interview. Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said.
takes earrings off and smears vaseline on face
Bia…don’t even GET me started on how you be hawkin’ that shameful skin lightenin’ bullshit in your magazine. Hie thee to iTunes and get thee some Tupac. The joint’s called “Keep ya head up”. It would’ve been an apposite selection for your shoot, but I’m more interested in imprinting the following on your mind, one time: “The blacker the berry the sweeter the juice, I say the darker the flesh then the deeper the roots…”
“You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” Ms. Tanna said. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said.
What kind of statement were you attempting to make? That it’s AWESOME to exploit poor people? That having a gaping black hole in your chest where your heart should be is teh new hawtness?
Tell me, Ms. Tanna, did these “models” get fed by craft services or whatever the hell usually provides caffeine, barf bags and celery sticks to those who are working hard? And isn’t it amazing that many models the world over starve themselves to attain unrealistic physical dimensions while many of your models don’t even have the chance to make such a heart-breaking choice? They starve because they don’t have enough. But don’t let that ugly truth get in the way of your vulgar logo-hawking.
Nearly half of India’s population — about 456 million people — live on less than $1.25 a day, according to World Bank figures released last week. But as any well-briefed luxury goods executive or private banker knows, India also has a fast-growing wealthy class and emerging middle class that make it one of the world’s most attractive new places to sell high-end products.
The juxtaposition between poverty and growing wealth presents an unsavory dilemma for luxury goods makers jumping into India: How does one sell something like a $1,000 handbag in a country where most people will never amass that sum of money in their lives, and many are starving? The answer is not clear cut, though Vogue’s approach may not be the way to go.
You think?
Look, I’m no fool. I know that there have always been filthy rich people in India who consume conspicuously while sighing with relief that they have gates around their compounds to keep out the even filthier beggars.
I know that the West isn’t much different either, that people in Manhattan who wait two years on a list for the chance to drop $14,000 on a Birkin often don’t feel guilt about such an acquisition nor some need to balance out such a purchase with a commensurate contribution to help those whom they, too, step over or otherwise ignore.
This isn’t new, in either part of the world. But that doesn’t make this creative “vision” right.
The subjects of the Vogue shoot are the people that luxury goods manufacturers might hope to one day become their customers. Companies are attracted to emerging markets like India because of the millions of people who are “coming from no income and rising quite fast,” said Nick Debnam, chairman of KPMG’s consumer markets practice in the Asia-Pacific region.
Uh…call me a cynical elitist, but I doubt that any of the people featured in that editorial shoot are going to drop rs. 4500 on a logo-ridden snippet of cloth, for their babies to puke on…they just might have other needs to prioritize. Shocking, but true!
The idea of being able to afford something but not buying it because you do not want to flaunt your money reflects a “very Western attitude,” he said. In China and other emerging markets, “if you’ve made it, you want everyone to know that you’ve made it,” and luxury brands are the easiest way to do that, he said.
Jigga wha? Many people in the West happily flaunt their purchasing power, even if they’re miring themselves in debt to do so. Meanwhile, most of my cautious, traditional, “sober” and “boring” DBD Aunties and Uncles drove Toyotas, never bought designer clothes, lived in modestly-decorated homes…and then paid for their children’s educations in full AND socked away hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings. I never attributed that lifestyle to their “western attitude”. Ever. I was always taught that that was part of their “Indian-ness”. Remind me to call my Mom and chew her out for misguiding me like that…
This bit is what angered me the most, too:
Not taking a close enough look at the “real people” is drawing criticism for Vogue, too. “The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects” of the photos, said Ms. Gahlaut, the columnist. Instead, Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions, and says they are worn by a lady or a man.
They’re just props. Why recognize their humanity or ask their names? Oh, right…because decency should always be in fashion.
anna on September 2, 2008 12:01 PM in Business, Fashion, Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Great post. The only thing more annoying than the car-wreck fascination India's poverty holds for the western media is the utter lack of regard or concern for it by their Indian peers. Rich people in India are so used to ignoring the plight of their countrymen they are not even capable of recognizing when something like this is exploitative, demeaning and dehumanizing. Then again, these are usually the same people who clean their house and throw their garbage in the street, so I guess it's not that huge of a surprise.
Thanks for the post.
Its just truly myopic for Vogue India to think this is trendy and a vision, and wouldn't be deemed so tasteless to most people. And i agree , at the very least they could have given names or roles role for the people used!
2 · Dr1001 said
Who cares about the people? The names which matter were given...Burberry, Fendi, Hermes. At least they were consistent with the dehumanizing treatment.
Disgusting...they are mocking the poor. That Priya Tanna (and others involved) needs to face some serious, withering , mass-based criticism that'll make her apologise instead of being so defiant and flippant about it. Horrible...
personally it doesn't get my boxer-briefs in a twist, but i'd be curious to know what the models and their poor brethen think.
I suspect Vogue India also saved a small fortune by not hiring professional models. At least if they paid these people princely sums for appearing it might mitigate some of the disconnect. Also, it's arrogant to assume that this is the sort of fashion to which everyone in India aspires - some of which is downright ugly. However, it's not only Vogue India that does this. Plenty of Western fashion magazines go to developing countries and do shoots like this, only with western models posed in scenes right out of British colonial India or Africa etc. In those shoots, the "natives" are merely background props, not the main props as in this one.
Having said this, I don't think it's always entirely wrong to use people in poorer countries in these types of ads/campaigns - there are ways it can be done without seeming like bad taste and as long as you pay them what you would pay a professional model. Treat them like professionals and with respect.
Anna, it's a complimentary metaphor. Do I have to explain how?
If you had given the whole campaign a few more minutes of thought before jumping all over it you too would have agreed with me. Do you have any idea how much money and professional time goes into brainstorming these campaigns? Given the delicacy with which Vogue and all have to tread in new markets/cultures they actually err on the safe side. They had already factored in your reaction before they went on with this campaign but had realistically hoped most readers will be wiser.
This is not the first time this is being done.
I remember a few months ago, I saw some pics of African tribes women and men sporting Haute Couture. VI just copied the idea and extended it to Indian villages.
Regarding the matter of "their names were not given" : If you've read any such fashion-porn spreads, you'll notice that they treat all participants the same way. It wasnt meant to de-humanize them, but while we are getting all emo on the subject, lets accuse Vogue of that too.
I know that the West isn’t much different either, that people in Manhattan who wait two years on a list for the chance to drop $14,000 on a Birkin often don’t feel guilt about such an acquisition nor some need to balance out such a purchase with a commensurate contribution to help those whom they, too, step over or otherwise ignore.
This isn’t new, in either part of the world. But that doesn’t make this creative “vision” right.
I'm glad you included the above line; just so people won't automatically assume only Indians can be so cruel. The Vogue pics makes me sick. It seems like in India, there is much grassroots movement against issues such as poverty, aids, caste discrimination, religious violence, etc. but imo I don't see enough wealthy and powerful Indians in India using their clout to change the perception of these issues. I know there's Shilpa Shetty's and a few others --- but I do think it is much less than what is needed or what could be done. I've always said the stars in bollywood are so popular, the movies reach so many, and these stars could do much more to raise awareness of social ills and influence middle class indians. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but not enough wealthy Indians do anything and they potentially have the money and clout to influence - I haven't read Indian Vogue so I don't know what type of stuff their articles cover but this photo shoot is distasteful, ignorant and makes light of the plight of millions who are starving.
Indian society is still very hierarchical; the ideas of equality that is in our literature and our history and our present (like in our constitution or modern labor movements or spiritual leaders like Amma, who many people in my family follow) are too often overridden by established hierarchies.
Here's other examples of indifference to established hierarchies -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101168_pf.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/07/asia/letter.php
Why don't you enlighten us, since you're so wise and all?
The fact they did it in Africa is not a valid justification. It is equally reprehensible, it just wouldn't have attracted the attention of a South Asian blog.
Jigga wha? Many people in the West happily flaunt their purchasing power, even if they’re miring themselves in debt to do so. Meanwhile, most of my cautious, traditional, “sober” and “boring” DBD Aunties and Uncles drove Toyotas, never bought designer clothes, lived in modestly-decorated homes…and then paid for their children’s educations in full AND socked away hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings. I never attributed that lifestyle to their “western attitude”. Ever. I was always taught that that was part of their “Indian-ness”. Remind me to call my Mom and chew her out for misguiding me like that…
So True!
1 · SpottieOttieDopaliscious said
Such evil people, na. Look at them, driving a sub-compact cars, wearing levi jeans, and and eating at McDonalds!!!! When half of the Indians don’t have enough to eat!!! Can you believe it? I think they should be forced to share their fries/sub-compact car/2 bedroom home/ with poor people.
These nouvaeu-riche bastards commute for hours to work every day and put in 70-75 hours a week on a regular basis. You know what! These people work on weekends too. What a shame, these losers have no family values
I should go there and curse them into caring about the `plight of their countrymen'. While I am there I will teach them how to be generous.
They don’t call me mother Teresa of US for nothing.
It's foolish to be wise where predictably knee-jerk outrage abounds.
7 · Humphrey said
Please do, especially since I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.
The article ran Sunday. Today is Tuesday. I was called for a quote about it yesterday. So I actually have given the campaign a few minutes of thought, before deciding to jump all over it. And I still don't agree with you. :)
8 · suede said
But some magazines DO name their models, in the little blurbs of information either beside the image or at the end of the spread. It's something for which I always look. But don't let that get in the way of calling me the emo-meanie who accuses Vogue of stuff. ;)
Snark aside, there is a tradition of philanthropy among the upper class in American society that you would be hard-pressed to find in India, where most social service occurs among peers or the middle class. While you could argue there are mixed motivations for doing so, the wealthy in America often not contribute a good deal towards improving their society through charities, education or what have you.
This is not an attitude that is prevalent in India and all your self-righteousness on the part of the newly minted middle classes (who were not the subject of my original comment) hardly changes that. In fact your defensiveness would indicate there is some truth to my statement; or perhaps you're merely proud that you don't give a shit about people who live in the gutter?
Who is foolish? The person who highlights something that is potentially controversial enough that the New York Times ran and article on it, or the person who goes on blogs to post their own counter-outrage on behalf of one of the world's largest fashion-glossies? Don't worry Humphrey, I'm sure Priya Tanna is sending you a personal thank you for defending the honor of her magazine.
It's crass. It's tacky. And from the few pictures I've seen online, it doesn't even look artistic.
Give the Fendi bibs to babies of call centre senior managers and the Hermes bag to a TCS fresher. These are your future possible customers. Not villagers who wear their sarees over their heads. Not for another 100 years, at least, and hopefully never. Are we all to be turned into conspicuous consumers?
And maybe it's better than just using the poor in the background as props, but neither one is actually good. You can do really great, tasteful fashion shoots without exploiting people.
I wanted to respectfully point that the title of the post may be read as the whole country of a billion plus people engages in conduct like this, which is misleading. Vogue’s Indian edition yes, but the entire Indian population absolutely not.
Umber desi-
I didn't read it that way. Plus, I hardly think a blog post's headline is going to be treated as a factual pronouncement on the character of the whole subcontinent. Not to mention SM is not here to provide good PR for India; though either way I don't think it's much of a concern.
18 · Umber Desi said
That's helpful because I came thisclose to not using this title, for the exact reason which you so kindly pointed out. If I were reading it aloud, it would sound more like, "Class and Compassion are not in...Vogue in India", if that makes sense. I was trying to be clever, but I worried about insinuating something about a billion people. I'm tempted to edit it, so that people don't misinterpret what I meant. : /
wouldn't it makes sense then to assume they wanted to stir up controversy in order to generate publicity. so, in other words, they hoped most reaaders would not be wiser b/c the whole point was to generate outrage.
so, with that in mind, my reaction was a staggeringly brilliant attempt to undermine this campaign whereas ewveryone else fell into their well laid trap.
There is bad PR and then there is fair, I don't think anyone here expects SM to be a mouthpiece of anything, all I pointed was something I personally thought may sound misleading.
Anna,
Thank you for the explanation and I hope everyone understands your point as you know how little things get blown out of proportion in the comments.
Fair enough.
23 · umber desi said
PREACH! That is indeed something about which I know far too much. :) I really do appreciate your feedback, btw. And if I haven't already told you, every time I see you comment, it makes me smile, because it reminds me of my Crayola 64-pack-- though I think that color was "raw umber". :D Also, going to wiki made me realize-- umber looks kinda sepia!
definitely an offensive photospread, another example of a so-called "edgy" concept that doesn't translate when put on the ground.
From the crassness of Vogue India to blowing it all out of proportion took ...
... just 15 comments.
I loved it. The stark contrast between old world India and new world consumerism was stunning and catchy. It made the world talk. Well done Vogue. THAT is what a great photo op does -- make history. Models more often than not are NOT listed in photo spreads.
I agree with your post Anna, and I was also disgusted. I'm really curious to hear what the actual subjects of the photo shoot have to say about this and how exactly they were roped into this spread.
Usually the corps. are careful to follow up such shenanigans with donations - school , health care center, viagra-viagra.
Did anyone hear of such doings in this case?
I'm in shock. This makes me cringe in embarrassment and disgust. In very very poor taste. Creativity would have been mildly apprecited if there was a personalized story behind the people and how the particular shoot/campaign helped uplift them or provide them with something they didn't already have to better their lives.
I'm surprised by how little there is in the photos that would justify the attempt to juxtapose high-end goods on those who can't afford it. Obviously for hype and shock value.
Because the people photographed are far more interesting than the outrageously priced, generic products placed on them. I don't care about the stupid bib or the handbag, but like some of you, I want to know the individuals' names, their stories and whether or not they were compensated for the use of their time and image.
Where's the Shiv Sena when you need them to throw rocks through somebody's window?
There is this rather famous quote: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
I think of that every time fashion magazines, and chic stuff in general, comes up on my radar (which is rarely). Anything you say will "add value" to them. Your anger, your sadness, your moral outrage, your distress....they will take everything, and add that to their brand. Fashion is a semiotic dementor.
There are only two things that they can't stand: being ignored, and being laughed at.
How about asking these people to hold a weekly session in front of the Vog office? :) And maybe at the Vog editor's house as well? :)
Thank you. That was a point I wanted to make too but comment # 13 will tell you why I didn't choose to.
33 · Thalaivar said
And where's Effigy-kingpin UberMetroMallu, when we need stuff to burn? :)
When was the last time you saw Amitabh Bachchan or the Tata Company doing anything about the spread of polio in India
if you read ms. gahlaut's original column, she's annoyed by the non-naming because of this:
"In the same issue, Vogue checks out what India is wearing, featuring the usual suspects, the Haseena Jethmalanis in Mumbai and the Shruti Hassans of Chennai.
In this fashion story, the women featured are identified and quizzed on their personal style, which is reproduced in the photo captions.
On the other hand, the magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects in the shoot in Jodhpur. It is as if poverty is a fashion prop. And that the names of poor people are not important, it is only the names of the brands — Etro, Dolce & Gabbana, Marc Jacobs — theyve been instructed to sport for the shoot that matter."
probably no different than magazines in which celebrities are identified, but models are not. but one can see why she made that comment if she was comparing the two sets of people in the Vogue India shoot.
to me it seems as if Vogue India was just doing what most high-end designers and their outlets do: not really being malicious, but overestimating the power of fashion (or really, what is deemed fashionable by some, which they think does not equate to what is "traditional" or "authentic", especially in developing countries) and ascribe to it some sort of high-falutin meaning beyond it being merely a garment stitched by someone that may or may not look better than something else. It's the equivalent of those ridiculous Calvin Klein cologne/perfume ads that pretend they are "deep." or models who make ugly faces on the runway because the designer thinks it makes his/her clothes more "meaningful" . Once in awhile, fashion actually means something, perhaps, but mostly not.
I think the Vaogue spread is an awesome comment on conspicuous consumption, greed, and poverty in India. It shouldn't be in a magazine, it should be an installation at a Museum of Modern Art. It's fantastic.
(also, as noted above, models are rarely identified in fashion spreads. They are props for the commodity being sold. Yet more political subtext!)
When was the last time you saw Amitabh Bachchan or the Tata Company doing anything about the spread of polio in India
Dude, Amitabh Bachchan and many actors do ads on TV for polio vaccine awareness.
Shahbana Azmi has herself participated in door to door polio vaccine campaigns in villages. So have others.
Sure they are, although usually by first name only. As in, "Abhi wears G-string by Speedo, $400."
Great post, Anna.
28 · Harjot said
35 · Humphrey said
"More often than not" does not mean never. I've seen plenty of magazine spreads which tell you who is wearing what (right down to what agency they are from), just as I've seen plenty which don't. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder or wish they had done so, here, when there is precedent for such things. But you and Harjot seem to be more knowledgeable about this than me...perhaps you both work in the industry.
Is comment 13 also why you haven't responded to comment 14? If you "get it", why not explain how it works to those of us who don't? I was sincere when I asked you to do so...were you sincere when you offered?
I don't think it is blowing things out of proportion to attribute a general callousness to the Indian upper middle class/rich at large. Feudalism masquerades as capitalism in India. India would be much better off if the rich feared the poor
9 · PS said
This isn’t new, in either part of the world. But that doesn’t make this creative “vision” right.
you are spot on about the "indifference to established hierarchies" but did you read the washington post article?? worst journalistic cliches possible with no real analysis...its easy to say whats wrong but not to explain why.
Thanks for this post - I really enjoyed it to the point where i don't have anything to add :)
Oh, that's so 1980s. Read this short article by Peter Singer before you go throwing stones at other people's houses.
Lurker No.1:
Thank you for saying what I was trying to, but much more eloquently. I wasn't trying to throw all rich Indian people under the bus, I was merely pointing out that there is much more "indifference to established heirarchies" there than in America. That's not to say rich Americans are inherently more generous than their Indian peers; more likely our society affords more respect and praise to those among the privileged who choose to give back, whereas in India is does not seem like one gets a tremendous amount of props for performing social service.
/explanation
Thank you Priya Tanna!
I can offer you up as evidence to my mom and dad, how some women in India have become just as commercial and sophisticated as their western counterparts.
There are not suitable girls in India anymore!
8 · suede said
brown is the new black
Hey! Why stop at India - wouldn't this world would be a better place if the rich feared the poor?
Imagine - if all the super rich political contributors/bundlers/lobbyist of America feared the wrath of destitute Iraqi civilians. :-?
"....whereas in India is does not seem like one gets a tremendous amount of props for performing social service."
what do you mean by "props"?
ANNA, thank you for this post...
Props: respect, recognition, credit, acknowledgement, importance,
Slang term for "accolades", "proper respect", or "just dues". Popularized in the 1980s by rappers who shortened the term "propers" which was in turn being used as an abbreviated version of "proper respect" at least by the 1960s. The increase in this term's usage during the late 1980s and early 1990s coincided with an increasing fascination with the mafia within rap circles. Both communities have traditionally placed great emphasis on the importance of earning and giving respect.
thanks:) thankfully i looked up MILF before asking what that meant!
but then, what sort of "respect", "recognition" are you talking about? i know wealthy people in india who are very philanthropic but would never think to publicize it. i don't disagree that there is a level of callousness in india's richer echelons -- well, in all echelons of many countries, but the opposite is also true - there is also a level of caring, kindness and interest in uplifting society that shouldn't be dismissed. not sure we should use american standards or western standards to judge how philanthropic we think people are. it just occurs in different ways.
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with this, but I've seen that the mentality in India is often different when it comes to "giving back". There are many of the "middle-class"/wealthy in India who believe themselves to be fulfilling their social responsibility by giving jobs to those who are less fortunate, and that by doing so, they are already giving back more than they need to.
To make us all happy here is Bruno aka Sacha Baron Cohen aka Bhorat, at a fashion show making fun of fashion snobs that remind me of the Vogue India editor. It really is a perfect look at how insane these people are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzoRD1Qvm10
@37
Tata Sons is 66% owned by Charitable trusts, the dividends from Tata companies go towards numerous philanthropic causes.
I agree that it is problematic to judge India by our Western standards of philanthropy. I'm also aware of the many charitable efforts that do take place across the country everyday. What I was attempting to discuss was the absence of large-scale (and yes public) philanthropy on the level of Carnegie, Gates, etc., not argue that Indian people are somehow more callous and indifferent than their western peers. Perhaps there are an equal number of Indian billionaires doing these projects privately, but if so I would welcome examples so someone can show me I'm wrong.
My impression from my time in India is that it is simply not as common for the very rich to donate large amounts of their time and money to philanthropic causes, in the manner of a Warren Buffet for example. Perhaps charity takes place at an individual level, which is fantastic, but that type of help, while crucial, is limited in its effectiveness and sustainability. Most of the larger charitable institutions I have encountered in India were funded primarily by foreign nationals or the government; there does not seem to be a tradition of large-scale private giving to institutions. If I am incorrect about this, I welcome the opportunity to learn about those who are engaging in it.
The editor's comments remind me of the twit fashionistas in Jennifer Saunders' "Absolutely Fabulous".
Most of the larger charitable institutions I have encountered in India were funded primarily by foreign nationals or the government; there does not seem to be a tradition of large-scale private giving to institutions.
Some examples: Birlas (their educational institutes like BITS, Pilani and dozens more educational institutes in India, and their hospitals like Aditya Birla Memorilal Hospital), Tatas (Tata hospitals like Tata Memorial Hopsiptal, and some of the finest research organizations like Tata Institute of Fundamental Research), JP - a huge construction conglomerate has hospitals all over, so do a huge number of Jain Trusts (funded by Jain businessmen) have hospitals all over India, and the most famous one only for birds in Delhi, Sikh Gurudwara have hospitals too, and also mosques in India. Next to Charminar in Hyderabad, there is a huge hospital run by the mosque next to it.
Azim Premji's eldest son and wife (of Wipro) run huge charitable organization.
Are they of the scale of Gates, No. But are they absent, absolutely not.
worst journalistic cliches possible with no real analysis...its easy to say whats wrong but not to explain why.
I reread the article and I'm not sure what you are talking about - maybe I'm just missing something. I saw the article showed the different points of view - one person saying "no we are not discriminating by caste" to "caste is discriminating the aid effort" - I can see how the title is misleading b/c it doesn't show these different points of view though and I didn't like the last line but overall I thought it was a good article.
Are you saying that the article doesn't explore other structures that lead to discrimination like feudalism?
I'm sensitive to s.asians in this blog giving huge generalizations about our character w/o qualifications that lead to sterotypes. I understand your concern. Did you find the post article totally inaccurate?
I specifically said that there's so much in our history, culture, present day politics and structures that shows, in this case, how Indians care about thier world and others. And I contrast that to not seeing not enough wealthy and influential indians use their power to breakdown discriminatory structures. I'm not necessarily comparing other cultures with what's going on India - I just think Indians can do so much more and yes this is from an ABD pespective, so I'm not sure if DBDs will be outraged by my conclusion.
When I visit India, I see family members who are heads of their rotary club (which I think is a british tradition) and raise funds for orphanages and the poor in general. I know local politicans in the area where I'm from who talk about unions, fair wage, etc and work for those things as well. I know local spiritual leaders who have and are doing so much to end structural barriers in their community in India. I just wish very wealthy Indians did more and addressed structural changes - it can't hurt in such a huge country where bollywood stars are often elected into office. Where was any of the stars during the religious riots in gujarat - so many stars are muslim and hindu. I'm not living in India so maybe there was something about communal harmony and ending violence by some influential stars - but none that I know of. Is it just too controversial? Would it end some stars career?
It's a fine line basing your view on society b/c of trends that you see and not stereotyping a billion people, so I really appreciate the comments that have been given. I hope nothing that I've written essentializes a billion indians - but I don't see enough (and there are many exceptions) wealthy, influential indians focusing on social problems and they could help influence people. I'd love to see some influential wealthy indians perhaps in the flood area.
The govt in the US was so ambivalent to what was going on Katrina - I really think many stars of the media and stars in the popular culture helped cause ordinary Americans to be more outraged. The disaster still happened in a first world country, but it would have continued I think, w/o the scrutiny of the public on what happened. That's what I'd like to see in disaster situations like this in India.
61 · Kush Tandon said
I daresay that people like Bhagat Puran Singh and Vinoba Bhave devoting their entire lives to alleviate the suffering of others is on a grander scale than Bill Gates' or Warren Buffet's philanthropy.
Why do you all insist on using money as the only yardstick? If there was justice we'd have no need for charity.
54 · Dasichist said
Actually older black folks you to say " Give me my propers" Rappers shortened to props. Back on subject I read that this morning and was like damn I hope they are paying these folks for being in this spread. I hope Vogue is giving something back to the poor communities and not just using this as a boost for sales.
Ignore for a minute that the article is distasteful to many-this IS vogue we are talking about, a 'fashion' magazine. As if previously this magazine was the epitome of tastefulness, concern, responsibility, non-objectification, anti-consumerism and published articles that cared about real issues. They were a bunch of high-brow khhotay (donkeys) and still remain.
To PS,
Stuff your uppity pseudo-moral attitudes and leave them at the door. The "eeeevil rich" in India open factories, giving jobs to many poor. Personally I find Ambani and Narayana Murthy far more chartiable than the limosine Hatim Tais. They actually create wealth and create employment, which is far better than simply giving charity to feel good about yourself, which is precisely what the self-righteous limosine libs ala the NYT excel at. The failure of African aid illustrates the point, Get a man a fish and feed him for a day but teach him to fish and feed him for life.
The "eeeevil rich" have done much more for the poor in India by teaching them to fish unlike your oh-so righteous f**ks at NY Slimes and Wash Compost. As far as breaking "existing discriminatory" structures, how many US companies supported the nascent civil rights movement? They only supported it when it become politically convinient and the noveau rich in the US only shed tears for the Af-Ams when it became "cool" and chic to do so.
Communal violence can only end when both parties shun extremism, castigating the RSS and tolerating SIMI won't cut it. Some actors like Aamir Khan have actively campaigned against it.
Damn, and here I had always thought that poor people were irredeemably ugly. Thank you, Vogue, for enlightening me. Can somebody give them the Nobel Peace Prize next year?
Read Maximum City to see Thackeray's snivelling and kowtowing to Michael Jackson when he visited India, to the extent of showing visitors the toilet wacko jacko peed in (I don't know if he flushed it).
I'm assuming the models were paid. In that case, there's anything outrageous about this. Fantastic opportunity to discuss how immoral Indians are though.
spottieottiedopaliscious,
in addition to those mentioned in #61, there's also this: http://businesstoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?issueid=37&id=4116&option=com_content&task=view
Forbes recently compiled a list of 48 wealthy Asian philanthropists from 12 countries (four from each). Their Indians were: Anil Agarwal, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Rohini Nilekani and Azim Premji. This is hardly a representative selection, but as they themselves say:
"We don't pretend these are the 48 biggest givers. That would be an impossible list to compile, unless each person agreed to let us peek at his or her bank records. So our list is somewhat subjective: We aimed to identify not only some of the largest donors but also some of the most interesting--generous folks who may not make one of our rich lists but who put a hefty share of their money into much-needed, and sometimes unusual, projects. Wee Lin is worth only $3.5 million, but he's opened a home for the mentally ill in Singapore and donated numerous items to North Korea, after seeing what was needed during trips there. Malaysia's Leonard Linggi Tun Jugah, for example, puts his donations into preserving the culture of the Ibans, an indigenous group on Borneo.
"Undoubtedly we missed some big givers, others we just didn't have room for-- especially in Hong Kong, India and Australia. What we most tried to avoid are people who donate their company's money. Giving away shareholders' assets certainly isn't charity, though tycoons and chief executives engage in a lot of this and then get credit for being generous. For our list, we tried to make sure that people were giving away their own money and not their company's, but the line is fuzzy. Sometimes philanthropists do both, and sometimes they own such a large share of their company that corporate giving is personal giving."
Stuff your uppity pseudo-moral attitudes and leave them at the door.
I expected this reaction.
The "eeeevil rich" in India open factories, giving jobs to many poor.
I didn't say the rich was "eeevil" - I said, not enough rich and influential people take on structural problems - not just sitting at home writing a check, which is great too. I'd like to see more of that and I think it can help a lot Indians and influence a lot of indians.
As far as breaking "existing discriminatory" structures, how many US companies supported the nascent civil rights movement? They only supported it when it become politically convinient and the noveau rich in the US only shed tears for the Af-Ams when it became "cool" and chic to do so.
I don't know about that. Mark Twain, probably the most influential Amerian of his time, was writing about the evils of imperialism and race discrimination in the US. Are you saying that whatever the powerful in India are doing now, satisfies you - you think it's fine and don't wish for them to do anymore? That they are doing enough - I think they can use their influence in a different and more powerful way to help their country.
The "eeeevil rich" have done much more for the poor in India by teaching them to fish unlike your oh-so righteous f**ks at NY Slimes and Wash Compost.
I think the "eeevil rich" and a relatively free press can both influence ending structural discriminations. If the evil rich (your words not mine) don't want to do, that's fine --- but that's not going to stop me from wishing that an Indian movie star or billionaire would actually do a psa on caste, gender, religious, class etc problems.
Thanks for the links. I appreciate the information.
As for my larger question, there seems to be a very visceral resistance to the idea that Indians are in any way less philanthropic than their Western peers. I guess that means I am incorrect, though I will admit the sentiments expressed on this board are in direct contradiction to most of what I have seen or heard expressed during my time in India. Still, it's always good to get different viewpoints. Maybe I was just surrounded by the selfish sort of Indian ;)
We've also got our share of grassroots institutions that raise money from NRIs and the wealthy back home to help provide educational and employment opportunities. It's not all about the billionaires.
Speaking of rich people in India, what's up with that dude building the worlds most expensive house? There are people in that country that freeze to death because they cant afford a blanket and this fuc#er is building the worlds most expensive house? How about the worlds most expensive school or something like that or even better a school for every child or free tuition to any child that makes it? If he is in europe or America then go ahead and build that house, but not in a poor country.
73 · ShallowThinker said
Again, the Peter Singer article I linked to might make you reconsider whether it's ever ok.
46 · Harbeer said
Please forgive me if I am missing the point (it was difficult to read that..."short" article" on my phone), but doesn't this (from your link):
...make what Vogue India has done even more insensitive?
If by purchasing a luxury item we are deliberately choosing to let a child starve, because what we do with our money is a zero-sum game, then posing those whose welfare we should support (instead of restaurants, cars or other "luxuries") with high-end accessories is even more deplorable. "You...nameless, poor person...while you suffer, do me a solid and hold this umbrella, which will take food out of your mouth, in this indirect way..." etc.
As for the 80s link, I remember those Benetton ads...I don't really get the same bludgeoned-about-the-head social message from this Vogue spread.
Jigga who? It's ironic that you use class so frequently in your words, but you don't use any class analysis :) This isn't an east v. west thing - this is an Indian-middle-class-has-its-head-up-its-ass-the-same-way-american-wealthy-people-do thing. And by middle class I mean the 8 to 10 million wealthy people not including the superrich, not the alleged 200/300 million estimates that someone must have made up sometime.
Anyway, all this will be moot once the massive social chaos really gets underway.
My point is that we're not much better than the editors at Vogue--it's easy for us to rail on them on our fancy computers in our air conditioned offices while we sip on $5 lattes like our own booties don't stank, but they do. In fact, I'm sure Vogue did more for those poor villagers than I did because they prolly got to keep the clothes and some amount of cash for their time--all I've got is useless sentiment for them.
I linked to the Benetton ads because I think Vogue is trying (and failing) to do something similar. I'm just trying to impress you with my 80s throwback, A N N A, that's all.
76 · Dr Amnonymous said
I try and write what I know. I didn't include class analysis because I'm not an economist or sociologist (and I'm not even sure if they are the ones who do that! See what I mean?).
My parents worked really hard to teach me to try and do the right thing, even when no one's looking. That's all I meant by "class". I'll leave the analysis and 411-droppin' to my betters. :)
This is a recipe for paralysis. The reality today is that portion of Indian society that's in Liberalized India also has fance computers, air conditioned offices, and cheaper lattes. It's not about indicting on moral grounds (or shouldn't be anyway) but about pointing to the let-them-eat-cake attitude that this class has and the enormous amount of trouble they're about to be in for it.
Anna,
Your heart is in the right place, but you are totally out of touch with the modern India.
Today's yuppie Indian will immediately dismiss you (and me) as the self-righteous "NRI" who sits in the lap of "Amriki"
luxury, but wants to deny the newly rich Indian his hard won western status symbols.
As I mourn demise of the simpler Bharat, let me wipe my tears with "bib" that started it all.
We've also got our share of grassroots institutions that raise money from NRIs and the wealthy back home to help provide educational and employment opportunities. It's not all about the billionaires.
Even beyond NRIs, as I said in my first comment - we've got tons of grassroots organizations just started from Indians and supported by Indians, there's a rich tradition that have helped facilitate change. I pointed this out b/c I don't want to ignore the very vibrant caring and giving part of our culture; it's not all about billionairs is so true, b/c time and again, you can see in Indian history including our modern history, people coming together to overcome class, religious,caste lines.
78 · A N N A said
Fair enough :) But most people's parents try to teach them well :) I don't think it's possible to write about this topic without understanding the relationship between the Indian middle class and the poor. I made a mistake though - that is I should have said that you didn't have an explicit class analysis. I think the sentiment that you were expressing came directly out of a class perspective (work hard, do the right things - don't flaunt your wealth and treat poor people badly), even if you say that you don't have a class analysis.
My point was that it IS about class here, and not about nation, though I think that the points that you and Harbeer have both made about being aware of our own limitations / positions is also good, as long as it doesn't paralyze you into inaction and shame.
80 · ExPatInLA said
Oh, I'm not trying to deny anyone in India their hard-won Louboutins or Stella McCartney clutch (or anything else for that matter!). I'm just saying that what Vogue India did to stoke desire for such frippery was heartless in my humble opinion, not edgy.
Thank you for seeing my good intentions/the location of my heart. :)
These people living in poverty get cast as "ignorant" and "backwards" but the most backwards, ignorant thing about this are Priya Tanna's comments.
82 · Dr Amnonymous said
C'mon man I'm waiting for the connections to american imperialism! what gives?
85 · Nayagan said
Jeebus, Nayagan, do we have to spell everything out for you. American magazine, American brands, American management driving slave labor in sweatshops in developing economies where the spoils go to the elite and the workers get used up and thrown away, only to have the products they manufactured sold back to them and the profits going back to...well, offshore bank accounts belonging to American imperialists...duh!
Next!
That's so hawt, yaar
43 · louiecypher said
I think part of the problem is that VI's target audience may be too afraid of their hired help (she/he is stealing/raping/murdering etc.) but not to your desired effect (she/he has power, I will honestly inquire after her/his needs/aspirations/etc)
80 · ExPatInLA said
This kind of yuppy Indian is a jackass. Thankfully, there are a few other kinds as well, who understand that a country with a per capita income of like $1800 a year with 80% of the people a couple of bad monsoons away from starvation is not in a position to be making jokes about poverty.
The Indian rich and "middle class" have been attempting to secede and join the rich world in exploiting the poor in India and elsewhere (see: Tata starting BPO operations in either Czech Republic or Slovakia - can't remember). Happy?
You can make fun all you want, but it's real, and not spectacular.
"As for my larger question, there seems to be a very visceral resistance to the idea that Indians are in any way less philanthropic than their Western peers. I guess that means I am incorrect, though I will admit the sentiments expressed on this board are in direct contradiction to most of what I have seen or heard expressed during my time in India. Still, it's always good to get different viewpoints. Maybe I was just surrounded by the selfish sort of Indian ;)"
I think most people have a visceral reaction, whether they want to or not, to remarks about something/someone/some place with which/whom they identify, especially in a forum or location far from their "home". So what you say will probably elicit less immediate reaction if this was a board in India and would probably elicit more agreement. For the same reason, Americans may agree with foreign criticism of their country bur resent where it comes from or resent it when they are expats in another cou You can see it on this board where Indian-Americans take umbrage at criticism of America while criticising India and Indians at criticism of India while criticising America.
Anyways, I think there's validity/truth in all the viewpoints. And Asian philanthropy in the "western" sense is more prominent now because of increasing wealth in the last couple of decades. Although the Tatas started over a century ago, even before many Western tycoons/robber barons.
89 · Dr Amnonymous said
You can make fun all you want, but it's real, and not spectacular.
yes, it's not like the poor in India have ever been exploited by anyone before now--sweat shops are routinely conflated with the relationships between different castes and hereditary bonded labor that results (kids breaking stones for use in kitchen/bathroom remodeling is sick...but adults doing the same work?). Sweat shops are certainly bad, mm'kay, and I'm no advocate of putting children to work, but what would the adult shop workers be doing if the shop didn't exist?
I love the pictures!! I mean just look at that toothless grin of the grandma holding the kid (reminds me of mine, except that she had no teeth at all!) and that lady with the bag, who comes across as a bit bashful bt still hving fun! How is this arrogant?? If anything, its actually bringing the products down from their celestial podium. I don’t think the purpose of the shoot was to highlight the contrast or the irony. It’s just fun! And yes fun is as important as anything else. These ppl don’t need to be reminded ALL the time how miserable their lives are perceived to be.
And isn’t misery relative? The year I spent in a distnt rural village of MP as part of an organization, straight after my bachelors, I got to interact with the poorest of the poor. But if you all think that they are in tears all the time, you are wrong! Yes they hv to wrk much more and much harder than may be what you and I have had to do or will ever do. But may be you’d be surprised by the sheer normalcy of their routine.
Anywayz the purpose of this rant was jst to say that its just a few hours from their lives and they probably had a bit of fun and it’s ok, WE don’t need to make any decisions for them, these are intelligent capable human beings who have been taking care of themselves and don’t need saviours. And even when we are going out and working for them, it’s not always w/o reason is it? Even if the reason is just that it makes you feel good!
91 · Nayagan said
Your argument as far as I understand it:
1. The poor have been exploited in the past.
2. "sweatshops" and "child labour" arguments are misguided even though the moral sentiment is not bad.
3. If the real economy is not okay, what's better.