Arthshastra

As you read about the continuing riots over the caricatures of Mohammed, I urge you to please shed a tear for Al Brooks – the comedian who went looking for comedy in the Muslim world and released his movie about a month ago. How bad his timing could have been? It’s like releasing a movie over Hindu tolerance and love in December 1992, or releasing a movie on the maturity of the American voter in November 2004, or releasing a movie over the positive influence of the British Empire in April 1919. You get the point that I am trying to make crudely over here, right? Good! Now we can move on and talk some more about Al.

So the guy goes to India and Pakistan to find out what would make the Muslims laugh (and maybe some Hindus too) and barely has his plane left the soil of the Indian subcontinent that Muslims all over the world erupt in a violent frenzy over a cartoon. How much more ironic can it get? Not much, right? Well, the pinnacle of irony would have been if Al were to commit some kind of blasphemy in his movie and then Muslims over the world would have been burning prints of a movie that tries to find out exactly what makes them laugh. However disappointed Al maybe, I am sure he will gladly take the current irony over the pinnacle of irony any day. Wouldn’t you?

Now here’s another irony if you would. Al has made a movie out of a travelogue, a travelogue that is part fiction and part real with real people who are not acting. But guess what! These riots have turned his work in a great work of fiction or maybe even fantasy because they’ve shown that the Muslim world does not know to laugh.

Many times in India, if a movie has faired very poorly, it is re-released some time later under a different name with some additional footage. While in this case, Al’s movie has not been a commercial flop, I have a humble suggestion for him. He should interweave his movie with shots from these protests, the rioting, the killing, the burning and then rename it “Looking for irony in the Muslim World”. Yes, that would make it an instant classic.

Listening to President Bush’s state of the union address on Tuesday, I felt a surge of pride when I heard India (along with China) mentioned as a potential competitor to the US. I was curious to find out the number of times and the contexts in which India figured in previous State of the Union addresses so I went to an online searchable index of all them from 1797 until 2006 and found out that India has been mentioned only four times in the state of the union speeches over the years (you can have a look at it right here); two times by President Eisenhower (1953 and 1961), and two times by the current President Bush (2002 and 2006). Surprisingly, President Clinton, who often wears his fondness for India on his sleeve, never mentioned India.

President Bush mentioned India, not because he has any special relationship or fondness for the country, but because of India’s growing strategic and economic importance. Consider this, right until Mr. Narsimha Rao’s government in the 90s for 45 years after freedom, under one socialist regime after another, India tried to portray itself as a leader of the third world with fads of its leaders like the middle path, the Non-Aligned movement but it was never recognized as a power player on the world stage.

The first time Eisenhower mentioned India, it was in the context of China and Soviet Russia, the second time it was to boast that American wheat was filling empty Indian stomachs. But within a decade and a half of the economic reforms launched by Mr. Manmohan Singh, India is being mentioned as a competitor and an ally by the President of the most powerful nation in the world. When you consider that the communists and other socialist parties have tried their best to hamper these economic reforms and that these reforms have only progressed in fits and starts, one can only imagine how much more India could have grown without all the obstacles to its economy and its enterprising people.

Recently there has been a renewed effort in India by the very people who lost this battle of ideology between communism/socialism and free-market capitalism fair and square to re-ignite this debate. After digging a hole for India for four long decades, these people are now asking that after a decade and a half of fitful reforms why India ostensibly in a hole? Well you had four decades to dig it, give free-markets at least a reasonable chance to help India get out of it or do you want to start digging again already?

Corrections: There are some other instances where India is indeed mentioned (including by President Clinton) during State of the Union speeches but my main argument (Sepia Mutiny has a good list) - that only recently has India been mentioned as a strong player on the world stage and as a possible competitor to the US, still holds true.