The whys of the Culture Wars

Iraq is supposed to be the war that broke the west. Yes the differences of opinion in the west over use of force against sovereign nations did come to the fore on Iraq, but did the west really break on this issue?

Amongst the litany of grievances listed by Europeans against America (and now Anglo Saxons) is the relatively innocous one called cutlure. The American Empire is different from the other historical empires. It isn't militarily nearly as mighty (Romans have fought on numerous fronts and won, whereas America is struggling to manage two relatively small states) but it projects enormous soft power not least through its media and culture. It won significant victories when it took over other Anglo Saxon states like Britain, Australia and Canada (illustrated by the decline of these states' film industries). And over the years with the great increase in media around the world, the hitherto non Anglo Saxon countries are bearing the brunt of this mighty American culture machine.

The reason many say is the size of the American economy. The economy is a magnet which attracts the brightest of the world, who take back the American culture. Alternately the prosperity is such a strong magnet, the America becomes aspirational which the rest of the world emulates, right from junk food, to MTV. But is the economy the only driver of American cultural onslaught. If that was so, Japan is a huge economy (with a very proud and very ancient history as well) at the heart of the East Asian miracle, but nobody accuses them of projecting their culture.

Back home in India, the state which is projecting its culture is not the largest (who has heard anybody humming a Manoj Tiwari number) or its richest (heard any Gujrati or Marathi songs doing the rounds of countdowns) or one with a glories past (we still don't appreciate Rabindra Sangeet that much, do we?) but a small state in the northwest called Punjab. And lets not even try calling one culture superior to another. So what makes UPwallahs living in Mumbai hum punjabi numbers or south Indians like me appreciate their music?

Societies that are aspirational do manage project their cultures. But what determines aspirations? Is it well being (how many of us watch Swedish or any of the Scandinavian movies) or is it simple wealth of its richest (nobody aspires to be like the Arabs) or is it history (but then why does Pink flloyd sell more than Mozart)?

If you know the answer to this, just drop me a line. We would make the world our little cultural domain!!!!

Right, Wrong, the Church and Democracy

The election of Joseph Ratzinger as the Pope raised the most unfortunate question in my mind - does (if yes should) the majority determine morality?

The 20th century was definitely not one belonging to God. The dominant ideologies of the century were either the secular liberl democracies of the West or the Godless communism of the Russian empire. God was definitely on the decline.

But then how is God relavent to this discussion? God lies at the very nub of morality. Historically the western rights and wrongs be traced to the ten commandments, something which moses brought down from God. In the Islamic cultures, it was Koran, Sunnah and the Hadith (all having come down from the Prophet and thus from God). In the oriental religions it is slightly vague, but the rights and wrongs are defined in relationships with sins they incur and thus again flow down from the God.

But what happens when the Divine God is replaced with a more earthly secular God i.e. people? Does our morality start reflecting the trends prevalent in society. Morality in effect becomes a fashion - a new trend every season.

Abortion and birth control are fine today, but tomorrow that can extend to the handicapped and the day after to may be a race. We have all been through that once - remember Hitler. Nobody in Nazi Germany really protested the Jewish persecution and it was accepted by the people as well. So did it become right? So the question - why should birth control be right now? Quality of life is a moving target, and should not determine right to life. The new Pope has described this as "Dictatorship of Relativism". And I believe there is a point there. There have to be constants across time. The catholic church believes, it knows those constants.

Islam is also fighting a similar battle, but it is much more brutal and unlike the church there is lesser tolerance of dissent. Some believe that what was right by the prophet should be right now as well? So they go about enforcing that with guns and bombs. In essence it is the same as what the Church is trying to do in the west.

But have we in India, found those constants? Hinduism is probably the most democratic of all religions. After all, "Janata Janardhan" is an Indian concept. Hinduism vests divinity in all beings (and in non Beings). So the human flesh eating Aghori sect is as much Hindu as the purest of the Chitpavan Brahmins. By extension, it defines no everlasting rights and wrongs. The person himself is the decision maker and in the end as God incarnate he will lead himself down the righteous path. This is incidentally what the secular west preaches as well. But the crucial difference is that life in the west is about the pursuit of material well being, for the Hindus it definitely doesn't end with that.