Indian PM Invokes Shaw and Twain
Last night, I had the pleasure of watching the toast between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Monmohan Singh. In his brief remarks, the PM cited George Bernard Shaw's quip that America and England are two countries divided by one language. Also he highlighted Twain's acknowledgment that India was "the only foreign land" that he "deeply longed to see."
How refreshing it is to see a politician reference literary authors. In the United States, politicians fear the written word, especially if it doesn't come from the New Testament.
Even American history has become unfashionable in political verse. Today's politicians give rote mentions of the Founders and their work product when they must, e.g., opening sessions of Congress or the Inaugural. As I mentioned to someone this past weekend, the Founders weren't philosophers or even authors per se, but rather men of commerce who had a deep understanding of history and the power of polemics. Today's polemics are characterized by little understanding, not that anyone really recognizes the value of good polemics anyway. Instead, the screed has replaced the polemic and the discipline of rhetoric is all but dead.
Any politician who drops an author's name is likely to be viewed as affected, earnest, dull or dim -- often at the same time. But I adhere to the view that any person must be judged by what is on their bookshelf, assuming that one is actually part of their professional or personal decor.
I am not really familiar with Indian politics, but according to the Prime Minister's official biography he appears to be a globalist economic reformer. Why have Americans heard so little of him? Or for that matter, why has it fallen chiefly on The New York Times' Tom Friedman to point out the economic miracle that is occurring in Bangalore and the tremendous mobility that Indians bring to the global marketplace? India is probably one of the countries that most resembles the United States, given its institutional lineage from the British, as well as the breadth of its geography and demographics. Can any TtP readers suggest a good volume in comparative politics that explores this? And yes, I am aware that Canada could be considered the "51st state," though no Canadian and few Americans would recognize this.
When I watched the final rounds of the National Spelling Bee a few weeks ago, I was shocked -- but not surprised -- that so many of the finalist were of Indian descent. And yet there are no conspicuous displays of "Indian pride." That should also be another interesting subject to explore.
One thing I do know: any population that has a deep appreciation of P.G. Wodehouse is far ahead of the rest of the world -- including the booboisie in this country whose literary tastes can be determined by a visit to The New York Times' bestseller list (or better yet the book sections at Wal-Mart and Target). Oprah can only do so much with her book club, which has rightly abandoned contemporary fiction.
I do hear that Wodehouse has an emerging following in Russia, too -- but probably for entirely different reasons.
How refreshing it is to see a politician reference literary authors. In the United States, politicians fear the written word, especially if it doesn't come from the New Testament.
Even American history has become unfashionable in political verse. Today's politicians give rote mentions of the Founders and their work product when they must, e.g., opening sessions of Congress or the Inaugural. As I mentioned to someone this past weekend, the Founders weren't philosophers or even authors per se, but rather men of commerce who had a deep understanding of history and the power of polemics. Today's polemics are characterized by little understanding, not that anyone really recognizes the value of good polemics anyway. Instead, the screed has replaced the polemic and the discipline of rhetoric is all but dead.
Any politician who drops an author's name is likely to be viewed as affected, earnest, dull or dim -- often at the same time. But I adhere to the view that any person must be judged by what is on their bookshelf, assuming that one is actually part of their professional or personal decor.
I am not really familiar with Indian politics, but according to the Prime Minister's official biography he appears to be a globalist economic reformer. Why have Americans heard so little of him? Or for that matter, why has it fallen chiefly on The New York Times' Tom Friedman to point out the economic miracle that is occurring in Bangalore and the tremendous mobility that Indians bring to the global marketplace? India is probably one of the countries that most resembles the United States, given its institutional lineage from the British, as well as the breadth of its geography and demographics. Can any TtP readers suggest a good volume in comparative politics that explores this? And yes, I am aware that Canada could be considered the "51st state," though no Canadian and few Americans would recognize this.
When I watched the final rounds of the National Spelling Bee a few weeks ago, I was shocked -- but not surprised -- that so many of the finalist were of Indian descent. And yet there are no conspicuous displays of "Indian pride." That should also be another interesting subject to explore.
One thing I do know: any population that has a deep appreciation of P.G. Wodehouse is far ahead of the rest of the world -- including the booboisie in this country whose literary tastes can be determined by a visit to The New York Times' bestseller list (or better yet the book sections at Wal-Mart and Target). Oprah can only do so much with her book club, which has rightly abandoned contemporary fiction.
I do hear that Wodehouse has an emerging following in Russia, too -- but probably for entirely different reasons.
posted by Nikos A. Leverenz @ 7/19/2005
< Home>