It’s time to disco
JAMAL MECKLAI
JUST as the horizon shimmers when the sun is coming up, India is shimmering at a new dawn in its history. And, just as it takes several hours for the sun to rise to its peak in the heavens, it will take some time – a couple of decades perhaps – before India rises to the crest of this particular cycle in world history. To put a rather arcane time line on this, let us recall that when the British came to India, we were among the more vibrant economies in the world, at least from the point of view of world trade. In the three odd centuries since then, we were driven into the ground – again, using world trade as a single measure variable. Thus, the down cycle took around 350 years.
Currently, we appear to be up from the deepest depths – our share of world trade has grown from 0.5% about 10 years ago to 0.8% today. Now to estimate how much longer it will take us to reach our peak (of this cycle), we need to recognize that technology has compressed time. However, estimating this compression is impossible, so we will make an ad hoc judgment that change that takes a decade today would correspond to what took a century earlier. By this calculation, I estimate that India will be truly shining – at its peak in the heavens – in some 20 to 25 years. I can’t wait. Let’s dance!
Of course, none of this – or very, very little of this – has to do with the BJP or the Congress or any of our other political parties. All of them are by now morally bankrupt and hustling hysterically to claim credit for this upswing, which is really part of a much larger, natural cycle. To be fair, the current ruling party (and the ruling party before this) can, and should, get some credit for some positive steps they have taken. But if these steps are set off against other steps – of both commission and omission – that they have also taken, the balance is decidedly negative.
Thus, political sound-bytes aside, let us begin by acknowledging that India is shining – no, shimmering – despite, not because of, our politicians.
I know this sort of talk is anathema in Delhi, where most ‘thinking people’ eat, drink and dream politics. Being so close to the political centre perhaps makes them oblivious to the fact that in the rest of the country – as, indeed, all over the world – politics is getting less and less relevant. The steady economic growth of the past decade and, critically, the advent of the information age have made political patronage far less important in delivering personal value.
Sure, there are still chamchas – like ‘Nalli Paket’ in the film Mera MLA – in every part of the country who sell themselves to political machines, but their numbers are getting smaller and their effective share of GDP is falling steeply. (Of course, with elections under way, the chamchas are noisier than usual, so their decline in absolute numbers and in impact may not be that obvious, particularly in Delhi.) I recognize, of course, that there is no political structure – anywhere – without chamchas, but the good news is that there appear to be increasing numbers of young(er) people entering politics, and while youth is not totally exempted from foolishness and venality, I do believe that, in general, younger people are more into life, which gives them less time for chamchagiri.
But enough about politics and politicians. As I have already said, India is shimmering despite its politicians. India is shimmering as a result of the new era that is dawning on the globe.
The last era – the era of deterministic capitalism, so well embodied by America since the 1950s – is over, and has been for some time. Modernism, which was, if you will, the aesthetic descriptor of this era was replaced by ‘post-modernism’ some thirty years back and, perhaps, this point should be seen as the beginning of the end of the era of determinism. The fact that the new aesthetic was given such a non-name suggests that there was at the time, little clarity or understanding of what was to come. It was clear that the way people looked at the world, at life, at themselves had changed substantively, but there was a yawning gap as to what the New New World, to coin a term, would be. There was only a sense that if modernism were about certainty, then post-modernism would be about ambiguity.
T
he historic centre of influence was, of course, the rich world, comprising the US, Europe and Japan. However, caught as it was in its own deterministic mindset, it was difficult for people there to comprehend, let alone express, the more nebulous aesthetic that had already started defining contemporary life. (By today, it is widely acknowledged that the number one psychological issue facing ‘contemporary’ citizens in what I would like to call the Old Old World, is a sense of a lack of control over their lives. One of many examples – the other day, I was watching a TV programme that ascribed the amazing popularity of Apple’s ipod to the fact that ‘it provides users a sanctum of certainty, which in today’s complex world, where people feel a lack of control over their lives, is invaluable.’) Only Japan, with its deep-rooted traditions, is close to bridging the gap between the two eras, and it is hardly surprising that Japanese art, design and lifestyle has consistently been at the cutting edge of the Old Old World countries over the past few decades.
B
ut the definition of cutting edge, of contemporary, of international is always changing. And it is only now, some three or four decades on, that we are beginning to see a fuller expression of a new world aesthetic, which has a greater component of tradition, colour and – hold your breath – God.And it is countries like India, where tradition still drives – in the Old Old World, we would have said, limits – economic life, where pink is the new navy blue, and where God dances delightedly in most hearts, that are already becoming the New New centres of influence.
Of course, this influence has been around for some time. It started several decades ago, more or less as modernism was giving way to post-modernism. The Beatles were among the earliest Marco Polos of this change, starting in the early 1970s when George Harrison made Maharishi Mahesh Yogi a pop icon. By now, yoga is de riguer for anyone in the US who claims to be contemporary; there are more yoga centres than shooting ranges in California, which even now is seen as the cutting edge of the Old Old World, both culturally and technologically. Tandoori chicken long ago replaced fish and chips as the mid-market staple in the UK. And even in Europe, Indi-pop and Bollywood films are stirring the cultural pot with an intensity that was last seen in the 1970s (that decade again), when Jerry Lewis became something of a national icon in France, the corresponding cultural centre of the Really Old Old World.
[To give it some immediate and personal perspective, I recently met a young Frenchman, Pascal Lamy, who was in India to record Hindi (and Tamil) film songs in the vernacular. He didn’t speak Hindi (or Tamil or Bengali) but had fallen in love with the music and taught himself the lyrics. Pascal of Bollywood – the name I gave him – is wonderful and has since recorded a CD with Pyarelal’s (of Laxmikant Pyarelal fame) orchestra and has toured India (16 cities) and Europe to rave reviews.]
A
gain, the flow of academics, designers, curators, filmmakers curious about every which aspect of Indian culture and life is reaching epidemic proportions. Over the past three months I have attended financial market seminars addressed by several IMF bigwigs, the ex finance minister of Chile and more blue chip US academics than I could count. Cutting edge media designers, curators of photography and art from leading institutions in the Old Old World, arts and business seminars and, of course, several Hollywood directors travelling (of course) incognito. This is, in addition to the expanding tribe of businessmen seeking to understand how they can get a piece of the New New action. Hotel rates are rising – and will continue to do so – and our wholly inadequate tourism and cultural infrastructure is bursting at the seams. (Hint – excellent investment opportunity.)The sudden surge in cultural interest confirms that the Old Old World – the keepers of the keys of post-modernism – recognizes, if unconsciously, that substantive change is already happening. For, of course, cultural influence is a necessary condition for sustained economic influence. I would say that one key reason the US was able to dominate the world – ‘culturally imperialize’, in the words of the Old Old Left – so completely since the 1950s was Hollywood. America not only sold the world its products but it also sold the world its dreams.
Well, guess who’s got a film industry that is, finally, bubbling with international enthusiasm, attracting both capital and talent from all over the world? It’s time to disco!
O
ver the next ten or twelve years, the Filmfare awards (or some upstart version) will eclipse the Oscars as an honour and, of course, a ticket to the economic top.But – and here’s the real trick – the economic top will also be different. There will be more Azim Premjis than Ken Lays or Jack Welches. The days of $ 20 million movie stars are fast coming to an end. Consumers in the New New World are, and will be for at least the rest of this new era, considerably more sensitive to ‘value for money’.
I believe one of the loudest signals about this changeover of cultural approach was heard – although not much remarked on – in the mid-1990s, when a whole herd of global MNCs, hearing about India’s 250 million strong middle class, came charging into the market. Of course, in a few quick years they turned tail and ran. Statisticians were berated and the India growth story suffered a public relations reversal.
The truth, of course, was that the Indian consumer is no fool, unlike the American and other Old Old World consumer. (Why can I buy a pair of Nike shoes in the branded Nike shop on Colaba Causeway at $20, when an identical pair costs $60 in New York?) S/he instinctively understands value for money and will only buy at the right price. And, this again is a key point, the definition of value for money does not change materially as you move up the income curve, as anyone who has tried to do, and done, business with high-end Indian companies, and particularly Marwari companies, knows. Already, global investment banks and consulting companies have a special India price and a rest-of-the-world price for the services they offer. (And, you know what, the rest-of-the-world price is moving more rapidly towards the India price than the other way around.)
The huge hue and cry in the US about BPO is further evidence of this shift. While some of the noise is political, given that this is a US presidential election year, the truth is that BPO is merely a natural process element in the shift to the New New World order. It is not fully recognized that while BPO is about labour arbitrage on the surface, the real under-lying driving force is a shift to higher efficiency.
I
ndia is already a much more efficient economy than the US. Not when measured in Old Old World economic parameters like productivity of labour and capital, but when measured in New New World economic terms like life satisfaction. Interestingly, there is already a new term – Gross National Happiness – coined, apparently with this recognition.I recently read an article about a young woman in Bangalore who works for an IT company – let’s call her Seema. She’s about 26, rents her own apartment, rides her own vehicle to work, goes out to nightclubs a couple of times a week, enjoys spending money on clothes and sends some cash home to her parents every month. Her salary is about $450 a month. Now, just change Bangalore to Atlanta or Cleveland or Portland or any other American city. This young woman’s Old Old World sister – let’s call her Liz – lives almost exactly the same life, except that it costs her closer to $3000 a month to sustain it. (I am using the US simply as an example here; the job situation in Europe is substantially worse, although, to be fair, the Gross National Happiness is probably somewhat higher than in the US.)
W
hat is worse (for the Old Old World) is that it is torn between its earlier principles and beliefs on the one hand and stark reality on the other. The conflict in the Old Old World was very clearly reflected in a cover story in an American newsmagazine some months ago, titled ‘The Wal-Martization of America’. The article spoke about how the average American was being driven down the economic curve by the aggressive business practices of many US companies, notably WalMart. With technology improving internal efficiencies and enabling the sourcing of products and services from substantially cheaper – no, let’s use the new term, more efficient – economies, the wages being paid to Americans were also falling. WalMart was being taken to task for being the best at the two underlying themes of the American dream – capitalism and technology.Poor Liz can only see an improvement in her lifestyle if her costs go down – and go down dramatically. And as we all know, it’s very easy to move up to first class, but awfully difficult to move down. This is why if you talk to Liz (or any of her brothers or sisters in the Old Old World) about the future, I suspect you will hear a real sense of pessimism or, at best, uncertainty.
Talk to Seema, or any other young Indian today, and you will get a huge dose of optimism. The youth of India – and, I suspect, China and other countries that innately know that modernness is really a blend of religion (or tradition) and technology – know that the future is theirs.
They are the citizens of the New New World.
And if there’s one thing they know – it’s time to disco!