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.â€
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.
“….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
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:
My response:
That nothing has changed for the poor is not a reason why it’s okay for the rich in India and anyone else who enjoys their lifestyles on the backs of the poor in poor countries to have as crass a view on the world as the woman quoted in the article. The view is indicative of how much of a bubble the tiny “middle class” lives in India (see here). Because they have the ability and possibility of understanding the rest of India better, it’s even more damning. It’s not like they’re American factory workers who have no clue what India is like – they’re people who could easily find out and become class traitors if they could escape their bubble.
I agree. But this can’t be an endpoint. It raises, in fact, point 3.
If you want to have a discussion about what appropriate industrial policies would look like, I’m happy to. It’s a long conversation, but the short version is: policy autonomy; conditional subsidies for diversified industry to raise their global competitiveness on quality and price; realistic expectations that drdive pragmatic policymaking; and a politics that allows for political stability through allowance for more economic and social mobility for the poor (this would also develop a home market for industry to reduce reliance and exposure to the global market, which takes power out of the hands of Indian policymakers). A lot of this comes from this guy.
These would be good ways to start that would be MORE in the long-term interests of the “middle class” than their current luxury-goods+the-poor-be-damned approach. But that too will come with a lot of violence – as everything relating to industrialization does. Some might prefer a revolution 😉 As long as its not followed by a restoration through fascism.
Anyway, a good first step would be if someone could get the U.S. and the IMF and the WB and the EU and others to STFU about what developing countries ought to do with their industrial / economic policies. And therein lies the connection to what I’ve been calling “imperialism.” Applies to all developing countries.
Poverty in India is appalling. Poverty in America is also appalling (and very very very real). I just got off commenting at another blog, where a person earning in the top 1-5% of the population said they would rather give to charity than pay tax to the government, to discourage ‘free-loaders’ !!!! I come from a wealthy background in India and me and my peers in school, at church and in my neighborhood always made it a point to make sure the less fortunate could atleast enjoy some of the perks we could. And we did it without any prosetylzing or trying to ‘convert’ or convince people that Jesus was the answer to a better (read- wealthy) life. My dad’s church contributes around USD 500,000 a year (which goes a long way in India) to the poor in terms of education, health, jobs etc, without asking them anything in return. The people donating to the church are not just the wealthy, but the middle class and in many instances, the lower middle class as well. Unfortunately, the social ills in India (very obvious amongst middle class) are a lot worse and the power play does not do much. Not all rich or wealthy Indians have their heads buried in the sand.
lets start an email campaign to boycott vogue india.
Equating the poverty in India to the poverty in America is dishonest and obscene. Visitors to India looking at the mind boggling inhumane conditions there cannot help but conclude that it is the most callous, least charitable society on the face of the planet.
Hi Prema/Vyasa/Valmiki/Doordarshan/Johnny Lever/Mac/etc.
itsa bit like ogling animals at the zoo. Look at those poor bastards-must be so tough! Move on-whats next-ooh!
Not to be provocative, but–
I subscribe to Vogue India, and can tell you that the photos in the spread are quite different overall from the ones featured in the Times. They are soft and moody, with a delicate palette. And the models don’t seem poverty-stricken but more like regular working people. They have silk saris and motorcycles, and makeup, jewelry and trendy haircuts. Most are smiling and, clearly, enjoying the photographer’s attention.
The distinctive way that people in Rajasthan mix and match strong colors and patterns in their dress is dazzling and also very, very current. You have to return to some of the photos two and three times to find the name-brand fashion accessory. These men, women and children look great to begin with, and there is no reason why they should not appear in a fashion magazine.
This discussion reminds me of Americans who visit India and return to talk about nothing else but the heat and the dirt and the poverty. Like all good fashion photographs, these photographs propose what is beautiful.
some other, related interesting links :
http://ihategeneric.blogspot.com/2008/05/ick.html
http://letthemeatgucci.com/?p=28
and another Vogue shoot :
http://www.catwalkqueen.tv/keiraafrica1.jpg
Btw, Can ppl please email vogue.in and spout their dis-satisfaction ?
Their editorial contact is Jasmeen.Dugal@condenast.in, and CC their PR Manager kehkashan.merchant@condenast.in