January 1, 2004
REBUILDING THE FOUNDATIONS OF MCWORLD:
Consuming passions: New wealth is challenging the established order in the world's two most populous countries. Our correspondents report from India and, in the next article, from China (The Economist, Dec 30th 2003)
The Indian economy, following an unusually lavish monsoon, is growing at a rate of 7% a year or more. Economic recovery in the United States, the biggest market for India's IT industry, has not dented American companies' zeal for cost-cutting. “Every company needs an India strategy,” says Kiran Karnik, who heads Nasscom, the Indian IT industry's lobby. Indeed, hardly a day goes by without news that a big firm is shifting to India some of its back office: software development, accounting, insurance-claims processing, call-centres and so on. In the past month it has been reported that IBM is to move 4,700 jobs to India and China, and that Barclays, a British bank, is close to a deal that would see over 1,000 software-development jobs go to India. Giant companies such as Microsoft, GE, HSBC, American Express and Intel already employ thousands of people in India.The lure is a well-educated English-speaking workforce whose wages, compared with those commanded by Americans and Britons, are peanuts. Not, however, by local standards. Rohit Kapoor, president of EXL, an outsourcing firm with three centres near Delhi, says a freshly recruited contact-centre worker may expect to earn 10,000 to 12,000 rupees a month, plus a performance-linked bonus. Mr Karnik points out that that is often pocket money, since many will continue to follow Indian custom and live at home until they marry. Opportunities for the best workers are spectacular. Mr Kapoor says that some of his managers, who have been with the company for just three or four years, are earning 150,000 rupees a month. Such sums would have been unimaginable for Indians a few years ago.
Suhel Seth, of Equus Red Cell, an advertising agency in Delhi, calls it the “yuppification” of India. He cites two ways in which the phenomenon is challenging Indian tradition. First, young people positively relish conspicuous consumption. They do not share the qualms felt by their parents, brought up in a climate that mixed Nehruvian socialism with ancient Hindu ideals of renunciation. “Rolex”, says Mr Seth, with his profession's knack for pithy hyperbole, “has replaced religion.”
Second, and potentially of vast significance for a country as stratified as India, this is bringing about a “second unification”, in which the young and affluent across the country define themselves not just by caste, creed and language, but by a shared consumer culture, spread by television, which now reaches nearly half India's homes. As a result, spending patterns are changing.
The economic arguments against globalization that are made in the West are nonsense, but the cultural arguments made in the rest of the World are legitimate. Globalization--or Westernization as it might more honestly be called--is destroying native cultures and it's important that something follow in the wake, else they'll not have the bases for permanent liberal democracy. It is here that the rapid growth of Christianity in the Third World is key. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 1, 2004 8:19 AM
Hinduism is a very satisfying religion and is not going to be replaced by Christianity, or anything else.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 1, 2004 5:43 PMThe implicit American position -- one that we act on constantly but almost never speak about -- is that the bourgeoisie is the great force for good in the world.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 1, 2004 6:03 PMThe Hindus fear otherwise.
Posted by: oj at January 1, 2004 7:23 PMThe problem with Hinduism is reincarnation. You can't believe that people are rewarded or punished in their current incarnation for what they did in the past while simultaneously believing that all individuals are endowed with equal amounts of human dignity, rights, etc.
Posted by: EO at January 2, 2004 2:04 AMHinduism is founded on and is patched together by what we in the West call illogic. It could not remain under any sort of scrutiny that Christianity has endured for a thousand years. The crucial question is whether Hinduism will be able to co-exist (survive) as the nation becomes more open to Western economics and thought.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 2, 2004 10:17 AMJim, you think Christianity is logical? How quaint.
Anyhow, the appeal of Hinduism is no more dependent on its making sense than the appeal of Islam or Christianity is. And, from my personal experience with Hindu scientists who take consolation from their religion, I deny the idea that the religion and modernism are incompatible.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 2, 2004 1:06 PMIf religion were limited to consolation, then appeal would be paramount. And impact would be about zero.
And I agree that religion and modernity are compatible; any religion worth its salt is going to have to span not only culture, but time. Otherwise, you are left with cults and fads, which cannot withstand even momentary scrutiny.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 2, 2004 5:13 PMIt is limited to consolation, isn't it?
I mean, being religious is a lot of trouble, and unless people get something out of it, why would they keep bothering? They do keep bothering.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 3, 2004 1:07 AMHarry:
You mean: "what's in it for me?" Man, you just don't get it.
Posted by: oj at January 3, 2004 1:14 AMoj:
In terms of entire populations, and not just a few enlighted souls, Harry is spot on.
How deeply does the average person think about their religion, anyhow ?
If it's similar to any other decision made by the masses, not much.
Thus, you're both right, just from different ends of the individual/group continuum.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 3, 2004 5:46 AMHarry:
It's difficult to scrutinize consolation - each person's story is different.
However, to scrutinize the object of our consolation is the work of everyone. 'Religion' stands or falls on its own, not on how is used, misused, or mutated.
I think I understand how you can say Hinduism is satisfying; but are you also saying that it withstands any objective examination?
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 3, 2004 12:05 PMNo, of course not. I don't think any religion withstands objective examination.
But I lived with some very modern Hindus when I was in Cow College (ironic, eh?), fully capable of competing with us westerners in every practical respect (as Orrin keeps reminding us), and they did not find any deficiency in their religion. In trouble, they turned to their sacred texts for comfort; and when I was very ill, they had me read the Mahabbarata for spiritual comfort.
It worked just as well as the Bible, which is to say, not at all for a hopeless case like me, but every bit as well for them as your Bible does for you.
There isn't going to be any largescale switch by Hindus to Christianity. Hinduism gives them everything Christianity is offering, at least on this earth.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 3, 2004 8:46 PM