http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/364418.cms

BRUSSELS: Nobel laureate V.S. Naipaul believes that India is heading for a cultural clash between the city dwellers and the village population.

"People in cities are turning their backs to Indian civilization. They want green cards. They want to migrate. They want to go to England. They want to go to the US", Naipaul told mediapersons at the Centre For Fine Arts, Bozar, here.

"There is a fracture at this moment of great hope for India. A fracture in the country itself. It is possibly quite dangerous at the moment," and added that the consequences "could be a very radical kind of revolution - village against city".

However, at the same time, Naipaul said that India "is a very dynamic, moving culture."

Naipaul aired similar views during the reading and interview session for the general public as part of the ongoing India Festival at the Bozar on Saturday evening.

During the press meeting, Naipaul held forth on various issues.

"There is no tradition of reading in India. There is no tradition of contemporary literature," he claimed. It was only in Bengal that there was a kind of renaissance and a literary culture, he said and added: "But in the rest of India until quite recently people had no idea what books were for."

Reading in India, he claimed, was limited to books on wise sayings.

According to him, "Indians have no regard for museums". He recalled that Rabindranath Tagore's house and university has been pillaged. "They stole even his Nobel medal", he said.

"The idea of a museum is a Western idea. It's not an Indian idea. The idea is that these things are old, they are finished."

Naipaul asserted that at the end the British rule in India was "very good."

"They gave a lot back to India. All the institutions that now work in India were given by the British. So the British period was not that bad."

He dismissed Mahatma Gandhi's book "Indian home rule" published in 1909 as an "absurdity." He said: "It’s an absurdity. He knows nothing. He said he wrote it in two weeks. He is against everything that is modern in 1909."

Denouncing multiculturalism as a bad, destructive idea, he said: "Multiculturalism is a very much left-wing idea that gained currency about 20 years ago. It's very destructive about the people it is meant to defend."

He cited the example of Britain where he said there was a large immigrant population, "many of them bending the laws to be able to stay in England."

"They wish to do that but at the same time they don't wish to enter the culture. I think that is parasitic and awful."

He defended the caste system in India, arguing that "caste is a great internal series of friendly societies and in bad times it kept the country going. But people don't understand this. It has to be rethought and a new way of looking at it.

"In India it is having trouble at the moment because it rules politics. Foolish people think that the upper castes are oppressing the lower caste. It is the other way," he said noting that lower castes have reserved seats in education and employment.

Asked if he felt like a European, he replied: "No, not at all. One doesn't have to be one thing or the other. One can be many things at the same time."

Could he live in India? Naipaul paused for a moment, but his wife Nadira replied: "Yes, quite happily, if we didn't have a cat. Our cat is an English cat. It is hard for it to live in India, but we can."

Naipaul added: "If you would have asked me this question fifty years ago, I had to say 'out of the question' it would have been impossible. So things are moving and changing all the time."

Sounds like a farce. Some of the comments made reflect an absurdity that I would not expect from a Nobel prize winning author. I wonder if his comments were taken out of context. What do you think?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
~ Morning rain

VS Naipaul shouldn't be taken seriously, I have read his books and respect him as a Nobel laureate but he is a desi Trindadian born British citizen (nothing wrong with that) who I believe has not had much exposure to India. Passing judgments from far away can be easy. Constructive criticism is always good but his piece on "cultural fracture" is definitely absurd.

There is a cultural clash that is fuelled by the increase in disposable income, especially of the young. With the economic independence there is obviously going to be less of a reliance on society for approval in how they live their lives. This is going to lead to clashes with people/elders who may have more conservative views.

As far as I can remember, Indians have always aspired to go to 'phoren' lands. So I'm not sure about the village/city clash as mentioned in the OP. To be fair...the article seems to pick from disparate views of Naipaul without elaborating on his reasoning behind those. Its all over the place- cultural fracture, caste system, idea of musems, reading in India, multi-culturalism, home-rule and the pet English cat. A bit of 'sensationalist' reporting there.

Either that or dementia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com

In the year 1917 there was this famous meeting of all the VIPs consisting of the Maharajas of the various kingdoms in India, wanting to discuss ways and means to remove poverty in India. It was the first important gathering for Mahatma Gandhi, for his mentor had asked him on his return from S. Africa in 1915, to tour the whole of India and make his observations and then plunge in to the freedom struggle. When Gandhiji spoke he simply blasted all the Maharajas seated in the front rows. He asked them to get rid of the jewellery that they were wearing before wanting to discuss the subject. He was also critical of the middle class for their selfishness and narrow mindedness in not contributing to the betterment of the country.
When Mrs. Indira Gandhi came to power in 1967, she abolished the privy purses for the sake of socialism and put all the nawabs and rajas in their place.
Now in 2007, again the rich under Manmohan Singh/ Ahluwalia/Chidambaram combine have shown ascendancy with the poor and lower income groups running helter skelter. The kingdoms and the Rajas are not there anymore, but have been replaced by corporate houses and their heads. There is exodus from villages to towns and cities by labour in search of jobs, as agriculture is neither remunerative nor attractive. In short we are back to square one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------