I too have trouble with this new term ‘Indian Complex’. I am afraid it can be cited (if developed further) as one of those that fall into a prejudicial terminology without substance or reason.
There were a few that used words on campus, all in jest(sometimes, not), such as ‘all gults are such and such’ or ‘all those who consume Idli & Sambar …(about tamils)’ which reminded me of those similar phrases denoting one or the caste in many cases in India. Later I heard a term that denoted ‘poor white trash’ complex describing people in rural white ‘mobile homes (that do not move) only’ neighborhoods; Klu Klux Klan had a similar bearing on those who might have felt morally otherwise but were compelled to go along with the rest of the socieity (there perhaps are more Subbaiah’s in any society or for that matter, there is a Subbaiah in every person; one duty of fiction might be to accentuate such character and alienate the traits to show the distinction). Subbaiah can be imagined in the deep south (Mississipi) who ‘knows’ the right and wrong and yet can be coaxed into following the weakness (social and self).
All these complex(es) apparantly can be attributed to a person first and then extrapolated to denote a group, to stereotype further. I think there is no place for such stereotypical, derogatory imagery or verbage to describe any cultural or otherwise reasons that cause a particular person to behave the way he/she does. These theories (about any higher level denomination that seeks to ascribe to others based on a single example, even in fiction) do not survive the test of time. Just as ‘Poor White Trash’ is a term detained to yesterday as the society gained more insight into it, and at a time such terms are going out of fashion, a stereotypical ‘Indian Complex’ can not have much credibility.
Adler theorized that the influence of the environment, especially one’s family environment during the childhood years, plays a crucial role in moulding human behaviour. He suggested that in course of one’s later life if a traumatic event takes place, it brings back to memory the childhood experience and enables one to fight inferiority complex by bringing about a clear understanding.
If that is what Adler theorized, that is happens perhaps not just with individual complex, but also with such terms as ‘Indian Complex’. Just as ‘hindoo rate of growth’ is debunked, and the same applies to such new terms; Interestingly, ‘Islamists’ and the way the West is portraying the religion to some extent would also follow the same path, may be at a much later day.
The author does have an important message in the end how ever and I would stick with the authors final words on this:
“In the final analysis it would be better not to accord undue importance to this theory and its operation in the novel. Much of aesthetic value would emerge if the novel is studied on its own terms, as a work of art, and without elaborate reference to Adler and his theories.”
Beyond this & unconnected to all of this, I also have trouble with Ra. Vi. Shastri’s disappointment.
I was ashamed of and irritated with the idea of the novel appearing under my own name, and not pseudonymously. I don’t use a pseudonym any more. The shame too is gone. But the irritation remained.
Can this be interpreted as Shastri’s inferiory complex falling into Adler’s definition where it can be fought back after some clear understanding?
Was Shastri a victim of the same Subbaiah sentiments, authors unlike Gods and Kings can not be that far out from their protagonists? I know many people who come to this site know Shastri well enough to say ‘No’ perhaps, but I question how well do they know him? Is there a ‘progressive writer complex’ where a writer who defines himself thusly feels and knows all too well about right from wrong about certain things but is utterly incapacitated with what they can do about it owing to societal norms/personal situations (any situation going back to the roaring 30s or the 70’s).
Lyla:
If that hasn’t helped, here is a brief explanation.
We don’t have political dictators in India but often enough society itself doubles as a dictator. If you deviate from the established social norms even in insignificant ways, you can be sure of having it pointed out to you day in and day out and that not just by those who mean something to you but sometimes even by perfect strangers. Curiously, these so-called norms are frequently detrimental to the long-term interests of society itself. For example, what sense do you make of a man who is considered inefficient for not becoming rich by corrupt means?
Initially one might resist this unwarranted inference but over time one learns to find peace by falling in line. Now apply this principle to Subbaiah. He already suffers, rather intensely, because of his inborn debilities, and the memory of disturbing childhood experiences. Call this ‘Inferiority Complex’ if you will. He is now matched with a nagging wife who seems to derive vicarious pleasure in insulting him, an exploitative brother-in-law who compels him to commit a white-collar crime and colleagues at the office who have only contempt for him. All these people are not in the least aware of what psychological injury they are inflicting on an honest citizen. On top of it they fault him for not upholding the established norms – of making money and providing for his family by corrupt means! Venkat Rao, Gavaraiah and his colleagues have taken advantage of these ‘permissive’ norms and provided for themselves and so they are considered efficient and even worthy of emulation; Subbaiah has not done it and so he is inefficient and unworthy of note.
The additional suffering that Subbaiah goes through as a result — the complex he has to contend with – don’t you think there is something specifically Indian about it? What’s wrong in calling it “Indian Complex” when it is so inalienably Indian, and when it helps us to understand a literary character better than we would otherwise?
Literary works are either established as classics or consigned to obscurity not by saying ‘goodie, goodie’ things about them year after year but by subjecting them to critical scrutiny — objective analysis and honest assessment of its merits and shortcomings — in the light of the ever accumulating knowledge in various fields. That way literary criticism becomes a scientific pursuit for all practical purposes. Dr. Rajeshwar is a very careful scholar and his scholarship is in evidence in this article. By putting Alpajeevi under the critical microscope afresh and by opening new avenues of analyzing and appreciating it he has helped consolidate its position as a literary classic.
This being the situation, I must admit I don’t find the tone and sweeping nature of Mr. Hanumantha Rao’s comments palatable at all. He seems to have formed his opinions on Dr. Rajeshwar’s article without giving it a serious reading. Had he taken the care to go through the piece, fully applying his mind, and stopped to ponder at every step, most of his doubts would have either not arisen at all, or would have been answered instantaneously.
Literary criticism should aim at clarifying things, not confusing them. In his short dissertation Mr. Hanumantha Rao has driven the discussion off course by nitpicking and by dwelling for the most part on minor points of detail and then by passing it off as literary criticism. In my considered opinion those who have not had the advantage of formal training in critical analysis of literary texts should try and desist the temptation of passing facile judgements on literary works, and even more importantly on the critical output of initiated and well established scholars; otherwise they would do a disservice to both literature and criticism. Literary criticism is best left to its practitioners, to those who have the credentials for it, just as medical practice is best left to those who have graduated in medicine.
If you read this passage again, and again if necessary, you will understand what “Indian Complex” is.
He [Subbaiah] has been, as adumbrated earlier, thoroughly inferiorized and marginalized by all concerned, even by the unidentifiable cultural forces, and consequently his personality and self-esteem have never properly developed. His suffering is therefore infinitely greater than that of a typical victim of inferiority complex in the West where the trauma one suffers is usually of a personal nature and not culturally determined. And most definitely this trauma does not visit one for being honest and law abiding, even if incompetent. Sadly for Subbaiah, he is slighted, humiliated, demeaned and judged as inefficient by almost everyone for no more ‘objectionable’ behaviour on his part than hesitating to do things that are potentially disturbing to him.
ఈమాట రచయితలు గురించి అనుక్షణికం – నా అనుభవం « sowmyawrites …. గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/22/2007 10:37 pm
[…] అనుక్షణికం – నా అనుభవం ఈ పుస్తకం గురించి నేను ఎంతగా విన్నానంటే …. అసలు కథేమిటో కూడా తెలీకుండానే దేనికి సంబంధించిందో తెలీకుండానే … చదివి తీరాల్సిందే అని తీర్మానించుకునేంత. ఏదో రవికిరణ్ కొత్త గారి పుణ్యమా అని ఆ పుస్తకం దొరికింది నాకు. ఆ మధ్య ఓ సారి కలిసినప్పుడు చదవమని ఇచ్చారు. మొత్తానికి … ఒక విధంగా నాకు ఈ పుస్తకం నచ్చింది. ఒక విధంగా ఓ పెద్ద disappointment. చండీదాస్ గారు చనిపోయినప్పుడు ఆయన గురించి మొదటి సారి విన్నాను నేను. అప్పుడు ఏదో పత్రికలో ఆయన ఇంటర్వ్యూ వేసారు. అది చదివి… విపరీతంగా నచ్చింది నాకు. కొన్ని జవాబులు చాలా నచ్చాయి. కానీ, అక్కడికి ఆగిపోయింది. నాకప్పటికి తెలుగు సాహిత్యం గురించి అప్పుడప్పుడే తెలుస్తూ ఉండింది. అప్పటికే నేను చదవాలి అనుకుంటున్నవి చాలా ఉండటం తో ఈయన పుస్తకాలు చదవాలి అన్నది అంత ప్రబలంగా అనిపించలేదు. ఓ సంవత్సరం క్రితం మూలా సుబ్రమణ్యం గారూ, రవికిరణ్ గారు ఈ పుస్తకం గురించి గొప్పగా చెప్పడం తో మళ్ళా చండీడాస్ గారు గుర్తు వచ్చి ఈసారి చదువుదాం అనుకున్నాను. ఇదీ బ్యాక్గ్రౌండ్. ఇప్పుడు ఫోర్గ్రౌండ్ లోకి. […]
నాకు కూడ వాదిరాజయతి రచించిన అశ్వధాటిలోని
దశావతారస్తుతి అంటే ఎంతో ఇష్టము.
ఇక్కడ ఒకటి చెప్పాలి అందరికీ. అన్ని సంస్కృత పదాలు
అర్థము చేసికొనుటకు కష్టము కాదు, అన్ని తెలుగు పదాలు
అర్థము చేసికొనుటకు సులభము కాదు. నాకు అన్నమాచార్యుల
కీర్తనలలో ఎన్నో పదాలకు ఇంకా అర్థము తెలియదు. క్రింద ఒక
అచ్చ తెలుగు పద్యము సీతాకళ్యాణమునుండి. ఇది అచ్చ తెలుగు
మాత్రమే కాక ఇందులోని అక్షరాలు పెదవులను తాకవు.
గట్టంత ఱాయి నా కా-
లట్టే తాకంగ నెలతయై నిల్చిన డా
కట్టడి దెలిసిన యంతా
గట్టిగ నెఱగంగ జేసి గడతేర్చగదే
– మఱిగంటి సింగనాచార్య, శుద్ధాంధ్రనిరోష్ఠయసీతాకళ్యాణము (2.65)
ఇది రాముని కాలి స్పర్శచే ఱాయి అహల్యగా మారినప్పుడు
రాముడు విశ్వామిత్రునితో తెలిపినది.
తెలుగో సంస్కృతమో అర్థమైతే చాలు. ఇక ప్రత్యేక పదాలా?
ఒక్కొక్క కవి ఒకలా వ్రాస్తాడు. ఒకే కవి అదే కవితను మరలా
వ్రాస్తే అదే విధముగా వ్రాయడు కూడ! – విధేయుడు – మోహన
Since you are the one who coined the term ‘Indian Complex’
can you now define and explain it to us please.
So we can clearly understand what ‘Indian Complex’ primarily
signifies. Thank You.
రెండు కవితలు గురించి Prasuna గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/25/2007 4:49 pm
ఎగురుతూ ఎగురుతూ ఉంటే వాన మబ్బు మీదకొచ్చినట్టుంది.
చాలా బాగున్నాయి.
రెండు మౌనాల మధ్య గురించి Murthy Akella గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/25/2007 3:36 am
సరదాగా చదువుకోడానికి బాగుంది, ఇంట్లో గొడవలు ఇలా ముగిస్తేనే బాగుంటుంది. కథ చదివేక చిన్న చిర్నవ్వు.
త్రిల్ గురించి Sunitha గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/24/2007 4:53 pm
I couldn’t understand what the author wanted to convey.
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి viplav గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/24/2007 1:56 pm
Dear Dr. Rajeshwar:
I too have trouble with this new term ‘Indian Complex’. I am afraid it can be cited (if developed further) as one of those that fall into a prejudicial terminology without substance or reason.
There were a few that used words on campus, all in jest(sometimes, not), such as ‘all gults are such and such’ or ‘all those who consume Idli & Sambar …(about tamils)’ which reminded me of those similar phrases denoting one or the caste in many cases in India. Later I heard a term that denoted ‘poor white trash’ complex describing people in rural white ‘mobile homes (that do not move) only’ neighborhoods; Klu Klux Klan had a similar bearing on those who might have felt morally otherwise but were compelled to go along with the rest of the socieity (there perhaps are more Subbaiah’s in any society or for that matter, there is a Subbaiah in every person; one duty of fiction might be to accentuate such character and alienate the traits to show the distinction). Subbaiah can be imagined in the deep south (Mississipi) who ‘knows’ the right and wrong and yet can be coaxed into following the weakness (social and self).
All these complex(es) apparantly can be attributed to a person first and then extrapolated to denote a group, to stereotype further. I think there is no place for such stereotypical, derogatory imagery or verbage to describe any cultural or otherwise reasons that cause a particular person to behave the way he/she does. These theories (about any higher level denomination that seeks to ascribe to others based on a single example, even in fiction) do not survive the test of time. Just as ‘Poor White Trash’ is a term detained to yesterday as the society gained more insight into it, and at a time such terms are going out of fashion, a stereotypical ‘Indian Complex’ can not have much credibility.
Adler theorized that the influence of the environment, especially one’s family environment during the childhood years, plays a crucial role in moulding human behaviour. He suggested that in course of one’s later life if a traumatic event takes place, it brings back to memory the childhood experience and enables one to fight inferiority complex by bringing about a clear understanding.
If that is what Adler theorized, that is happens perhaps not just with individual complex, but also with such terms as ‘Indian Complex’. Just as ‘hindoo rate of growth’ is debunked, and the same applies to such new terms; Interestingly, ‘Islamists’ and the way the West is portraying the religion to some extent would also follow the same path, may be at a much later day.
The author does have an important message in the end how ever and I would stick with the authors final words on this:
“In the final analysis it would be better not to accord undue importance to this theory and its operation in the novel. Much of aesthetic value would emerge if the novel is studied on its own terms, as a work of art, and without elaborate reference to Adler and his theories.”
Beyond this & unconnected to all of this, I also have trouble with Ra. Vi. Shastri’s disappointment.
I was ashamed of and irritated with the idea of the novel appearing under my own name, and not pseudonymously. I don’t use a pseudonym any more. The shame too is gone. But the irritation remained.
Can this be interpreted as Shastri’s inferiory complex falling into Adler’s definition where it can be fought back after some clear understanding?
Was Shastri a victim of the same Subbaiah sentiments, authors unlike Gods and Kings can not be that far out from their protagonists? I know many people who come to this site know Shastri well enough to say ‘No’ perhaps, but I question how well do they know him? Is there a ‘progressive writer complex’ where a writer who defines himself thusly feels and knows all too well about right from wrong about certain things but is utterly incapacitated with what they can do about it owing to societal norms/personal situations (any situation going back to the roaring 30s or the 70’s).
viplav
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/23/2007 9:17 am
Lyla:
If that hasn’t helped, here is a brief explanation.
We don’t have political dictators in India but often enough society itself doubles as a dictator. If you deviate from the established social norms even in insignificant ways, you can be sure of having it pointed out to you day in and day out and that not just by those who mean something to you but sometimes even by perfect strangers. Curiously, these so-called norms are frequently detrimental to the long-term interests of society itself. For example, what sense do you make of a man who is considered inefficient for not becoming rich by corrupt means?
Initially one might resist this unwarranted inference but over time one learns to find peace by falling in line. Now apply this principle to Subbaiah. He already suffers, rather intensely, because of his inborn debilities, and the memory of disturbing childhood experiences. Call this ‘Inferiority Complex’ if you will. He is now matched with a nagging wife who seems to derive vicarious pleasure in insulting him, an exploitative brother-in-law who compels him to commit a white-collar crime and colleagues at the office who have only contempt for him. All these people are not in the least aware of what psychological injury they are inflicting on an honest citizen. On top of it they fault him for not upholding the established norms – of making money and providing for his family by corrupt means! Venkat Rao, Gavaraiah and his colleagues have taken advantage of these ‘permissive’ norms and provided for themselves and so they are considered efficient and even worthy of emulation; Subbaiah has not done it and so he is inefficient and unworthy of note.
The additional suffering that Subbaiah goes through as a result — the complex he has to contend with – don’t you think there is something specifically Indian about it? What’s wrong in calling it “Indian Complex” when it is so inalienably Indian, and when it helps us to understand a literary character better than we would otherwise?
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. V. Rajasekhar గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/23/2007 8:36 am
Literary works are either established as classics or consigned to obscurity not by saying ‘goodie, goodie’ things about them year after year but by subjecting them to critical scrutiny — objective analysis and honest assessment of its merits and shortcomings — in the light of the ever accumulating knowledge in various fields. That way literary criticism becomes a scientific pursuit for all practical purposes. Dr. Rajeshwar is a very careful scholar and his scholarship is in evidence in this article. By putting Alpajeevi under the critical microscope afresh and by opening new avenues of analyzing and appreciating it he has helped consolidate its position as a literary classic.
This being the situation, I must admit I don’t find the tone and sweeping nature of Mr. Hanumantha Rao’s comments palatable at all. He seems to have formed his opinions on Dr. Rajeshwar’s article without giving it a serious reading. Had he taken the care to go through the piece, fully applying his mind, and stopped to ponder at every step, most of his doubts would have either not arisen at all, or would have been answered instantaneously.
Literary criticism should aim at clarifying things, not confusing them. In his short dissertation Mr. Hanumantha Rao has driven the discussion off course by nitpicking and by dwelling for the most part on minor points of detail and then by passing it off as literary criticism. In my considered opinion those who have not had the advantage of formal training in critical analysis of literary texts should try and desist the temptation of passing facile judgements on literary works, and even more importantly on the critical output of initiated and well established scholars; otherwise they would do a disservice to both literature and criticism. Literary criticism is best left to its practitioners, to those who have the credentials for it, just as medical practice is best left to those who have graduated in medicine.
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/23/2007 2:36 am
Lyla:
If you read this passage again, and again if necessary, you will understand what “Indian Complex” is.
He [Subbaiah] has been, as adumbrated earlier, thoroughly inferiorized and marginalized by all concerned, even by the unidentifiable cultural forces, and consequently his personality and self-esteem have never properly developed. His suffering is therefore infinitely greater than that of a typical victim of inferiority complex in the West where the trauma one suffers is usually of a personal nature and not culturally determined. And most definitely this trauma does not visit one for being honest and law abiding, even if incompetent. Sadly for Subbaiah, he is slighted, humiliated, demeaned and judged as inefficient by almost everyone for no more ‘objectionable’ behaviour on his part than hesitating to do things that are potentially disturbing to him.
ఈమాట రచయితలు గురించి అనుక్షణికం – నా అనుభవం « sowmyawrites …. గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/22/2007 10:37 pm
[…] అనుక్షణికం – నా అనుభవం ఈ పుస్తకం గురించి నేను ఎంతగా విన్నానంటే …. అసలు కథేమిటో కూడా తెలీకుండానే దేనికి సంబంధించిందో తెలీకుండానే … చదివి తీరాల్సిందే అని తీర్మానించుకునేంత. ఏదో రవికిరణ్ కొత్త గారి పుణ్యమా అని ఆ పుస్తకం దొరికింది నాకు. ఆ మధ్య ఓ సారి కలిసినప్పుడు చదవమని ఇచ్చారు. మొత్తానికి … ఒక విధంగా నాకు ఈ పుస్తకం నచ్చింది. ఒక విధంగా ఓ పెద్ద disappointment. చండీదాస్ గారు చనిపోయినప్పుడు ఆయన గురించి మొదటి సారి విన్నాను నేను. అప్పుడు ఏదో పత్రికలో ఆయన ఇంటర్వ్యూ వేసారు. అది చదివి… విపరీతంగా నచ్చింది నాకు. కొన్ని జవాబులు చాలా నచ్చాయి. కానీ, అక్కడికి ఆగిపోయింది. నాకప్పటికి తెలుగు సాహిత్యం గురించి అప్పుడప్పుడే తెలుస్తూ ఉండింది. అప్పటికే నేను చదవాలి అనుకుంటున్నవి చాలా ఉండటం తో ఈయన పుస్తకాలు చదవాలి అన్నది అంత ప్రబలంగా అనిపించలేదు. ఓ సంవత్సరం క్రితం మూలా సుబ్రమణ్యం గారూ, రవికిరణ్ గారు ఈ పుస్తకం గురించి గొప్పగా చెప్పడం తో మళ్ళా చండీడాస్ గారు గుర్తు వచ్చి ఈసారి చదువుదాం అనుకున్నాను. ఇదీ బ్యాక్గ్రౌండ్. ఇప్పుడు ఫోర్గ్రౌండ్ లోకి. […]
ఆ రోజులు గురించి J K Mohana Rao గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/22/2007 2:37 pm
నాకు కూడ వాదిరాజయతి రచించిన అశ్వధాటిలోని
దశావతారస్తుతి అంటే ఎంతో ఇష్టము.
ఇక్కడ ఒకటి చెప్పాలి అందరికీ. అన్ని సంస్కృత పదాలు
అర్థము చేసికొనుటకు కష్టము కాదు, అన్ని తెలుగు పదాలు
అర్థము చేసికొనుటకు సులభము కాదు. నాకు అన్నమాచార్యుల
కీర్తనలలో ఎన్నో పదాలకు ఇంకా అర్థము తెలియదు. క్రింద ఒక
అచ్చ తెలుగు పద్యము సీతాకళ్యాణమునుండి. ఇది అచ్చ తెలుగు
మాత్రమే కాక ఇందులోని అక్షరాలు పెదవులను తాకవు.
గట్టంత ఱాయి నా కా-
లట్టే తాకంగ నెలతయై నిల్చిన డా
కట్టడి దెలిసిన యంతా
గట్టిగ నెఱగంగ జేసి గడతేర్చగదే
– మఱిగంటి సింగనాచార్య, శుద్ధాంధ్రనిరోష్ఠయసీతాకళ్యాణము (2.65)
ఇది రాముని కాలి స్పర్శచే ఱాయి అహల్యగా మారినప్పుడు
రాముడు విశ్వామిత్రునితో తెలిపినది.
తెలుగో సంస్కృతమో అర్థమైతే చాలు. ఇక ప్రత్యేక పదాలా?
ఒక్కొక్క కవి ఒకలా వ్రాస్తాడు. ఒకే కవి అదే కవితను మరలా
వ్రాస్తే అదే విధముగా వ్రాయడు కూడ! – విధేయుడు – మోహన
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Lyla Yerneni గారి అభిప్రాయం:
07/22/2007 7:26 am
Rajeswar:
Since you are the one who coined the term ‘Indian Complex’
can you now define and explain it to us please.
So we can clearly understand what ‘Indian Complex’ primarily
signifies. Thank You.