Big Bother

Well, since minds more cultured and aware have commented on this, so I think I might chuck my 2 cents into the puddle of filth that surrounds the Jade v Shilpa controversy. The above article is not the best I've read about this whole furore (that dubious accolade goes to the FT, but the article is on a subscription page and I doubt that many people have those...), but it at least illustrates it a little bit.

I won't bother introducing the topic, as I'm sure everyone knows what it's about. Some Z-listers have decided to get a chance at the 'big' time (has anyone become 'big' after BB?) and are doing their best to hog the evening highlights. I'm sure the idiots have hired publicists to tell them what to do if they want to (a) disgrace themselves - probably to become regular Nuts entries - or (b) to win it and get some good coverage from Heat magazine. Well, whatever those guys were paid for, they didn't do a good job with 'Dani', 'Jo' and 'Jade' (is this just me, or is this the cast-list of a good hardcore-porn film?). They will be forever known as the 'racists off telly' despite people claiming that it's not racism, it's just ignorance or downright stupidity. The problem with the latter argument is that I fail to see how racism can be anything but stupid, as even the most complex forms of racism need serious distortions of reality and a disability to contextualise the world in order to work. Still, I suspect it's the same people who will say that Mel Gibson isn't a racist, but just a drunkard. Come on, let's be honest - call a spade a spade and all those inopportune puns.

As for Shilpa, we shouldn't forget that she's in there to do the same as the others - get more exposure and win it (either the jackpot of celebrity, or the jackpot of fame). Inside the house she's just trying to find ways of getting more power on her side and it's probably a shame for her that the others aren't pacified by the knowledge of the furore that is raging outside. Still, I was reading some interesting opinions from the Indian media on her (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6274043.stm) and the ones I thought were very interesting were those which dissected her motives. What especially struck me was the DNA article, which is where I think the whole debate gets very interesting.

What is interesting are two things: first, nobody in the States would make this kind of assumption about the Jackson sister trying to beg on bended knee to make it in England to gain approval from the 'mother country', so why is it an issue for Indians? Second, it begets the thought of whether the bullying a product of racism, or whether the racism is the product of the bullying and general jostling for power.

Now, for reasons of brevity, though an interesting subject, I think the first question is ultimately answered by the perceived notion of India as the former colonial territory and as such, until it is powerful enough, it will be shackled by the humiliating inferiority of that experience. To be governed by another country, or worse, an entire culture, is a humiliating process that takes more than a few years to patch up for those that wish to take pride in the individual heritage of once country. In this way, though unfortunate, Indian nationalists will be hamstrung whenever talking of parity with Britain for a while longer (or perhaps only till India is allowed to take part in the G8 summit).

The second question is where I find the real issue: I find the whole saga is tainted by racism because it's very easy to establish an ascendancy on those grounds - make it a case of us vs. 'them', or 'her' in this case. I won't get into what it is that the girls don't like about her, but if you ask them it'll be the usual insecure babble of "she thinks she's so much better than us. Well, we'll show her!" And show her they did. Unfortunately, we all saw.

As someone much wiser than I once said, 'prejudice is the common sense of the majority,' I'd like to slightly modify that and say that prejudice is the prerogative of those that have the power of persuasion to confirm it as truth. By this I mean that whoever has the most consent, will be the one who will get the most power. Shilpa thus did two things wrong - she tried to be aloof and ethereal (which she can because she is a beautiful woman and has a brain cell or two) at the same time getting involved in the dirty business of the house politics (which she obviously can't because she's not manipulative/politically aware). She's made herself vulnerable to getting ganged-up on by trying to forge allegiances too maladroitly, and she can't go back to the business of being queen bee because she's made her enemies with those that would probably otherwise be her main adherents (i.e. political people like Jo, who will naturally ally themselves with the pretty girls so they can act as their mouthpiece and 'brains' so to speak).

Am I putting the blame on Shilpa then and ignoring the fact that the people in the house are obviously bullies (if we want to say that calling them racists is too contentious)? No, the latter is obviously true, but amongst this rabble there are no bullies and victims. This is an egocentric rainforest of abominable stupidity, and befits the playground for 10 year olds rather than prime-time television. Though, I suppose by commenting on it, I have already elevated all those involved to the status of actors in a worthy farce. But then, that's just me being a bully on intellectual grounds...