Column

SOTTO VOCE

In his marvellous novel Norwegian Wood, Haruki Murakami has a brilliant but supercilious character declare, "I don't read books written less than 30 years ago." Not being burdened with such conceit, I must say I do occasionally pick up new books, though more often than not there is comfort in re-reading the older rather than many of the newer writers.

The deeper point is of course the difference between the trendy and the classical, the here-and-now versus the tried-and-tested. There is always a rush towards the new and a disregard for the old; nobody wants to be seen as ignorant of the latest trends, whether in literature, cinema, music or fashion. If you don't know about Tom Friedman or Ram Gopal Verma's next, you are seen to be out of it, obsolete, a dinosaur. Sex in the City is so yesterday; everyone is hooked on to Desperate Housewives. Mention anything older than last year and people's eyes start glazing over. Does this mean there is no merit in the past? Is being hooked on to times gone by only for old fuddy-duddies who want to hang on to their youth?

It certainly seems so. Everywhere you look, the old is disappearing and everyone seems to be in a frenzy to seek out the new and fresh. Bars and restaurants deemed as the most happening places last barely a few months before the crowd moves to the hot new watering hole; the old style bookshop where you could find a rare volume seem to have vanished, leaving behind corporatised stores that only deal with best sellers. On the FM stations, its all about the latest hits, with just half hour per week devoted to old songs. Nostalgia is definitely not in fashion.

Before you condemn me to the old people's home, where I can sit in a rocking chair and dream about the good old days, when bell-bottoms and polyester shirts were in fashion and Jim Morrison ruled, let me hastily clarify that I can definitely see the logic of this trend. With new products coming into the market all the time and a young populace, there is a desperate urge to shed the dull, socialistic and shortage-oriented past. Each generation rejects its parents' life and just like those who grew up 25 years ago had no time to waste on stories about the freedom movement, why should today's kids want to know about the Emergency?

Yet, till recently, the past had more space to exist along with the present; there was a continuum that provided the much needed hinterland to the ideas of the day. The student revolts of the 1960s were directly connected to the dismantling of colonialism which in turn came out of the end of the Second World War and no young rebel of the 1970s could remain ignorant of this link. The past was not there to be ignored, but to be examined, if only to eventually reject it.

If at all there is any looking back today, it is not to history but to a mythical era that fulfils a different yearning. Young Indians today want to connect with tradition and heritage, which invariably translates as religion and ritual. They speak of a cultural past, which was apparently glorious and golden; it allows them to validate the present and even the future, when India will become the super power it deserves to be.

Young Indians today are more religious and rituals-oriented today than ever before, while wearing all the accroutements of modernity. Young girls happily guzzle down tequila shots and observe karva chauth, the gayatri mantra is the preferred ring tone.

Future historians will no doubt look at this period and make better sense out of it. But living through it, it is easy to discern the fierce determination of a people who are determined to shut out the past and who feel history is a waste of time, because it has ended. It's all about now, now, now. As for me, I am planning to read the latest best seller, as soon as I have thrown out my rose-tinted glasses.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net