There was no information about India that was available to the average Joe. My father travelled to the US as a British Indian citizen in 1945 (after the war) on the QE 2 that sailed from Madras and eventually went to New York via Karachi and some other stops. The ship was full of GIs returning from the far east - but they may have been cattle class. A maid had asked my father and his friends on the first day whether they wanted to have the bath readied and that was done. the next day they asked her to ready the bath again and she exclaimed "What? Again?" That was the sort of cultural gap between gora admi and mango Indian. My late father used to recall that GIs asked him "Are you a Maharaya?" (not raja, raya - the Spanish pronunciation). Even now text to speech software reads "pooja" as "pooya". Many relatives and friends of mine moved to America in the 1970s and have been there since.VikramS wrote: 1. Do you think there were gross inaccuracies in the negative US portrayal of India? Or what was bad for India was the focus on the negatives only. Was there no positive mention of India or Indic culture prior to the 90s?
When I was a boy (1960s) comic books occasionally had an Indian character. It was usually a boy or a prince on an elephant. In America. If it was India there had to be a skin and bone snake charmer with a bed of nails to lie on. The elephant was always there in the background. The "naked fakir" image of India. This was how India was portrayed in movies (eg Harry Black and the Tiger) and in the media
Many of my relatives and friends went to the US in the mid and late 70s. The "Maharaja/elephant/poverty/fakir" image was all that was known even then - if anyone was interested at all. No one was interested though. America was the center of the universe anyway.
I believe that these stereotyped images of India were never corrected - but Pakistani leaders played an active role in creating the impression of a progressive nation. You have probably seen some videos of Ayub Khan from the 1950s. No such positive publicity was given by India or Indians.
"non caste based Indic religions". Are you suggesting that caste has something to do with religion? Wrong thread but I think you are stepping on a minefield there.VikramS wrote:And I finally come to an issue which we often neglect. There is a undeniable element of truth when it comes to the negatives of Indian society. While there is a lot of change happening, as a society, we do not see it as the top priority. Even the very basics like a functional toilet for all (very easily achieved by Sulabh) is not seen as a vital, even though the economic loss is enormous (medical issues, lost of productivity etc.). I have also alluded to why non-caste based Indic religions be spread among those who have suffered in the past, instead of leaving them as easy pickings for soul-harvesters. We may have had our excuses and reasons in the past but circa 2011 the primary cause is apathy.
The topic of toilets is vast. The easiest way to explain the toilet issue to to an American is to say "apathy" or "Indians are lazy/dirty". If anyone is really interested in digging deeper the door is open to understand why things are the way they are. The average American perhaps thinks of India once in two years, but Indians need to relieve themselves several times a day every day and it has always been that way. Toilets for all are not going to become available even in two years time so better to say "apathy" and be done with it rather than explaining.
