| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 07-Feb-02 01:22 AM
Hi all,
About two weeks ago, a former Nepali bureaucrat slash well-respectd
economist (one prominent person) died in Kathmandu.
Today's Kantipur and Kathmandu Post are awash with so many condolence
ads (ads -- out of which Kantipur makes a lot of money) that one
begins to wonder:
a) Could those putting out these expensive condolence ads NOT find any other creative and respectful way to commemorate the dead?
I mean, surely, instead of having lakhs of rupees variously going to the coffers of Kantipur Publications through such ads, they could have hired a writer to write and publish a "proper" obituary (a la what The Economist magazine carries every week). As it stands, these condolence ads read like contemporary, if amusingly complicated, family tree and NOTHING MORE. (Aside: I get a kick out of reading
the granddaughters' names in such ads -- you know, Pinky, Rinky, Sweety and so on!)
b) Or, perhaps Pratyoush Onta's this article may make uis think once again about this whole condolence ad business.
Finally, and I can't resist this: how would a economist analyse this condolence ad ko industry and suggest incentives to modify these commercially crass (and enriching only Kantipur and telling us nothing insightful about the deceased)
behaviours on the part of those who mourn?
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
***************************************************
Published in The Kathmandu Post, 17 Sept 1999
The Politics of Knowledge
Condoling Creatively
Pratyoush Onta
In recent days, we have seen a flood of condolences published in various newspapers (including this one) remembering those who perished in the aircraft accident about two weeks ago. Published with some photographs and texts, these condolences have come from friends, business colleagues and relatives of those who were killed.
While this practice seems to assume flood-like proportions after such accidents, we have now gotten used to seeing what seem like public celebration of those who have departed from this earth and sympathy for the bereaved in a regular basis. So much so that some months ago, pointing at a photograph published in a daily, a 70-year old relative of mine who cannot read asked me, "Who has died?" When I looked at it, it turned out that it was a message of congratulations rather than condolence!
That encounter had suggested to me that something was amiss here. How do we interpret the increase in the practice of such public expressions of sympathy in the print media in recent years? What does this practice indicate in terms of changes that our society is undergoing? And more importantly, are their more innovative ways of expressing one's condolences?
In search for answers to the above questions, I brought this issue up with critic C K Lal during our weekly radio show on Monday of this week. Lal says that the publishing of condolences in our print media is an evidence of what he calls the "commercialization of emotions."
Our urban society is fast losing the characteristics of face-to-face community life and during the course of this change that has seen the gradual increase of individualization, almost all aspects of everyday life has been commercialized. Even death has not been spared in this process. Since condolences in print are bought advertisements, Lal's explanation seems like a good departure for our efforts to understand this practice.
Given the fact that such condolences in print are confined mostly to urban Nepal where most of the readers of our print media are located, we must acknowledge that this practice is largely produced and consumed in urban Nepal. Rural Nepal still retains older ways of celebrating the memory of those who have departed in the form of the construction of public rest places, water taps, temples, etc.
And in this urban phenomenon, the idea of keeping up with one's business or social peers generates its own dynamics. In preparation for the radio show, I talked with a close relative of one of those who was killed in the recent aircraft accident. He told me that in his line of business, publishing such condolences had become almost a compulsion: because others in the trade follow the practice, he too will. Keeping one's ties intact with other players in the business seems to be part of the game.
We must acknowledge that condolences in print are generating lots of revenue for our print media. It is my estimate that within the last two weeks, condolences worth more than 15 lakhs have already appeared and more will be appearing in the days ahead. Lal estimates that condolences now occupy about 12 percent of the commercial (advertisement) space of major newspapers of this country. What that means is that the total condolence print industry has an annual turnover of several crores. That, needless to say, is a lot of money.
Can the memory of those who have died be celebrated in creative ways that last longer than the one-day life of a newspaper? Sure there are! Scholarships, in the name of those who have died, in schools and colleges for students who can not afford to pay the rising education bills might be one way to use this money.
Contributions made to welfare organizations that run shelters for the old or for those who are trying to reclaim their lives after various tragedies (ex-drug addicts, ex-trafficked women, bereaved children, etc.) might be another way to express one's condolences. Contributions could also be made to rural-based organizations to support their community development activities. If condolences are to be expressed in some form related to the trade or specialty of the person whose memory is being celebrated, then for the case of the late P.P. Prasai – one of the towering personalities in the travel trade business – this could mean insurance support for high altitude porters or scholarship for their children.
Others might chose to contribute to programs that support talented young Nepalis in the field of art (artists, writers, photographers, painters, videographers), journalism, or research. If getting publicity for oneself while paying one's condolences is part of the game, then supporting a radio program in a public broadcasting station (at the moment there is only of these in the country but its numbers will increase soon) might be a good idea. Then public broadcasters could simply acknowledge that "this program is supported by the so-and-so memorial fund paid for by x,y, and z."
Clearly there are many possibilities if we have the desire to think about them. We will, of course, need institutions that can run such programs on behalf of those who want to pay (in its double sense) such condolences. Such institutions could take a percentage of the incoming money to cover its administrative costs and they will need to be financially accountable to the bereaved family or friends. I suspect that if someone proposes a innovate way to use this sympathy money, the trend will catch up. Are there any takers out there?
|
| Brook |
Posted
on 07-Feb-02 03:54 AM
Interesting observation.
One little sidenote though- the phrase "commercialization of emotion" has a certain ring to it that sort of implicates the media in this trend which has been rightfully identified as an economic malady. It's as if the newspapers are actively soliciting these ads - "How are you holding up Mrs X, I heard your husband died. Sincere condolences. I was wondering if you'd be interested in putting up an obituary in our paper. Yeah? Would you like to hear our rates? Discounts? Oh Yes. Yes you'll get an astounding 5% off if you choose for it to appear within the first 13 days?.."
I don't think that is an accurate depiction of what actually happens although the fact that newspapers do offer some form of discount on bigger denominations of the condolence messages might qualify as an aggressive marketing gesture.
I point this out specifically with the intention of undermining its importance as a cause because, although the phenomenon could possibly be attributed, to some extent, to the "commercialization of emotion", it takes away from the other, more important, more real and the TRUE reason why our newspapers are inundated with obituaries - the "need-to-prove-it-to-the-neighbors" mentality that prevails in Kathmandu. Mr. Onta, in my opinion, does little justice to it by only giving it a passing mention.
Kathmandu is a progressive society that has caught up with materialism in a very short time. But fortunately or unfortunately, its still entangled in the communal trappings of extended families, conniving coworkers, and competing friends. I am not a student of sociology but I've always held the opinion that wherever individualism is not fully ingrained in the social system, there is that never ending need among components of that society to impose superiority over each other. And how do they do it and where is it evident in the cotext of Nepal? The unncessary extravagance of our weddings and bratabandhas, the grandeur of our lavish social gatherings, the amount( a proxy for quality) we pay for our children's education, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear and of course, the size of our obituaries when we die. And yes Ashuji, I'll see to it that my dog's name makes it to the list of names that miss me after I am gone.
( I apologize for treating an issue as sensitive as death so coldly and I do concede to the fact that some people genuinely go for big ones to let the world know how fondly they remember the lost souls, but like Mr. Onta pointed out I wish they'd opt for other ways to spend so much money - less visible these alternatives might be, but they definitely mean more to the spirit of an obituary)
|
| NK |
Posted
on 07-Feb-02 03:59 PM
One of the features I read in New York Times is Obituaries. Just as I enjoy reading their editorial I devote equal time to this section. Sometimes I think my fascination with deceased are just well, plain morbid. But really, I do really enjoy reading the obituaries. After the september 11, The NY Times has devoted a whole new section on the Twin Tower victims and I have been reading and weeping (sometimes).
Two days ago I read an obituary about this woman who started the fusion Indian cuisine.
A while back I had read about her and her innovative way to cook Indian food with French twist. After reading about her food and her life, I wanted to go to her restaurant in New York. Then day before yesterday, there she was. Not even 60 and dead. No, not from her cooking. I learn so much when I read these obituaries. They are a good read and a glimpse into fascinating life of trailblazers of their times – artists, philosophers, designers, and chefs. So often after I read ob. I go back and find out more about these people who are no more but does not diminish my interest what they did and what they stood for.
Yes, it would be nice, I am sure, if Nepali newspaper also find some way to hold their readers interest not only with their news but with deceased too. Seems like they are in need for some good writers and of course some good taste.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 07-Feb-02 11:40 PM
Nobody will disagree that it would be nice if people started to connect obituaries to philathropical works instead of throwing ads in the newspapers. Before being hopeful for this pious cause to happen, let’s examine why the practice of condolence ad is growing at the first place. This includes ads of birthday greetings, congratulations and other personal celebrations too.
First, the views of fellow posters and references cited. Ashuji has put only the questions.
>Finally, and I can't resist this: how would a economist analyse
>this condolence ad ko industry and suggest incentives to modify
>these commercially crass (and enriching only Kantipur and
>telling us nothing insightful about the deceased) behaviours
>on the part of those who mourn?
Onta cites CK as viewing it as a ‘commercialization of emotions’
>Lal says that the publishing of condolences in our print media is
>an evidence of what he calls the "commercialization of emotions."
>............ Since condolences in print are bought advertisements,
>Lal's explanation seems like a good departure for our efforts to
>understand this practice.
Onta positively sees it as coming from a compulsion of people to keep up with others doing the same.
>He told me that in his line of business, publishing such
>condolences had become almost a compulsion: because
>others in the trade follow the practice, he too will. Keeping
>one's ties intact with other players in the business seems
>to be part of the game.
Brook (in her tastefully phrased note) opines that it arises from the need (of people) to impose superiority over each other.
>I've always held the opinion that wherever individualism is
>not fully ingrained in the social system, there is that never
>ending need among components of that society to impose
>superiority over each other. And how do they do it and
>where is it evident in the cotext of Nepal? The unncessary
>extravagance of our weddings and bratabandhas, the
>grandeur of our lavish social gatherings, the amount
>( a proxy for quality) we pay for our children's education,
>the cars we drive, the clothes we wear and of course,
>the size of our obituaries when we die.
My own view:
It will be interesting to hear Ashu’s own answers next time.
CK’s ‘Commercialization of emotions’ is just an emotional observation. It does not EXPLAIN the phenomenon.
Onta’s ‘imitation theory’ and Brook’s ‘domination theory’ both in combination explain the phenomenon largely. I think a little extension of these two theories may help understand why this thing is happening and growing. Let’s extend;
1. Imitation of India (considering Indian society was ahead of us in such practice and our physical and other proximity).
2. Imitation of practice of paying tribute that was limited and 'reserved' for our ROYAL FAMILY.
3. still related to above 2, acquiring “high class status” (by virtue of association of such treatment to royals. Compare picture of a common citizen’s loved one with tributes on the pages of papers where, not long ago, it used to be for the royals only )
Since philanthropic works could be less visible and more demanding, thus too costly for what people want to get, I do not see how our voices for good cause are going to be listened by those whom we want to address. Nevertheless good cause is good cause.
Nepe
|
| Brook |
Posted
on 08-Feb-02 10:45 AM
Nepe ji,
Brook is a "he" :)
And more importantly, I can't thank you enough for bringing up the "india-factor". I think it adds an integral dimension to the analysis.
Have any of you noticed how the mainstream marriage-practices in Kathmandu have evolved over the years? I am talking about the "chalans". Go to one today and observe the ritualas and "behind the scene" activities. Judgement is your own luxury but I promise you what you see will very closely resemble what we see in Hindi movies. You know the types- Hum Aapke Hain Koun, Dilwale Dulahinya Le Jayenge etc.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 10-Feb-02 02:24 PM
Brookji,
Sorry for incorrectly presuming you as a female. Brook sounded a female name to me. I used to watch ‘The Bold & Beautiful’, in which one of the female characters is Brook, that’s why this error.
Anyway, thanks for backing my idea and giving it a proper terminology- the India factor. And as you appropriately said it is certainly an integral dimension of the problem.
And yes, we are now indeed imitating, from India, ridiculously extravagant wedding practice and other behind-the-scene ‘chalans’ that so much degrades bride and her family. I find it even more sad thing to see that most of our marrying youth do not care or are not aware how much different we used to be.
My father says, in his time, a father of a to-be-groom had to “wear out seven pairs of shoes” wandering everywhere before finding a bride for his son. Parents never had to worry about marriage of their girls. It was the parent of boys who did worrying part. My grandfather, a famed Talukdar of our village, had to go at length to make my maternal widowed grandma agree to marry away her daughter to my father. And such thing was not an exception. Nobody knew about forced dowry and demoralized bride’s side.
What have we become today ?
Now, I think, the most important question should be how we can get rid of such disgracing and retrogressive social customs from our society. I know I am going to stun many good people here, but I must say, I am becoming more and more convinced that nobody other than MAOISTS have the solution. (Disclaimer: I am not a full supporter of Maoists).
Nepe
|
| villageVoice |
Posted
on 11-Feb-02 10:05 PM
Simple. Because those who can write are just talking, and not writing obits. It's so easy to yap...That's why.
|
