Some time back, there was a furore because Narayana Murthy played the instrumental version of the National Anthem because singing it aloud would embarrass Infosys’ foreign employees. I suspect that the actual reason was that Murthy gets embarrassed by overt displays of patriotism, just as he would get embarrassed by overt displays of any strong emotions. This embarrassment would be all the more in the presence of foreigners, just as any strange practices at your house would make you squirm all the more when outsiders are present.
This makes Murthy a bit of a bore, like some people who,when they watch cricket matches, clap politely, but refuse to take part in Mexican waves. In my young days, such people used to be given the bums. We also used to call them traitors, but we weren’t serious. Those who jumped on Murthy were. There was no question of accepting a charitable explanation for his words. The only possible explanation was that his words betrayed his servile attitude to foreigners, and this made him unfit to be the country’s president. Of course, considering who was elected eventually, it is probably true that Murthy was in fact unfit for the post.
Incidentally, who came to your mind when Murthy mentioned “foreigners”?
Americans?
Would your reaction be any different if the foreigners in question were Sri Lankans?
Those foreigners were actually employees. Being nice to your employees and to make allowance for their sensibilities is generally considered a sign of magnanimity. I can understand the criticism that Murthy went overboard on this, but to take it as a sign of servility, suggests that the problem lay more in his critics’ mind than in his.
I work with Bank of America. My employer’s branding exercise takes its identity as an American company quite seriously. The company’s logo is derived from the American flag. The corporate colours are red and blue, from the same flag. The company’s logo is “Bank of Opportunity”, which echoes “Land of Opportunity”. The company’s induction programme harks back to its links with American founding fathers.
But the fact is, these connections are made in an understated way. The need for understatement comes from relative strength. If you are are the powerful guy, being subtle is a better way to convey your values. If you are secure in your power, you don’t need to convey power.
If citizens of a country are prone to singing the Anthem aloud, looking around to see who is not singing it and using this non-singing as evidence of insufficient patriotism, it indicates a very insecure country to me. If you use the singing of your anthem loud to demonstrate your position in the power game, it is more likely that you are the weaker party.
The furore, if it demonstrated anything, showed us the extent of the chasm between Murthy’s image of India and his critics’ image of India – between those who think that it goes without saying that India is an equal member of the community of nations and those who think that India still needs to demonstrate it. As India turns sixty, I note with satisfaction that the former image is truer to reality than the latter.
Sadly I have to agree. I was initially of the opinion that Murthy definitely went overboard by trying to “adjust” to the sensibilities of people about whom we ideally shouldn’t care about when _we_ play _our_ national anthem inside _our_ country. I am still of the same opinion but calling Murthy traitor is taking things overboard in the other direction.
We seem to be a country of extremes.
This post reminds me of a conversation in The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky. There, it was argued that talking about the relationship of church and state, and what role a church should play in a state is to talk from the viewpoint of atheism.
Similarly, to talk about whether wanting everybody to sing the national anthem is to be insecure in one’s esteem of the country is to talk from the viewpoint of non-nationalism.
Now, I know you’re quite nationalistic — from your past posts — which is why my conclusion surprises me.
If one is ardently nationalistic, one is irritated by citizens showing disrespect to the nation.
The fact where you go wrong is about the US.
Most Americans wear their patriotism on their sleeves. And their cars. And their homes. And their backpacks. It doesn’t stem from insecurity, it stems from love for their nation.
And you have a company whose logo, whose brand motto, whose brand itself derives from the nation-brand, and you insist that is understated. You’re wringing conclusions out of predrawn conclusions aren’t you?
HT, I do not consider playing the instrumental version of the anthem disrespectful in the first place.
I agree with you on that; I also did not mean to condone those calling Murthy a traitor.
Ravi,
I do not believe in branding people ‘traitors’ and certainly do not care much for people who cry themselves hoarse calling Murthy a traitor.
However, Murthy’s ‘this can be embarassing’ explanation was a WTF moment, and the use of the term ’embarassed’ was also slightly insulting. All your explanations also seem contrived.
1)” I suspect that the actual reason was that Murthy gets embarrassed by overt displays of patriotism, just as he would get embarrassed by overt displays of any strong emotions. This embarrassment would be all the more in the presence of foreigners, just as any strange practices at your house would make you squirm all the more when outsiders are present. ”
Stretched, stretched analogy – why are you doing it so often these days? Singing a national anthem, when you are playing the anthem in the first place, is an “overt” display of patriotism? Singing the national anthem is a ‘”strange practice'” ?
2) The “foreigners were employees” argument : The locals were employees too. Is there any reason why he should be more bothered about a foreign employee’s sensibilities more than the sensibilities of the Indian employees?
3) The “understatement = reflective of relative strength” argument : Irrelevant, sweeping generalization.
I am prone to singing the national anthem aloud. I don’t know why – perhaps because I genuinely feel good, or maybe I have just been socially conditioned to do so. Either way, India’s relative strength or weakness does not matter – I like singing it aloud, and hence I do it. I suspect it is much the same way for most people who like singing it aloud. Where does insecurity come into the picture at all?
Oh, and this incident says nothing about Murthy’s image of India. It’s wrong to call him a traitor, and equally wrong to conclude that he is secure in the knowledge of his country’s strength. If anything, point 2 seems to suggest that he is ultra-cautious of his/ the company’s image abroad – which is where he gets maximum revenues from. So shouldn’t we conclude (by your logic) that N Murthy is actually very insecure about his company?
Ritwik
Regarding your point #3 I will have to vehemently agree — especially now that A R Rehman released his Jana Gana Mana album sung by luminaries from carnatic and Hindustani classical music, i find myself humming Jana Gana Mana these days!!! (Imagine D K Pattammal and Bhimsen Joshi singing it.. mind blowing!)