courtesy: www.savi.lk |
Yesterday, the Uva
elections ended. The results, predictable as they were, came. Newspapers which
didn’t have late morning issues couldn’t make them front page news. None of the
four major English-language weeklies, Sunday Observer excluded, made
provincial politics subject in their editorials. The Observer being the
pro-regime mouthpiece it always has been championed the government for having “won
the hearts of a new segment of people who had never voted for the UPFA or the SLFP
in their lives”. The reference was to voters in Colombo. One can argue why any
context-driven editorial should focus on claims unrelated to that context (which
was the implications of the Uva elections), but then again, come to think of it,
what can one hope of the Observer?
This is why I
was pleasantly surprised to read Silumina’s editorial. Silumina
is the Observer’s sister paper. Both are avowedly pro-regime. They
should be. They are government-run and government-managed. In recent years,
though, my trust in them has been solidified. No thanks to the Observer,
which I “gave up” a long time back. Silumina, though, is a different
story. That paper has content and context, and is eclectic enough not to sing
regime-friendly politics with every word, phrase, and article that get
published in it. Let’s look at media ethics here. Should government-control
imply government-support? Probably yes. But this doesn’t and indeed shouldn’t
mean that every page should conveniently sing regime-praises. Nor should it
mean the opposite, of course. A middle path (of sorts) must be struck. The Observer,
regrettably, has not reached this path. Not yet. Silumina? The editorial
yesterday decided me. In its favour.
“පොත්ද? නූඩ්ල්ස් ද?” (“Books or Noodles?”) was the
heading. Having read several editorials that day delving into political
polemics, I was a little taken aback. My curiosity aroused, I read on. The
theme was about the recently concluded Book Fair at the BMICH. The meaning of
the title dawned on me soon. There was, the article contended, a sizable crowd
at this year’s fair. Children and adults, of whatever age and whatever
background, thronged. There were books. Lots of them. Second-hand too. Problem
was, had the crowd thronged at BMICH for the books or for the noodles being
served at corners? The editorial, presumably, wasn’t just singling out
noodles-outlets here. It was including those various other “extra” activities
which seemed to drag in more crowds than did certain bookstalls. This implied
that the Book Fair really was a “fair” – circus-like, if you can put it that
way. “Those who came for the event went away with a few exercise books at most,”
continued the article.
I am not cynical
over the way things are going. But the Book Fair has, in recent years, become
something of an oxymoron/joke. A certain
section of people goes to the Fair because of its appeal. Now that social media
has completely allured them, this section finds a sort of “status-premium” in
going out with one’s friends for no reason other than the “fun” part of it. “තේරුමක් නැතුව කරක් ගහනවා”,
one could describe it in Sinhala. There were books this year. Far more than
last year, the way I saw it. Some of them were rarities. But from among those
who patronised the event, there was a sizable portion (not a majority) who had
come regarding the Fair as a jamboree. There were whole families, months-old
babies among them. Not that I’m ringing alarm bells here. Books aren’t
indisputable. But when a crowd-gathering, annual event of this nature takes in
a number who considers it from a social media point of view, what else can one
do but deplore?
Here,
however, the Silumina editorial went off-track. It contended that this
wasn’t an indication of the event’s failure. That’s true. The Book Fair isn’t a
cricket match. Fans throng at big-matches not to take selfies or share gossip
over Coca-Cola. The Book Fair is a different matter. The problem with this
points more towards book-readership and notions about book-learning in the
country than towards event-shortcomings. Surprisingly, though, the editorial
refused to tackle this side of the matter, instead taking issue with those who
(wrongly) claimed that the Fair had “gone down”. Neither party saw the bigger
picture here, obviously. Not surprising, considering that both were intent on
proving each other wrong. Naturally enough, the editorial was concerned with
one side to the story. Forgotten in this were the larger issues.
There are
those who think that book-readership is a function of social background. Their
way of explaining this phenomenon would be that most of the squatters at the
Fair came from non-book-reading families, implying (rather poorly, I should
think) that they were the “less well-off”. Ever since education was made free
in this country, the (self-labelled) elite always have had an axe to grind with
the (so-called) illiterate masses. According to them, the problem with these
squatters is the lack of book-readership (supposedly) inculcated in them by the
education system. Unlike those “good old days”, as they term it. The illiterate
masses, hence, are to blame. In other words, the Fair as such had built
Coca-Cola stores, video game arcades and the like specifically with them in
mind. “Idlers”, those elite would call them. I am sure I have met up with
people who think along these lines. I am also sure that somewhere out there,
disillusionment and a big jolt in the head await them. Let me bring them a
little closer here.
Let’s look
at their premise, for starters. I don’t pretend to be an expert here. I’m going
by experience. It remains a visible fact (that is, visible to everyone but these
snooties) that most of the idlers/squatters at the Fair were those who had
planned to “spend” time at these places right at the beginning. This does not
mean they didn’t buy any book. Others would have come to these places to quench
thirst or hunger. The Book Fair takes in a greater crowd to bookstalls in a day
bookshops do over a period of time (more than a day, to be specific). Take
Vijitha Yapa, for example. There was a time when you just couldn’t get into its
Kohuwala branch. It was almost like a Book Fair. That was a time when a “visit”
to that bookshop was a ritual in itself; when book-selection was a matter for
intense concentration and consideration.
Times
change. There are days when only two or three others visit the place the same
time I do. This has nothing to do with class distinction. Doctored as they are,
economic statistics would prove that we have a greater per capita income level
than we did a couple or so years back. That this doesn’t translate into upward
income mobility, I know. But one would at least expect bookshops to see more
patrons than they do now. For those of you who think that this is an “outside-city”
phenomenon, visit the Colombo Vijitha Yapa branch opposite Thurstan College and
see for yourself. The point is, we as a nation have become less and less the
book-readers we once were. “We” implies a collective and not just a social
segment in particular.
But there’s
a bigger lesson for the snooties here. It is a known fact that outside-Colombo
residents have no real access to books the way we in Colombo do. They come, by
the dozen at times, and they buy. Together. Not very different to what happens
at the Fair. That’s one aspect to the event those self-titled “book-lovers”
missed. Here’s another: from those who came to indulge in “extra” activities, a
significant proportion (again, not the majority) came from the same background
to which these snooties belong.
Does this
prove anything against them? Not really. But that’s beside the point here. A
rough, random comparison of those buying books against those whiling away the
time at game arcades would make evident to anyone which “class” engaged in
which activity. The thing is, those with lower budgets spent nearly every penny
on books. They were cash-strapped. The cash-obese, though, didn’t. They could
afford not to. The snooties (mainly the “Colombians”) figure prominently among
this crowd. Stands to reason, after all. In my experience so far, those having
less money tend to place more value on books.
Bottom
line: book-buying is not a function of social background. Never was. Not in Sri
Lanka. Snobs who tend to degrade (impliedly, of course) those “less well-off”
in the social scale as “illiterate masses” would do well to brush up on some
basic economics. Here’s a home truth: marginal utility is greater
when commodities are hard to find and enjoy. Think “diamond-versus-water” here.
The Book Fair just made books a little cheaper for those who couldn’t buy them elsewhere.
Doesn’t mean that these “illiterates” went there to idle. On the contrary, they
know thrift. They know utility. And above all, they know book-value. Those
snobs and snooties who take their children to idle-exercises in game arcades
and the like would have done better to see where they were actually going to
without disparaging others. Thing is, they are cash-obese. And privilege-obese.
If ever a “redistribution” of sorts should happen, it should be from the
cash-obese to the cash-emaciated. In this context, of course. That’s a good way
of pumping in money to kids who’ll go to events of this sort for what they’re
worth: a nine-letter word called EDUCATION.
Silumina
got it right. Almost. It didn’t get its facts wrong. It merely missed them.
No comments:
Post a Comment