To be fair, the book is a breezy read and Shah's arguments are occasionally provocatively combative. But in the end, Hype, Hypocrisy and Television remains a lightweight effort primarily because the research it hinges on is thin and its suppositions are based on sweeping generalisations.
It is, admittedly, difficult to hold a brief for the mindless, imitative fare that passes for infotainment on the idiot box, but one must remember that TV in India is a very young medium. It is too early to pass a judgement on its worth. No dramatic change is easy to accept: it leaves behind a trail of disruptions and misgivings as old makes way for new. But what often emerges is essential to the evolution of any civilisation. That's where Shah seems to falter—her book has perhaps come a decade or two too early.
Shah sees the growth of TV in India as an accident: it's a medium that sneaked in despite resistance from 'Old India'. "India's openness can now be celebrated," she writes. "Everyone is happy because everyone has saved face." Smart. But a trifle too pat. India's 'copycat culture', Shah argues, is being perpetuated by the satellite channels. But why single out TV? Popular films cannibalise each other when they do not filch entire sequences from Hollywood, original plays have dried up on the stage, Indian pop is a pale shadow of western sounds... Television is yet to establish its identity in India—it is still dependent on cinema for manpower and ideas—but when it does, it may play a more salutary role than at present. That would perhaps be a better juncture for a study on television's impact.
Tags