2008-12-01T19:53:00.000-08:00

There is lots of evidence that audiences love Indian Idol. The Emons, the Amits, the Antaras and the Torshas not only hog airtime on television, they actually pervade a good part of India's consciousness. I remember a time when random conversations with grad student friends used to inevitably wind up in that direction. Isn't Emon really the deserving winner? Does Charu even remotely measure up to Deepali? Whatta bitch Richa. We also passionately dissected the voting trends, sighed at the misoginy of Indian voters, and severely reprimanded the regionalism that always seemed to hijack the competition.

However, despite my obsession with Indian Idol over the last three seasons, now running into the fourth, I have not really come to terms with the concept at its core. At one level, I like the idea of talent hunt (however else will the gifted kid in Maslandpur, Bhagalpur, Dausa and Darbhanga see light of the day?) and get sucked in just like any other viewer; nevertheless I'm uncomfortable with the notion of 'talent' being bandied here. I agree some people are supremely gifted and they should be encouraged. But what of others with decent ability, ones who can make the cut given the right kind of training and opportunities? More generally, should we as a society always value inherent abilities over and above - to use a musically relevant word - sadhana? The premium we place on 'brilliance', often discounts that a reasonable amount of intelligence along with opportunities and hard work can go a long way in creating brilliance. Inborn talent is great, but according to me, the attitude that allows one to constantly learn, imbibe and improve is worthier of respect and admiration.

(Salieri never understood the continuum between moderate and genius. Hence I conclude I am not him.)

Epistemic Chaos