Disclaimer: Please note that the views expressed below represent the opinions of the article’s author. The following work does not necessarily represent the views of the Synergy: Journal of Contemporary Asian Studies.
Attempts to define and place cultures and their subjects into one neat category of the “national” have been a primary occupation of modern nation-states.[1] However, such attempts often produce consequences that run contrary to the goal. The term “multinational states,” employed by Bertrand and Laliberte, characterizes “the presence of more than one group seeking status as a “nation” within the boundaries of a single state” as often violently suppressed by the state.[2] Religions, empires and tribes are examples of defining boundaries based on ethnicity, kinship, language, shared land or history, often with a considerable history of violence.[3] Scholars have written extensively on the importance of recognizing distinct identities to contest discrimination and amplify the voices of minorities.[4] The discipline of anthropology, in particular, has strongly contributed to this project of particularization.[5] Ethnography as a method of data collection and a tool of knowledge production draws distinct lines between populations and cultures.[6] This zoomed-in focus, one that de-prioritizes global structures and how they contribute to the systematic production of inequalities, has become a contested arena for critique.[7] The increasing recognition of different cultural groups has become a tool of identity politics, wherein the state or the powerful draw upon cultural elements to promote political agendas or legitimize ruling regimes.[8] Individual identities as a citizen and a consumer allow the capitalist system to recognize and reinforce the role of identity assertion, which in the case of many post-colonial countries, unfolds through opposition against the identity of its oppressors.[9] Nationalist pursuits and the process of nation-building are often seen as territorialized within the spatially discontinuous unit of nation-states.[10] However, such an approach presents culture as a static entity, and renders cultural symbols inherent and native within defined, constructed geographical borders.[11] Terms such as “Japaneseness,” “Chineseness,” or “Frenchness” refer to a national culture that encompasses a precise set of practices, symbols and values.[12]
Indian tea, or chai, is one example of such a symbol, which has evolved to become representative of India’s national culture today. Chai is a locally-made beverage with the simultaneous status of the colonizers’ foreign product and a national symbol of post-independence India. Chai exemplifies a complex amalgamation of political, social and economic factors that co-constitute what is considered the “cultural.” For example, in an interview with the Telegraph, Bidyananda Barkakoty, Chairman of the North-Eastern Tea Association, stated that “tea is an Indian beverage, very much part of Indian culture and indigenous to India.”[13] It is unclear whether Barkakoty uses the term “Indian” to refer to the modern nation-state, the sub-continent, or people of a common ethnic background. However, in the popular imagination, chai is undoubtedly a distinct drink of South Asian heritage.[14] A historical inquiry reveals that chai tea as known today is in fact a complex blend of cultural elements: the product of British preference for tea, Iranian tea culture cafes, and the aggressive marketing employed by the Indian state.[15] Such practices exemplify the aforementioned practice of nation-building and embedded economic incentive, whereby the expansion to local markets was crucial in light of economic loss in the British tea market.[16]
India’s religious, cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity presents many challenges in its attempts to consolidate a variety of identities into one national entity. Moreover, India’s colonial past and its experience with tensions between the “foreign” and the “native” prior to and after national independence has exacerbated the challenges facing attempts to disentangle widespread and naturalized social practices.[17] In this context, it is striking how social practices such as tea drinking, which in the case of India, was borrowed from its colonial oppressor, became “vernacularized” and repackaged into an inherently Indian cultural symbol that has come to be viewed as a signature offering of hospitality.[18]
However, this is not to speculate that India blindly followed the course set by the British colonial powers. Rather, the aforementioned observation serves to highlight how the pre-colonial hierarchy directly influenced India’s nation-building process, both within the country and globally. As Lutgendorf notes, it was easier to transport tea to Glasgow than within India, which reveals more than simply the lack of domestic infrastructure.[19] This dynamic reflects the priorities set by the colonial government, which emphasized the facilitation of movement of goods and capital to and from India, rather than within this former British colony.
At the local level, British ideology influenced Indian society through the Anglophile bhadiralok elite.[20] The Anglophile bhadiralok elite was employed by British firms, and they were the first “tiny fraction of the native population” to drink tea in the mid-late 19th century.[21] Similarly, it was the Anglophile bhadiralok elite who brought British ideas about liberal citizenship to Bombay at the beginning of the 20th century. Such ideals emphasized the need for social reform among the poor and lower classes, for instance, by transforming streets and bazaars into organized, modern spaces. The normalization of social hierarchy, which legitimizes such social reforms on moral grounds, was deeply ingrained into discourses of modernity and Hinduism, the latter of which also became central to both nationalist sentiments and historical divides in India.[22] However, as a product of innovative marketing deployed for commercial interests, Chai represents an example of unification that cuts across various identities, even managing to overcome its perceived foreignness and associations with colonialism. Referring to tea as “100% Swadeshi,” meaning 100% indigenous, advertising billboards, leaflets and television campaigns collectively emphasized the place of Chai’s origin, rather than the fact that for the past few decades, chair was produced solely for and thereby mainly consumed by the British market.[23]
Previously, Britain relied on Chinese tea exports to sustain its recently-adopted tea-drinking habits, originally borrowed from the Dutch and Portuguese. Such dependence produced an anxiety that led to experiments of seed-planting in Delhi beginning in the 18th century. However, the discovery of tea plants in Assam in 1823 sparked the mass production of tea in India. By the 20th century, India became the main exporter of tea to Britain, although with virtually no local market for the product.[24] Economic fluctuations and unstable export prices created an incentive for colonial authorities to expand tea consumption into the local market in India. This is when “the largest marketing campaign in Indian history” took off.[25]
The echoes of colonial ideology can be traced back to the tea marketing campaigns in the early 20th century. Tea was branded as a local product, and its moral and physical benefits were emphasized. Tea was supposed to “make Indians more alert, energetic and even punctual – in short, more like Britishers.”[26] Until 1930, only a small segment of the local population had ever tasted the beverage, let alone the very few who were consuming chai on a regular basis.[27] It was only after independence that tea became a nationalist project of unification among diverse religious, linguistic, and caste groups. Price also became an important consideration. The inexpensiveness and availability of tea made it accessible to virtually everyone, which partly accounts for its popularity.[28] In factories and offices, employees were instructed to set up “tea breaks” and to cultivate a tea-drinking habit, in order to benefit from a more productive and therefore cost-effective workforce.[29] Colonial authorities also attempted to educate consumers on the “correct” way of making tea, in order to boost sales by suggesting the use of more tea leaves.
However, contrary to this “correct” way of tea consumption, locals in India invented their own way, which continues to be widely used in India today. Putting all the ingredients together in a single pot allowed for the incorporation of milk and the addition of spices that maximized chai’s colour and fragrance. The innovative technique of fashioning and fixing tea practices is referred to as “jugad” in Hindi, and serves as a great analogy for the cultural mixing that took place through the medium of tea. For instance, in Mumbai, tea consumption habits were influenced by the Iranian migrant population, who established Iranian cafés that served tea as their main beverage.[30] However, Iranian tea is strong and black, while the increasingly popular and dairy-rich chai prompted the adaptation of tea to local consumer demands. The consumption of tea in Iranian cafés, predominantly by the male population, infused present-day chai with meaning beyond the narrative presented in advertising campaigns. Chai became a social ritual, one central to male friendship.
The example of chai in India serves to emphasize the importance of shifting away from understandings of culture as static, homogeneous and unified. Forces of the global economic system facilitate transnational cultural flows, produce social inequalities, and enable or restrict mobility.[31] The mobility of culture is often highly dependent on the corresponding mobility of populations and commodities. This interdependence is especially evident in the historical development of the tea market in India. Chai’s stories in India also reflect and reaffirm the embedded power relations of colonial ideology, in which locals are imagined as uprooted and immobile. This imagination has direct and tangible impacts on the development policies implemented in India, even in the present day.[32] Thus, cultural symbols such as tea provide an interesting and enriching lens through which to understand other complex global structures that seek to construct the “local,” the “cultural,” and the “normal.”
Anna Aksenovich is a contributor for the South Asia Section of Synergy Journal.
Bibliography
Anthias, Floya. “Intersections And Translocations: New Paradigms For Thinking About Cultural Diversity And Social Identities”. European Educational Research Journal 10, no. 2 (2011): 204-217.
Bertrand, Jacques, and André Laliberté. Multination States In Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Chattopadhyay, Rohitashya. “The Internet And Postcolonial Development: India’s Transnational Reality”. Contemporary South Asia 12, no. 1 (2003): 25-40.
Cunningham, Hilary, and Josiah Heyman. “Introduction: Mobilities And Enclosures At Borders”. Identities 11, no. 3 (2004): 289-302.
Cwiertka, Katarzyna. Modern Japanese Cuisine: Food, Power And National Identity. London: Reaktion, 2006.
Gellner, Ernest, and John Breuilly. Nations And Nationalism. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2013.
Sewell, William, J.R. “The Concept(S) Of Culture”. In Practicing History New Directions In Historical Writing After The Linguistic Turn, 21. Gabrielle M. Spiegel. London: Routledge, 2004.
Johnson, Helen, Richard G. Fox, and Barbara J. King. “Anthropology Beyond Culture”. Anthropologica 46, no. 1 (2004): 108.
Keping, Y. “The Developmental Logic Of Chinese Culture Under Modernization And Globalization”. Boundary 2 35, no. 2 (2008): 157-182. doi:10.1215/01903659-2008-008.
Lutgendorf, Philip. “Making Tea In India”. Thesis Eleven 113, no. 1 (2012): 11-31.
Mains, Daniel, and Eshetayehu Kinfu. “Governing Three-Wheeled Motorcycle Taxis In Urban Ethiopia: States, Markets, And Moral Discourses Of Infrastructure”. American Ethnologist44, no. 2 (2017): 263-274.
Malkki, Liisa. “National Geographic: The Rooting Of Peoples And The Territorialization Of National Identity Among Scholars And Refugees”. Cultural Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1992): 24-44.
Mirza, Heidi Safia. “‘A Second Skin’: Embodied Intersectionality, Transnationalism And Narratives Of Identity And Belonging Among Muslim Women In Britain”. Women’s Studies International Forum 36 (2013): 5-15.
Nelson, Dean. “India Claims To Reclaim Tea As Their National Drink”. The Telegraph, 2012. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9260322/India-claims-to-reclaim-tea-as-their-national-drink.html.
Park, Ken. Americans From India And Other South Asian Countries. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2010.
Rais, Rasul Bakhsh. “Identity Politics And Minorities In Pakistan”. South Asia: Journal Of South Asian Studies 30, no. 1 (2007): 111-125.
Salazar, Noel B., and Alan Smart. “Anthropological Takes On (Im)Mobility”. Identities 18, no. 6 (2011): i-ix.
Stone, Nomi. “Living The Laughscream: Human Technology And Affective Maneuvers In The Iraq War”. Cultural Anthropology 32, no. 1 (2017): 149-174. doi:10.14506/ca32.1.10.
Thorleifsson, Cathrine. “From Coal To Ukip: The Struggle Over Identity In Post-Industrial Doncaster”. History And Anthropology 27, no. 5 (2016): 555-568.
Urry, John. The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
Venkatachalapathy, A.R. “‘In Those Days There Was No Coffee’: Coffee-Drinking And Middle-Class Culture In Colonial Tamilnadu”. The Indian Economic & Social History Review 39, no. 2-3 (2002): 301-316.
Vidler, Elizabeth, and John Clarke. “Creating Citizen-Consumers: New Labour And The Remaking Of Public Services”. Public Policy And Administration 20, no. 2 (2005): 19-37.
Wesley Uhl, Joseph. The Art And Craft Of Tea. Quarry Books, 2015.
[1] Jacques Bertrand and André Laliberté, Multination States In Asia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010): 1-2.
[2] Ibid., 1-2.
[3] Ernest Gellner and John Breuilly, Nations And Nationalism (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2013): 14.
[4] Floya Anthias, “Intersections And Translocations: New Paradigms For Thinking About Cultural Diversity And Social Identities”, European Educational Research Journal 10, no. 2 (2011): 204-217.; Heidi Safia Mirza, “‘A Second Skin’: Embodied Intersectionality, Transnationalism And Narratives Of Identity And Belonging Among Muslim Women In Britain”, Women’s Studies International Forum 36 (2013): 5-15.
[5] Helen Johnson, Richard G. Fox and Barbara J. King, “Anthropology Beyond Culture”, Anthropologica 46, no. 1 (2004): 108.
[6] Nomi Stone, “Living The Laughscream: Human Technology And Affective Maneuvers In The Iraq War”, Cultural Anthropology 32, no. 1 (2017): 149-174.
[7] Hilary Cunningham and Josiah Heyman, “Introduction: Mobilities And Enclosures At Borders”, Identities 11, no. 3 (2004): 298.; William, J.R. H. Sewell, “The Concept(S) Of Culture”, in Practicing History New Directions In Historical Writing After The Linguistic Turn (London: Routledge, 2004), 21.
[8] Rasul Bakhsh Rais, “Identity Politics And Minorities In Pakistan”, South Asia: Journal Of South Asian Studies 30, no. 1 (2007): 111-125.; Cathrine Thorleifsson, “From Coal To Ukip: The Struggle Over Identity In Post-Industrial Doncaster”, History And Anthropology 27, no. 5 (2016): 555-568.
[9] Elizabeth Vidler and John Clarke, “Creating Citizen-Consumers: New Labour And The Remaking Of Public Services”, Public Policy And Administration 20, no. 2 (2005): 19-37.
[10] Liisa Malkki, “National Geographic: The Rooting Of Peoples And The Territorialization Of National Identity Among Scholars And Refugees”, Cultural Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1992): 26.
[11] Katarzyna Cwiertka, Modern Japanese Cuisine: Food, Power And National Identity (London: Reaktion, 2006): 138.; Ernest Gellner and John Breuilly, Nations And Nationalism (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2013): 14.
[12] Ibid., 138.; John Urry, The Tourist Gaze (London: Sage Publications, 2002): 3.; Y. Keping, “The Developmental Logic Of Chinese Culture Under Modernization And Globalization”, Boundary 2 35, no. 2 (2008): 157-182.
[13] Dean Nelson, “India Claims To Reclaim Tea As Their National Drink”, The Telegraph, 2012, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9260322/India-claims-to-reclaim-tea-as-their-national-drink.html.
[14] Ken Park, Americans From India And Other South Asian Countries (New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2010): 65.; Joseph Wesley Uhl, The Art And Craft Of Tea (Quarry Books, 2015): 117.
[15] Philip Lutgendorf, “Making Tea In India”, Thesis Eleven 113, no. 1 (2012): 11-31.
[16] Ibid.,13.
[17] Ibid., 27.
[18] Ibid., 12.
[19] Ibid., 14.
[20] Ibid., 13.
[21] Ibid.,13.
[22] Daniel Mains and Eshetayehu Kinfu, “Governing Three-Wheeled Motorcycle Taxis In Urban Ethiopia: States, Markets, And Moral Discourses Of Infrastructure”, American Ethnologist 44, no. 2 (2017): 263-274.; Rohitashya Chattopadhyay, “The Internet And Postcolonial Development: India’s Transnational Reality”, Contemporary South Asia 12, no. 1 (2003): 28.
[23] Lutgendorf, “Making Tea in India”, 27.
[24] Ibid., 13.
[25] Ibid., 15.
[26] Ibid., 15.
[27] Ibid., 14. See also J. Thomas, Tea Statistics Year 2009, (Kolkata, J. Thomas & Company Private Limited, 2009).
[28] A.R. Venkatachalapathy, “‘In Those Days There Was No Coffee’: Coffee-Drinking And Middle-Class Culture In Colonial Tamilnadu”, The Indian Economic & Social History Review 39, no. 2-3 (2002): 314.
[29] Lutgendorf, “Making Tea in India”, 16.
[30] Ibid., 25.
[31] Hilary Cunningham and Josiah Heyman, “Introduction: Mobilities And Enclosures At Borders”, Identities 11, no. 3 (2004): 298.
[32] Noel B. Salazar and Alan Smart, “Anthropological Takes On (Im)Mobility”, Identities 18, no. 6 (2011): 7.
Leave a Reply