Nation
In my earlier note, I had pointed out that one of the duties of a citizen is to pledge allegiance to the state. I meant specifically to the Nation-State, whose identity may be represented by a Constitution and a legitimate form of government.
A rule-of-thumb definition of a nation-state would be a certain form of state that derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it.
India is - or should aim to be - a nation-state in this sense. The government of our Republic is the persona of our geopolitical identity, and the current borders of our nation (including some of our neighbours) reflect our cultural, & ethnic boundaries.
Some may claim that India as a unit lacks the cultural and ethnic commonality to exist as a successful nation, and only political will and armed force is keeping us together. In a sense, they may be on their way to being proven right if we continue down the path we're going.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here.
It's instructive to note that historian Eric Hobsbawm believes that at least in the case of France, the State actually came before the idea of nation-hood; he points out that even at the time of the French Revolution, about 50% of the people actually spoke only some French. During the Italian unification, an even smaller percentage of Italians actually spoke the language.
Fast forward to India today. Our national language is spoken by a far greater proportion of Indians than Italians spoke Italian during the unification. Culturally, integration is progressing at a good pace notwithstanding reactionaries like Raj Thackeray. Isolationists will complain that the spread of a common culture destroys individual facets of regional cultures, a charge that rings absolutely true. In my view however, the unity of the State takes precedence over cultural identity, and integration must continue. Yes, the State must also ensure that regional identities are not swallowed whole, but there is a limit to what can be done. Geographically and numerically weaker cultures must either progress in utter isolation or run the risk of assimilation. That's how the world works, just ask Tibet.
The point I'm getting to, and the reason I referred to Hobsbawm, was this: successive Indian governments have failed completely to ensure that all Indian citizens look to the Indian State for a sense of identity. For today's citizen, being an Indian means saluting a tricolour flag, singing an anthem before a movie and... not much else, really. Oh, and supporting the cricket team. What else is there?
When it comes to identity, most Indians look to tribal roots: the village, the jati, the varna, the religion. It's a simple test, really. Ask a northerner if he'll let his daughter marry (say) an Andhra boy. It doesn't even matter if they're both Hindu or both Muslim; chances are that the answer will be a flat no. Don't even bother mentioning the fact that they're both Indian. You'll be laughed out of the house.
Our identity as Indians only comes into play when facing external or foreign contact or conflict. This is a direct result of the purely ethno- or caste- or religio-centric identity politics that have marred our collective psyche.
As a young nation perhaps one of the greatest mistakes made was the creation of states along ethnic and linguistic lines. The subliminal message that this one act transmitted is that for a lot of Indians, their language and ethnicity was and is far more important than the coherence of the nation as a whole. To this day, demands ring out for Telangana, Gorkhaland, and other such entities.
What if the government of the day had refused to this internal partition? What if the rioters and protesters had been told that it didn't matter what the state was called, because they were all Indians anyway? What if this fact was drilled into their heads from primary education days? A strong, courageous act like that would've strangled Raj Thackeray's philosophy in the cradle. Which Marathi Manoos would he fight for? The ones in the Bombay Presidency? The ones in the Central Provinces?
Drawing cultural borders also leads to crippling cultural stagnation, something our reactionary prima donnas don't seem to get. No culture stays the same. No language, no identity. How much are they going to resist the change? It will happen, and will only be slowed because of them. Worse, there is the reinforcement of the 'Other' that this country definitely doesn't need.
India has a bewildering array of divisions, most imposed by outmoded thought processes and an unwillingness to evolve as a culture. Ethnicity, caste, religion, social standing, skin colour - all of these are strong and almost immovable prejudices operating in our country today. All of these would be greatly weakened if the Government had the guts to put in State-related identity creation programs in place.
What could these be? Well, a variant of National Service for one. A one year compulsory stint in a far corner of India, living the life of say, a Mizo teenager instead of a Delhi one. Exchange programs, diversity programs, maybe even a 6-month conscription into the armed forces. National-level disaster reaction and management training in college-level curricula.
The options are many, trust me. The challenge lies in ensuring that the political class leaves divisive politics and starts focusing on a national agenda. This is not going to be easy - myriad regional political parties are currently surviving on an agenda of regional politicking. That's why we've had a spate of weak-willed coalition governments of late, combined with highly combative and nonconstructive oppositions.
I'm going to ask that the next time you vote, it's for a party or an individual who doesn't in any way support regionalism. Look for a national agenda, force a national agenda. Demand it.
And of course, only call yourself an Indian. Let there be no other identity for you. I guess it's easier said than done, and in any case my mongrel ancestry makes it easier for me to do than those who have 'native places' (it's funny, I've never filled that blank space in all the official forms. My native place is wherever my family is at the moment, pretty much Bombay).
A rule-of-thumb definition of a nation-state would be a certain form of state that derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it.
India is - or should aim to be - a nation-state in this sense. The government of our Republic is the persona of our geopolitical identity, and the current borders of our nation (including some of our neighbours) reflect our cultural, & ethnic boundaries.
Some may claim that India as a unit lacks the cultural and ethnic commonality to exist as a successful nation, and only political will and armed force is keeping us together. In a sense, they may be on their way to being proven right if we continue down the path we're going.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here.
It's instructive to note that historian Eric Hobsbawm believes that at least in the case of France, the State actually came before the idea of nation-hood; he points out that even at the time of the French Revolution, about 50% of the people actually spoke only some French. During the Italian unification, an even smaller percentage of Italians actually spoke the language.
Fast forward to India today. Our national language is spoken by a far greater proportion of Indians than Italians spoke Italian during the unification. Culturally, integration is progressing at a good pace notwithstanding reactionaries like Raj Thackeray. Isolationists will complain that the spread of a common culture destroys individual facets of regional cultures, a charge that rings absolutely true. In my view however, the unity of the State takes precedence over cultural identity, and integration must continue. Yes, the State must also ensure that regional identities are not swallowed whole, but there is a limit to what can be done. Geographically and numerically weaker cultures must either progress in utter isolation or run the risk of assimilation. That's how the world works, just ask Tibet.
The point I'm getting to, and the reason I referred to Hobsbawm, was this: successive Indian governments have failed completely to ensure that all Indian citizens look to the Indian State for a sense of identity. For today's citizen, being an Indian means saluting a tricolour flag, singing an anthem before a movie and... not much else, really. Oh, and supporting the cricket team. What else is there?
When it comes to identity, most Indians look to tribal roots: the village, the jati, the varna, the religion. It's a simple test, really. Ask a northerner if he'll let his daughter marry (say) an Andhra boy. It doesn't even matter if they're both Hindu or both Muslim; chances are that the answer will be a flat no. Don't even bother mentioning the fact that they're both Indian. You'll be laughed out of the house.
Our identity as Indians only comes into play when facing external or foreign contact or conflict. This is a direct result of the purely ethno- or caste- or religio-centric identity politics that have marred our collective psyche.
As a young nation perhaps one of the greatest mistakes made was the creation of states along ethnic and linguistic lines. The subliminal message that this one act transmitted is that for a lot of Indians, their language and ethnicity was and is far more important than the coherence of the nation as a whole. To this day, demands ring out for Telangana, Gorkhaland, and other such entities.
What if the government of the day had refused to this internal partition? What if the rioters and protesters had been told that it didn't matter what the state was called, because they were all Indians anyway? What if this fact was drilled into their heads from primary education days? A strong, courageous act like that would've strangled Raj Thackeray's philosophy in the cradle. Which Marathi Manoos would he fight for? The ones in the Bombay Presidency? The ones in the Central Provinces?
Drawing cultural borders also leads to crippling cultural stagnation, something our reactionary prima donnas don't seem to get. No culture stays the same. No language, no identity. How much are they going to resist the change? It will happen, and will only be slowed because of them. Worse, there is the reinforcement of the 'Other' that this country definitely doesn't need.
India has a bewildering array of divisions, most imposed by outmoded thought processes and an unwillingness to evolve as a culture. Ethnicity, caste, religion, social standing, skin colour - all of these are strong and almost immovable prejudices operating in our country today. All of these would be greatly weakened if the Government had the guts to put in State-related identity creation programs in place.
What could these be? Well, a variant of National Service for one. A one year compulsory stint in a far corner of India, living the life of say, a Mizo teenager instead of a Delhi one. Exchange programs, diversity programs, maybe even a 6-month conscription into the armed forces. National-level disaster reaction and management training in college-level curricula.
The options are many, trust me. The challenge lies in ensuring that the political class leaves divisive politics and starts focusing on a national agenda. This is not going to be easy - myriad regional political parties are currently surviving on an agenda of regional politicking. That's why we've had a spate of weak-willed coalition governments of late, combined with highly combative and nonconstructive oppositions.
I'm going to ask that the next time you vote, it's for a party or an individual who doesn't in any way support regionalism. Look for a national agenda, force a national agenda. Demand it.
And of course, only call yourself an Indian. Let there be no other identity for you. I guess it's easier said than done, and in any case my mongrel ancestry makes it easier for me to do than those who have 'native places' (it's funny, I've never filled that blank space in all the official forms. My native place is wherever my family is at the moment, pretty much Bombay).
Comments