Patriots Vs. Globalists

In his recent address to the U.N. Assembly, president Trump predicted that the future belongs to Patriots and not Globalists. Irrespective of whether one agrees with Mr. Trump or not, one cannot deny the growing schism between the two groups. The mistrust, acrimony and hostility between the two groups has been steadily increasing  and this binary has become a significant determinant of political agenda, all over the world. Even every day life and social/professional engagements are being increasingly impacted by this binary.

There are several ways in which one can look at this binary. In this piece I have explored it through the EUM Lens ( Existential Universe Mapper) The framework posits six simultaneous and interactive Universes which reside within each individual/collective. Each of these Universes is a composite set of needs, values, behavioral propensities, world-view etc. Interested readers may like to visit eumlens.in for a more detailed understanding of EUM.

Of the six Universe, the two which have a direct bearing on the Patriot- Globalist binary are UBP (Universe of Belonging and Protection) and UMI (Universe of Meaningfulness and Intimacy) A brief description of the two Universes follows-

1. Universe of Belonging & Protection (UBP)

This is the part of us that wishes to belong to a safe haven where we feel secure and protected.  Its primary orientation is towards familiarity, predictability, harmony, and strong bonding/identification with our own kith and kin.

It enables us to have trust and faith in our people, abide by the established norms and customs, and experience a sense of pride in our heritage.  It gives us a strong sense of “oneness” with the group(s) we belong to, and enables us to accept all its positives as also its angularities.

When this orientation is subdued, it leaves us feeling rootless and not having a sense of “home”.  On the other hand, when this orientation is excessive in us, it generates a fear of the unknown, mistrust of “outsiders”, and fear of disturbance. Consequently, we become closed to new experience/learning and hence become somewhat like a “frog in the well”.

2. Universe of Meaningfulness and Intimacy (UMI)

This is the part of us that wishes for and works towards a utopian world where everyone can live in peace and harmony. Its primary orientation is towards meaningfulness, intimacy, compassion, empathy and respect for others irrespective of their clan and creed. It enables us to feel one with the larger human context, transcend the preoccupations of ourselves/our subgroup(s), and dream collectively for a world that ensures a higher level of well-being for all. It also helps us to accept others and ourselves at a human level beyond issues of class, category, ethnicity, etc.

When this orientation is subdued we experience ourselves as self-absorbed, devoid of empathy and compassion, over consumptive, dry and alone. On the other hand, when it is excessive, we become impractical and are unable to accept that strife is as important for human existence as is harmony. Consequently, our tolerance for anything that disrupts our idyllic scenario becomes low and we wish to either ignore it or suppress it.

Nature of the binary

As can be seen, there are several commonalities between these two Universes- both emphasize our relationship orientation and human values. Simultaneously, there are significant divergences. Whereas UBP lays emphasis on, commitment to one’s kith and kin, anchorage in one’s heritage and inward gaze; UMI is more inclusive, has a wider perspective, and goes beyond one’s own system of belonging. Thus, from a UMI lens, UBP appears as clannish, closed and regressive. Similarly, from a UBP lens, UMI appears as rootless, disrespectful of heritage and unmindful of the immediate belonging system.

It is this conflict which is playing out in the binary of Patriots and Globalists. While the Patriots appeal to our UBP instincts, the Globalists focus on the UMI.  Thus, to the patriots, Globalists appear like self-seeking anti-national people, just as to the Globalists, Patriots appear regressive and intolerant. It is tempting to equate this binary with other related binaries such as left wing- right wing, liberals- conservatives, modern- traditional etc. While there are obvious overlaps, the intricacies and nuances are quite different. Unlike others it is not an ideological binary- it relates to different imperatives of being human.  This is most apparent in the political sphere. Voters who had traditionally supported left leaning liberal parties have deserted them, not just because of ideological reasons, but perhaps due to the voice of UBP within them.

Why Now ?

Why has this conflict between UBP and UMI become so pronounced in the modern day world ? I suspect, this is primarily due to the neglect of UBP and its consequent backlash. We seem to have deluded ourselves into believing that UBP is mundane and lower order state of being.  We take pride in being liberal, progressive, inclusive as also strong, autonomous and self-reliant. Any  acknowledgement of our UBP needs makes us feel small and vulnerable, and consequently we either suppress them or fulfill them insidiously.

A denial or suppression of UBP does not make it go away, instead it casts its shadows and manifests itself in a variety of ways. Some of the associated processes are-

  1. The unfulfilled UBP needs get channelized through parochial/nationalistic jingoism. Some time back, I came across a study which found that many of  the extremist group draw their membership and support base from migrant workers, particularly from villages to small towns. While the religion, language, region based ideological agenda carries some traction, the primary pull is to experience a sense of belonging and giving expression to the angst arising out of intense loneliness and a sense of meaningless.
  2. At the macro level, groups which are less privileged, become the primary holders of UBP, whereas the more privileged groups tend to define themselves in UMI terms. For example, one would find a clear demarcation in the kind of collective issues that they take part in. The privileged sections are more likely to be a part of candle marches on issues such as human rights, gender relations, freedom of expression, individual liberty etc. On the other hand, the less privileged groups are more likely to participate in religious processions, or morchas for protection of local language, regional preoccupations, reservations and cultural insensitivity.
  3. The UBP needs and predispositions of the privileged group get expressed and fulfilled in an insidious manner.  Since they have sufficient “elbow room” it is possible for them to pursue their UBP needs without directly acknowledging them or taking responsibility for the consequences- prevalence of nepotism being a stark example of this phenomenon. Similarly, one can continue to hold on to the belief that one is fair and inclusive, and simultaneously hold on to unacknowledged biases and prejudices or racist paranoia and even  act from them   in a subtle manner. Thus their claims to a higher UMI orientation rarely carries credibility and is seen primarily as “lip service”. In the eyes of the less privileged groups, they become self- centered people who merely want to protect their vested interests in the status quo, have little concern for others and merely use high sounding words to deflect the more pressing down to earth issues.
  4. The repressed UBP orientation of the privileged groups also gets channelized through hyper concern with issues of national security and mistrust of minorities. A clear manifestation of this process is the growing  popularity of TV channels and serials which rely on jingoistic rhetoric, even among people who regard themselves as liberal,broadminded and free of racial/religious prejudice.

The cumulative result of these processes is a highly explosive situation. On one hand, we have the increasing frustration on account of unmet UBP needs, and on the other a growing cynicism in respect of UMI claims. The Patriots seek to channelize the frustration and cynicism through appealing to our jingoistic instinct, whereas the Globalists either pretend that they do not exist or regard them as illegitimate. The growing schism between the two, only pushes each group towards a more extreme position.

Gracing the interdependence

I believe, the essential issue that we need to look at is our engagement with our UBP orientation. This has both individual and systemic implications. Increasingly, I find organizations operating from the belief that dealing with the UBP needs of their members, will compromise performance standards and become a hindrance in their pursuit of meritocracy. Similarly, many individuals believes that it would be “unprofessional” and “regressive”of them to bring in their UBP orientation, except in limited familial settings.

These are legitimate concerns. Indeed, UBP has its problems and down side, and UMI appears more liberating, progressive and evolved. However, what gets overlooked is that without the base of UBP, UMI is hollow and unsustainable. The two must co-exist. As Gandhi had said ” I want my house to have a solid foundation, just as I want it to have many doors and windows”

The patriots focus on the foundation, while the Globalists are concerned with doors and windows. The irony is that doors and windows, cannot exist without a foundation, just as without the openness of the doors and windows, the foundation is nothing but a tombstone. Thus, like all binaries, the Patriot- Globalist divide is a false binary. You cannot be a Globalist without being a patriot, and without the wider and inclusive perspective of the Globalist, Patriotism is nothing but self-destructive jingoism.

One of my significant learning from my engagement with the EUM framework is that when any two  human imperatives get locked in an adversarial relationship, they push each other to the extreme. This leads to mutually exclusive binaries, where both  see the other as a threat and work towards its exclusion. This creates a counter reaction and the binary is further reinforced. This is what seems to be happening between Patriots and Globalists. The more one side shrieks, the more virulent is the response from the other side, pushing each other to untenable positions. Thus, increasingly patriotism is being defined as compulsive glorification of heritage and tradition, refusal to engage with the dysfunctional features of the context and blind support for authority. Similarly,  globalism is being defined as preoccupation with the dysfunctional features  of one’s heritage, insensitivity to the distinctive features of one’s context,  and compulsive criticism of authority.

The only way this binary can be transcended is by gracing the interdependence of the two. This would entail a recognition by the Patriots that without the fresh breeze which the Globalists bring, they would suffocate themselves to death. Similarly, for the Globalists to acknowledge that without the anchorage provided by the Patriots, they would get blown away into nothingness. In EUM terms, UBP and UMI have no choice but to co-exist.

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New India Project

Last few days, we have been hearing a lot about New India. Opinions differ about what exactly does it mean as also the hopes and fears that it generates. But what everyone seems to agree upon is that we are at a crucial inflection point and the next few years are going to see a significant transformation not just in the political space but also in other aspects of the Indian society. Personally, I am not too sure about the extent and depth of this transformation but I will not get into that debate. For the present, I will accept that we are likely to see some shifts, though they may not be as dramatic as some people expect.

There are two broad pictures of New India, which people are talking about- depending upon personal orientation and political ideology, most people subscribe to one or another. The feelings that they have towards the New India project, is a direct consequence of which picture they are looking at.

The first picture of New India is of a young, strong,  united, confident, meritocratic, aspirational society striving to claim its legitimate space under the Sun. In this picture, the emphasis is on your merit, performance and delivery – your lineage etc. are of no concern.  In this picture, everyone is ( or hopefully will be) on the same page. While different groups may  have different affiliations (e.g. of caste, creed, language, region, religion etc.) they are all aligned to same goals, values and nationalistic fervor. It is a picture which supporters of the New India project find extremely inspiring and even the detractors find it difficult to argue against.

The second picture which the detractors find very frightening is of a majoritarian, jingoistic, intolerant, insensitive, boorish society run by an autocratic regime. In this picture, there is no space for dissent and there is an insistence that everyone must adhere to the same ideology. Goals, values and behaviors which do not conform to those propagated by the majority have to be strictly regulated and any potential disruption weeded out.  Whether the ideology is called Hindutva or Bhartiyta or Indianness, is irrelevant. It is the monolith of the ideology which frightens the detractors.

The supporters of the New India project try to allay these fears by arguing that the ideology which they are propagating is inherently open, flexible, tolerant and diversity friendly. Acts of intolerance are attributed to “fringes”, but the failure to regulate the fringes( and often extending implicit support to them), brings into question the intent and motives of the powers that be.

Not surprisingly, often the discourse turns into an examination of intent and motive.  The detractors argue that the New India project is nothing but a sham and the real purpose is to gain power at any cost. On the other hand, the supporters argue that the detractors are blowing things out of proportion so that they can protect their vested interest in the “status quo” After all, the feudalistic and corrupt  politicians, the elite in various other fields (the so called Lutyens and the Khan market gang) have much to lose if the New India project becomes a reality.

In this bitter exchange of attributions of motives, the real issue gets lost viz. the inherent tensions and contradictions in the New India project.  It is easy to see that the two pictures of the New India project ( as portrayed by its supporters and detractors respectively) are intimately connected. In many ways, they can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

A monolithic ideology and an authoritarian regime are more pronounced in the second picture, but are an implicit part of the first picture also. A simple example of this is the PM’s speech to the MP’s of NDA.

pm-addressing_1aa512ce-7f18-11e9-98c6-ecfd32845dee

Take for example, his preference for “efficiency” over “effectiveness”. Efficiency requires adherence to a laid drown process in a disciplined and rigorous manner.  Thus, authoritarian regimes are best suited for efficiency ( recall  that  running of trains on times was touted as the biggest achievement of Emergency) Effectiveness is a more messy affair, it entails juggling with several variables in order to achieve the desired result.

In a soft and gentle manner, the PM kept reminding his MP’s to stick to their ” maryada” – refrain from speaking out of turn, ensure that they do not misuse (or let others misuse) their power and status, dedicate themselves to their duty in a selfless manner. The message was loud and clear- ” you are to be dedicated soldiers of my army- yours is not to question WHY but to DO and DIE. However, the message was delivered in such a suave and self effacing manner that the underlying authoritarian streak did not become “in your face”.  My suspicion is that perhaps he looks at himself also as a dedicated soldier who is fulfilling the task which destiny has bestowed upon him.

The simple point that I wish to make is that there is no way you can pursue the first picture of New India project, and stay clear of the second picture. Nationalistic fervor is a necessary ingredient of the New India project, without which it loses its emotive appeal and inspirational value. Similarly an authoritarian streak ( even if it be of a soft benevolent variety) is necessary to enforce the “selfless disciplined effort” which lies at the heart of the New India project. The similarity  between the New India project and protestant work ethic is quite stark and its aims seem to be inspired by the western concepts of progress and development. In this sense it is closer to Calvinism than Hinduism.

This is a significant difficulty which the New India project is likely to encounter. Its success depends upon its ability to manage the tension between Indian cultural identity and western notions of progress and development. Not surprisingly, the path chosen by the New India Project is far removed from both Gandhi and Deendayal Upadhayay, though it claims to be inspired by them. Significantly, both rejected the western notions of progress and development.  Both were great champions of Indian cultural identity though they defined it in very different ways. Similarly, the differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar were not just tactical but fundamental. They conceived of an ideal society in very very different ways. If the New India project claims to draw inspirations from these conflicting sources, then it has to address the tensions between them. Without that it is unlikely to go beyond well intended homilies.

Indeed, the vision which underlies the New India project is problematic and full of internal contradictions. However, with all its limitations, at least the supporters of the New India Project have a vision, which is much more than what can be said about the detractors. Every time, the detractors are asked for a vision, they have very little to offer except homilies like pluralism and social justice. This is essentially a fall back on the Nehruvian vision, which I believe has already run its course.

The Nehruvian vision was a source of great inspiration for people like me who grew up in the fifties. There were several reasons for its losing steam after the first decade post independence. One of the significant reasons was that it was a culture agnostic vision. It side stepped the question of what does it mean to be Indian, beyond citizenship of the geo -political entity called India. Unity in Diversity was a great slogan – it  urged us to transcend our sectoral identities( based on caste, creed, language, region etc.) and embrace a national identity. However, the national identity remained an abstract construct with no cultural anchors. Not surprisingly, people either remained caught with their sectoral identities of caste, creed, language, region etc. or embraced soulless, rootless notions of national identity and/or global citizenship.

It is great to talk about diversity and pluralism, but simultaneously one needs to ask as to what holds this diversity together. Does India have a heart and soul or is it a mere geo- political convenience to hold together disparate, disjointed clusters ? Thus at  the core is the issue of our Identity – Who are we and what do we wish to become ?

The supporters of the New India project have defined it in a certain way, which is both problematic and full of internal contradictions. On the other hand, the detractors do not wish to engage with it at all. They either dismiss it as irrelevant ( let us only focus on issues of development, social justice and individual liberties) OR respond to it with negation ( we are not Hindu Rashtra).

I find it rather disturbing that  terms such as cultural identity or  Indic have been virtually usurped by the right wing. I am sometimes invited to participate in discourse around Indianness, and invariably it is by bodies and institutions which lean towards the right side of the political divide. It is another matter, that very soon they discover that what I have to offer does not suit their agenda and promptly drop me like a hot potato. I have rarely come across initiatives from the other side ( generally referred to as left liberals )  to explore this issue. At times I feel that they are allergic to terms like cultural identity  and see it only as a reactionary, regressive endeavor which will support oppressive monoliths.

I believe, it is high time the detractors of the New India project give up their aversion to notions such as cultural identity and Indic. Mere denial or defiance will keep them perpetually on the back foot. It is time that they start defining Indianness in their own way. Their fears are very real but the only way to deal with them is to actively participate in the New India project rather than scoffing at it or fighting it. Whether they like it or not, a New India is emerging and will continue to emerge.  In this transformation process, we can ill afford to ignore the issue of cultural identity. A culture agnostic rhetoric of Pluralism, Inclusion, Development, Social justice etc. is just not enough. It must take into account the salient predispositions of the Indian people and their cultural identity, otherwise it will not have any emotive force.

In other words, if we do not wish to get trapped in a narrow, restrictive definition of what it means to be Indian, we have no choice but to participate in defining it.

 

Fishing in Troubled Waters

Today, The Times of India, Bengaluru has carried a news item on the first page which mercifully does not even find a mention in The Hindu. The news item is about a couple (Hindu woman and Muslim man) being denied entry by a hotel on “communal grounds”. The hotel staff have a very different story to tell (that the couple refused to show their I.D.) I do not know what actually happened, but it is highly likely that the truth may be somewhere in between. Most hotels are understandably a little suspicious of couples who walk in without any luggage and who want a room only for a “couple of hours” It is possible that the hotel staff may have felt even more alarmed by the fact that the couple belonged to different communities. This may have peeved the concerned couple, leading to an altercation.

Irrespective of what actually happened, the central question is – does it deserve a coverage on the front page of a “reputed” newspaper. Does this not amount to “fishing in troubled waters” in a communally charged situation? Isn’t it obvious that the more one indulges in such fishing, the more trouble is brewed? It is tempting to believe that such “fishing” is only done by politicians, journalists, t.v. anchors and the like. The phenomenon is much wider than what we may think. I think it can be witnessed in virtually all walks of modern day life.

Though a lawyer himself, Gandhi had great reservations about both legal and medical professions. His concern stemmed from his belief that often the practitioners of these professions “fish in troubled waters”. Intervention from lawyers prevents mutual engagement and reconciliation, just as the doctor by taking care of the “troubled symptoms” of the patient, de-facto ensures that the patient can continue to live with his/her unhealthy life style, which had caused the illness in the first place.

If Gandhi was alive today, perhaps he would have been forced to include several other professions in the same category- marketeers, spiritual gurus, therapists, consultants etc. who have mastered the art of selling their wares as solution to all kinds of “troubles” – fairness creams, anti-ageing solutions, interpersonal hassles, inter-group conflicts, self-doubt etc. etc. Just name the “trouble” and there will be someone or other, offering a solution for it.

What makes us so susceptible to “fishing in troubled waters”? I suspect, it has something to do with lack of “aliveness” in modern day living. Thus every “trouble” becomes a reminder of our aliveness and hence acts as a stimulant. Many many years ago, I had come across a statement from Albert Camus which impacted me very deeply. I don’t remember the exact words but its essence was something like this – ” One sentence will suffice to describe the life of the modern man- he fornicated and read the newspaper ”

Several decades later, we seem to have even surpassed that. We have successfully combined “fornication” with “reading newspaper”- today we only watch pornography- not just of the sexual kind but in virtually all spheres of life. It has been found that primates when living in a zoo, develop all kinds of unnatural habits (e.g. masturbation, violence towards each other etc.). Perhaps something similar is happening to us- we are effectively living in a zoo- a very comfortable, sanitised, luxurious zoo which has everything except aliveness. Is there any surprise then that “fishing in troubled waters” becomes are only reminder to the fact that we are alive- otherwise we are condemned to the monotony of living in a zoo.

Aliveness and Alienation are inversely related. Greater the alienation, greater the ennui and lower the aliveness. Ever since Karl Marx, the issue of human alienation from self, work, others, nature etc. has been a prominent theme of academic and literary discourse. Perhaps it is high time that we start recognising the deadly consequences of this alienation.

Religion Vs. Religiosity

Some time back, a friend had asked me whether I considered myself a religious person. In my younger days I would have responded with a clear and emphatic No. Today, I am not so sure.  In a conventional sense, I still don’t regard myself as religious. However, it is equally true that places of worship (gurudwaras, temples, dargahs, churches mosques etc.) fill me with a sense of serenity and some of my most favourite songs have a distinct devotional flavour. This apparent contradiction in myself, forced me to think about what it means to be religious?

As a theological construct, religion deals with issues of cosmology /metaphysics such as existence of God, life after death, relationship between body and soul etc. I have no definite opinion on any of these and nor do these questions hold much interest for me. In this sense, I can regard myself as non-religious.

Religion is also a moral/social construct. It lays down ethical values, social obligations, codes of conducts, rituals and ceremonies etc. While I recognise the need for all these, I am extremely uncomfortable when they are made “absolute” through references to “sacred texts” and “religious diktats”. The sociological/ethical sides of human existence have to be governed by prevalent life conditions and hence must be dynamic. The less they are linked to theology (which tends to be absolutistic) the better. In this sense also I have to regard myself as non- religious.

Finally, there is an emotive and psychological side to religion which corresponds to certain imperatives of being human. In order to distinguish it from the theological/sociological side, I will call it Religiosity. Religiosity is a medium (and by no means, the only medium) through which certain imperatives of being human (for example, the need to find meaning  for one’s life, the need to merge and become a part of a larger entity etc.) find expression. The most significant of these imperatives is the need to have faith.

Faith is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts. It is often confused with dogma, irrational belief and even confidence. In fact, in many ways it is the exact opposite . Notions such as dogma and confidence rest on the plank of “certainty” whereas, faith rests on the plank of “uncertainty”. A dogmatic person “knows for sure” that his/her beliefs are absolutely true. A person with faith accepts the limitations of his/her knowledge and does not feel destabilised by this lack of knowledge. Similarly, a confident person believes that through competence and effort one can gain mastery over one’s destiny. In contrast the person with faith does not feel a compelling need to control his/her destiny. The person is quite content to give his/her best shot and simultaneously accept that the ultimate outcome will be determined by a host of factors, most of which are beyond his/her control. Competence and effort are necessary prerequisites for success but by no means sufficient. What matters is one’s willingness to embrace the outcome with humility and grace.

For me, Faith is essentially an antidote to Anxiety which is an inevitable consequence of  human limitations. There is no way that human beings can have complete knowledge/control over their own lives. Thus living with the anxiety of having to deal with the unknown and uncontrollable is an integral part of human existence. However, there is a marked difference between Religion and Religiosity in how this anxiety is dealt with.  Religions  deal with this anxiety through providing certainty, either through positing an omniscient and omnipotent God figure or through a definite and absolute theology/unquestionable sacred text. Religiosity on the other hand accepts and graces the uncertainty and limitations of knowledge/control inherent in human existence.Each  religion has its own brand of   theology, morality, social norms etc. but as mediums for expression of emotive/ existential imperatives ,their essence remains the same. Consequently, religions tend to be divisive whereas Religiosity can be inclusive and has the potential of being a unifying force. The beauty of religiosity is that it is so inclusive that it does not even require you to believe in any god or divine order.

It is for this reason that I regard inclusive religiosity as a much more meaningful and potent concept than secularism. In secularism, there is very little space for the emotive imperatives which find expression through religion. The end result is a huge vacuum which is often exploited by the fundamentalist forces to propagate their own theological and sociological certainties. This is particularly applicable in the Indian context.

For various reasons, the Indian psyche is more religiosity centric than religion centric. Further, it has a huge appetite for religiosity. It is not uncommon to find people  in this country flock around a god man irrespective of religious affiliations. It does not matter whether it is a christian saint or  a muslim pir or a budhist monk or a hindu gurumata or a jain muni or a sikh guru, they all act as magnets for virtually all people. In fact so insatiable is our appetite for religiosity that we can make gods out of anything-trees, animals, rivers, planets or anything else that one can think of. There are very few objects/creatures that one can think of, which are not worshipped in some form or another in some part of India.

This almost insatiable appetite for religiosity accompanied by its “open-ended” nature is a huge potential resource which unfortunately is becoming more of a liability. While it is important to be watchful against the divisive forces which are unleashed by religion, it is equally important to ensure that in the process we don’t end up saying good bye to religiosity. In fact, the more we turn away from religiosity, the more divisive religions will become. I suspect, no one understood this better than Gandhi and hence he always emphasised inclusive religiosity rather than secularism. I believe this was also a significant factor which enabled him to mobilise people across the length and breadth of this huge country.

 

 

 

 

Indianness – In Search Of A Narrative

Indianness – In Search Of A Narrative

One fall out of the present crisis linked to the JNU issue is that it has brought to the surface a significant question as to what does it mean to be an Indian? Large part of this discourse is around meaning of Nationalism. However constructs like Nationalism have to be contextualised. Meaning of Nationalism for a country which has a long history of uninterrupted Nationhood and which consists of people who belong to the same race, language, religion etc. can not be the same as in case of a plural society with huge diversity and at best a sporadic history of Nationhood.

 

I am not a student of history and can not comment about the competing accounts regarding constructs like Aaryavrata, Akhaand Bharat etc. All I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence is that in 1947 when we came together as a nation, our primary anchors of belonging were more sectoral (based on province, language, religion etc.) than national. Thus at that time it was not uncommon in Punjabi households to use the term hindustani for people in U.P. The official clarion call was to transcend our sectoral belonging, embrace a national identity and participate in the task of building a fair, progressive, equitable and secular society. However the notion of what this Indian identity was remained abstract and could at best be linked with what we wished to become rather than who we were. The end result was that the Indian identity got split into two parts-one part was what my friend Raghu Ananthnaraynan calls the “ urban, english speaking, featureless, odourless, colorless Indian” who has no link with either his heritage or his context. In many ways this part of ourselves is very much like what Macaulay wanted us to become. The other part remained deeply entrenched in the sectoral identity ( and its associated fears, anxieties and prejudice) and mechanically adhered to all its prescribed ways. This split was inevitable since we had a narrative for our sectoral identity, we had none for our national identity. The only way we can deal with it is by building a meaningful narrative of being an Indian which resonates with us both emotionally and intellectually. A narrative which we feel/think understands who we are and who we wish to become.

Continue reading “Indianness – In Search Of A Narrative”