Being and becoming is
definitely the flavor of the season… there are a few trends that are now
clearly discernible in the national discourse in India along these lines: one
is the yearning for a return to our culture and our roots, the second being a
push to be Indian and buy Indian, a third is the rising tide that pushes a
national narrative of a Hindu subjugation, and a fourth being the rising tide
of Hindu sentiment for a golden Hindu period, with Hindu values, and morals.
The icing on the cake is the moral brigade, and the attendant reverse, with the
pillorying and vilifying reactions to this moral brigade. Intermingled among
all these is the single viewpoint of contempt and disdain some educated Indians
have for ancient Indian culture.
In the atmosphere of Ghar
Waapsi, I noted that the true Ghar Waapsi will happen when we stop giving
bribes, stop eulogizing The West etc. Similarly, in the light of the rise of
the AAP, we are talking of a rising hope, which is great, and a rising euphoria,
which is misplaced. In both the cases above, as well as the scenarios in the
first paragraph, we are talking about a
complete change in a people being dreamt and imagined by a people who first of
all only pay superficial obeisance to Indian Values, Sanaatani Vichaardhaaraa and our culture, and
have little or limited knowledge of history. As a small example, just try and tell anyone
the fact that Hinduism is a British creation; that our real religion is
Sanaatan Dharm; note the aggressive reaction, and the ignorance.
Being "Indian" in
culture, in this context, is taken to mean something either completely
superficial and external, without
getting to the core of the issue - by and large, equated with language, dress,
and such like - things that have precisely nothing to do with culture, and are
manifestly superficial; or something based on a biased, one sided and incorrect
narrative of History. This article delves into the first aspect, and the
historical narrative forms the 2nd part of this mini-series.
Being Indian is being taken and
interpreted as a stance of morality in relations between the sexes, which is a
loaded and one-sided sentiment even at the best of times, as another example.
Some of the more interesting views is the political landmine of Hindi being
needlessly and incorrectly termed the national language by some people. Being
Indian is taken to mean eulogizing the ancient culture we had, with a more
hardline stance pillorying even the Mughal and Arabic rulers of New Delhi from
1150AD onwards
These people forget that the
very language they go ballistic over - Hindi - is a borrowed tongue, being born
out of Arabaic, Persian, Awadhi, Braj and a couple of other dialects. 300 years
ago, this language had not even been invented, and was in the process of being
crafted – whereas some modern languages like Marathi had already evolved out of
Maharashtri Prakrut and Apabhramsa several hundred years before this time. Yet,
it is Hindi which is spoken across Northern India, not the other ancient languages.
What does this tell us about our culture?
India has come under one
political yoke many times in ancient days, and yet a single language did not
evolve, and was never enforced. Even in Muslim central rule, when Persian was
the official tongue, one single language did not evolve; the language that did
evolve from this – Hindi – was more akin to Marathi and other Indian languages
than to Persian and Arabic. Not only that, at no point did an indigenous arts
and literature evolve around the foreign language in India. Point is the
openness and non-interference in cultural affairs and the cultural tolerance
even during Muslim rule!
On the topic of women, one side
of the argument vociferously denounces the changes happening, while the other,
quite naturally, in automatic and justified outrage, goes the other extreme! For
the moral brigade : technically, you might have been right – had you decided to
approach the problem as a point of education and awareness, rather than moral
policing; an issue which meant that Indian Values need to be inculcated… but
even there, we run into problems, as becomes evident in the next paragraph. On
the other side: it is your life, your decision; I personally see no locus
standi of anyone not from your respective families.
I am all for a reversal for the
role of women to that in ancient India, provided it is in keeping with the
genuine Indian culture, not what is normally pandered in the guise of Indian
Culture. What was the role of women in those days, and in what societal
context? Women have always had a position of primacy in the Indian household,
society and politics – right from ancient times. Even in normal lives, women
were not oppressed – yes, there were some practices which are unacceptable in
the current societal context, like age of marriage – but by and large, they
were relatively free.
If you say women should marry
as per male family members’ wishes, fine by me. If you say open display of love
is a no-no, fine by me. But… it can’t be a one-way street; you then have to
re-examine the entire scenario: what was the overall attitude towards women in
those days in our society? How safe were they on the streets? What was their
contribution towards the economy, the society and politics? How were they
treated, and how were they viewed? Were they objectified and treated as
showpieces, as men are habitual of doing today, openly staring a women,
treating them as objects? Was open display of love really a no-no in those days
– within the then prevalent societal norms?
Women were treated with
respect, given a pride of place, were safe in ancient India, and were not
objectified, were actually honoured. Can we say that today? Display of affection
was allowed within the norms of that society. Further, their contribution in
economics, politics and society was valued. Given the nature of that society,
and the role of women as home-makers, that was relevant. In the modern context,
women are important contributors to economics, politics and society far in
excess of ancient times.
If we then say that the old
norms stay paramount, then revert them to their old roles, stop their
contribution in various fields. Fine by me – but what about the damage to
politics, economics, livelihoods of males working in organizations formed by
women etc? You cant have your cake and eat it too! In other words, males want
to benefit from female efforts from other families, while simultaneously
keeping and treating them as property! They are fine if other women do it,
their family should remain in their control… what If everyone thinks the same?
What will be the difference between us and the Middle East in that case?
As a matter of fact, a powerful case can be made for the fall of
the Indian Political power in the medieval times as being a result of the rise
in the maltreatment of two classes in our society: women, and the downtrodden.
The rise of norms such as Sati, increasing obstruction of women coincided with
the fall in our fortunes – this tallies with our scriptures, which specifically
state that Gruhalaxmi has to be respected, else wealth flies away. We started
ill-treating women, and our wealth went bye-bye! Remember, Goddess Sita opted
to bury herself in Mother Earth rather than go back to Ayodhya!
Moving on, the easiest aspect
to tackle in this narrative is the be-Indian-buy-Indian brigade, which has both
economic and cultural aspects; the economic side of the argument has been well
covered in mainstream media, and needs no repetition. The cultural side of the
argument deals with a narrative of re-colonisation, and is a very popular and
oft-forwarded message on Whatsapp and even Facebook, as well as blogs and
digital media. This narrative actually is completely the opposite of “Indian”
from an ancient perspective! Ancient and Medieval India was a trading
powerhouse, with a vast and massive trade of a large number of goods with the
entire world from the past 5000 years, which is a known and established fact.
We had trading outposts as far
away as Central Asia, a busy land trade route as well as extensive commercial
guilds that traded with other ancient cultures, as is evident from the mentions
of India in other ancient literature from other cultures, as well as the
interchanges with diverse visitors and invaders like the Greeks and the Huns.
India flourished as it learned to trade far better than others – giving what it
did best, and taking what it could not specialize in. This is essentially what
Modern Economics states, and we did it 3000 and more years before the birth of
Economics!
But this narrative never
reaches the public, who focus only on be-Indian-buy-Indian, which is not only
against all economic logic, but is also against our own culture, history and
learnings from the past! Far from learning from our mistakes, as we saw in the
case of language, women or in this case of trade, we are reacting in a way that
holds some serious questions for us as a people and as a culture. Sad part is,
there is no attempt in the mainstream to handle this logically, and without
passion… the good part is, that the first stirrings of a logical debate on
these matters has now started.
The point of the article is
that “Being Indian” in culture is more about what you THINK, what you do and
how you behave : Vedic values are more about honesty, cultural and religious
tolerance, openness, free trade across political borders, equality of the sexes
{viewed in the context of the respective era}, etc. It has to be viewed holistically,
not piecemeal as per our convenience and vested interests. It also has to take
into account our prevalent societal, socio-economic and other paradigms, and
cannot be viewed in isolation. And lastly, it has to be based in light of facts,
not a desired fiction or a notion or even an imagined Golden Period;
My small suggestion for what it
is worth,,, can we all try and really be Indian in every sense of the term?
Comments
Post a Comment