Concluding part of the series "Being Indian" - previous part found here : Being Indian - 4 : The Ultimate Triumph Of The West
India
is a land that, as all of like to repeat ad-nauseum, is known for its diversity
as well as its unity both; in fact, Unity in Diversity is the justified by-line
for our Nation, our national ethos, that
is what, essentially, India stands for, and our ethos, our culture is what we
are exceedingly proud of. This unity rests on the unique Socio-Cultural fabric
of our nation, which has been crafted out of several Millennia of
inter-mingling, living together, interacting and even fighting together. While
India the nation, the political unit, may be a relatively new construct –
Hindustan, or Bharat or Hind is a concept as old as this land itself, as is
borne out by the scores of period documents as well as in the writings of the
visitors to this holy and blessed land.
But,
if you dig deeper, one can easily spot a narrative that is at complete variance
with this stated ethos, and many contradictory themes emanating from within
this unified cultural milieu, many inconsistencies that critics use to label us
as being not quite so unified – namely, the fervent desire of a small section
of our society to become a Hindu Rashtra, or the entire language debate {to be
taken up in an independent article}, or the imaginary oppression during the
Muslim rule from around 1150AD, or the politically charged debate around Casteism.
It
isn’t my objective to defend “Unity In Diversity”; I see no reason to be
defensive about my lovely nation to anyone. If the non-Indian thinks otherwise,
he or she is welcome to his or her several impressions. I think all of us know
what India is, at the core – so why be defensive? It is far better to ensure
that we make this holy land where we have been blessed with a human birth an
even better and even more strong place than it was before. And doing that
requires tackling the present inconsistencies, challenging them, setting the
narrative right – and taking corrective action.
That
we are defensive on the topic of India and Being Indian is easily seen and can
be readily observed everywhere: from our unhealthy penchant of following
NRI-PIOs abroad, highlighting their achievements. This can be seen in our
pandering to Western standards, rather than setting our own cultural standards
based on our culture; this can be seen in our sheepishness on seeing songs in
Movies, or even in our going gaga over
Indian cultural fests abroad or in the ardent following of Temples and their
events abroad.
At
the core of this defensiveness lies a deep-seated inferiority complex, the
roots of which lie deep in our past, and are now firmly entrenched in most
people, which is a real tragedy. Why should we go gaga over the achievements of
people living abroad, as a small example? These are people who chose another
nation over India for their life; what is the message we are giving people? Why
should we care overmuch if some Tom, Dick Or Harry makes it big in The UK or
The USA? Don’t we have enough success stories in India? Cant a nation find
success stories locally? Why is it that NRI-PIOs routinely make front page,
whereas the local successes almost never feature in any news? If you cover both
with equal vigour – that is fair; but if only is found newsworthy, then this is
a manifest inferiority complex.
Similarly,
why should we, as Indian Citizens, care about Temples and Hindus in The USA or
The UK? Of what concern is it to us? Why should a Barack Obama Diwali party
hold relevance for us? Why should we follow the growth of Sanaatan Dharm
worldwide? Is our religion a proselytizing faith? If it isn’t – then why can’t
we leave well enough alone? And why focus exclusively on The USA, The UK and
developed countries? Why not trace the growth in outlying countries, Eastern
countries, or African countries? Come to think of it, why don’t the success stories
of the Indian Diaspora in other parts of the World become headline news, like
the cases in the USA or the UK? Is this what Sanaatan Dharm teaches us? Or does
it teach us something different? Is it the contention that only PIOs in the
Developed World are successful? What are we displaying by this frankly idiotic
behaviour?
On
an equal note is the most disturbing trend of the slowly rising – but thankfully
currently minor – scenario of the Hindu Rashtra; or the habit of some among us
to regard Muslim rule as being worse than British Rule. I
have dealt with this extensively earlier here : Being Indian - 3 : The 1000
Year Slavery ; so shall not elaborate. The sad disregard for and ignorance
of the evil that happened during British Rule, and the complete inability of
even our Media to tell the full story is the most enduring tragedy of Modern
India. What is needed is a balance, a complete and truthful exposition of all
that happened during both the periods – Muslims and British; such an
examination is certain to knock the sails out of the 1000-year slavery myth.
This
is what this Being Indian mini-series has been about, focusing on the present
inconsistencies, trying to make the reader ask himself or herself some hard
questions about what it means to Be Indian. Does Being Indian mean that you have
to settle abroad? Does Being Indian mean you have to study and live here just
to go away? Does Being Indian mean that you are a Sanaatan Dharmi? Then what about
Dr Kalam, or Paramveer Abdul Hamid, or any number of other Muslims, Christians
and Sikhs? Does Being Indian mean that you have to follow Western norms? Does
Being Indian mean that, by contrast, perforce have to follow Indian norms? What
does it mean to “Be Indian”? What is our national story, our national
narrative, above and beyond the clichéd term “Unity in Diversity”? And do we,
all of us, understand, display and believe in this narrative?
How
many of us can identify a snap of Kalpana Chawla – and how many of us can recognize
a snap of Paramveer Nirmaljeet Singh Sikhon? I cant recognize the latter – and that is,
perhaps, the worst possible comment on us as a people, and what we value. One
person, {if some
records and wiki
is correct} quit Indian Citizenship for the US, and the other gave his life
fighting to protect us. The US citizen’s face is plastered all over our Media,
which doesn’t even care to look at Kailash Satyarthi {let alone someone from
the past like The Great Nirmaljeet} till The Great West awards a prize, when we
suddenly discover him! {God Bless Her, her achievements were tremendous indeed –
but she wasn’t Indian, and I therefore take no pride or otherwise in her achievements.
And not just for her : the same applies to any PIO. They aren’t Indians}
How
many among us quote the ills of The Muslim Rule and the raids of Chengez Khan
and Mahmud of Ghazni? And how many of among those know and quote of the 1857
Genocide, or the Bengal Holocaust, or the Famine of the 1760s which killed an
estimated 30% of the population of Bengal? How many of us quote the
Industrialised India of the 1600s and the 1700s? And how many among us quote
and send messages on social media and whatsapp on the ills of that period? And
how many of us quote the stories of the weavers, the potters and other products
of India, and of the Merchant trade – and how many just reproduce verbatim the
sporadic killings of that period?
What
is the actual national narrative that we are displaying by such behaviour? Is
it in keeping with what we perceive as our national ethos? Why do we ignore the
real heroes of our nation – those who stay in India work in India, give their
lives for India? And why do we ignore the full story of the past, and
concentrate instead on one part story, which is by definition a biased
approach? Why do we idolize ex-Indians or even NRIs who quit India, and ignore
our heroes at home? Why do we chase after stories of Temples abroad – how is it
important to us as Indians? Why do we place Western Culture on a pedestal –
when our oft-quoted assimilative culture specifically equates all cultures as
one? Why then cant we be accepting of our own identity, and be confident of our
own selves? Why this manifest effort to be someone and something that is at
complete variance with what we profess to be?
Therein
lies the key – our professing to be one identity, and then belying it by
displaying behavior that is the complete opposite. Unless we develop a national
narrative that is in keeping with our national ethos, this dichotomous behavior
will remain. Ethos means “the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or
community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations”; while narrative
means “A representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as
to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values”, or in short - A
spoken or written account of connected events; a story.
In this series – Being Indian – I have
attempted to look at some disturbing aspects of our national narrative that are
not in consonance with our National Ethos – In simple terms, our behavior vis-Ã -vis
our words at what we profess to value. I
have attempted to lay bare the inconsistencies; areas where we need to bring
our narrative and our ethos into one… That is the subject of the next
mini-series ; Developing a National Narrative
Comments
Post a Comment