Tag: nation

  • Whose line is it anyway?

    When I wrote about the ‘notional boundaries’ in the context of the Arundhati Roy speech, I was reluctant to push the issue further. But while reading ‘The Argumentative Indian’, I came across a section called ‘Critique of Patriotism’ under ‘Tagore and his India’, in which the author – Amartya Sen – mentions that Tagore had once written ‘Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity.‘

    Tagore also apparently used characters in his novel Ghare Baire (The Home and the World) to hint at how nationalistic sentiments could easily turn sectarian. Amartya Sen ends the section with the words of Bertolt Brecht “…of the corruptibility of nationalism. Hatred of one group can lead to hatred of others….” you can read the section in entirety here)

    And that started a thought on nation states. If we consider attributing more than a functional (say economic, political, administrative etc) importance to it (despite its ‘freedom’ being earned after much effort and sacrifice), how can we logically dispute a demand for separate states intended on the basis of say religion or language, especially since these might be older than the boundaries of the nation state and could prove a better cohesive force than the idea of a country?

    This is not to say that I’m in favour of this kind of a line or line of thought, but I would like your help in finding a logical conclusion.

    until next time, line of reasoning 🙂

  • The India concept

    Ok, so maybe its not a concept to be questioned, but what’s the point in having a blog if i cant discuss what i want. Considering the effect it had on a couple of friends, I am expecting much angst.

    To begin with, let me make it clear that the idea of India still finds much appeal in my emotional side. I like the vastness and uniqueness of it all, and the fact that we have a shared history. But unfortunately, it doesn’t find favor these days in my logical side. I feel that we have created an entity that has become way too  large to handle for anyone. The events in Mumbai and a federal agency having to enter the fray added to this belief. No, the resignation of two ministers at the state level doesn’t quite capture the responsibility that the state/city administration should’ve taken on.

    Even though I keep in mind the fact that I dont need a passport or a visa to go to Goa or Rohtang, everything from the fuss over the TN number plates in Bangalore, to the language barriers, from the fact that my Kerala voter’s id is of no use in Bangalore, to the ‘Madrasi’ caricature in Bollywood, gives me the feeling that we’re just a forced conglomerate of states. And then we elect a couple of houses of MPs, from these states, so that the Communists, who can barely form the government in 2 states, play spoilsport to a nuclear deal. We form a central government which helps the state governments say that just about nothing is their responsibility. Once upon a time, we’d everything from shared memories to Doordarshan to give us a semblance of common identity. Do we have that now? And that’s when i ask, whether the gains from the concept of India are really more than the losses.

    If each state had more responsibility than a Central government, a mandate of taking care of itself – security, finance, infrastructure and so on, wouldn’t we have more accountability to governance, an accountability which can then be better put to use at local levels. My friend said that this has nothing to do with scale, but I think that by just being such a vast entity, we are actually laying ourselves open to divisions. Like the SMS forward I saw ‘Politicians divide us, terrorists unite us’. And meanwhile, Mumbai perhaps has a few more weeks before it gets into the archives sections, with hardly any retaliation or concrete action to be shown for the trauma.

    I agree that a discussion here won’t change anything, but humour me, what do you think?

    until next time, state your view