India became a country about 63 years ago. Before that there was no existence of the country. We embraced a democratic and unified government with a build up to it from 1930, post The non-co-operation movement lead by Mahatma Gandhi. Actual realization of it happened in 1947, post a very troubling world war - II. Perhaps not much for India, but for most of the western of world as we see it.
Now how all of these things affect or are related to current Marathi asmita related problems. Please note - I am not trying to blame any one, neither I am trying to provide a escapist view that if these things happen, let them happen, lets all move on from one crisis to other.
Few notes -
1. India as a country is very young. Only reason we became a country is we all had a common enemy in British.
2. India is a very big country. Population of India is more than a billion and thats a lot of people.
3. We have many different cultures and languages with in the this country. But most of these cultures where never part of a unified government before British rule. And even under British rule, all parts of India did not have exactly same rules. Also some parts of India, even during british rule were governed by Kings, even if amount of power these kings had was nominal. Some of the areas were ruled by other outsiders like Portuguese, French or African Siddi's.
4. Many of these cultures have had a violent past with each other, based on political aspects. For example Suja's of Bengal and Peshwas of Pune clashed. Nizam's , Adilshashi, Chikkmangalaur's King, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Bundels, Gorakhas all fought with each other at some point or the other.
5. The north and south, typically above Narmada and below Tapi respectively, are 2 regions which were never part of same government. North saw dynasties of Vikramaditya, Shrung, Maurya, Mughals. Where as south saw dynasties of Satvahanas, Vijaynagar, Peshwas, Nizams etc.
6. If British rule was not there, India as a country would probably have never existed. We have had democracy, but in sub-parts.
So essentially, even though we are taught in school that we a country of different cultures and values, what we arent told is we as a nation, as country are recent concepts.
How this is different from other countries - neither country on this planet has such history. For example United Kingdom of Great Britain is still a sovereign state of four countries. Even though these four countries are bound by same governance, they still have their individual identity intact like 4 different cricket teams or Soccer teams etc.
So even though we can all debate about being a nation and one rule for all, we need to also understand that perhaps having one single rule and one single identity for such a big and diversified nation is perhaps not a good idea. I still love you all Indians and I know you all love me too. But it is my natural instinct and perhaps a right to protect my people. And when its comes to defining my people physical closeness is more important than governing closeness. I will care about the stranger living in my colony more than I can care about stranger living in some distant part of India.
Disclaimer - Idea behind this post is not to support any kind of violence or any kind of division based politics. But if we as a nation, as one single country cant solve Kaveri water issue in 40 years, perhaps we dont deserve to be one single nation.
Update: The questions that I am asking in this post are not for any individual, group, but for myself and perhaps my readers. I have been stuck with this questions since I learned about Riots against Sikhs and after I did a study about various regional debates happened in last 6 decades ie post independence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is no one right border to draw - be it country, state, region, district, town, locality, society, religion, caste, creed, sex, sexual orientation, language, dialect, time of birth, gotra, physical distance, Myers - Briggs type, or favourite cricket or football club.
ReplyDeleteSo let us all each decide which of these factors is more important than others. And let us all decide to DISCRIMINATE based on these (oh of course we are supporting just discrimination - no horrible things like violence or division based politics). One of the great things about such emotive issues is that they act like an escapist hallucinogen and allow us to forget the real issues such as power, roads, corruption, greed etc.
And of course we should walk away from the fact that for better or for worse our grandparents collectively made a choice for India, even as their ancestors had bitterly fought each other. We should clearly put this silly adventure our grandparents endorsed of a unit called India even as they had to deal with the debilitating effects of a partition that they could not avoid.
And of course we should treat democracy with callous disregard. I mean the silly thing allows us complete freedom to rewrite the very basis of who we are as a collective called the constitution. But why rewrite it when we can each individually decide our individual opinion is important enough to override that silly book called constitution of India. So even if we choose to disagree with it we will not work constructively towards redrafting it to what makes sense. No that would be so boring. So let us all just decide we do not believe in it and each of us believe in a different idealised nonimplemented variant. And we shall hide behind the defensive shield called history. Of course history is to be studied to decide what is not to be repeated. But thats too wimpy. I mean we should recommit exactly the same mistakes that our forefathers paid for when they got caught up with the dangers within that they forgot the dangers without.
So lets use history as the shield, and individually interpret what internal borders we want to draw. So what if India doesn't progress and become rich fast enough - our lives will progress and be enriched by the continous entertainment provided by the hilarious arguments arising of this internal bickering.
My views on implementing a democracy are very different and expressed here in a separate post : http://soranthou.blogspot.com/2009/04/meaning-of-democracy.html
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in any kind of centralized democracy and I have come to think that an organization (country, company, large family) always in the end collapses because of too much centralization of power. Even though we all want to achieve similar things in life. Collective enrichment of individuals in India will lead to enrichment of India. Country should be treated always as fluid concept rather than a rigid one.
Internal bickering can be perceived very differently based on where you are standing. For example what has been achieved as a part of European Union is astonishing. Not by forcing a single identity for all nations under European union, but keeping their individuality intact, but creating a time based and mutually agreed upon platform to resolve bi or multilateral issues.
Problems with current form of democracy in India -
A party can come in power ever when it has won only 5% votes from UP and Bihar put together. This essentially means that as a political party, it has lower liabilities towards that region and higher towards other. All ministers will be from non-UP non Bihar region. And since these ministers will be pressed to server needs of their people, politics of ignorance towards other parts will prevails.
Shiv Sena/MNS/DMK/AIADMK/AGP and other regional parties are coming into existence because of that only.
I am not saying against idea of a unified nation, but I am against idea of a centralized power house to govern 1 billion people. Decentralization of power, transfer of more power, funds to regionals governments. Preservation of cultures and identities is a must.
What we have learned from history is no country, no organization has progressed with out confidence into its people. Germany, Japan came back from dead because of it. Because they believed in each other. If a prime minister from UP is going to put bias into UP then I will not believe him and that lowers my confidence.
Another reference - check roads from Vidharbha and West Maharashtra and now North Maharashtra. For years Vidharbha got good ministries, but important ministries like Road development, Energy, Irrigation were in control of Western Maharashtra politicians and now with Bhujbal in North Maharashtra. I do not subscribe to such notion of democracy as it is THE reason for imbalance and lower growth of the country.
To take reference from John Nash, when everyone in a group works towards whats best in groups interested, is when highest profit can be derived. But for this theory to hold, groups can not be arbitrarily large, as even though our GDP will increase, it will not increase proportionately.
ReplyDeleteCaste based discrimination which haunted to some extent this part of the planet for last 2000 years, was partly because of such centralized powers in hands of few. By creating again a structure which mimics that to some extent, we are again going to create discriminations. Example - Kashmir migrant quotas in all government operated institutions. Why we need them? Because government did not do any thing to stop migrations out of Kashmir. It just stood their and watched perhaps to protect its own vote bank?
For a big and diversified nation like India - we should be looking for a government which correctly represents all parts of the society and not just perceived majority.
That still doesn't address discrimination in public policy and hate in public polity which is what I see in Maharashtra today.
ReplyDeleteWell the cause of public policy and public polity is hidden into this deep vote bank politics played out in the country for last 60 (make that 90) years.
ReplyDeleteIt is a natural reaction of a group, when their land, their jobs and their future is acquired by some one from the outside. I am again not saying that the reaction should be violent or based on discrimination. But waving the paper of Indian constitution is probably not correct way either.
Basic problem is - specially when it comes to Mumbai or natural extension to Maharashtra is amount of migration happening from other parts of the country to this is a bit too much. I have very close friends who work as sales person in low end shoe shops, STD booths, liftmans, cab drivers, rickshaw drivers and when I hang out with my friends, they are completely in support of MNS - Hindus Muslims Brahmins and Chambhar alike. Why - for laborer all he is selling on day to day basis is his ability to work hard. Not skills. A person who carries sand from point a to point does not require any skills. So if a person from other part of country comes and decides to sell same services at 20% lower rate means my friend losing his job. Of course other person is justified as well that since he is not making any money then perhaps he should offer it at lower cost to gain a job in maharashtra.
Also another complaint I keep hearing is and have verified to some extent is - lot of criminals run away from police in bihar, UP and other parts of India and pick up a job here in Maharashtra. For example during my last stay in Goa, I stayed in a hotel where room attendant was a criminal who knifed a guy in Himachal Pradesh and hence decided to settle in Goa and pick up a job. For such people any money made is good enough and its impossible to compete with them on price points.
So core problem is uncontrolled and very large migration which is putting pressure on Maharashtrians keeping their jobs. Nasik which was never completely a Shiv Sena town, voted complete in favor of MNS with 4/4 seats and even if Congress dont agree, that does tell that there is in fact some problem, due to which people are getting affected. Path of Thackreys is obviously wrong, but that does not mean waving paper of Indian constitution is good enough a solution.
Please note that the example of room attendent in Goa that I mentioned is not the only one I have. I have interacted with lot of people (non-Maharashtrians) who work as waiters in shops and lot of them have tainted histories back home. Some of them dont, and few of such people are close and dear friends.
ReplyDelete