Idea of a Nation - vi

I wonder whether hardening of anti-immigrant sentiments in the developed countries portend similar social curve in India too. Or are the social dynamics entirely different so that India would be insulated from it? What are the social dynamics in India now anyway?

In many states of India, the proportionate of the population looking for non agricultural jobs has grown substantially in recent times because of improving literacy. However, as the country makes a transition from socialist economy to Keynesian(?) economy the government job opportunities have come down substantially.

Because of huge population, the effective population that applies for jobs is also huge. The poorer states have bigger population than relatively prosperous states. So, the effective competent population from poorer states that fight for jobs is always going to be higher. Unfortunately, such dynamics exist in case of the castes too.

Comparing with the situation in developed countries, one could observe that some of the states in southern India, without reaching the level of prosperity or the quality of life of the European countries, show common factors like low birthrate and immigration. If you compare with Britain, where the immigrants would anyway adopt English, the dominant and privileged position of Hindi in India would hinder the assimilation of the immigrants with the local population (along with the caste system, which though divides the local population itself).

With this background, I wonder whether anti-immigrant voices would become dominant in the states that have job opportunities but aren't developed as much as some of the European countries.

In Europe, the anti-immigrant feeling goes hand in hand with right-wing mentality. However, that's not so in case of southern India. In fact, regional identity is anathema to Hindutva right-wing scheme of things. Nevertheless, the anti-immigrant feeling would be identified with linguistic right-wing thought.

There lies the tragedy. The population that would feel insecure would be overwhelmingly from OBCs and Dalits in any state. In fact, they would even fear the immigration from any other states, north or south divisions notwithstanding. So a set of population, which took generations to come to the mainstream, now finds itself in the kind of competition which the privileged castes never faced when they moved to civilized and scientific world with the advent of modern education in India. Thus while the privileged castes have the means to overcome the competition with that cultural capital, the OBCs and Dalits might struggle thus continuing their overall situation.

I wonder whether one of the solutions to this could be creating an Indian Union with autonomous states. True, the European Union gave rise to anti-immigrant feeling in Britain. However, this is still a good solution in Indian context, if you consider the fact that autonomous states will have a bigger government also providing more representations to the locals in various fields. Thus an autonomous state could act as an employer to a greater number of local people.

This will also ensure that we'll have a single currency, market and open borders. In case of India, a single military too.

An Indian Union will curb  or at least delay the development of linguistic right-wing thought in our society.

Idea of a Nation - VII

"The problem with Ukraine trading its most potent weapons for Russia's promise of good behaviour is now evident," he says.
"Kiev gave up its means of deterring Russian aggression. Now, Ukraine is overmatched in conventional forces and would have difficulty fighting off a Russian incursion."
He argues that current and future nuclear powers, such as Iran, North Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan, should take note: deterrence works.

Via BBC

I was thinking about this since the crisis in Crimea started. I was planning to write a post as Ukraine was another country with two languages and hence not a natural country and even though Russia claims to be a federation, it has an imperial language. But I just don't have enough time to write one.

Idea of a Nation - iv_a

There are quite a few independence movements that are gaining momentum in Europe. The recent one being Catalonia. My understanding is that they want to secede from Spain but want to become part of European Union. I believe many Scottish nationalists and Basque nationalists have the similar goal.

In my opinion (which I expressed here or somewhere else), nations with two or three linguistic/ethnic identities shouldn't exist. These nations invariably try to impose the identity of a dominant group on other smaller groups. So, a natural nation could only be a region with no dominant identity or even if there is a dominant identity it doesn't make up the majority. In this sense, India and Europe are natural nations.

I suppose, for humanity's sake, it's better for Sri Lanka to join Indian union and Turkey to join European union. This is the only way the humiliations and suppression of Tamils and Kurds in those regions respectively can be addressed. 

Of course, the authority to grant new states should only rest on the central government in these unions.

Idea of a Nation - v

I have argued before that India satisfies the requirements of a true nation because it doesn’t have a ‘soul’ of its own to irritate, subjugate or  compromise one or the other ‘souls’. But this argument shouldn’t overlook the creation of nation-state India.

When India was created the idea of faceless India was not there. It was a collection of regions where the Muslims were not in majority. The implication of that was;
  
-  The upper class Muslims, who were the most privileged class until the British took over the country, clubbed the faceless castes with no say in politics and social aspects of the country until then with the privileged castes

-  According to the privileged castes it was the caste identity (euphemistically known as Hinduism) that has given India the common identity in retrospect

We see mockery of the faceless castes in either of these scenarios.  The humiliation of the faceless castes implicit in the partition of the country has been mitigated by the “secular” identity of the country. Thus the secular India gives dignity and equal claim to not only religious minorities but also to the faceless castes that anyway form majority within the castes.

Now the question is whether we can compromise with secularism and allow a region to secede based on the two nation theory. But I believe there is a greater question than this. Are we insecure with our near perfect definition of nation-state in the definition of India?

Unfortunately, the idea of secular India was a work of few brilliant minds. The majority castes or Muslims have no idea about it. The castes within their caste framework and Indian Muslims(which includes Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) within their religious identity are some of the most barbaric people on earth. Ambedkar had remarked that the caste system never had an intrinsic virtue to liberate itself, which appears to be true for Muslims too. But of course, isolated religious identity or the caste identities are no longer practical in the present world.

Now the question is whether we are withholding our trust in the definition of India because there are people with no idea of secularism and who merely see it a Hindu-Muslim issue. I believe the nation-state India should show faith in itself and experiment.

With this background, in my view we should take the following steps for the Kashmir issue;

1.            Ask Pakistan to change the name to ‘Islamic Republic of India’ from the present ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan'
•        of course, incomplete without Bangladesh but so is the name Pakistan which is prior to the creation of Bangladesh 
•               This request is not a prior requirement for the points 2-4
•        This requirement is not binding on Pakistan
   
2.        Hold referendum in Kashmir with two options. Join ‘Secular Republic of India’ or ‘Islamic Republic of India’ (No independence)
3.             Referendum should include separate ballots of Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Ahmadiyas, Buddhists and the castes .
•      There must be an initial ballot to decide whether Shias, Ahmadiyas would be part of Sunni Muslims or would like to have a separate electorate
4.            If non-Muslims or non Sunni Muslims don’t approve joining the Islamic Republic of India with a simple majority then the valley should be divided and there should be complete population exchange.   

Idea of a Nation - ia

It will be the turn of the British Prime Minister now to denounce Multiculturalism or "State Multiculturalism". I wonder whether the report is a deliberate rumour to gauge public opinion (What is the term?).

Addressing a security conference in Germany, David Cameron will argue the UK needs a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to extremism.
Different cultures are encouraged to live apart, and objectionable views met with "passive tolerance", he will say.

Via BBC

Update:
The same post at BBC has been updated to reflect the actual given address. I should have copied the complete text in the first instance.

A small change in the above sentence:

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said. 

Anyway, he goes on to say:

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he said.

He probably is clueless. That is alright as I believe that a civilized idea of a nation is still in its infancy. 

Idea of a Nation - iv

Just found J. B. S. Haldane's description of India which matches my own(bold mine).

 I also happen to be proud of being a citizen of India, which is a lot more diverse than Europe, let alone the U.S.A, U.S.S.R or China, and thus a better model for a possible world organization. It may of course break up, but it is a wonderful experiment. So, i wan't to be labelled as a citizen of India.

 I haven't come across any argument in the secessionist movements that trumps this beautiful idea or this wonderful experiment.

Idea of a Nation - iii

India is hard to define and that makes it a true country. Even though national boundaries cannot be justified, such boundaries are certain to remain for some time, given the unequal growth of various nations. But the question is whether we need to give legitimacy to all those identities of these nations. As we know these are just anomalies of  isolation. Some of them small and some of them big owing to political  dynamics. Many of them are based on language, religion and tribal identities. However, there are too many faultlines in these countries owing to one strong and central identity and other subordinate identities. India is a true country precisely for these reasons. India means:

- No central tribal identity
- No central linguistic identity
- No central religious identity

My opposition is not that these identities are dangerous or divisive but because these identities are primitive, meaningless and result of ignorance. There is no dignity in living or dying for these identities. Sometimes these identities even put restrictions on selection of mating partners to uphold the identities.  Again absurd if one considers the possibility that Homo Sapiens might have mated Homo Erectus.

But other identities based on ideologies should be allowed provided they don't question the idea of India and don't pander to any of the above identities. If these ideologies want to have a say in political and economic sphere they should be allowed to do so either by peaceful means or by violent means. However, financial accountability should be the utmost priority in these things.

If an ideology finds that it can't control the power through peaceful means then it should get money in an open manner to forcefully overthrow the existing ideology of the nation. The tax an individual pays for internal security should come in a separate category.   There should be provision for an individual to pay this part either to the ruling ideology or to the opposing ideology. Since only 2.7% of Indians pay their taxes, there should be provision for 'voluntary' basis for others who are not in the bracket. However, voluntary taxes should be accounted. The army or the forces that take care of external threats to India should be independent of the ideology that governs the country and should never intervene for any of the ideologies.

Does it matter if one ideology supports multiparty and the other single party? I think it shouldn't as long as people for mutliparty have the right to rebel against the single party rule and vice-versa. But both these ideologies should get a generational period (30 years) before any lawful violent opposition can be allowed.

Idea of a Nation - ii

I think we are living in a time when many non-English speaking developed countries are reassessing their definition of nation. It may soon be an issue with English speaking countries eventually, however, considering English being the global communication lingo these countries are somewhat immune to idea of multicultural nation at present.

Incidentally, today* after reading German Chancellor Angela Merkel's denouncement of multiculturalism I came across this piece by the English author Aravind Adiga's call for action to Kannadigas.

Indian identity, for many, is India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's unqualified observation, "unity in diversity". This rhyming observation has been taken as some kind of unwritten rule. What was lost in this witticism was that the cultural dominance and influence of all diverse identities were not uniform and the diversity was never going to remain a status-quo. I'm sure Nehru might have known, with his vast knowledge of history, that diversity had always been uneven and a dominant unique identity had assimilated many diversities. And isolation have created too many linguistic identities.

Many people of course forget that, in India, linguistic identities have changed for multiple reasons. I would divide the linguistic history of India into two periods.

A. Pre-1950 India: 
In this period there was a lack of idea about nation state and linguistic identity.
1. Migrations:
    There could be two cases, individual migrations and community migrations. The shift in linguistic identity in the case of individuals  could happen in couple of generations. Migrations have changed the linguistic identities of many communities as a whole too.  Based on community strength this would take around 800-1000 years for a such shift in language to happen. I have come up with this number based on herders, artisans, merchants and priests' migration to South India and their migrations within South India.

2. Religion:
    The language of religion can spread through neo converts of different linguistic identity. Many Dravidian converts to Islam had renounced their Dravidian languages to an Indo-Aryan language(Urdu). But this requires a non-native ruling class with which the natives share the religious identity. This may be a quick transition taking around 200-300 years.

3. Sedentarism:
   As tribals make the transition from tribal way of life to sedentary life, they would take up the dominant sedentary language around them. In central India, nearly 50% of Dravidian Gond tribals have taken up surrounding Indo-Aryan languages.

4. Assimilation with caste or religion:
    Through intermarriages the migrant community would take up the native language eventually. However, the caste identity and religious identity may make linguistic identity stagnant (which probably is the dominant case in India).

5. Ruling class linguistic identity:
    The language of prestige is generally associated with the lingo of ruling classes. However, I'm not sure how strong these languages if they weren't represented at least in a section of masses. Even though Persian was the language of the court and that of the royal families during Islamic rule in parts of India, it never became a mass language.

B. Post Independence India
In this period linguistic identities have been legitimized.
6. Language of prestige and commerce:
    This would initiate shift in mobile educated masses. But stagnancy in mobile working class people who speak the language of commerce. English and Hindi are mostly doing that job in India respectively. Applicable to post independence India.

7. Sense of identity:
   This situation is applicable to post-independence India with linguistic states. This situation arises in regions where two linguistic population meet. In such border regions, the language of the province or state would be adopted by the communities quickly, within a generation or two,  if they don't have any strong sense of linguistic identity. However, would be resisted by other communities with a strong sense of linguistic identity. Few years back I read a pro-Kannada writer's (Patila Puttappa) article where the author lamented that in border regions of Maharashtra mostly traditional Kannada speaking communities have switched over to Marathi except for Brahmins. I'm not sure how universal is this case in India since in Andhra Pradesh I have observed many Kannada Brahmins have become Telugus. But if this is true in certain cases, I suppose that boils down to a sense of identity because of their historical literacy in that language.

As we have seen, in modern day India the situation is different from the past. Now the linguistic identities have been legitimized. But there are too many differences across the nation.
 - There is no equal sense of identity across all linguistic groups
 - Also, the cultural identity associated with that linguistic identity is not uniform in many regions
 - Because of numerical strength and reach Hindi has become a dominant language. Its film industry has become its imperial machine by attracting talents from across India (including non-Hindi speakers)
 - Southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala because of socio-economic mass movements, that used the movie media and literature respectively (Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu and Communism in Kerala), have given a strong sense of identity even to faceless working classes

With these background, let us consider linguistic regions without any socio-economic mass movements (eg. Karnataka). These regions have to face multiple issues.
- Lack of sense of identity among many groups
- Migration of groups to this region with a strong sense identity and migration of groups with linguistic stagnancy as they speak the language of commerce

According to Aravind Adiga the migrants should feel they own the cultural icons of the land(speaking in the case of Karnataka). Of course, owning cultural icons is something very critical for the development of sense of belonging. Though it wouldn't make sense for a person who wasn't born and brought up in that region, it would be tough for his/her next generation too to embrace the cultural icons. When we know that even stagnant(for few centuries) sons of the soil would embrace cultural icons that are in thing and global(giving a nominal respect to their own icons), it might be unjustified to force  migrant sons of the soil to own local cultural icons.

And there we see a ray of hope to states like Karnataka. Kannadigas should be like Scots and Irish before them or Gauls and Franks before them. Renounce your language. Take up a global language. Retain your ethnic identity. Kannada or Hindi would both limit their growth. Aravind Adiga has shown the way. English is the way to become globally relevant. That hasn't made him a lesser Kannadiga.

* I started writing this post on 17th Oct.

Idea of a Nation - i

"Multicultural society in Germany has utterly failed"
-German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Funny, she thinks multiculture includes only language and not religion. At present I have only one alternative for each, English and Atheism.